Quel dommage

[loCAtek]

I noticed that too, her habit of sabotaging close relationships.


Yet I clique-less, am told my four year relationship is low(er). Ha.

[loCAtek]

Who cares about, and of what relevance is any of your published work Andrew?

What do you want of this board?

He thought he had friends here, obviously that was mistaken.

[Andrew D]

And in all of bigskygal's usual crap, not the slightest indication that anyone has ever considered anything that she has ever done worth repeating.

Is anyone surprised?

Oh, but she "blew it off".

Failure-speak for "I tried, but no one wanted it".

And, yes, my published work is not recent. The Tibetans do not now need what I am good at. What they need now is politics, and I have never claimed to be any good at that.

The fact remains that people have found my work worth publishing. And hers?

Well, bottom-rung prosecutor in a pissant jurisdiction.

So you tell me ....

[Lord Jim]

Horseshit! From the 'Asshole' thread...

Lord Jim has been trolling me relentlessly; he evidently has nothing better to do.

Care to elaborate Andrew?

I don't think that there is any truth in that statement whatsoever...

There's good reason for that...there isn't any truth to it:

Lord Jim, total number of posts: 2967 total that mention "Andrew": 93
percentage of posts mentioning Andrew: 3%

Andrew, total number of posts: 1491 total that mention "Lord Jim": 133
percentage of posts mentioning Lord Jim: 9%

In other words, the chances that you are going to see a reference to "Lord Jim" in an Andrew D post, are three times higher than the chances that you will see a reference to "Andrew" in a Lord Jim post...

Despite the fact I have twice as many posts here as he does, even in raw numbers, he has mentioned me almost 40% more often than I have him....

The numbers since he went completely off the rails last June are even more pronounced; since then he has mentioned me 83 times, I have mentioned him 42 times.... I have many more posts in that period, but still he has mentioned me twice as often as I have him...

I haven't looked at the break down on this, but if I were just to count references since I recently came back from about a month and a half away from the board, I am certain the gap would be even more pronounced...

[loCAtek]

And in all of bigskygal's usual crap, not the slightest indication that anyone has ever considered anything that she has ever done worth repeating.

Is anyone surprised?

Oh, but she "blew it off".

Failure-speak for "I tried, but no one wanted it".

And, yes, my published work is not recent. The Tibetans do not now need what I am good at. What they need now is politics, and I have never claimed to be any good at that.

The fact remains that people have found my work worth publishing. And hers?

Well, bottom-rung prosecutor in a pissant jurisdiction.

So you tell me ....

He has a part-time, pseudo psycho-babbler job supported by his wife to prop him up...

[Sean]

Andrew, he has, is, done nothing. Ignore him.

LMAO - So because I don't feel the urge to brag and make-up shit on the internet means I have done nothing?

Try living in the real world Quad. You know, the one with trees, oxygen and jobs.

woudl that be why I am in it and you are 'ahem', *here*?

Im not going to get into the detail that Andrew did, but I as well have easily verifiable accomplishments in said real world. Many of the readers over the last decade have looked em up.

the reality is, you *do not*, which is why, you are *here*.

People do grow tired of insolent neverwas's

the fact that you, nor anyone else can ever seem to point out this 'made up shit', speaks volumes for intelligence - specifically your lack of it.

So you are not here?

Thank fuck for that!

Umm... I didn't question your accomplishments or lack thereof. You questioned mine.
Actually, that's not quite right. You asserted that I had none.

If I had an ego to match yours or Andrews I might surprise you. But, like I said, I don't feel the need to do that. All who know me (including some here) know who and what I am and what I have done with my life. You should take the fact that I do not wish to share with you as evidence that I couldn't give a flying fuck what you think of me. I have no need of your approval or awe. If either you or Andrew felt the same you would be able to consider yourselves more rounded (and indeed grounded) human beings.

[quaddriver]

[ All who know me (including some here) know who and what I am and what I have done with my life. .

translation: zero

rhetorical questions: why are all of lifes losers congregating together? Have we found yet ANOTHER pattern?

[Sean]

Lord Jim, total number of posts: 2967 total that mention "Andrew": 93
percentage of posts mentioning Andrew: 3%

Andrew, total number of posts: 1491 total that mention "Lord Jim": 133
percentage of posts mentioning Lord Jim: 9%

In other words, the chances that you are going to see a reference to "Lord Jim" in an Andrew D post, are three times higher than the chances that you will see a reference to "Andrew" in a Lord Jim post...

Despite the fact I have twice as many posts here as he does, even in raw numbers, he has mentioned me almost 40% more often than I have him....

The numbers since he went completely off the rails last June are even more pronounced; since then he has mentioned me 83 times, I have mentioned him 42 times.... I have many more posts in that period, but still he has mentioned me twice as often as I have him...

I haven't looked at the break down on this, but if I were just to count references since I recently cam back from abut a month and a half away from the board, I am certain the gap would be even more pronounced...

Good God! Another boaster.

Yeah, yeah, we all know about your 'superior mathematical skills' Jim...

[Sean]

[ All who know me (including some here) know who and what I am and what I have done with my life. .

translation: zero

rhetorical questions: why are all of lifes losers congregating together? Have we found yet ANOTHER pattern?

lol - If that's what you want to believe to make you feel better about your own existence then you carry on Quad!

Like I said, I don't need your approval and you cannot goad me into revealing anything to you that I do not wish to reveal.

[Scooter]

Of which you manless know what?

Enough to know better than to throw myself at anything on three legs just for the sake of being able to say that I managed to keep a man. Enough to know that measuring one's self-worth by whether or not one has a man is the mark of someone who sees themselves as worthless.

[BoSoxGal]

I have many close relationships in my life, loCA - none who treat me the way you detailed to me that your BF has treated you. Basically, like a piece of ass who didn't matter much to him, and who wasn't worth any trouble or effort when she revealed a struggle with substances. I don't believe for a minute that he's changed in any significant way since that time, especially since you are admittedly still drinking.

You seem to forget that the last time you threatened to 'out' my 'secrets' confided in you, I already told the board that I'd fallen in love with a man when I first moved here - really more with his teen daughter - and that he'd ended up being abusive. Yes, because I loved his kid and have a bad habit of giving people too much of the benefit of the doubt, I kept him in my life longer than I should have. But I ultimately took care of myself and that is a great deal more admirable than how you behave.

Thanks, Scooter, for acknowledging what I've known to be true since I was a teenager - it is far better to be alone 'romantically' than to settle out of insecurity, as so very many people do. If loCA wasn't such a troll I'd feel badly for her codependence issues.

By the way, loCA, here's a newsflash - it's not evidence that a woman 'can't keep a boyfriend' when that woman intentionally chooses solitude over a man. It's evidence that she values herself more than a man's attentions. I broke up with my last BF because I ultimately recognized that we didn't share the same values, particularly about parenting and the level of investment I think children are worth. They are his kids, not mine, but he couldn't be bothered to shut off the TV and engage & develop their intellects. Living in that situation was hellish for me, given my values. According to your logic, I should have stayed so I could hold my head up high and say, 'Look at me! Somebody wants to put his penis in me! Therefore, I matter!'

You poor deluded girl.

[loCAtek]

Of which you manless know what?

Enough to know better than to throw myself at anything on three legs just for the sake of being able to say that I managed to keep a man. Enough to know that measuring one's self-worth by whether or not one has a man is the mark of someone who sees themselves as worthless.

Hey, I didn't start that girlfriend, just finished it. <snap>

[Scooter]

You were finished before you started.

[Andrew D]

As you very well know, a true legal scholar would have published many, many times since ....

So you admit that you do not even resemble a true legal scholar. That is progress of a sort.

rather than languishing in insurance defense hackland.

-- dealing with contractual complexities which still elude you.

As distinct from what? Being a bottom-rung prosecutor in a pissant jurisdiction?

If the Dalai Lama pissed you off, you'd shit on him, too - I've no doubt of it.

His Holiness has repeatedly pissed me off, I have met him in the flesh, and I have never shat on him. So much for what you have no doubt of -- which no one here or anywhere else puts any credence in anyway.

You know I've got classmates from law school only eleven years out ....

Exactly. "Only". Get back to me when you're an adult in the profession.

No, I've not yet published in a law journal. I blew it off in school ....

Failure-speak for "no journal wanted the crap I produced".

I am currently working on polishing my article on law in Elizabethan theatre for submission, however, because it's a specific focus that no prior scholar has presented and it should be available in academia for law & literature students alike.

That could well be worth reading. Many people have failed at lawyering and turned out to be quite good at something else. (Viz., e.g., Macaulay.)

Every day I work on behalf of my fellow citizens despite the long hours and low pay.

Railroading them into prison, because you threw your ethics overborad. And I am neither the first nor the only person to have noticed that.

You are not my intellectual superior.

Except in every way that actually has to do with intellect, no.

[loCAtek]

blah blah blah I'm manless blah blah blah

...can't help but sabotage any relationship, admit it. I've seen you do it multiple times over the years, including any relationship even with me. I'm privy to your self-destruction, remember 'eh?

[BoSoxGal]

Wow, Andrew, you're sick.

You might want to heed the caution that making unfounded ethical allegations against a fellow attorney is an ACTUAL ethical violation. Because I WILL report you if you do it one more time.

I adhere strictly to the ethical mandates that guide our profession, and have done so in every role I've held. I don't know of a single person who has questioned my integrity in that regard except you, with no basis other than that I bothered to become a prosecutor (something you encouraged) and disagreed with you that almost all of us are lying cheating scum.

I still work on behalf of the wrongly accused. I am the farthest thing from 'failed' in lawyering, which is the second profession I have succeeded within. I'm no spring chick, but thanks for repeatedly trying to paint me as one.

And no, sad little itchy man, I didn't get rejected by journals in law school. I won a spot during write-on and passed it up for a hands on clerkship with one of the most respected public defender systems in the country/world. I'd already edited a scholarly publication, and a literary one as well, during the course of my graduate career. I didn't want to be a clerk, and didn't care about BigLaw.

See AGD, the things you value some folks consider inane, if not destructive. Folks who I would venture a guess are far more ethically developed than you will ever in this lifetime achieve.

Poor itchy bastard.

[BoSoxGal]

loCA, don't embarrass yourself anymore. I still have our messages. Do you? Then you recall that I requested you no longer contact me offboard because your behavior had begun to alarm me and I didn't want anymore to do with the drama.

I didn't destroy our relationship. Our 'relationship' began with you texting & IMing me out of the blue, seeking an offboard friendship. I was wary, because you were very persistent and I knew little about you, but I initially responded out of politeness & kindness. During a low period in my life I finally did engage with you more extensively in one or two long conversations by chat; I shared confidences and when I later requested that offboard contact cease, you threatened to reveal them - so I responded by revealing them myself.

I wouldn't have a relationship with you for any reason. You are messed up. There was no 'loss' to me in rejecting that prospect. I have many wonderful friends I can trust; I don't need to open myself up to someone seeking to be enabled, which you were then and still are now.

[Andrew D]

In Shocking News, Lord Jim Does Not Often Mention By Name A Person Whom He Is Claiming To Ignore!

It is true that I am polite enough to address Lord Jim by his chosen name more often than he is polite enough to address me by mine.

Of course, one could take into account his claim to be ignoring me. Even though that claim has been proved false, he has to maintain it.

And, of course, one could look at the actual order of things. One could, for example, observe his calumnious reference to me in a thread which he started and proceeded to defame me in that thread's opening posting. One could, for example, observe his lying about what I had posted in order to begin his idiotic ravings -- ravings which everyone who actually pays attention to the "criminal justice" system disagrees with -- in the conversation (or what could have been a conversation if he and his little bitch hadn't decided to fuck it up) about prosecutors. Etc.

Or one could just continue to grant him the immunity which has been bestowed upon him.

In another shocking development, if he can do no wrong, then he is right.

[Andrew D]

It is, of course, true that bigfishinapisspondgal is free to "report" me to whomever she chooses on whatever grounds she wants.

It is also true that I can "report" her for conspiring with extraterrestrial aliens to overthrow the government of the US.

The two claims have essentially equal likelihoods of success.

[Andrew D]

No, bigfishinapisspondgal, technically at least, dead-end job at the bottom rung of a bureaucracy that does damn near nothing in the middle of nowhere is not failing.

You have admirably succeeded in becoming what almost no one else has ever wanted to become.

Congratulations on that.

Should I send you a card?