Plan B Forum

Why should anyone bother to cite specific evidence to support any position? No one here is going to read it, so why bother compiling it?

I posted at great length and in great detail about John Yoo's torture memos. I quoted them, I cited them, I linked them, I gave exact page numbers.

And the people who responded did not trouble themselves to read them.

Lord Jim told us explicitly that he had not read the memos. That didn't stop him from opining about them.

And he is far from alone. I pick him out just because he made himself an easy target by admitting that he hadn't read the memos.

And in a way, that is refreshing. At least he had the balls to say that he hadn't read the memos. That's more honest than a lot of the other stuff I see.

I have posted about what the Supreme Court has had to say on a host of legal issues that have come up here. I have cited specific cases. I have cited specific pages.

Sure, I already knew what the Supreme Court had said. I'm a lawyer; we pick up these things. But I didn't remember exactly what case it was, let alone what page it was. So I looked it up. Each one by itself, no big deal. But all of them taken together -- that adds up to a fair bit of time and effort.

Did the people who responded even bother to look at what I had pointed them directly to?

It's not as if these are closely guarded secrets. They're not esoterica. They're matters of public record. Anyone with internet access -- which means all of us -- can read them.

I have posted about the genocide against the native peoples of California. I cited specific books. I named the authors, the titles, the publishers, the dates of publication, the exact pages -- everything.

Did the people who responded even bother to look at any of that?

Now people are demanding that I provide specific citations for what I have said about prosecutorial misconduct. Why should I bother? They didn't read the stuff I cited before; why should I think that they will read anything I cite now?

Has any of them even tried Googling "prosecutorial misconduct"?

It's not rocket science; you can type it with one finger.

But then you have to read what you find.

And there's the rub: You actually have to read what you find.

So why should I bother nailing down the exact pages of the exact works in which one can see the exact evidence for each exact point that I make? Even if I do, no one will read any of it.

Is there some even more wasteful way I can spend my time?

That seems like a very long winded way of saying "I can't back up my statements".
If I am asked to back up my statements I back them up. If I can't then I say so. It's not important to me whether people read or not, what's important is that I can back up what I say.

If we all took your attitude then this whole board would be full of unsubstantiated shite rather than unsubstantiated shite from just a few posters.

That seems like a very long winded way of saying "I can't back up my statements".
If I am asked to back up my statements I back them up.

Exactly.

Andrew, it really wasn't necessary for you to start a whole new thread to draw even more attention to the fact that you have absolutely nothing to back up your claims that "most" prosecutors suborn perjury if they think they need to do it to win a case, and that cops are overwhelmingly dishonest and corrupt. You've made the fact that you've got bupkiss on this abundantly clear in at least two other threads; starting another one to drive that point home really seems gratuitous.

Andrew has a point. There are a number of subjects on which I've posted evidence and links which have had no effect at all. But there are people who are such convinced ideologs that they will never change an opinion just because the facts contradict it.

Generally he is one of the best at backing up what he says. Neither of you have as good a track record.

On the other hand he does have a few subjects on which his thinking is a little limited and Manichean. (The chinese menace, immigration, the police are all evil)


yrs,
rubato

rubato wrote:Generally he is one of the best at backing up what he says. Neither of you have as good a track record.

Would you care to back that up?

Sean wrote:

rubato wrote:Generally he is one of the best at backing up what he says. Neither of you have as good a track record.

Would you care to back that up?

LOL...

Yeah rube's idea of how to back up a post has been either to quote the opinions of some ideological hack, (a fifth rate intellect relying on the views of a second rate intellect to try and figure out what he's supposed to think) or re-post cherry picked statistics that give deliberately misleading ideologically driven conclusions.

Another thing he was always fond of was posting tables, charts and graphs, which because his inability to read or interpret tables, charts, and graphs, frequently demonstrated the exact opposite of what he was attempting to prove....

I always found that quite amusing....

Foolish question.

What evidence would there be to prove that what I have said is my opinion is in fact my opinion?



yrs,
rubato

Unfortunately you presented it as fact rather than opinion.

But you have shown us another example of how people who are unable to back their claims up attempt to wriggle out of it...

Well done! Have a coconut.

Sean wrote:That seems like a very long winded way of saying "I can't back up my statements".
If I am asked to back up my statements I back them up. If I can't then I say so. It's not important to me whether people read or not, what's important is that I can back up what I say.

If we all took your attitude then this whole board would be full of unsubstantiated shite rather than unsubstantiated shite from just a few posters.

What the fuck have you ever backed up?

Time after time after time after time, I have posted about what the Supreme Court has said about one thing or another. I have quoted the Court directly. I have given the names of the cases. I have given the volume numbers of the reports in which the cases appear. I have given the page numbers on which those cases begin. I have given the exact page numbers on which anyone can find the language that I quoted.

When have you done anything that even resembles that?

When I posted about John Yoo's torture memos, I linked them, and I cited exact pages for every single thing that I claimed was in those memos. Did you bother to read them? Did anyone?

dgs49 routinely posts wild generalizations about Democrats and liberals and anybody else he doesn't like. Do you see Lord Jim or bigskygal or Scooter or any of the other people who have developed a fondness for jumping my shit calling dgs49 out for making all kinds of claims about what people do without citing one damn thing to support any of it?

Of course not.

Lots of people here spew pure shit time and time again. Rarely do they get called on it. And even when they do, most people here appear not to notice.

I asked before, and I'll ask again: Has anybody bothered to Google "prosecutorial misconduct" and read what came up? Anybody? Anybody at all?

Andrew D wrote:dgs49 routinely posts wild generalizations about Democrats and liberals and anybody else he doesn't like. Do you see Lord Jim or bigskygal or Scooter or any of the other people who have developed a fondness for jumping my shit calling dgs49 out for making all kinds of claims about what people do without citing one damn thing to support any of it?

Not only do I call him on it regularly, but I do so while providing evidence proving the contrary of what he has said.

Lots of people here spew pure shit time and time again. Rarely do they get called on it.

If you are claiming have seen it happen only "rarely", then I think I have a much clearer idea of what it is that has turned you into such a complete asshole lately.

Andrew D wrote:When I posted about John Yoo's torture memos, I linked them, and I cited exact pages for every single thing that I claimed was in those memos. Did you bother to read them? Did anyone?

dgs49 routinely posts wild generalizations about Democrats and liberals and anybody else he doesn't like. Do you see Lord Jim or bigskygal or Scooter or any of the other people who have developed a fondness for jumping my shit calling dgs49 out for making all kinds of claims about what people do without citing one damn thing to support any of it?

Andrew, I read most of the Yoo/Addington/Bybee memos produced in the ACLU litigation (although I don't think it was from your links); I always make an effort to read your posts (and the citations), since they are usually so very educational. And I have called dgs49 out on a number of occasions -- with linked cites -- but it gets to be a bit like shooting fish in a barrel.

And I am frankly glad to see your posts on issues as to which we disagree, as it invariably gives me something serious to think about. I'm not sure if it they have changed my mind, but they have certainly broadened my perspective.

dgs49 probably wasn't the best example. He spews so much crap that it would be a full-time job trying to keep up with it all.

Jumping back to the Yoo memos for a moment, when I posted an extensive analysis of them, Lord Jim claimed that my analysis was politically biased. What did he adduce to support his claim? Nothing.

He devoted a lot of bandwidth to whether I had correctly construed something that he had written, but when it came to the Yoo memos, he produced nothing. He even told us that he had not bothered to read them.

And yet he is now taking the lead in bashing me for not citing evidence for a proposition that is common knowledge among people who observe the system in action. And he flagrantly mischaracterizes what I posted. I posted that it is rare for prosecutors to fabricate evidence, suborn perjury, etc. He claimed that I had said that "'most' prosecutors in this country suborn perjury".

But somehow, I am the one suffering from some sort of degenerative mental disorder.

Apology accepted.

Andrew, I'm another who appreciates your posts and the depth of your research and analysis. I try to back up most of what I say, but I don't chose to spend the same amount of time that you do, in providing support. It's too much like work, and I come here to blow off steam, mostly.

As for how your posts are received, I think many of us give them significant weight. I also believe that when contrary comments are unsupported, or politically biased themselves, most of us have enough intelligence to be able to distinguish between what is supported and well-reasoned, and what is not. Similarly, I think most of us are able to distinguish between posts that are offering actual substantive content, versus those that are mostly trolling, without a great big flashing sign that says *TROLL*

Hope that's helpful.

I still haven't figured out what got up your ass, Scooter.

Because I have argued that a man ought to have the same post-conception right as a woman to opt out of becoming a parent, you have portrayed me as some sort of dark enemy of innocent children everywhere.

There's nothing quite like "a resounding 'fuck you'" as an incisive, persuasive argument.

Got any citations for that?

Okie Dokey Andrew, I have now googled, "prosecutorial misconduct"...

There are 530,000 listings. Care to provide any guidance as to which one of them will provide the evidence that supports this:

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

Don't bother checking the ones on the first page; I already did, and you can imagine my surprise when I discovered that none of them provided any evidence for that claim whatsoever....

Diligent fellow that I am, I also googled "prosecutors suborn perjury"...70,700 listings there....

Once again, my jaw dropped in amazement when I discovered that not one of the listings on page one provided any evidence whatsoever to supported the claim which you have presented as a fact.

This "let's send the posters who are challenging me to prove a claim I have no evidence for on a wild goose chase for the evidence I know doesn't exist" is a tactic that only two other posters I know of have engaged in; Steve and Quad. It's depressing to see you stoop to that level.

Also if you think I'm going to let you slither off the hook on this by constantly trying to change the subject to John Yoo, ( or Lady Gaga or or the 2 for one sale at Joseph A Banks, or whether the Giants can repeat as champions with Posey out for the season, or any other diversionary tactic you cook up) You have another think coming. The only thing I'm going to say about that is (as you well know) I read through every word of the extended excerpts that Sue linked to at the time, (excerpts that were compiled by by members of the Yoo Lynch mob, so it would be ridiculous for you to try and claim that they had somehow left out some "smoking gun" that I missed because I didn't read every word of every memo) and saw absolutely no evidence that proved that he had deliberately given advice he knew to be legally wrong in order to provide a legal "cover" for illegal activities.

That's my final word on the subject. As I said, I will not be drawn in by any of your transparent diversionary tactics. (Yet more Team Troll behavior) If you want to start a thread to continue to grind your ax about John Yoo; feel free. And I will ignore it (just as I have ignore the rubato-esque mindless GOP bashing threads that you have started...not worth the time of anyone interested in serious political discourse.)

Of course it's perfectly obvious why you want to change the subject. If I were you I'd want to do the same thing. You made a wild claim that you can't back up , so you much some rather talk about something else, anything else than that glaring fact.

For some reason you are refusing to take the honorable courses available to you, (provide proof for your accusations or admit you have no proof for your accusations) and instead have decided to employ the whole repertoire of Team Troll; transparent attempts to change the subject, gross mischaraterizations of what's been said, ad hominem attacks, desperate attempts to throw those who have called you on your BS on the defensive, trying to initiate wild goose chases, etc, etc, etc,.....(I'm sure I've left something out; you really don't seem to have a missed a single thing from their fiendish bag of tricks)

As I said, it's depressing to see you stoop to such dishonest and unethical tactics, rather than behave in a stand up way and admit that you have no proof either for your charge that most prosecutors will suborn perjury to win a case or that the overwhelming majority of police officers are dishonest and corrupt.

None whatsoever.

BTW, for the record, both myself and BSG posted complimenting Andrew regarding much of what he posts here the past few days, (despite the lowly tactics he has recently stooped to)

Just last night for example, I posted this:

Andrew, as I think you know, I have enormous regard for your intellect and for you personally.

I for one enjoy your scholarly treatises and analysis on Constitutional law, even if I don't always agree with your conclusions. (I have especially enjoyed your posts regarding the 10th Amendment; I've found those to be downright educational)

Here's how Andrew responded:

Lord Jim and bigskygal are entirely right.

None of the opinions I have ever expressed here has had even the slightest foundation in reality. They have all been total bullshit spewed out of my ass.

I have never contributed anything of any value to this board. I have done nothing but pollute it with my stupid, ignorant notions.

I should spend the pathetic little thing known to some people as my life railroading innocent people into prison. I should devote myself to licking clean the papal anus.

But I can't. I am weak.

Ignorant, stupid, and weak.

I can't formulate any rational argument for any position. I can't get anywhere near the lofty heights from which others here gaze down upon me.

I'm just a loathsome little turd deposited in our world by some gleefully malicious deity.

The stuff I write makes no sense. It isn't worth even bothering to read.

And he wonders why his mental condition has been brought into question.....

Lord Jim wrote:Okie Dokey Andrew, I have now googled, "prosecutorial misconduct"...

There are 530,000 listings. Care to provide any guidance as to which one of them will provide the evidence that supports this:

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

Don't bother checking the ones on the first page; I already did, and you can imagine my surprise when I discovered that none of them provided any evidence for that claim whatsoever....

Diligent fellow that I am, I also googled "prosecutors suborn perjury"...70,700 listings there....

Once again, my jaw dropped in amazement when I discovered that not one of the listings on page one provided any evidence whatsoever to supported the claim which you have presented as a fact.

This "let's send the posters who are challenging me to prove a claim I have no evidence for on a wild goose chase for the evidence I know doesn't exist" is a tactic that only two other posters I know of have engaged in; Steve and Quad. It's depressing to see you stoop to that level.

Also if you think I'm going to let you slither off the hook on this by constantly trying to change the subject to John Yoo, ( or Lady Gaga or or the 2 for one sale at Joseph A Banks, or whether the Giants can repeat as champions with Posey out for the season, or any other diversionary tactic you cook up) You have another think coming. The only thing I'm going to say about that is (as you well know) I read through every word of the extended excerpts that Sue linked to at the time, (excerpts that were compiled by by members of the Yoo Lynch mob, so it would be ridiculous for you to try and claim that they had somehow left out some "smoking gun" that I missed because I didn't read every word of every memo) and saw absolutely no evidence that proved that he had deliberately given advice he knew to be legally wrong in order to provide a legal "cover" for illegal activities.

That's my final word on the subject. As I said, I will not be drawn in by any of your transparent diversionary tactics. (Yet more Team Troll behavior) If you want to start a thread to continue to grind your ax about John Yoo; feel free. And I will ignore it (just as I have ignore the rubato-esque mindless GOP bashing threads that you have started...not worth the time of anyone interested in serious political discourse.)

Of course it's perfectly obvious why you want to change the subject. If I were you I'd want to do the same thing. You made a wild claim that you can't back up , so you much some rather talk about something else, anything else than that glaring fact.

For some reason you are refusing to take the honorable courses available to you, (provide proof for your accusations or admit you have no proof for your accusations) and instead have decided to employ the whole repertoire of Team Troll; transparent attempts to change the subject, gross mischaraterizations of what's been said, ad hominem attacks, desperate attempts to throw those who have called you on your BS on the defensive, trying to initiate wild goose chases, etc, etc, etc,.....(I'm sure I've left something out; you really don't seem to have a missed a single thing from their fiendish bag of tricks)

As I said, it's depressing to see you stoop to such dishonest and unethical tactics, rather than behave in a stand up way and admit that you have no proof either for your charge that most prosecutors will suborn perjury to win a case or that the overwhelming majority of police officers are dishonest and corrupt.

None whatsoever.

There's a 2 for 1 sale at Joseph A Banks?

There's a 2 for 1 sale at Joseph A Banks?

LOL

Why yes Sue, indeed there is, at least at the one here in The City By The Bay....

What does Mr Banks sell?