Well, pick one. You can’t get huffy when someone complains about “those goddamn fundies,” then turn around and lambaste “those scum-sucking lawyers.” Frankly, I myself tend to lump “fundies” together in my moments of frustration, so my choice is to give people a little slack when they make generalizations, even about my profession.
But you need to make a choice. If you are offended by generalizations about fundamentalist Christians, please be so kind as to give a detailed and even-handed description of the specific lawyers you object to before going off on a tirade. On the other hand, if you feel that such specification can put a crimp in your rhetorical momentum, understand that the same applies to others, even when they refer to groups with which you sympathize.
A Jew and a doctor and a Hindu and a CPA and a fundamentalist Christian and a lawyer are hitchhiking together. Evening falls while they’re way out in the country, so they approach a farmhouse and ask to spend the night.
The farmer says, “Wal, I only have room for four of y’all in the house, so two of you’ll have to sleep out in the barn.”
The Hindu and the accountant volunteer. Ten minutes later there’s a knock on the door. The others answer it. The Hindu says, “I’m sorry, but there’s a cow in the barn. I can’t sleep out there with it.” The accountant says, “Yeah.”
So next the Jew and the doctor go out to the barn. Five minutes later there’s a knock on the door. The other four answer it. The Jew says, “I’m sorry, but there’s a pig in that barn. I can’t sleep out there.” The doctor says, “Yeah.”
So the fundamentalist Christian and the lawyer head out there. Two minutes later there’s a knock. The others open the door.
Personally, why waste the effort? Bill doesn’t seem to have much in the brains department, or at the very least has a terrible case of foot-in-mouth disease. Kid just rants n’ raves and, well, signifies nothing.
Wow, I got flamed in “the bbq pit” cool. But I have to admit aerynsue that was a very nice attack. Alright I will pick my stance it is the plaintiff attorneys I don’t like. That’s my stance and stancing to it.
Now that was a flame. But coming from a “flamer” what else can you expect.
I haven’t read many of Wildest Bill’s posts lately, but the ones I read previously were not blatant attacks, so the lawyer/client thing was a surprise to me. But I guess lots of people generalize about one group of people or another, sometimes without even realizing it.
I recently heard my s.o. watching a show that had a character named Moesha in it (I was listening from another room). I asked if that were a black name, and he replied “It’s just a name.” As it turned out, the character in the show was black, but he objected to me classifying people’s names according to race.
Actually, people do this often, like in assuming Swenson and Olafson are Scandinavian names, and Hernandez is Hispanic, and Mohammed is Middle Eastern, etc. But because my s.o. is a Mexican American, he is more sensitive to the kind of thing I said. So I will try to think about that and be more sensitive to that.
The feeling I get from Wildest Bill (and I could be wrong) is that he does actually listen (that is, read) people’s viewpoints and think about what they say. I have learned lots from this board, and I’ll bet he is learning also. He also has seemed to me, thus far, to be a pretty good sport.
That said, I have to say that the lawyers I know are very nice people. One of them was president at the UU Church here in town, and works as an attorney for people who pay on a sliding fee scale according to their ability to pay. He is also a member of the Great River Interfaith Partnership, which is a multi-denominational group dedicated to bettering life for underprivileged groups by fighting injustices and providing more services.
For every generalization people make, others can find lots of exceptions, which is part of what fighting ignorance is all about.
I guess I did kind of go off on lawyers which really wasn’t fair to the whole profession. It is really the plaintiff attorneys I have had bad experience with. But if you only have experience that is “bad” with “plaintiff” attorneys then can you kinda of see why you would get a bad taste in your mouth that is hard to spit out.
I mean I feel like I was kicked, punched and generally had my butt kicked by the legal system. I really wanted to go to court to vindicate myself on all these bogus claims(they really were I am being totally honest here) but then it is soooo expensive to do so. And it seemed like the lawyers sueing me knew their clients were scam artist but they didn’t care. Heck in the one case where I did go to trial one of the plaintiff’s key witnesses gets on the stand and said he was Congressional Medal of Honor winner. Well we had a real one(cma winner) come in testifying saying he(the bogus witness) wasn’t. So he perjured himself about winning that glorious honor and he didn’t even get his hand slapped by the stupid judge.
I have had this same attorney(he has sued me 3 times now btw)depose my wife(which didn’t know anything about the case and he knew that) so hard they she got scarred and started crying. I wanted to kick his old butt right there in his office. I mean I wanted to pound this old mean fart in to the ground. I mean I was at a lost I wanted say “screw this legal system lets me and you settle this the old fashion way.” I mean I have never hated anyone in my life but I HATED this guy. BTW this guy was the meanest, uglyest and nastiest person I have ever met. He looked like the torturing nazi dentist from the movie “The Marathon Man.” Even other lawyers in town dispised this guy. And I am not saying he was a bad lawyer he was actually very good one in the nasty sense.
So anyway you can see the motivation behind my disgust for plaintiff attorneys and the legal system in general. From what I saw being in it it needs some drastic reform. Plus I had I stupid judge that according to my lawyer and others in town didn’t know crap about the law. While I don’t hate this lady, I will do ever thing in my power in her next election to get her off that bench. She was one lame judge.
I have since tried my best to forgive the lawyer(from above) because that is what God would have me do. But it is not easy. I am only human.
Anyway that is some of the story why I don’t like plaintiff attorneys. I could go on and on with different things that are just plain unjust(if I can use that word) but your eyes would fall out from reading all of it. So go ahead and keep flaming me if you want to. Keep saying I am an idiot and how low my intellgence level is for feeling the way I do. But if you went through what I went through, I bet you would be just a wee bit more understanding.
Bill, I’ll allow that you are a good sport, and I admire people who ask questions when they don’t know the answers and listen to the responses - that’s what makes the board great. Your less-than-elegant writing style makes you an easy target for mocking, and my flame was a glib, cheap shot.
Obviously, you’ve had some sucky experiences with lawyers. But that doesn’t meant that all, or even remotely close to all, lawyers suck. Our legal system is adversarial - the lawyer for the plaintiff is sworn to do his utmost to win the case for his client within strict ethical guidelines that he/she agrees to upon admission to the bar. The system assumes that you will hire someone to defend your interests with the same zeal. At minimum, lawyers on both sides make sure that the rules are followed, that both sides are heard. They counsel you about the best way to make your case. If you need to blame someone, blame the plaintiff who sued you, not the person he hired to represent him. Or take a look at your business practices - why do people keep suing you?
Your tirade against all lawyers based on the experiences you’ve had with a few makes you sound like a complete idiot. Do you think there are no lawyers on the boards? Many of the nice, pleasant, incredibly patient people who take the time to respond to your convoluted posts are lawyers. Do you think that they are somehow the grand exceptions to the rule?
Lawyers are the preservers of democracy. They take it upon themselves to study our legal system so that they can help morons like you navigate through it. The lawyer who fought tooth and nail for the people who sued you would fight for you the same way if you hired him, because his JOB is to make sure that you get the best opportunity to make your case. Lawyers take a huge ethical burden on themselves in defense of something higher than themselves: Law and Justice. I’m not even going to get into the “sure there are some bad apples…” argument - Lawyers are PEOPLE.
You feel like you were wronged. You support tort reform (who doesn’t?). But that doesn’t meant that your personal crappy experience defines an entire profession? Look, I’ve had some shitty landlords who screwed me over. Does it mean that all landlords are scum? No, not even remotely. It just doesn’t follow. Do you see how ridiculous your continued rant sounds?
Leave it Spider Woman to inject a tone of reason and compassion into the discussion (don’t you just hate that?).
FWIW, though he’s not the most egregious offender here, since we’re attacking Wildest Bill (blanket party!) I’ll get in my licks: he seems to ask a question one way, get tons of well reasoned, thoughtful answers, and learn nothing whatsoever. Especially, in my reading, on gay issues. He’ll start a thread, or enter into a thread, with an apparently sincere question about an outrageous stereotype or defamatory mischaracterization, and then indicate in the next thread that anything he might have read in response just kind of slid of the slick surface of his brain without penetrating at all.
Kind of like in this thread.
But he doesn’t seem so much malicious as inordinately proud of his right to be ignorant.
(And what’s with his perfectly consistent omission of the space before the first parenthesis, but not after the second?)
I’ve never had a problem with lawyers per se (many of my friends–quite literally–are lawyers), but they’re the preservationists of democracy only by default, as it were, and only in defense from other lawyers: we only need lawyers to protect us from other lawyers.
(Applicable bumper sticker: If it weren’t for lawyers, we wouldn’t need 'em)
Imagine a world in which firemen were allowed to run around starting fires, so other firemen could ride in and save you from them, with cries of “Firemen are the preservers of combustible objects!”. That’s the world we live in, only substitute lawyers for firemen.
Just curious what percentage of plaintiff attorneys do you think are ok? In otherwords how do you know that 51% of plaintiffs attorneys are sorry individuals. Think about why do people pick on plaintiff attorneys so much that they are now more dispised than used car salesman. Why do think that is? It isn’t just me and it is probably a majority of the American people that think plaintiff attorneys are scum. Not all mind you but most. Which really kind of sucks for nice people like Jodi that is just an attorney but gets blasted for being a lawyer because the plaintiff attorneys for the most part have tarnished the lawyer reputation in general.
If attorneys really want to clean up there “image”, first they should stop advertising. I mean CPA’s,doctors and other professions don’t advertise it “cheapens” threir profession.
Now, I know what Tommy Chong felt like at a celebrity roast.
As far as (parenthesis) thing I have no idea why I do that but your right I do that(I looked) shoot I did it againg ;). Should I stop or something? What is the right way to use parenthesis?