Can Anyone Explain How Defecation Laws Make Any Sense?

[Sean]

Do I detect the smell of burning martyr?

Here comes the attention seeking missile...

[@meric@nwom@n]

Fuck anyone who judges. Fuck 'em.

[rubato]

Andrew is a mean fucker who occasionally distorts reality in order to bitch out someone he hates or is mad at just at that moment. But he is smarter than 90% of the posters here and generally contributes at a high level when not being a shitheel.

Quaddriver is a pathetic idiot who deserves pity more than blame. He would not know good sense if it bit him in the ass. Why anyone wastes breath on him after 10 years, as joe guy appears to, is a total mystery.

Can we drop the crap now?

yrs,
rubato

[dales]

Andrew is very intelligent and well-reasoned.

I hope he returns.

[@meric@nwom@n]

and yet

STFU....AGD

[dales]

That's when AGD was having personal issues and harping about everything and everyone a few days ago. CONTEXT is everything. He was making a fool out of himself and managing to alienate many here.

The point you are trying to make is lost on me.

A personal attack, perhaps?

Go ahead, it reflects back upon you <shrugs>.

I still believe Andrew to be an intelligent and well-reasoned individual.

I hope he returns here soon.

[@meric@nwom@n]

It's a way of saying that irrespective of how brilliant his posting was he was quite able to get on anyone's last nerve.

Must everything be "an attack"?

[Lord Jim]

I'd certainly like to see Andrew return...

There's no question about his intelligence, (though I would have to say that his"reason" seemed to desert him last week)

I'd like to see him return after he deals with whatever he's got going on to the point that he's able to get a grip and he realize the central and essential role that his words and behavior played in what unfolded, and how inappropriately, disruptively and wrongly he acted.

I'd like to think he left because he had become embarrassed by his behavior, realized the damage he was doing to his reputation, and decided he needed to cool it. Sadly, the evidence suggests otherwise...

As I said, I took him off of ignore after he left and read through some of the posts he had put up before his departure...

At least as of a couple of hours before he de-registered he remained completely clueless and delusional about what he had done, insisting that his behavior was fully justified....

I also came across a post where he seemed to be saying that he believed that since he had posted some worthwhile stuff, he felt that should give him some sort of special right to act the way he did (ie, lying, trolling, attacking, distorting, etc.) with impunity...

Sorry, but it just doesn't work that way. He isn't the first poster to think that he was so important, valuable and special that this should give him the right to behave like a prick to others without receiving any criticism for it, but if he comes back before he disabuses himself of this notion, he probably won't be staying very long after he returns.

And if he comes back still believing that he was the fully justified victim of the piece, he'll probably just pick up right where he left off, lashing out left and right.

[dales]

It's a way of saying that irrespective of how brilliant his posting was he was quite able to get on anyone's last nerve.

Must everything be "an attack"?

No.

My error.

[Sue U]

Jesus, Jim, could you be any more of an insufferably self-righteous gasbag? You were every bit a part of that little drahmah. Speaking of getting on people's last nerve ...

[Lord Jim]

My error.

It's a shame Andrew couldn't bring himself to utter those two words last week, and instead launched a full press trolling spree rather than do so.

If he had been able to bring himself to do that, a whole lot of unpleasantness could have been avoided.

[Lord Jim]

Jesus, Jim, could you be any more of an insufferably self-righteous a gasbag? You were every bit a part of that little drahmah.

Oh give me a break....

All I did was try to get him to admit that he had absolutely no proof for his totally pulled out of thin air assertions about the willingness of most prosecutors to commit perjury and the rampant dishonesty of the cops. Rather than do this, (or provide any such proof) he lied, distorted, mischaracterized, trolled, (in fact he used every single tool in the Team Troll tool box) deflected, tried desperately to change the subject and throw me on the defensive, played the victim, took things both he and I said blatantly and shamelessly out of context, provided "proof" for things that didn't have any relation to his assertions and tried to claim that they did, (completely ignored my repeated calls for him to address what he had said about the cops) told me he didn't have to provide any proof that I could go google it, and ultimately tried to re-write the entire history of what had taken place in the exchange...(He also repeatedly accused me of not responding to his "most engage in" versus "most are willing to engage in" diversionary tactic two days after I had done so...and continued to make the claim even after I had re-posted the proof that I had)

I'm sure I've left some things out. As I said before, in four days he played every single card it took Steve Editec Gwen and Quad years to develop.

ETA

And BTW, you didn't help matters. The fact that a couple of people were chiming in to "support" him only encouraged him to keep up his behavior and get even worse. If that hadn't happened he might have ceased his antics earlier and things might not have gotten to the point that they did. I obviously don't know this for a fact, (he was pretty far gone on his own) but your decision to involve yourself certainly accomplished nothing positive.

[Sue U]

And BTW, you didn't help matters. The fact that a couple of people were chiming in to "support" him only encouraged him to keep up his behavior and get even worse. If that hadn't happened he might have ceased his antics earlier and things might not have gotten to the point that they did. I obviously don't know this for a fact, (he was pretty far gone on his own) but your decision to involve yourself certainly accomplished nothing positive.

My "decision to involve myself"???? Last time I checked, this was a discussion board, where anyone is free to participate in the discussion; that's kinda the whole point of this enterprise. My posts directly related to the topic, and did not include any "attacks" on anyone. The fact that I understood what Andrew had actually written, rather than your re-(mis-)statement of his contention, and how the evidence he presented supported his opinion, hardly amounts to fueling whatever pissing match that you two already had going. Consider the log in your own eye, brother.

[rubato]

"...

I still believe Andrew to be an intelligent and well-reasoned individual.

I hope he returns here soon.

I agree.

yrs,
rubato

[Guinevere]

And BTW, you didn't help matters. The fact that a couple of people were chiming in to "support" him only encouraged him to keep up his behavior and get even worse. If that hadn't happened he might have ceased his antics earlier and things might not have gotten to the point that they did. I obviously don't know this for a fact, (he was pretty far gone on his own) but your decision to involve yourself certainly accomplished nothing positive.

My "decision to involve myself"???? Last time I checked, this was a discussion board, where anyone is free to participate in the discussion; that's kinda the whole point of this enterprise. My posts directly related to the topic, and did not include any "attacks" on anyone. The fact that I understood what Andrew had actually written, rather than your re-(mis-)statement of his contention, and how the evidence he presented supported his opinion, hardly amounts to fueling whatever pissing match that you two already had going. Consider the log in your own eye, brother.

Now now Sue, didn't you hear, disagreeing with the great and powerful Oscar Zoroaster Phadrig Isaac Norman Henkel Emmannuel Ambroise Diggs is strictly verboten.

[Lord Jim]

Well, you're both obviously full of crap on this, but in the interest of not re-igniting this discussion, I won't say anything further. (Well let me amend that...I will attempt to say nothing further...if there are more provocations directed towards me about it, I can't swear I'll be successful...)

[Andrew D]

The fact that I understood what Andrew had actually written, rather than your re-(mis-)statement of his contention, and how the evidence he presented supported his opinion ....

That was diplomatic. And charitable. Thanks.

[Lord Jim]

That was diplomatic. And charitable. Thanks.

Towards you, it certainly was....(In fact more than "charitable"..."fanciful" would be a better description)

A far more accurate and less charitable description of your behavior would be as I stated it:

All I did was try to get him to admit that he had absolutely no proof for his totally pulled out of thin air assertions about the willingness of most prosecutors to commit perjury and the rampant dishonesty of the cops. Rather than do this, (or provide any such proof) he lied, distorted, mischaracterized, trolled, (in fact he used every single tool in the Team Troll tool box) deflected, tried desperately to change the subject and throw me on the defensive, played the victim, took things both he and I said blatantly and shamelessly out of context, provided "proof" for things that didn't have any relation to his assertions and tried to claim that they did, (completely ignored my repeated calls for him to address what he had said about the cops) told me he didn't have to provide any proof that I could go google it, and ultimately tried to re-write the entire history of what had taken place in the exchange...(He also repeatedly accused me of not responding to his "most engage in" versus "most are willing to engage in" diversionary tactic two days after I had done so...and continued to make the claim even after I had re-posted the proof that I had)

I'm sure I've left some things out. As I said before, in four days he played every single card it took Steve Editec Gwen and Quad years to develop.

Apparently you remain as delusional as ever about your behavior.

Back on ignore you go.

[Andrew D]

And still no explanation of where his claim that I had asserted that most prosecutors suborn perjury came from.

I made no such assertion.

He knows it.

He's running away.

Shocking, isn't it?

[Lord Jim]

He claims that I said it. I did not say it. I have shown repeatedly that I did not say it. He will not respond to my demonstrations that I did not say it. He will not attempt to show that I did say it. He will not withdraw his claim that I said it.

What's up with that?

I'm too lazy to go and look at the exact wording, but as I recall LJ did not quote you. He said that you asserted something.

It seems to me that the focus should be on proving or disproving whether "most" prosecutors are guilty of misconduct or not.

Arguing about what the other person meant when he didn't mean it accomplishes nothing.

You're correct Joe. I never did present that as a quote; he's lied over and over saying that I did.

He's also lying when he says I've never responded to this diversionary tactic which was designed to take the focus off the fact that he has never provided proof for what he did say.

I responded to it two days ago:

Look at what Lord Jim just quoted from me. It does not say that most prosecutors (in the US or anywhere else) suborn perjury.

You're absolutely right Andrew...

You only said:

"in those instances where subornation of perjury is necessary to obtain a conviction, most prosecutors will do it. "

So based on what you have said, presumably all of those prosecutors who don't care about whether or not they obtain convictions will not suborn perjury.

Ya got me there....

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3128&p=40112&hilit= ... 27t#p40112

Well, Andrew D, you really have gone into the Steve-Zone.

And this dishonest strawman diversion charge is yet another shining example of that. The fact that I addressed this two days ago has not stopped him from dishonestly claiming over and over that I haven't as he tries to make this the issue rather than his own unsubstantiated claims about prosecutors and cops.

And the fact that I have re-posted the proof that I answered this probably won't stop him from continuing to repeat the lie that I haven't. If I reposted it twenty times it wouldn't stop him from repeating this lie, because his objective is to lie so voluminously that the truth is forgotten and his version replaces what actually happened.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3159&p=40472&hilit= ... ury#p40472

And still no explanation of where his claim that I had asserted that most prosecutors suborn perjury came from.

I made no such assertion.

He knows it.

He's running away.

He's making me look like a bloody Kreskin...