Letters to the Editor
-
Funny, LeCastor
I was thinking Asperger's too, except the people I know who have it are much smarter and more principled than he is. This guy is just an amoral button-pusher.
-
@ walter_map, (I know, him, again)
walter_map , wow, you are totally right. I don't know why I haven't seen it quite so clearly before.Thank you for coming into this online area and setting me straight I couldn't have done it without your uncanny reason and insight.
-
Binx
Thank you for coming into this online area and setting me straight I couldn't have done it without your uncanny reason and insight.
Don't you wish you had some?
-
melthough
This guy is just an amoral button-pusher.
You're just annoyed that I was able to discredit your argument so easily.
You could just ignore me. That way you won't get pissed off when I plainly show how and why your fact-free posts are so unreasonable. Better for you. Better for me.
Better for everybody.
-
@ binx, walter_map
Binx, thanks for the encouragement. It's been fun, nonetheless.
Lecastor: You don't even know what "the exception that proves the rule" means.
Walter_map: Obviously untrue. I just gave you an example. Maybe you should read it again, this time for comprehension.
The exception that proves the rule is a statement such as "parking on sundays is prohibited," because it implies that parking is allowed all other days of the week. Me and my boyfriend calling each other names for fun has nothing to do with this kind of logic.
(1) "clerking it"? "practice"? you are not using these terms correctly. you're out of your league.
Not at all. "Clerking it" refers to your relegation to the tasks of a law clerk.
A law clerk at a firm? Yes, that's someone who is somewhere between a paralegal and an attorney. A law clerk for a judge? One of the most prestigious things an attorney can do. Which one do you mean?
Also, attorneys are not "law clerks" at firms, ever. Law students and patent agents sometimes are, but not people who have JDs, like I am about to.
And one refers to a law "practice", just as one refers to a medical "practice".
And therefore, I will not be kept from "practicing law" because I will be an attorney.
Since you have no way of presenting credentials on an anonymous forum you don't actually have any credentials. You may as well claim to be the Czar of All the Russias because it means just as much, which is nothing. It's utterly gratuitous, aside from being dishonest, which is why I myself don't go in for it. But which is why you do.
So you're saying you don't believe me that I'm about to graduate from law school? Come out and say it, sweetheart, don't beat around the bush.
And weren't you the legal expert a few weeks ago, saying you're going to have me prosecuted for defamation (hahaha, impossible)?!
And those fools who hired me to work for absurd sums of money at their firm.
Perhaps they really are fools if they hired you, huh?
Well, we'll all be fools all the way to the bank. :)
I'm still waiting for your apology for deliberately misrepresenting my words, btw.
-
whaaaaaaaaaaooooha....
32 pages....
holy crap that was alot of reading...but I did it...
oh, shit dammit I made it...now I have a brain fart on the point I was going to make....
um...yeah.
Black man vs. White woman.....
WHY!!!!
It could've been Condoleeza...where oh where is my Condoleeza?
dammit, If it was her, I would be proud of the first women candidate to make it this far...
But it's Hillary :(
i'm so disappointed.
-
Wow, Cataract!
i am impressed!
Did you see how our exchange about opressing the males - calvin klein boys - ice cream party, made it into the conversation? :)
-
LeCastor
Also, attorneys are not "law clerks" at firms, ever. Law students and patent agents sometimes are, but not people who have JDs, like I am about to.
Really? I can name five law firms off the top of my head that employ JDs as law clerks. Can you?
You have also falsely claimed that you are in fact a lawyer, even though in fact you are not. Please don't deny it. Perhaps we should pass on that one as a youthful indiscretion. Or, maybe not.
You make a lot of claims in pretense of your 'excellences', none of which you can substantiate. Is that honest?
You're still treating your rabid sexism towards men as a joke, rather than retracting your relevant adverse statements. Doing that, you've cemented yourself into a hypocritical double standard from which you cannot retreat without an embarrassing apology.
You could blame me for leading and trapping you into it, but I really gave you very little help, because you really are a rather hateful sexist. Even your pet boyfriend says so.
-
LeCastor
I'm still waiting for your apology for deliberately misrepresenting my words, btw.
Ah, but you yourself had admitted to it - before you denied it, having figured out the implications of your admission.
That's three, dear. You lose. Got overtime?
-
@ melthough
I put him on my ignore list awhile back for three reasons:
1. He's boring.
2. He's time consuming.
3. He uses words like feminazi.
That seemed enough or a reason for me. Le Castor likes to hone her argumentation skills. She's good. So I suppose he serves a purpose, but on the flimsiest of pretexts, he will start calling his female opponents liars.
He once posted a link to an advice column on relationships for men and the guy who offers advice there does the same. An attitude of "you can't trust women" prevades. I read one bit of advice where a guy's girlfriend was trying to tell him she had been a victim of a sex crime and he was advised not to believe her, was told she was playing him -- that sort of paranoid stuff.
-
AKA Smith
He uses words like feminazi.
I was quoting LeCastor. She was explaining herself as a rabid sexist. But you knew that.
I myself would never use the word to describe a woman, because it's hateful and sexist, but I would allow her to describe herself that way if it appears to be fully merited. Who am I to argue?
So this is another dishonesty on your part. Do you believe it meets the threshhold of an actual lie?