~

Pathetic? x-rated? A 'girlies" a person who has dead emotions, and excites no passion, and has a pretty body?

No well-beings?

A sheer disgust?

no type with mittens? A mysterious "disgust" or someone makes one want to spit? A person who frolics at a wrong place or time?

A ill-beings? In contrast to Health?

a 4. "fore".... The strike out champ?

O there's a strike notion from W.S.

`Strike at the right moment: "There is a tide in the affairs of men, which taken at the floods leads to fortunes." I'm still puzzled. I agree with omooex about a yucky foul taste from all of yesterday. But many days we people (wee/me/yoo) might be foolish to 'strike-out' at the darn wrong time. What crying shame.

A Proverb say: `At a 'perfect moment'

serve a perfect ripe apple on a platter.

The fine dish is silver. Sterling. Quality.

Sometime folks ponder inner thoughts.

An 'IDEA' for half our lifetime mulls over and over, on an d on, and on, and I remember reading that poor Plato said be patient.

Patience means: You Suffer awhile longer.

It may take 30-35 years of chewing cud's.

The idea notion "rolls" in the inward guts.

Or, so-to-speak, It may take thirty five years to learn why we believe what we believe!But a person cherishes what he/she believes is reliable, a inner conscience guide, and a personnel maxim. It's a better truth notion? A given.

I love what Thomas Wilder wrote: A great idea, IMHO.

Ay. *My advice to you is not to inquire why or whither,

but to just enjoy your ice cream while it's on your plate.*

My advice to you is not to inquire why or whither, but to just enjoy your ice cream while it's on your plate.

My ice cream frequently puddles on my plate when I have an interesting table companion. IMHO, food is just fuel. People, however, are profoundly interesting, and inevitably distracting to me. How to know another soul but ask questions, and listen? And, if the ice cream melts - well, it was only ice cream.

I never mentioned trolldom. So you're right about this not being easy. I also think that posts here should not be held to the same standards as a doctoral thesis. I do this while I'm working, as a way of engaging intellectually with people whose opinion I value. It seems to me unrealistic and counterproductive to expect the kind of cohesion and organization that one would from other works. Once posts are sent into the ether, you cannot call them back to rewrite a sentence or eliminate a stray idea.

That being said. My original thesis, that it is correct and permissable to evaaluate a lawyer for the cases that they take, does not have much to do with the idea that lawyers should only take the cases of those people they (or society believes) to be good and righteous. If you tell me that you defended chiquita, a company that has historically had a toxic influence on the third world, out of some sense of duty to ideals of justice, then I'llc all that out as bullshit. If you tell me that you did it for money, prestige or career-advancement, that's something I'd believe. It has nothing to do with whether or not they should be defended. It has everything to do with the kind of candidate for a position in government that I think you are.

Unless you think that a lawyer is required to take the case of any person that walks through their door, regardless of their ability to pay (or overpay). The lawyer makes a choice about what cases to take, and it is permissable to evaluate them based on that judgement.

Glenn argued that it was illegitimate for someone to use the work for Chiqita as a factor in evaluating the candidate for AG. I argued that it was legitimate. The right to representation never came into it.

A link found via Andrew Sullivan:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/11/whats-your-type.html#more

Results for Glenn Greenwald:

http://www.typealyzer.com/

The Thinkers

The logical and analytical type. They are especialy [sic] attuned to difficult creative and intellectual challenges and always look for something more complex to dig into. They are great at finding subtle connections between things and imagine far-reaching implications.

They enjoy working with complex things using a lot of concepts and imaginative models of reality. Since they are not very good at seeing and understanding the needs of other people, they might come across as arrogant, impatient and insensitive to people that need some time to understand what they are talking about.

Half-Get it! giddy. You must have read:`Names of Horses- Donald Hall.

O Roger, Nellie, Riley, Glenn, ondelette, Ned, Cheter, Obama, Joe, or etc.

Lady Ghost, Holy Ghost, Soil Makers, Boneless Hollow, summer, winters,

bean soup, peanut butter on rye, and with a green dill pickle for supper.

The illustration reminded me of `The New Yorker.

A blind guy with a cell phone was very distracted.

He/she walked a city sidewalk, and fell into a hole.

The country groundhogs burrowed the legal holes.

The lawyers were never able to screw people again.

The question of trolldom arose indirectly because you questioned my tactics. There are legitimate and illegitimate ways of arguing, and I was arguing that mine were legitimate. Otherwise, I have no quarrel with you on that topic.

My original thesis, that it is correct and permissable to evaluate a lawyer for the cases that they take, does not have much to do with the idea that lawyers should only take the cases of those people they (or society believes) to be good and righteous.

Exactly. And I think this is obviously false (emphasis mine). These theses seem indistinguishable to me, unless you lay out some ground rules, as I did, to make sure one does not become the other.

If you tell me that you defended chiquita, a company that has historically had a toxic influence on the third world, out of some sense of duty to ideals of justice, then I'll call that out as bullshit.

But no one has quoted Holder as saying that. So, so what?

If you tell me that you did it for money, prestige or career-advancement, that's something I'd believe. It has nothing to do with whether or not they should be defended. It has everything to do with the kind of candidate for a position in government that I think you are.

Why else do we big-head monkeys do things for? The basic question is, (as before, with trolls) How do you tell the difference between a typical lawyer and Dick Cheney? Why, you look at the facts, obviously. What was done that was wrong? What might have reflected bad judgment? One data point does not do anything.

Unless you think that a lawyer is required to take the case of any person that walks through their door, regardless of their ability to pay (or overpay). The lawyer makes a choice about what cases to take, and it is permissable to evaluate them based on that judgement.

Again, that's fine if you use a rational, objective protocol to discern patterns of illegality, unethical behavior, or bad judgment. You never tried.

Glenn argued that it was illegitimate for someone to use the work for Chiqita as a factor in evaluating the candidate for AG. I argued that it was legitimate. The right to representation never came into it.

If Glenn (or I) reduced your argument down too much, it's because you let him. In fact, your comments begged him to.