EPT"Interview With a Lawyer" (hopefully more) - Page 5
| Blogs > GreenHorizons |
|
focusfight
4 Posts
| ||
|
Cam Connor
Canada786 Posts
you're a better man than me, daphreak | ||
|
Aerisky
United States12129 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18856 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23797 Posts
On March 13 2015 10:34 Cam Connor wrote: The reason that's not quite accurate is that daphreak is intelligently answering any and all psuedo-questions, doing a remarkable job of interpreting statements with no actual, legitimate content, and not taking the bait that is not as subtle as the baiter thinks it is you're a better man than me, daphreak I can't help but laugh at the whiners. Really nothing better to do? | ||
|
MountainDewJunkie
United States10345 Posts
On March 13 2015 10:58 farvacola wrote: dAPHREAk is one of the worst people on the Internet ever. Don't be fooled! Whatever, farva. | ||
|
MountainDewJunkie
United States10345 Posts
On March 13 2015 11:23 GreenHorizons wrote: I can't help but laugh at the whiners. Really nothing better to do? Damn, he's running out of words. It's a festivus miracle. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23797 Posts
On March 13 2015 13:39 MountainDewJunkie wrote: Damn, he's running out of words. It's a festivus miracle. Is trolling what you do for fun? | ||
|
Aerisky
United States12129 Posts
i see a lot of lawyer though daphreak you might wanna cut down on the cheesecake ;o | ||
|
Pino
1032 Posts
On March 13 2015 10:34 Cam Connor wrote: The reason that's not quite accurate is that daphreak is intelligently answering any and all psuedo-questions, doing a remarkable job of interpreting statements with no actual, legitimate content, and not taking the bait that is not as subtle as the baiter thinks it is you're a better man than me, daphreak I stopped quite early answering, since I don't have daphreak's patience and thought I was being trolled  | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32130 Posts
the most funny part is that you actually expect to do more of these after people can clearly see what a baiting asshole you are after this | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23797 Posts
On March 16 2015 01:10 QuanticHawk wrote: This whole thread is one giant piece of gotcha bullshit orchestrated by a person who clearly has no idea what he is talking about... at least it was a fun read! the most funny part is that you actually expect to do more of these after people can clearly see what a baiting asshole you are after this lol besides the clear personal attack I have no idea what you are talking about. Any "gotcha" moments were from genuine reflection and arose naturally in the line of questioning. I didn't even know it about California's distinct legal arena until Phreak linked it to me. But I'm glad you enjoyed the read nonetheless. | ||
BigFan
TLADT24920 Posts
On March 13 2015 10:58 farvacola wrote: dAPHREAk is one of the worst people on the Internet ever. Don't be fooled! I dunno, he seemed pretty understanding back when we had that large general forum thread about Zimmerman and Trayvon. Then he supposedly let loose after that  He was pretty patient in this thread too imo. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32130 Posts
On March 16 2015 06:51 GreenHorizons wrote: lol besides the clear personal attack I have no idea what you are talking about. Any "gotcha" moments were from genuine reflection and arose naturally in the line of questioning. I didn't even know it about California's distinct legal arena until Phreak linked it to me. But I'm glad you enjoyed the read nonetheless. You literally have a gotcha quote from your conversation as your signature. What is the purpose of that if not to celebrate your 'victory'. Everyone picked up on your intentions from the get go, but that just confirmed what everyone already suspected. That kind of stupid childish shit is lame no matter where you fall on the political spectrum. It's shitty political trolling. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23797 Posts
On March 16 2015 12:49 QuanticHawk wrote: You literally have a gotcha quote from your conversation as your signature. What is the purpose of that if not to celebrate your 'victory'. Everyone picked up on your intentions from the get go, but that just confirmed what everyone already suspected. That kind of stupid childish shit is lame no matter where you fall on the political spectrum. It's shitty political trolling. It's not a "gotcha". I had no idea daPhreak felt that way. I disagree with that perspective and gave the Ferguson example as to why there needs to be punishment for people who don't speak up about corruption. (should have something to protect them from reprisal too). daPhreak didn't think there needed to be a rule let alone punishment for those who break it. daPhreak also thought that Ferguson should have resolved it's issues through normal reporting mechanisms ignoring that people tried (because he didn't see it), and that those efforts were stonewalled by the very people charged with protecting the people making the complaints. He left saying that Missouri had the reporting requirement as a "see it didn't help" to which I replied that was my point. The mere rule doesn't mean much if it's not enforced. He doesn't see the lack enforcement (or even the lac of the rule) as a problem. I can't see how Ferguson isn't an example of why he's wrong. Rather than drag the whole thread through why his argument (that I had no idea he was going to make) was wrong on Ferguson I summed it up in my signature. If you think all this was a plan you guys need to lay off the tinfoil. The "gotcha" claims are from stuff he brought up unprovoked and that I never intended or planned. I honestly thought phreak would agree that it was a problem, his response (captured in my sig) was a surprise to me. Moreover, if it's a reasonable position, there is no "gotcha" anyways...? It would be like saying "hah gotcha saying you believe the earth is round". You (and others) coming into a blog (you easily could of ignored) just to deride me, is the thing that comes off as childish lame shit...But hey, different strokes for different folks. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32130 Posts
What's the purpose of the quote in your sig? lol The reason I am here is that I saw it in the blogs, thought the premise sounded interesting... and then I realized that the thread was a clusterfuck because your mission was to make someone look stupid. | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23797 Posts
On March 16 2015 14:19 QuanticHawk wrote: What's the purpose of the quote in your sig? lol Read the rest of the post? On March 16 2015 14:22 dAPhREAk wrote: the quote does not bother me in the least bit. what does bother me though is that this was supposed to be a Q&A session without turning into personal animosity and now you are attacking me personally. i took time out of my life to answer questions. i guess i was the fool by actually thinking this could be an informative Q&A session. How in the world am I attacking you personally? | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32130 Posts
On March 16 2015 14:27 GreenHorizons wrote: Read the rest of the post? How in the world am I attacking you personally? So rather than have people read his quote in context, you cherry picked something that may put him in a negative light. And rather than just leave it in the thread, you put it in your sig so that when you two bicker in the political threads, everyone can see how you owned him..?? Are you seriously trying to argue that this isn't textbook gotcha stuff hahahahha good lord Anyone giving a damn would have read the thread, and if you were actually interested in a real impartial conversation and not showing up someone as stated (lol) your sig would be a link to the thread. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23797 Posts
On March 16 2015 14:31 QuanticHawk wrote: So rather than have people read his quote in context, you cherry picked something that may put him in a negative light. And rather than just leave it in the thread, you put it in your sig so that when you two bicker in the political threads, everyone can see how you owned him..?? Are you seriously trying to argue that this isn't textbook gotcha stuff hahahahha good lord If he would of said that the reporting/punishment mechanisms are insufficient as they are, to deal with corrupt law entities, it never would of came up. It just captures in under 255 characters, the underlying assumption that undermines the credibility of the argument that current reporting/punishment mechanisms are sufficient. You can see what you want but it doesn't mean this was all some plot lol. The conspiracy theories are strong in this one^ I was totally blindsided by the idea that lawyers don't hold themselves to a standard of treating their friends/acquaintances that commit crimes like they would anyone else. I obviously don't expect it to happen 100% of the time in practice, but the idea that it wasn't even considered a formal expectation let alone was explicitly written out of the California rules was a total shock to me. The fact that daPhreak didn't view that as problematic was also a shock. Finally that he didn't see the connection between having no punishment for ignoring corruption and corruption running rampant was also a surprise. I don't know what part of the context makes the quote mean something different than it does as is? | ||
| ||
