Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Warrantless search - Rogers County
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="tweetr" data-source="post: 3962587" data-attributes="member: 5183"><p>I love the passive voice there (and in your previous, similar post.)</p><p>"It has been explained to you."</p><p>Oh! It has been explained to me! Well that changes everything! Obviously I no longer can disagree once "it has been explained!" I even replied, "Good info?" Of course I did. I appreciate the input whether or not I agree. I am courteous, even in disagreement, unlike some people here. The inherent transferrence is entertaining too. "Butthurt" is a particularly inarticulate adjective with respect to a Fourth Amendment objection; but is reasonably apt to describe someone upset that I don't agree with a hazily supported opinion on legal estoterica. You don't know me. Why do you care, emotionally care, whether I agree?</p><p></p><p>You shouldn't argue with me, you know. I graduated first in my class at Harvard Law, though I declined the JD, so you won't find any record that I was there. After graduation I clerked for Antonin Scalia. I actually wrote most of his decisions for him; he just signed his name. (Only the decisions you find brilliant; not, obviously, the ones with which you disagree.) Because I wrote them anonymously you won't find any attribution. I taught Constitutional law for years, so obviously my opinion is more weighty than yours. Once I have explained it to you, you no longer have any grounds to disagree.</p><p></p><p>Now. Does my claiming any of that make it so? Is gratuitous assertion valid argumentation?</p><p></p><p>As you evidently do care whether I agree (and I cannot conceive why), then a word of caution: the moment you appeal rudely ad hominem I simply no longer care what you think. I operate generally on the assumption that an intelligent, or even a merely thoughtful man can construct his argument courteously. If he cannot then that impeaches the quality of his argument. Just FYI.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="tweetr, post: 3962587, member: 5183"] I love the passive voice there (and in your previous, similar post.) "It has been explained to you." Oh! It has been explained to me! Well that changes everything! Obviously I no longer can disagree once "it has been explained!" I even replied, "Good info?" Of course I did. I appreciate the input whether or not I agree. I am courteous, even in disagreement, unlike some people here. The inherent transferrence is entertaining too. "Butthurt" is a particularly inarticulate adjective with respect to a Fourth Amendment objection; but is reasonably apt to describe someone upset that I don't agree with a hazily supported opinion on legal estoterica. You don't know me. Why do you care, emotionally care, whether I agree? You shouldn't argue with me, you know. I graduated first in my class at Harvard Law, though I declined the JD, so you won't find any record that I was there. After graduation I clerked for Antonin Scalia. I actually wrote most of his decisions for him; he just signed his name. (Only the decisions you find brilliant; not, obviously, the ones with which you disagree.) Because I wrote them anonymously you won't find any attribution. I taught Constitutional law for years, so obviously my opinion is more weighty than yours. Once I have explained it to you, you no longer have any grounds to disagree. Now. Does my claiming any of that make it so? Is gratuitous assertion valid argumentation? As you evidently do care whether I agree (and I cannot conceive why), then a word of caution: the moment you appeal rudely ad hominem I simply no longer care what you think. I operate generally on the assumption that an intelligent, or even a merely thoughtful man can construct his argument courteously. If he cannot then that impeaches the quality of his argument. Just FYI. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Warrantless search - Rogers County
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom
