Why the stereotype on Lawyers holds true...

[insein]

Originally posted by dilloduck
Did you learn the art of "selective editing" from MM ?

posetrnutbag: "Why yes i do have a nice haircut. thank you."

 

[posternutbag]

Originally posted by insein
He has 10 already. This american is a POS for defending him. Did any American stand up to Defend any of the Nazis during Nuremberg?

No. But John Adams stood up to defend the British soldiers who comitted the Boston Massacre.

Just the mentality of lawyers these days.

OK then, I get it. You just hate lawyers, and you picked this guy because he was a good opportunity for you to voice your lawyer hate.

Anyone is up for grabs. OJ killed people? So what we'll get him off for the right price. Child molester rapes an 8 year old girl? Who cares. He's still worth defending.

So you ARE suggesting certain people not be allowed defense attorneys. I see. You're a real American. I also take it you sat on the OJ jury.

Everyone needs someone to defend them but you have to question those that go out of their way to defend these scumbags.

So in other words, you hate defense attorneys, because they do their job? OK, why didn't you just say so?

That is you hate criminal defense attorneys. You probably love civil defense attorneys.

 

[posternutbag]

Originally posted by dilloduck
Did you learn the art of "selective editing" from MM ?

I didn't edit anything. I directly quoted it. I learned to do that in grade school.

 

[HGROKIT]

Originally posted by posternutbag
I didn't edit anything. I directly quoted it. I learned to do that in grade school.

His point was that you selected and qouted out of context in order to support your postion. Common tactic of those that cannot make a point stand on its own merit.

You bring nothing to this board. I mean there are people here from the left that make very cogent posts, present their POV in a fairly objective manner and otherwise engage in civil debate. You bring none of these qualities.

I've even taken Bid D of my ignore list since you became a member.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by HGROKIT
Disregard sending him an e-mail - got the following


"The original message was received at Tue, 13 Jul 2004 10:09:43 +0300
from sccrmhc13.comcast.net [204.127.202.64]

----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
<[email protected]>
(reason: 550 5.1.1 unknown or illegal user: [email protected])

----- Transcript of session follows -----
... while talking to auc.aucegypt.edu.:
>>> DATA
<<< 550 5.1.1 unknown or illegal user: [email protected]
550 5.1.1 <[email protected]>... User unknown
<<< 554 5.5.0 No recipients have been specified."


Go figure!

I'd be careful emailing this guy at that address anyway, you might catch the West Nile virus:cof:

 

[HGROKIT]

Originally posted by nycflasher
I'd be careful emailing this guy at that address anyway, you might catch the West Nile virus:cof:

You did notice that it was a permanent fatal error?

:

 

[nycflasher]

Stereotypes are stereotypes.
I wouldn't go condemning all lawyers. God forbid you get charged with a crime you did or did not commit and are in need of one.

Hate to see karma bite you on the ass, insein.

However, going out of your way to defend Saddam, I don't really get that. Except that the only way our system works is when it works for everyone.

Except... he is being tried in Iraq!

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by HGROKIT
You did notice that it was a permanent fatal error?

:

lol, yep

 

[posternutbag]

Originally posted by HGROKIT
His point was that you selected and qouted out of context in order to support your postion.

Out of context? The whole damn thing was quoted above what I wrote, how the heck is that out of context?

So you mean that in its proper context, what the author is really saying is that he doesn't want America to peacefully coexist, he doesn't want to live somewhere where people don't practice what they preach, and he doesn't want to feel protected as an American citizen. Is that what you are saying? If not, what is your point?

 

[HGROKIT]

Originally posted by posternutbag
Out of context? The whole damn thing was quoted above what I wrote, how the heck is that out of context?

You selected bits and pieces from "the whloe damn thing". What part of out of context do you not understand? Didn't learn that in grade school?

 

[posternutbag]

Originally posted by HGROKIT
You selected bits and pieces from "the whloe damn thing". What part of out of context do you not understand? Didn't learn that in grade school?

And you are selecting bits and pieces from what I wrote. You completely ignored my question of how the fuck would the context change anything? But I guess when you select the bits and pieces of what I wrote to reply to, that's not out of context, but when I do the same thing with something someone else wrote, it is out of context?

Once again, so you mean that in its proper context, what the author is really saying is that he doesn't want America to peacefully coexist, he doesn't want to live somewhere where people don't practice what they preach, and he doesn't want to feel protected as an American citizen. Is that what you are saying? If not, what is your point? How does the context change the fact that he wants those things for America?

 

[nycflasher]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by HGROKIT
You selected bits and pieces from "the whloe damn thing". What part of out of context do you not understand? Didn't learn that in grade school?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by posternutbag
And you are selecting bits and pieces from what I wrote. You completely ignored my question of how the fuck would the context change anything? But I guess when you select the bits and pieces of what I wrote to reply to, that's not out of context, but when I do the same thing with something someone else wrote, it is out of context?

Once again, so you mean that in its proper context, what the author is really saying is that he doesn't want America to peacefully coexist, he doesn't want to live somewhere where people don't practice what they preach, and he doesn't want to feel protected as an American citizen. Is that what you are saying? If not, what is your point? How does the context change the fact that he wants those things for America?

This spat is getting old fast...

 

[posternutbag]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by HGROKIT
You selected bits and pieces from "the whloe damn thing". What part of out of context do you not understand? Didn't learn that in grade school?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This spat is getting old fast...

So what you mean to say is you are completely certain my direct quotes, made in reference to the entire work presented above, are lacking some relevant context, and yet you are completely uncertain as to what that relevant context is? In other words, you're full of shit? Thought so.

 

[Annie]

There will be no more personal attacks on this thread. Any more will result in disciplinary action.

 

[TheOne]

Interesting article. I am curious about the attorney's quote regarding the US soldiers being cowards. That is despicable. I am also left wondering why a straight news story would choose to list that quote of his when it is unrelated to the main story and really goes to assault the character of the guy. What I mean is, on its face, the guy wants Saddam to get a fair shake at due process. Why add the demeaning quote and not include any favorable info about him? Seems a little unbalanced to me.

I beleive Saddam is a really bad apple and he should be punished for his crimes. However, I think it's more important that he get a fair trial and Iraq adopts a reasonable facsimile of our judicial process. For all of it's failings, it is still a great system even though sometimes guilty people walk free. From my understanding, Saddam has still been sequestered from counsel. This is a bad thing. As Americans, we would be wise to prepare ourselves for all the sordid details of our complicity with Saddam in the 80's. Sadly, this just comes with the territory of a fair judicial process.

I know many people are upset with Saddam and they hate him for his reported crimes. I think a lynch mob mentality will be, in the end, a bad thing for the development of a liberated, humane Iraq.

 

[posternutbag]

There will be no more personal attacks on this thread. Any more will result in disciplinary action.

My apologies. jimmyc says flaming is occasionally allowed. This must be one of those occasions when it is not. How will I know when it is one of those occasions when it is?

 

[jimnyc]

My apologies. jimmyc says flaming is occasionally allowed. This must be one of those occasions when it is not. How will I know when it is one of those occasions when it is?

That's a good question, and best answered with an update and more clear understanding of the rules. But since it was asked here, I will answer.

My original intent was to allow flaming to a degree as long as it didn't get out of hand and members didn't abuse the priviledge. Most boards tolerate much less than what goes on here, unless you count boards like yahoo where there is no moderation at all.

I would normally say your words were not out of line, and typical of what I would consider 'the occasional flame'. But lately there have been many 'wars' that have escalated out of control and made things a bit stressful around here. You happen to come in here when we have been a little tighter on enforcing the rules.

Continue on in your fashion, but please keep it under control and just don't go out of your way to be a nuisance. If you do that you'll be fine.

 

[Merlin1047]

I suppose he wasn't doing part of his "job." God forbid people be allowed to do something other than their "job."

Certainly interesting to see that you applaud some scum who characterizes our military as "an army of cowards". Says a lot about your character - or lack thereof.

Is there absolutely nothing you find reprehensible when it comes to bad-mouthing this country?