Cliques?

[Andrew D]

And in this whole episode, not once has anyone done what rationality requires:

Quote my exact words, and state exactly why you consider them dishonest.

Not once.

Never.

Not even a single time.

Why is that?

[Andrew D]

If you do not possess that level of intelligence allow me to suggest replacing the word 'everyone' with the word 'nobody' in his post.

If I were to "suggest replacing" the words which someone else had posted with words of my own imagining, you would be among the first to deride me for having done so.

[Sean]

Would I?

You continue to disappoint me Andrew...

[Joe Guy]

One more observation...

Do you not realize that most, if not all of us see your continual usage of the term "little jimmy" when addressing Jim is a ridiculously immature attempt to provoke an emotional response from him?

If there were any real substance to your allegations, why would you need to take the extra embarrassingly childish step of name-calling?

When you do that it makes you look more frustrated and spiteful than anything else.

Would you use that tactic in a courtroom?

[Andrew D]

Yes. You would. And you know it.

And still

And in this whole episode, not once has anyone done what rationality requires:

Quote my exact words, and state exactly why you consider them dishonest.

Not once.

Never.

Not even a single time.

Why is that?

Not anyone.

Not ever.

[Andrew D]

your continual usage of the term "little jimmy" when addressing Jim is a ridiculously immature attempt to provoke an emotional response from him?

Actually, it is my refusal to go along with his conferring upon himself a title which he has done nothing to deserve.

But if you wish to lather on him unearned accolades. have at it.

[Joe Guy]

Anyone with a basic level of intelligence could work out what Joe meant.
If you do not possess that level of intelligence allow me to suggest replacing the word 'everyone' with the word 'nobody' in his post.

No need to thank me...

Thanks Sean. I'm posting from an iPod and it's not easy to reread and edit.

I'm done for tonight.

[Sean]

Has it ever crossed your mind that people are tired of playing your silly little games Andrew?

And for the record, if you had made the same assumption as me as to what Joe meant to say I would not have had a problem. If Joe then stated that the meaning was per his original post and you contested this, then I would have a problem.

You don't know me as well as you think you do Andrew. In fact, I don't think that you know anybody here as well as you think you do.

[Lord Jim]

Would you use that tactic in a courtroom?

Now that evoked a humor response in me....

The idea of Andrew in a court room....(in any capacity other than that of "defendant" of course.)

Who in their right mind would hire him to so much as fight a parking ticket?

He'd probably manage to get himself thrown in the klink for contempt in the first five minutes....(That's assuming he didn't get barred at the court house door for showing up naked....)

[Andrew D]

The idea of Andrew in a court room....(in any capacity other than that of "defendant" of course.)

Who in their right mind would hire him to so much as fight a parking ticket?

Except that, on behalf of my clients, I prevailed.

To a panel of federal appellate judges, I presented my clients' case, and I won.

Twenty million dollars, give or take.

I won.

United States Court of Appeals,
Ninth Circuit.
FIREMAN'S FUND INSURANCE COMPANY; Allstate Ins. Co., Plaintiffs–Appellees,
Richard Banks, et al., Defendants,
v.
Lynn Boyd STITES, Defendant–Appellant.
No. 99–56622.

I stood there and fielded all of their questions.

I briefed and argued an issue "of first impression," and I won. (Due to my being naive, I am listed only as "argued," not as "briefed". In fact, the brief -- the winning argument -- was my baby. And the person whose case it was from the beginning has said so.)

Who in their right mind would hire him to so much as fight a parking ticket?

Somebody who wants to win?

[Andrew D]

Andrew's skill at legal research and analysis is unparalleled.

... extremely reliable and talented at logical thought, analysis, and writing thorough and well researched opinions.

... one of the best legal writers whose work I have had the pleasure of reading.

But what do they know?

They have only succeeded.

[Sean]

Glad to see that you're still not bragging Andrew...

[Andrew D]

Will you ever have anything to brag about?

[Andrew D]

You might have noticed, Sean, that Little Jimmy accused me of professional incompetence:

The idea of Andrew in a court room....(in any capacity other than that of "defendant" of course.)

Who in their right mind would hire him to so much as fight a parking ticket?

Where is bigskygal now to defend me against

... attacks on my professional competence ....

Nowhere.

Surprise, surprise.

Anyway, you could have said something when Little Jimmy accused me of professional incompetence.

But that would have required ...

um ...

integrity.

I realize that it's an alien concept for you.

Look it up.

[Joe Guy]

I, for one am semi-outraged that Jim attacked your professional integrity. He should have focused more on your personal integrity and your obsessive behavior. He should have included comments on your inability to understand that when people often misunderstand what you’ve written, maybe you should rethink how you express yourself instead of lashing out at others for not interpreting what you’ve written the way you intended it to be.

None of that really matters to you, however. You’d prefer to see examples of your words that are being used against you. The problem is that you don’t accept the examples when they are presented. In your mind, there is no proof of bad behavior and that since you are/were in fact one of the best attorneys that ever entered a court room, it is our problem if we don’t understand a person who has shown himself to be so brilliant in the past.

A recent example of your inconsistency is that you’ve written that you’ve never bragged anything you’ve accomplished. That was after you had written that when you were a child you could not stand up physically to some older boys but you were much smarter than they were.

More recently you pasted some statements from anonymous people in which they commented on how brilliant you are/were.

Of course none of the above amounts to bragging in your mind, so they are unacceptable examples.

The circle remains unbroken….

[Sean]

You might have noticed, Sean, that Little Jimmy accused me of professional incompetence:

The idea of Andrew in a court room....(in any capacity other than that of "defendant" of course.)

Who in their right mind would hire him to so much as fight a parking ticket?

Where is bigskygal now to defend me against

... attacks on my professional competence ....

Nowhere.

Surprise, surprise.

Anyway, you could have said something when Little Jimmy accused me of professional incompetence.

But that would have required ...

um ...

integrity.

I realize that it's an alien concept for you.

Look it up.

You're having a laugh aren't you?

You may recall that you, quite recently, challenged Jim's professional integrity multiple times.
I'm not about to start admonishing people in a game of tit for tat...

In fact yours was a lot worse. Jim stated his belief that you are not very good at your job. You, on the other hand, implied that he was involved in shady/illegal practices.

Can you spot the difference?

Take your time...

[Sean]

Will you ever have anything to brag about?

Alack alas!

Andrew, you have discovered the truth!
My life is naught but a barren shell. I have never achieved anything more than remembering to keep breathing in and out. I spend my every waking moment on the internet reading about your amazing abilities and every sleeping moment dreaming that I could be you for just one day!

Now you have discovered my shameful secret. I beg you not to tell the others what a pitiful wretch I am.

You have wounded me.

P.S. I got my mum to type this as even that much is beyond my 'abilities'. She's going to try to explain to me what all the words mean now...

[Andrew D]

You’d prefer to see examples of your words that are being used against you.

Yes.

If I am to be accused of dishonesty, that accusation should be based on the words which I have actually posted.

The problem is that you don’t accept the examples when they are presented.

No.

The problem is that the supposed examples have not been presented.

The problem -- someone's problem, anyway; not mine -- is that not a single one of my accusers can stand up to this:

Quote my exact words, and state exactly why you consider them dishonest.

Not one of my accusers has yet been able to do that. Not one.

[Lord Jim]

For the record, I was not challenging Andrewdriver's professional "integrity"....(I have no idea whether he has any or not, and really couldn't care less, it doesn't affect me...as for his personal integrity; his behavior here speaks to that)

I was trying to picture Andrew, in his current state of mental deterioration, functioning effectively as an attorney in a trial court....

I found the image amusing.

[Andrew D]

... you’ve written that you’ve never bragged anything you’ve accomplished.

I have?

Are those my exact words?

Or just what you wish that I had posted, rather than something which I actually did post?

I have bragged about my accomplishments. And I will continue to do so whenever the mood strikes me.

I was a chorister at Grace Cathedral. That is an accomplishment. It is also a fact.

I cannot now sing anywhere near as well as I could sing 30+ years ago. That is an unaccomplishment. It is also a fact.

I have bragged about the former, and I have acknowledged the latter.