Cliques?

[The Hen]

Has it crossed your mind that people aren't responding to you because you are being an arsehole rather than not being in any fictional 'clique'?

No?

I thought not.

No need to rant back at me. My New Year's resolution was to not let arseholes drag me into their drama.

Have a great day.

[Lord Jim]

The last time I called upon Little Jimmy to point out specific instances of my supposed dishonesty, he was unable to do so.

That would of course be a sterling example of "an out right lie"....

I of course pointed out numerous specifics numerous times, and if Andrewdriver truly can't remember he can spend his time and energy looking them up; he's not going to get me to spend mine. (Just so he can pretend once again, as he is now, that it didn't happen)

In the discussion where he smeared cops and prosecutors alone, I must have pointed out ironclad examples of his dishonesty at least a dozen times; but he is such a mendacious liar, that he would simply go on repeating what had already been debunked, sometimes even in the very next post.

That was really the last straw as far as I was concerned. there is absolutely no point in trying to have a dialogue with someone willing to be that dishonest. Dialogue isn't what he wants anyway; that's obvious. Wearing people down through a combination of bullying and an endlessly repetitive bag of intellectually dishonest sophistic, transparent tricks is obviously what's on the menu.

He can call me "gutless" or accuse me of "cowardice" for refusing to dance to his tunes while still pointing out what he is up to all he wants. (The fact that I will no longer let him draw me into his reindeer games obviously drives him up a tree.) My stance will remain what it has been, given his behavior; the essence of commonsense.

[Andrew D]

People do appear to be responding to me.

Responding to me, or not, was not what I was getting at. I was getting at the self-evidently differential treatment accorded to people based on who they are rather than on what they post.

Why is it that Little Jimmy's incessant accusations of my supposed dishonesty go almost entirely unchallenged, even though he cannot, when point-blank asked to, support them? But his lying about what I posted on the subject of prosecutors has been proved over and over -- and even he does not deny it -- and almost no one says anything about it.

Why is it that bigskygal's wholesale defamation of defense attorneys goes unchallenged? She calls them "perjury-suborning," and no outrage ensues. I comment that, in my estimation, most prosecutors would suborn perjury in the right circumstances, and I specifically observe that "most prosecutors do not suborn perjury". I get raked over the coals.

Why is that? Why does bigskygal's accusation that defense attorneys -- without limitation -- in fact suborn perjury get a pass, whereas my assertion that most prosecutors would, but in fact do not, suborn perjury bring down a firestorm?

Is there some reason for that other than the identities of the respective posters?

[Lord Jim]

Oh, hang about...

I just noticed that this:

The last time I called upon Little Jimmy to point out specific instances of my supposed dishonesty, he was unable to do so.

is very cleverly worded; he's not saying that I haven't ever pointed out specific instances of his dishonesty...

Only that I didn't do it "the last time" he demanded that I do so...

That's entirely possible....

"The last time" he made this demand I probably had him on ignore and never even read it....

But of course, as I point out in the post above, I had already done so on numerous previous occasions, so that's really not relevant....

[Andrew D]

He keeps saying that he has pointed them out before.

Where?

When I accuse him of dishonesty, I quote his exact words, and I set forth exactly why I believe those words to be dishonest.

But he won't do that. Instead he gives us this:

I of course pointed out numerous specifics numerous times, and if Andrewdriver truly can't remember he can spend his time and energy looking them up; he's not going to get me to spend mine.

That's just Little-Jimmy-speak for "I couldn't identify the specifics before, and I still can't."

If I behaved that way, I would get lambasted from every direction. And rightly so.

But when he rolls out accusations and refuses to substantiate them, he gets a pass.

Why is that?

[Crackpot]

I can't believe I once respected you.

[Andrew D]

I have looked at all, according to this board's search function, the threads in which Little Jimmy has posted the word "dishonest".

I have not found even a single one in which he claimed that I had been dishonest (many of the postings found by the search function did not have to do with me), posted my exact words, and set forth the evidence on which he based any charge of my supposed dishonesty.

Not one.

Of course, I make no claim to technological proficiency. It is possible that he has posted my exact words and set forth the evidence on which he based his charge of my supposed dishonesty. It is possible that I just did not find it.

But if so, let him show us. He is the one making the accusation; the burden is on him to prove it. If he can.

And "if he can" is the core of his problem. He cannot.

If he really has "pointed out numerous specifics numerous times," he could easily bring them to our attention. It would take less time and energy than he has already spent claiming to have done so without demonstrating that he has done so.

Why would someone spend more time and energy claiming to have done something than it would take actually to do that thing?

[Andrew D]

I can't believe I once respected you.

I still respect you.

Look. I posted a thread in which I asked for something which I thought, and still think, entirely reasonable:

Quote my words which you claim are dishonest.

Point us to them, so that we can all see their context and judge them for ourselves.

State the grounds on which you base your claim that those words are dishonest.

Where is the problem?

If someone calls me a liar, should not that person have some obligation to say what the alleged lie is?

As I asked in that thread:

I have been told over and over that I have been dishonest.

But when I ask for the basis of that claim, I get nothing.

Wouldn't anyone else feel as I do?

Wouldn't anyone else, being accused of something, want to know the specifics of the accusation?

What should I do?

Turn and run in the face of an accuser who will not state the accusation?

Deny the accusation without knowing what it actually is?

What would you do?

How am I wrong in wanting to know what it is that I am accused of?

[Lord Jim]

How am I wrong in wanting to know what it is that I am accused of?

He's hopeless. Utterly hopeless.

The problem he's got , is that most of the folks here aren't suffering from early onset Alzheimers, and those who followed those discussions remember quite well how they actually went....

Unless he's lucky enough for there to be a sudden outbreak of mass amnesia, all he does by pretending that no evidence was ever brought forth of his dishonesty is make himself look more...well...dishonest...

[Andrew D]

And still ... nothing.

Still not what any reasonable person would ask for.

Still no quotation of my exact words and a demonstration of their falsity.

Still ... nothing.

[Sean]

Why is it that bigskygal's wholesale defamation of defense attorneys goes unchallenged? She calls them "perjury-suborning," and no outrage ensues. I comment that, in my estimation, most prosecutors would suborn perjury in the right circumstances, and I specifically observe that "most prosecutors do not suborn perjury". I get raked over the coals.

Why is that? Why does bigskygal's accusation that defense attorneys -- without limitation -- in fact suborn perjury get a pass, whereas my assertion that most prosecutors would, but in fact do not, suborn perjury bring down a firestorm?

Is there some reason for that other than the identities of the respective posters?

I'd like to respond to this one...

Andrew, I am not a defence attorney nor do I know very much about the workings of defence attorneys. If, however, I was a defence attorney of the non-perjury-suborning variety and saw that post from BSG I would object in the strongest possible way.

As it stands, for all I know she could be right. Why then should I be outraged?

You, on the other hand, belittled (and continue to belittle) BSG's achievements and work. That is a different matter and you cannot and should not expect those who respect BSG to stand idly by and allow you to defame her to the point where she considers leaving the board.

[Andrew D]

As it stands, for all you know, I could be right.

But you didn't give a shit when she defamed all of her former colleagues.

When she described defense attorneys as "perjury-suborning," you were not troubled so much as to lift a finger.

"Lying".

"Scumbag".

"Don't even care about the clients' best interests".

None of that induced you even to shrug.

Why is that?

... she considers leaving the board.

Again?

How much drama-queen bitching can one board take?

Oh, wait. In her case, how much drama-queen bitching can three boards take?

Whatever problem she has with me, she can just bring it on. And she has done so. More than once.

So why would she consider leaving?

Because she is tired of getting her sorry little -- well, not so little -- ass kicked?

[Lord Jim]

How much drama-queen bitching can one board take?

Apparently you're hell bent for leather to try determine exactly where that outer boundary lies...

[Lord Jim]

Pretty soon, I expect he'll start complaining that the only reason he's been facing criticism and condemnation is because of "the clique's" need for "targets"...

[Andrew D]

So why do you encourage me?

Why are you so obsessed with me?

Don't you have anything worthwhile to do?

Oh, sorry; stupid question ....

[Lord Jim]

"Ahh, but the strawberries that's... that's where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt and with... geometric logic... that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox DID exist, and I'd have produced that key if they hadn't of pulled the Caine out of action. I, I, I ..."

[Andrew D]

Still can't answer the straightforward question.

Coward.

Liar.

[Sean]

As it stands, for all you know, I could be right.

But you didn't give a shit when she defamed all of her former colleagues.

When she described defense attorneys as "perjury-suborning," you were not troubled so much as to lift a finger.

"Lying".

"Scumbag".

"Don't even care about the clients' best interests".

None of that induced you even to shrug.

Why is that?

Andrew, if you would be so kind as to read my post you should find that I have already answered your question.

[Andrew D]

I have read it repeatedly, and I find no such answer.

[Sean]

Then I must point out that I will not be responsible for your lack of reading comprehension.

You are taking the piss now mate... You asked for a reasonable answer and got one. You refuse to accept that answer. Your problem not mine.

Just out of curiosity though, if you really believe that I didn't provide an answer what did you take from the words I typed?