Making Baby Jesus Cry

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Send Fringey an engraved vibrator, and any potential political misunderstandings may melt away.

It needn't be engraved. And I prefer the rabbit-style ones. And help using it could be fun.

baltie, I thought you were good (i.e., like me), and you seemed to be evil (i.e., like penske/spanky), which was why I was confused.

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Here you go: http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...893#post166893

His social cripple post is number 2156 in that thread. The conversation between us started at post 2143 in that thread.

He is equally ernest in the PB, but in more of an assholish manner. As demonstrated with dtb today.

ETA - 2163 is a doozy too. Good times.

"Do you really need to have this explained to you? You are focusing on the law exam, instead of the experience surrounding the exam, just like your flair friend was focusing on the typo and not the substance of the argument. The point was not that Law School exams are important, or that they are good training for practicing law, but that one should focus on what is important. If the teacher had considered English grammar important, I would have focused on that. You seem to miss the part where I stated that I pay attention to grammar when it is needed. Like when writing a letter to a client or maybe submitting something to a judge. To me it is painfully obvious that someone who points out typos on a chat board has got problems of some sort. Why would something think that because someone made a typo on a chat board that that somehow made their argument less cogent? Are you seriously trying to support the idea that because I made a typo my argument was less logical or not well reasoned?"

1. You are Pretty Lady no more, my Flair Friend. Thats good. I like it. ALliteration, plus I am not sure SPanky caught the movie reference.

2. First sentence illustrates what I don't like aobut PB Spanky. I don't think that tone is necessary. Rather than make some snarky remark that your debate opponent is stupid, just illustrate it with you incredible argument.

3. I read the cited to post and this. I got teh impression that there were numerous typos, errors, grammar issues, etc. from the frist post, but the second post makes it sound like one little tyupo. This is also a flawed debating style. A post hoc of sorts but not exactly. Don't change the Facts. If you have to go that route, be a man and admit you are wrong. My Dad cannot admit he is wrong and it is probably his worst characteristic. This macho bravado doesn't work in the face of Smart Women. Its adds insult to injury. \

4) Why did you have to sacrifice grammar for issue spotting? Is your default sentence not gramatically correct so that you have to go back and correct it? How many typos were we talking about here? I gotta agree with the SC, numerous errors shoudl count for points off. Not just a couple, but many. AN egregious amount. I can understand typos on a typed exam, esp if on typewriter where you cant change the mistakes, or have to go back and change them, from sloppy fingers. But this was handwritten. That said, unless you went to a sunny level of law school, a professor probably does not run into this issue all that often. Unless the student is dyslexic, maybe.

5) I am sure it was a fine analog for wahtever point you were trying to make with it.

ETA : I realize the irony of my post. Think of my LT posting style as Spanky Racehorse. I could go back and correct them but I am just typing as fast as I can and dont think correctio is a good use of my time.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Bad_Rich_Chic
Well, F-15s & tanks don't run on batteries yet. I'm trying to think of a country or region in which we (act like we) have a real national security interest that is primarily economic but not military/political, and other than (arguably) post-soviet Europe I can't really think of one offhand. (Japan obviously doesn't meet that standard since it geopolitically key to the projection of US naval power in the Pacific.)

Spanky's question - whether European stability is in, or possibly even contrary to, our national interests - is actually an interesting one. Regardless of how one comes down on it, I don't think the post-cold-war answer is as obvious as most people assume.

My point was that we went into Serbia for humanitarian reasons. There was no real strategic or national security issues that justified such a massive use of resources and force. So if you think humanitarian reasons are not enough to justify military intervention then, under that logic, it was wrong for Clinton to bomb Serbia.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally posted by Spanky
I am particularly proud of those posts. The fact that you can find those posts so quickly, and that you are still thinking about them, just reinforces my initial inclination that all is not well in NCS land.

You know that there is a search function on this site, right? Type in "social cripple" and guess where it takes you. Go ahead. Guess.

Originally posted by Spanky
Is your avatar Beaker?

I love the spanky avatar quetsions. An island of boyish charm in a sea of condescenion and defensiveness.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
It needn't be engraved. And I prefer the rabbit-style ones. And help using it could be fun.

I appreciate the offer, but I think that would be a problem.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by paigowprincess
I love the spanky avatar quetsions. An island of boyish charm in a sea of condescenion and defensiveness.

Or, a wave of shortbusosity in a sea of condescension and defensiveness.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Spanky
Is your avatar Beaker?

Yes.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by baltassoc
I appreciate the offer, but I think that would be a problem.

For whom?

[Flinty_McFlint]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ltl/fb
It needn't be engraved. And I prefer the rabbit-style ones. And help using it could be fun.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by baltassoc
I appreciate the offer, but I think that would be a problem.

Good. More for the rest of us.

And to keep in the spirit of this board: You are all fucking stupid and my opinion is the only correct one and the only one that matters. And Republicans suck. Flat-tax. Health care. Abortion. Trade deficit.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Flinty_McFlint

Good. More for the rest of us.

And to keep in the spirit of this board: You are all fucking stupid and my opinion is the only correct one and the only one that matters. And Republicans suck. Flat-tax. Health care. Abortion. Trade deficit.

Have I told you lately that you are one hot little monkey? Getting fucking, sucking and taxes into one paragraph -- my hero.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by paigowprincess

3. I read the cited to post and this. I got teh impression that there were numerous typos, errors, grammar issues, etc. from the frist post, but the second post makes it sound like one little tyupo. This is also a flawed debating style. A post hoc of sorts but not exactly. Don't change the Facts.

I think you are mistaken:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by notcasesensitive
I believe this is the second post in which you've misused "new". Maybe it shouldn't, but this affects my ability to take your points very seriously. FYI. FWIW. NTTAWWT. and etc.


(how's that for constructive criticism, Hank?)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by paigowprincess
If you have to go that route, be a man and admit you are wrong. My Dad cannot admit he is wrong and it is probably his worst characteristic. This macho bravado doesn't work in the face of Smart Women. Its adds insult to injury. \

I don't want to hear about your father. My response to her was appropriate and I stand by it "As long as people understand my meaning why should I be so concerned about spelling and grammatical rules? "A person that judges an argument, not by its internal logic, but how it is presented or who presents it, is clearly a person whose judgment should be ignored." The fact that you focus on form over substance makes me skeptical of anything that you say. How is that for constructive criticism?

Originally posted by paigowprincess
4) Why did you have to sacrifice grammar for issue spotting? Is your default sentence not gramatically correct so that you have to go back and correct it? How many typos were we talking about here? I gotta agree with the SC, numerous errors shoudl count for points off. Not just a couple, but many. AN egregious amount. I can understand typos on a typed exam, esp if on typewriter where you cant change the mistakes, or have to go back and change them, from sloppy fingers. But this was handwritten. That said, unless you went to a sunny level of law school, a professor probably does not run into this issue all that often. Unless the student is dyslexic, maybe.

I gave the professor what he wanted. He told me what he considered important and I stuck to that. As is clear from your own posts, your grammar, spelling and adherance to other grammatical rules is not exemplary on your first stab at a sentence. I chose to spot more issues instead of perfecting my prose. Here I don't take the time to perfect my prose. I think the reason I don't try and perfect my prose should be obvious.

Here the statement "form over substance" is definitely appropriate. My professor focused on substance over form. I respect that. I can't respect people that focus on form over substance. Especially when it is not necessary. I believe your priorities are askew.

[Flinty_McFlint]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Have I told you lately that you are one hot little monkey? Getting fucking, sucking and taxes into one paragraph -- my hero.

Don't forget the flat tax. Sexy.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Flinty_McFlint
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by ltl/fb
It needn't be engraved. And I prefer the rabbit-style ones. And help using it could be fun.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Good. More for the rest of us.

And to keep in the spirit of this board: You are all fucking stupid and my opinion is the only correct one and the only one that matters. And Republicans suck. Flat-tax. Health care. Abortion. Trade deficit.

If you could you create a new country how would you set up the tax structure?

[Flinty_McFlint]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
If you could you create a new country how would you set up the tax structure?

An ad valorem tax mixed with tribute and ritual sacrifices. It is my country, right?