Cary laying down the law

I don't know about you guys, but I don't care enough about these things to create a sister RIP thread in off topic in order to make jokes.

Sad day for worms county-wide...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/25/2011 06:10PM by Gonads & Strife.

Good, I'm glad something is being done about the bozos who make sick and disgusting comments about sensitive events. A step in the right direction.

most of the horrible comments are made anonymously by alias and harry tuttle.



truth

in the know (really) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> most of the horrible comments are made anonymously
> by alias and harry tuttle.
>
>
>
> truth


Harry got spanked once already and he says it stung. I think he learned his lesson and will be an obedient in the future. Or he'll get somemore cummupence if he continues with his balderdash.

This comment takes the cake.

>"Last in Life, First in Anal"

HAHAHHAAHAHAAHHAHA!!!!!

-----------------------------------------------

"...your suffering will be legendary even in Hell!"

Raffles....

Kemper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Harry got spanked once already and he says it
> stung. I think he learned his lesson and will be
> an obedient in the future. Or he'll get somemore
> cummupence if he continues with his balderdash.

Signatures are for fags

Good.

Just remember, you cannot libel someone who is dead unless the libel would significantly alter one's estate (for example: claiming that Alexander Graham Bell knew his telephones caused deafness...and he raped little boys daily).

legal eagle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just remember, you cannot libel someone who is
> dead unless the libel would significantly alter
> one's estate (for example: claiming that Alexander
> Graham Bell knew his telephones caused
> deafness...and he raped little boys daily).


The biggest, most dastardly coward is one that maliciously and deliberatly rips a dead stiff who can't obviously defend himself giving the ripper an added sense of security like G & S.

Well I don't know about you guys but this is total crap. Whatever happened to Freedom of Speech? RIP threads will turn into ghastly mundane things that no one will read. At least when the RIP threads get troll attention, those people at least get some kind of attention. And might I add, that it often brings issues like suicide, drug use, bad parenting, and bad schooling to the attention of the forum, county, and anyone else reading it.

No offense to you Cary.

The biggest Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The biggest, most dastardly coward is one that
> maliciously and deliberatly rips a dead stiff who
> can't obviously defend himself giving the ripper
> an added sense of security like G & S.


Says the anon poster. Sure, I've made noise in most of the death threads, but I am by no means the loudest or most offensive voice. Still, I receive the most feedback from family and friends of the poor dead bastards (hence my signature line link).

Censorship Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well I don't know about you guys but this is total
> crap. Whatever happened to Freedom of Speech? RIP
> threads will turn into ghastly mundane things that
> no one will read. At least when the RIP threads
> get troll attention, those people at least get
> some kind of attention. And might I add, that it
> often brings issues like suicide, drug use, bad
> parenting, and bad schooling to the attention of
> the forum, county, and anyone else reading it.
>
> No offense to you Cary.


Good point, Censorship. I see it all the time in these RIP threads "This is the most offensive thing I've ever read." Know what that tells me? They read it! If it is boring and desolate in those threads, nobody will read them...they'll...die.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/25/2011 09:10PM by Gonads & Strife.

I'm confused. Are RIP threads being banned or comments made within them.

I'm all for banning the RIP threads altogether, but if they're going to be allowed, others should be allowed to comment regardless of the distasteful nature.

Anyone careless enough to post RIP threads in an open forum, deserves to have the dear departed verbally abused. Posting a thread on a public forum about a loved ones death is meaningless and has no useful benefit to anyone. Is it just so people can praise the life of the dead person? What if they really were assholes while they were alive? The living take abuse here everyday. Why subject anyone to it when they're dead?

The obituaries in newspapers are made especially for this and that's where they belong.

The comments within the RIP threads are being removed with extreme prejudice. The threads remain.

Generally, I stay away from RIP threads if it's truly a tragedy or accident. If it's a Darwin Award type of thread (Bo Rupp comes to mind or the Boo thread), then I think all bets should be off.

If I died or someone I know died and there was a RIP thread about it, it would be hypocritical of me to say "please don't be cruel", so I would never ask it. Nor would I expect it. I think I would welcome it, because some of the stuff is really funny.

__________________________________
That's not a ladybug, that's a cannapiller.

The 1st in anal line is a true classic. Bravo. Bravissimo.

This thread is worm food

---------------------------------------------------
W.W.S.D. what would Scooby Doo

496 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The 1st in anal line is a true classic. Bravo.
> Bravissimo.


Will the author of that quote please stand and be recognized?



-----------------------------------------------

"...your suffering will be legendary even in Hell!"

"Censorship is the tool of tyranny."
~Roc

Owen Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Good, I'm glad something is being done about the
> bozos who make sick and disgusting comments about
> sensitive events. A step in the right direction.


And I am sick and tired of the holier than though anonymous posters

Fairfaxunderground rules: Lilliputions, not ok. Midgettville ok. I got it now.

Radiophile Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Owen Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Good, I'm glad something is being done about
> the
> > bozos who make sick and disgusting comments
> about
> > sensitive events. A step in the right
> direction.
>
>
> And I am sick and tired of the holier than though
> anonymous posters

So?

Oh, you are under the delusion that someone cares about what you think.

First of all, the "WHAT ABOUT FREEDOM OF SPEECH" argument carries no weight because this is Cary's website to run however he chooses. He could shut it down tomorrow and there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it. Nobody's First Amendment rights are being violated. If someone really wants to say a dead person is "wormfood" and talk about fucking the corpse, they still have the right to get some friends together, make soome picket signs, and attend the funeral. See also: Westboro Baptist Church.

To reiterate, this is a privately-owned forum made available to the public, not a public forum. There is a difference.

Second, I don't disagree with Cary deleting the posts that contribute absolutely nothing to the conversation. If some kid kills himself and all you have to say is "he sucked dick" or "I would enjoy sodomizing his corpse with a pool cue," then you don't really have anything to contribute to the conversation at all. However, I would raise an eyebrow if he started deleting posts that, although they represent an unpopular view or opinion, still represent someone's opinion in the context of the topic. For example:

OP: "Little Joey killed himself today. Everyone's really sad. We'll miss you, little Joey."

Goofus: "I am glad he's dead. I would enjoy having sexual relations with his rotting corpse."

Gallant: "It makes me sad when someone kills themselves because people who commit suicide go to hell and suffer for eternity. I blame the recent rash of suicides on families moving away from Christ's love and living in sin. I will pray that other families accept Jesus Christ into their life so no more kids face eternal damnation."

See the difference?

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

So what about a car driver who is 0.15 BAC and kills himself and the passenger in his car.

Are references to the driver and sodomy utilizing pool cues appropriate here?

I have noticed that much of the chiding and ranting takes place with respect to people who have brought misfortune onto themselves - speeding excessively, DUI, electrocuted while stealing wire, killed in a gang fight, etc.

-----------------------------------------------

"...your suffering will be legendary even in Hell!"

If I die suddenly, become a ghost and I find out someone posted an RIP thread here or any other public forum, I will haunt and torment the person who posted it mercilessly until they join me in the netherworld.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> First of all, the "WHAT ABOUT FREEDOM OF SPEECH"
> argument carries no weight because this is Cary's
> website to run however he chooses. He could shut
> it down tomorrow and there's not a damn thing
> anyone can do about it. Nobody's First Amendment
> rights are being violated. If someone really wants
> to say a dead person is "wormfood" and talk about
> fucking the corpse, they still have the right to
> get some friends together, make soome picket
> signs, and attend the funeral. See also: Westboro
> Baptist Church.
>
> To reiterate, this is a privately-owned forum made
> available to the public, not a public forum. There
> is a difference.
>
> Second, I don't disagree with Cary deleting the
> posts that contribute absolutely nothing to the
> conversation. If some kid kills himself and all
> you have to say is "he sucked dick" or "I would
> enjoy sodomizing his corpse with a pool cue," then
> you don't really have anything to contribute to
> the conversation at all. However, I would raise an
> eyebrow if he started deleting posts that,
> although they represent an unpopular view or
> opinion, still represent someone's opinion in the
> context of the topic. For example:
>
> OP: "Little Joey killed himself today. Everyone's
> really sad. We'll miss you, little Joey."
>
> Goofus: "I am glad he's dead. I would enjoy having
> sexual relations with his rotting corpse."
>
> Gallant: "It makes me sad when someone kills
> themselves because people who commit suicide go to
> hell and suffer for eternity. I blame the recent
> rash of suicides on families moving away from
> Christ's love and living in sin. I will pray that
> other families accept Jesus Christ into their life
> so no more kids face eternal damnation."
>
> See the difference?

Your argument has merit, however, Freedom of Speech covers all forms of media, both written, spoken, digital, etc. It also includes open discussion (in an open area such as a park or some public area). So its true you have the right to express yourself here, however, since the website is privately owned, the owner has the right to delete the content with only a few restrictions.

Pinhead the Cenobite Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So what about a car driver who is 0.15 BAC and
> kills himself and the passenger in his car.

Pointing out the guy was a retard for driving drunk, his passenger should have known better, and they got what's coming to them is pretty relevant to the topic. For the people who do blatantly stupid things to get themselves killed, I think a certain amount of derision is needed so others reconsider if they find themselves in a similar situation.

> Are references to the driver and sodomy utilizing
> pool cues appropriate here?

If the driver lived and the passenger died (and we already had this scenario in another thread), then I'd say it's on-topic to express your opinion that the driver should be sent to jail where he gets punked up the ass. Wanting to fuck a corpse with a pool cue doesn't really say anything substantial.

I think it really comes down to this: Are you saying something shitty about the dead person for the sake of saying something shitty about a dead person, or are you condeming the stupid choices some idiot made that contributed to their death?

> I have noticed that much of the chiding and
> ranting takes place with respect to people who
> have brought misfortune onto themselves - speeding
> excessively, DUI, electrocuted while stealing
> wire, killed in a gang fight, etc.

I don't think that's what's being called into question. In the General Forum thread that prompted this one, the "first in anal, last in life" comment is funny, but has nothing to do with anything. I don't disagree with Cary for removing it. RIP threads used to provide social commentary AND humor, but at some point people just started trying to outdo each other over who could say the most hateful thing about a dead person.

There was a thread a while back about some Asian girl that got abducted and stabbed by some guy hiding in her car. There's nothing funny about that because she didn't do anything except be in the wrong place at the wrong time. That was a senseless, pointless death. Compare that to the hilarity of the Boo thread, where people are canonizing some guy that plowed through a fence drunk at 90mph in a borrowed car on NYE after being arrested earlier in the day.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Got it.

Verbally sodomizing somebody who really did not deserve to be in the position that they were in....frowned upon.

Verbally sodomizing somebody who through their own acts of stupidity or prior checkered history managed to Darwin himself of kill someone else....greenlighted.

I can live with that.

-----------------------------------------------

"...your suffering will be legendary even in Hell!"

Legal Eagle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your argument has merit, however, Freedom of
> Speech covers all forms of media, both written,
> spoken, digital, etc. It also includes open
> discussion (in an open area such as a park or some
> public area). So its true you have the right to
> express yourself here, however, since the website
> is privately owned, the owner has the right to
> delete the content with only a few restrictions.

Cary, as the owner, has the right to say anything he wants that's protected by the First Amendment. He can restrict what others write as much as he wants. If someone feels they're being unfairly censored, they are more than welcome and able to go start their own website, theotherfairfaxunderground.com.

Compare it to a newspaper. The Washington Post can publish any First Amendment-protected article they want, but just because I send them press releases or letters to the editor doesn't mean they have to publish them. They're not restricting my freedom of speech because I can always go start my own newspaper.

If this was a government-run website, then yes, people would probably have some ability to complain about censorship and First Amendment violations. However, if this was a government-run website, you can bet your sweet bippy there would be terms of service that would preclude 9/10 posts from appearing on here at all.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Mephisto is right... We all just have to improve our running game, now....

Signatures are for fags

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> There was a thread a while back about some Asian
> girl that got abducted and stabbed by some guy
> hiding in her car. There's nothing funny about
> that because she didn't do anything except be in
> the wrong place at the wrong time. That was a
> senseless, pointless death. Compare that to the
> hilarity of the Boo thread, where people are
> canonizing some guy that plowed through a fence
> drunk at 90mph in a borrowed car on NYE after
> being arrested earlier in the day.


About that thread - The vast majority of my posts were making fun of the other posters, not the dead girl. Or they were making fun of asian drivers.. I think only one post of mine in that thread was directly related to the death and that was the crappy paint photochop of the asian face on the head of someone driving a car with an axe murderer in the back. In poor taste? Absolutely, but nowhere near as bad as, say, fisty's posts. And yet still I had a thread created with the goal of discovering my identity for what I can only assume to be nefarious purposes. I get that Cary wants information to be put out there on the general forum for all to see without there being anal raping the corpse comments mucking things up, but not ALL junk posts in a thread are garbage.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Legal Eagle Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Your argument has merit, however, Freedom of
> > Speech covers all forms of media, both written,
> > spoken, digital, etc. It also includes open
> > discussion (in an open area such as a park or
> some
> > public area). So its true you have the right to
> > express yourself here, however, since the
> website
> > is privately owned, the owner has the right to
> > delete the content with only a few
> restrictions.
>
> Cary, as the owner, has the right to say anything
> he wants that's protected by the First Amendment.
> He can restrict what others write as much as he
> wants. If someone feels they're being unfairly
> censored, they are more than welcome and able to
> go start their own website,
> theotherfairfaxunderground.com.
>
> Compare it to a newspaper. The Washington Post can
> publish any First Amendment-protected article they
> want, but just because I send them press releases
> or letters to the editor doesn't mean they have to
> publish them. They're not restricting my freedom
> of speech because I can always go start my own
> newspaper.
>
> If this was a government-run website, then yes,
> people would probably have some ability to
> complain about censorship and First Amendment
> violations. However, if this was a government-run
> website, you can bet your sweet bippy there would
> be terms of service that would preclude 9/10 posts
> from appearing on here at all.

You're mostly right, however Freedom of Speech is not limited to "Government owned websites" or anything else government owned. However, you're right the owner still has certain rights to remove or restrict inappropriate material, etc. In the case of the RIP threads where certain items are being posted (foul language, etc) would fall into that category. However, the law is based on intent. Crimes and punishments are based on the proof of intent.

While everyone has the right to comment and say whatever they want, some of it crosses even my threshold of decency. That being said, I try to stay away from the RIP threads for that reason - don't even like reading them.

Brown Eye Blind Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> While everyone has the right to comment and say
> whatever they want, some of it crosses even my
> threshold of decency. That being said, I try to
> stay away from the RIP threads for that reason -
> don't even like reading them.

Maybe all the RIP threads should be banned? What decent person posts a RIP thread on a forum like this?

Gonads & Strife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> About that thread - The vast majority of my posts
> were making fun of the other posters, not the dead
> girl. Or they were making fun of asian drivers.. I
> think only one post of mine in that thread was
> directly related to the death and that was the
> crappy paint photochop of the asian face on the
> head of someone driving a car with an axe murderer
> in the back. In poor taste? Absolutely, but
> nowhere near as bad as, say, fisty's posts. And
> yet still I had a thread created with the goal of
> discovering my identity for what I can only assume
> to be nefarious purposes. I get that Cary wants
> information to be put out there on the general
> forum for all to see without there being anal
> raping the corpse comments mucking things up, but
> not ALL junk posts in a thread are garbage.

*Shrug*

I have my own standards and others have theirs. I wasn't trying to call you out or anything, that was just the best example I could think of.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

Legal Eagle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're mostly right, however Freedom of Speech is
> not limited to "Government owned websites" or
> anything else government owned. However, you're
> right the owner still has certain rights to remove
> or restrict inappropriate material, etc. In the
> case of the RIP threads where certain items are
> being posted (foul language, etc) would fall into
> that category. However, the law is based on
> intent. Crimes and punishments are based on the
> proof of intent.

How does Cary not have the right to remove anything he wants for any reason? Again, he's not obligated to keep this site running, there's no subscription fees or legally binding contracts involved, and it's not a public or taxpayer-funded website.

What legal precedent would stop him from setting up a macro that would automatically delete/hide any post that contained the words "Palin," "Republican," or "Conservative?"

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gonads & Strife Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > About that thread - The vast majority of my
> posts
> > were making fun of the other posters, not the
> dead
> > girl. Or they were making fun of asian drivers..
> I
> > think only one post of mine in that thread was
> > directly related to the death and that was the
> > crappy paint photochop of the asian face on the
> > head of someone driving a car with an axe
> murderer
> > in the back. In poor taste? Absolutely, but
> > nowhere near as bad as, say, fisty's posts. And
> > yet still I had a thread created with the goal
> of
> > discovering my identity for what I can only
> assume
> > to be nefarious purposes. I get that Cary wants
> > information to be put out there on the general
> > forum for all to see without there being anal
> > raping the corpse comments mucking things up,
> but
> > not ALL junk posts in a thread are garbage.
>
> *Shrug*
>
> I have my own standards and others have theirs. I
> wasn't trying to call you out or anything, that
> was just the best example I could think of.


I'm not suggesting you were and I see your point. I own the junk and garbage I've posted in RIP threads. I doubt it'll bring my detractors any ounce of satisfaction, but I have had friends killed, friends who have killed themselves, and family that has died. All the things they wish on me have just about all already happened to me. I'm not trying to spread the misery, I'm just dealing with personal things with humor like I always have. Granted, the humor may not be suitable for all audiences.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Legal Eagle Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > You're mostly right, however Freedom of Speech
> is
> > not limited to "Government owned websites" or
> > anything else government owned. However, you're
> > right the owner still has certain rights to
> remove
> > or restrict inappropriate material, etc. In the
> > case of the RIP threads where certain items are
> > being posted (foul language, etc) would fall
> into
> > that category. However, the law is based on
> > intent. Crimes and punishments are based on the
> > proof of intent.
>
> How does Cary not have the right to remove
> anything he wants for any reason? Again, he's not
> obligated to keep this site running, there's no
> subscription fees or legally binding contracts
> involved, and it's not a public or taxpayer-funded
> website.
>
> What legal precedent would stop him from setting
> up a macro that would automatically delete/hide
> any post that contained the words "Palin,"
> "Republican," or "Conservative?"


I say we all lay off Cary. This isn't his fault. And in that spirit I will gladly adhere to his zero tolerance for disrespecting the dead in FFX General RIP threads. I will, however, take him up on his offer to re-post every RIP thread into Off-Topic just for the hell of it.

Legal Eagle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MrMephisto Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Legal Eagle Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Your argument has merit, however, Freedom of
> > > Speech covers all forms of media, both
> written,
> > > spoken, digital, etc. It also includes open
> > > discussion (in an open area such as a park or
> > some
> > > public area). So its true you have the right
> to
> > > express yourself here, however, since the
> > website
> > > is privately owned, the owner has the right
> to
> > > delete the content with only a few
> > restrictions.
> >
> > Cary, as the owner, has the right to say
> anything
> > he wants that's protected by the First
> Amendment.
> > He can restrict what others write as much as he
> > wants. If someone feels they're being unfairly
> > censored, they are more than welcome and able
> to
> > go start their own website,
> > theotherfairfaxunderground.com.
> >
> > Compare it to a newspaper. The Washington Post
> can
> > publish any First Amendment-protected article
> they
> > want, but just because I send them press
> releases
> > or letters to the editor doesn't mean they have
> to
> > publish them. They're not restricting my
> freedom
> > of speech because I can always go start my own
> > newspaper.
> >
> > If this was a government-run website, then yes,
> > people would probably have some ability to
> > complain about censorship and First Amendment
> > violations. However, if this was a
> government-run
> > website, you can bet your sweet bippy there
> would
> > be terms of service that would preclude 9/10
> posts
> > from appearing on here at all.
>
> You're mostly right, however Freedom of Speech is
> not limited to "Government owned websites" or
> anything else government owned. However, you're
> right the owner still has certain rights to remove
> or restrict inappropriate material, etc. In the
> case of the RIP threads where certain items are
> being posted (foul language, etc) would fall into
> that category. However, the law is based on
> intent. Crimes and punishments are based on the
> proof of intent.


There is NO WAY in hell you went to law school.

Gonads & Strife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I say we all lay off Cary. This isn't his fault.

Absolutely. I'm actually surprised he let it go this long. It's got to be annoying to get bombarded with a bunch of poorly-worded and misspelled emails demanding he remove a post where someone talked about fisting their dead friend.

I like posting here and I like most of the conversations, but I don't like making more work for the person who makes that possible (even though I've been guilty of it on more than one occasion).

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

BS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Legal Eagle Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > MrMephisto Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Legal Eagle Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Your argument has merit, however, Freedom
> of
> > > > Speech covers all forms of media, both
> > written,
> > > > spoken, digital, etc. It also includes open
> > > > discussion (in an open area such as a park
> or
> > > some
> > > > public area). So its true you have the
> right
> > to
> > > > express yourself here, however, since the
> > > website
> > > > is privately owned, the owner has the right
> > to
> > > > delete the content with only a few
> > > restrictions.
> > >
> > > Cary, as the owner, has the right to say
> > anything
> > > he wants that's protected by the First
> > Amendment.
> > > He can restrict what others write as much as
> he
> > > wants. If someone feels they're being
> unfairly
> > > censored, they are more than welcome and able
> > to
> > > go start their own website,
> > > theotherfairfaxunderground.com.
> > >
> > > Compare it to a newspaper. The Washington
> Post
> > can
> > > publish any First Amendment-protected article
> > they
> > > want, but just because I send them press
> > releases
> > > or letters to the editor doesn't mean they
> have
> > to
> > > publish them. They're not restricting my
> > freedom
> > > of speech because I can always go start my
> own
> > > newspaper.
> > >
> > > If this was a government-run website, then
> yes,
> > > people would probably have some ability to
> > > complain about censorship and First Amendment
> > > violations. However, if this was a
> > government-run
> > > website, you can bet your sweet bippy there
> > would
> > > be terms of service that would preclude 9/10
> > posts
> > > from appearing on here at all.
> >
> > You're mostly right, however Freedom of Speech
> is
> > not limited to "Government owned websites" or
> > anything else government owned. However, you're
> > right the owner still has certain rights to
> remove
> > or restrict inappropriate material, etc. In the
> > case of the RIP threads where certain items are
> > being posted (foul language, etc) would fall
> into
> > that category. However, the law is based on
> > intent. Crimes and punishments are based on the
> > proof of intent.
>
>
> There is NO WAY in hell you went to law school.

Not only did I go to law school, I went to Yale University and was in the top of my class. In addition, I became a partner at a major law firm here in the DC area in my late 20's.

Legal Eagle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BS Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Legal Eagle Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > MrMephisto Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Legal Eagle Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > Your argument has merit, however, Freedom
> > of
> > > > > Speech covers all forms of media, both
> > > written,
> > > > > spoken, digital, etc. It also includes
> open
> > > > > discussion (in an open area such as a
> park
> > or
> > > > some
> > > > > public area). So its true you have the
> > right
> > > to
> > > > > express yourself here, however, since the
> > > > website
> > > > > is privately owned, the owner has the
> right
> > > to
> > > > > delete the content with only a few
> > > > restrictions.
> > > >
> > > > Cary, as the owner, has the right to say
> > > anything
> > > > he wants that's protected by the First
> > > Amendment.
> > > > He can restrict what others write as much
> as
> > he
> > > > wants. If someone feels they're being
> > unfairly
> > > > censored, they are more than welcome and
> able
> > > to
> > > > go start their own website,
> > > > theotherfairfaxunderground.com.
> > > >
> > > > Compare it to a newspaper. The Washington
> > Post
> > > can
> > > > publish any First Amendment-protected
> article
> > > they
> > > > want, but just because I send them press
> > > releases
> > > > or letters to the editor doesn't mean they
> > have
> > > to
> > > > publish them. They're not restricting my
> > > freedom
> > > > of speech because I can always go start my
> > own
> > > > newspaper.
> > > >
> > > > If this was a government-run website, then
> > yes,
> > > > people would probably have some ability to
> > > > complain about censorship and First
> Amendment
> > > > violations. However, if this was a
> > > government-run
> > > > website, you can bet your sweet bippy there
> > > would
> > > > be terms of service that would preclude
> 9/10
> > > posts
> > > > from appearing on here at all.
> > >
> > > You're mostly right, however Freedom of
> Speech
> > is
> > > not limited to "Government owned websites" or
> > > anything else government owned. However,
> you're
> > > right the owner still has certain rights to
> > remove
> > > or restrict inappropriate material, etc. In
> the
> > > case of the RIP threads where certain items
> are
> > > being posted (foul language, etc) would fall
> > into
> > > that category. However, the law is based on
> > > intent. Crimes and punishments are based on
> the
> > > proof of intent.
> >
> >
> > There is NO WAY in hell you went to law school.
>
> Not only did I go to law school, I went to Yale
> University and was in the top of my class. In
> addition, I became a partner at a major law firm
> here in the DC area in my late 20's.

You didn't go to law school. There is no way anyone who went to even a third tier school would have such a poor understanding of the law.

BS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Legal Eagle Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > BS Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Legal Eagle Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > MrMephisto Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > Legal Eagle Wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----
> > > > > > Your argument has merit, however,
> Freedom
> > > of
> > > > > > Speech covers all forms of media, both
> > > > written,
> > > > > > spoken, digital, etc. It also includes
> > open
> > > > > > discussion (in an open area such as a
> > park
> > > or
> > > > > some
> > > > > > public area). So its true you have the
> > > right
> > > > to
> > > > > > express yourself here, however, since
> the
> > > > > website
> > > > > > is privately owned, the owner has the
> > right
> > > > to
> > > > > > delete the content with only a few
> > > > > restrictions.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cary, as the owner, has the right to say
> > > > anything
> > > > > he wants that's protected by the First
> > > > Amendment.
> > > > > He can restrict what others write as much
> > as
> > > he
> > > > > wants. If someone feels they're being
> > > unfairly
> > > > > censored, they are more than welcome and
> > able
> > > > to
> > > > > go start their own website,
> > > > > theotherfairfaxunderground.com.
> > > > >
> > > > > Compare it to a newspaper. The Washington
> > > Post
> > > > can
> > > > > publish any First Amendment-protected
> > article
> > > > they
> > > > > want, but just because I send them press
> > > > releases
> > > > > or letters to the editor doesn't mean
> they
> > > have
> > > > to
> > > > > publish them. They're not restricting my
> > > > freedom
> > > > > of speech because I can always go start
> my
> > > own
> > > > > newspaper.
> > > > >
> > > > > If this was a government-run website,
> then
> > > yes,
> > > > > people would probably have some ability
> to
> > > > > complain about censorship and First
> > Amendment
> > > > > violations. However, if this was a
> > > > government-run
> > > > > website, you can bet your sweet bippy
> there
> > > > would
> > > > > be terms of service that would preclude
> > 9/10
> > > > posts
> > > > > from appearing on here at all.
> > > >
> > > > You're mostly right, however Freedom of
> > Speech
> > > is
> > > > not limited to "Government owned websites"
> or
> > > > anything else government owned. However,
> > you're
> > > > right the owner still has certain rights to
> > > remove
> > > > or restrict inappropriate material, etc. In
> > the
> > > > case of the RIP threads where certain items
> > are
> > > > being posted (foul language, etc) would
> fall
> > > into
> > > > that category. However, the law is based on
> > > > intent. Crimes and punishments are based on
> > the
> > > > proof of intent.
> > >
> > >
> > > There is NO WAY in hell you went to law
> school.
> >
> > Not only did I go to law school, I went to Yale
> > University and was in the top of my class. In
> > addition, I became a partner at a major law
> firm
> > here in the DC area in my late 20's.
>
> You didn't go to law school. There is no way
> anyone who went to even a third tier school would
> have such a poor understanding of the law.


There is NO way someone who graduated law school at 22 or 23 made partner at a "Major DC Law firm" before 30. And even if this was plausible or possible you sure as hell would not have the free time to peruse message boards. 100% Bullshit.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2011 03:13PM by JBass.

JBass Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BS Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Legal Eagle Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > BS Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Legal Eagle Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > MrMephisto Wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----
> > > > > > Legal Eagle Wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----
> > > > > > > Your argument has merit, however,
> > Freedom
> > > > of
> > > > > > > Speech covers all forms of media,
> both
> > > > > written,
> > > > > > > spoken, digital, etc. It also
> includes
> > > open
> > > > > > > discussion (in an open area such as a
> > > park
> > > > or
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > public area). So its true you have
> the
> > > > right
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > express yourself here, however, since
> > the
> > > > > > website
> > > > > > > is privately owned, the owner has the
> > > right
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > delete the content with only a few
> > > > > > restrictions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cary, as the owner, has the right to
> say
> > > > > anything
> > > > > > he wants that's protected by the First
> > > > > Amendment.
> > > > > > He can restrict what others write as
> much
> > > as
> > > > he
> > > > > > wants. If someone feels they're being
> > > > unfairly
> > > > > > censored, they are more than welcome
> and
> > > able
> > > > > to
> > > > > > go start their own website,
> > > > > > theotherfairfaxunderground.com.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Compare it to a newspaper. The
> Washington
> > > > Post
> > > > > can
> > > > > > publish any First Amendment-protected
> > > article
> > > > > they
> > > > > > want, but just because I send them
> press
> > > > > releases
> > > > > > or letters to the editor doesn't mean
> > they
> > > > have
> > > > > to
> > > > > > publish them. They're not restricting
> my
> > > > > freedom
> > > > > > of speech because I can always go start
> > my
> > > > own
> > > > > > newspaper.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If this was a government-run website,
> > then
> > > > yes,
> > > > > > people would probably have some ability
> > to
> > > > > > complain about censorship and First
> > > Amendment
> > > > > > violations. However, if this was a
> > > > > government-run
> > > > > > website, you can bet your sweet bippy
> > there
> > > > > would
> > > > > > be terms of service that would preclude
> > > 9/10
> > > > > posts
> > > > > > from appearing on here at all.
> > > > >
> > > > > You're mostly right, however Freedom of
> > > Speech
> > > > is
> > > > > not limited to "Government owned
> websites"
> > or
> > > > > anything else government owned. However,
> > > you're
> > > > > right the owner still has certain rights
> to
> > > > remove
> > > > > or restrict inappropriate material, etc.
> In
> > > the
> > > > > case of the RIP threads where certain
> items
> > > are
> > > > > being posted (foul language, etc) would
> > fall
> > > > into
> > > > > that category. However, the law is based
> on
> > > > > intent. Crimes and punishments are based
> on
> > > the
> > > > > proof of intent.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > There is NO WAY in hell you went to law
> > school.
> > >
> > > Not only did I go to law school, I went to
> Yale
> > > University and was in the top of my class. In
> > > addition, I became a partner at a major law
> > firm
> > > here in the DC area in my late 20's.
> >
> > You didn't go to law school. There is no way
> > anyone who went to even a third tier school
> would
> > have such a poor understanding of the law.
>
>
> There is NO way someone who graduated law school
> at 22 or 23 made partner at a "Major DC Law firm"
> before 30. And even if this was plausible or
> possible you sure as hell would not have the free
> time to peruse message boards. 100% Bullshit.


He'd have to be a "Doggie Howser", maybe it was possible in 1923, but I serious doubt if that is true.

I cant find US data but in the UK, average age to make parther is 39 and change

"On average, women make partner one year earlier than men at 38.9 years old"

http://www.thelawyer.com/revealed-top-uk-firms-make-poor-showing-in-female-partner-stakes/1005590.article

So this guy expects us to believe that he made partner over a decade earlier than the average, or in terms of the career span (22-39 = 17 years to make partner, on average, then 22- 29 = 7 years that our "lawyer did it)

SO 7 years versus 17 means that out lil prodigy made partner in 41.2% of the time, or he made partner 58.8% earlier than average... Most partnerships are based on hours billed throughout the career with an average of 1700 billed hours yearly, SO, unless you were billing out (roughly) 3400 hours a year or 65 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, not including all of your non billable hours (Roughly 30%)... I call bullshit.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2011 03:59PM by JBass.

(Bored today, sorry)

http://www.superlawyers.com/california-northern/article/The-Youngest-Partner/6f6070b9-15b5-4e43-9180-525d14f57d52.html

For Clifford Yin, success came early:
Yin was the one sparkling when he made partner at Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass in 2003. At 33, he was the youngest male lawyer to make partner in the firm's 100-year history.

JBass Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BS Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Legal Eagle Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > BS Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Legal Eagle Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > MrMephisto Wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----
> > > > > > Legal Eagle Wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----
> > > > > > > Your argument has merit, however,
> > Freedom
> > > > of
> > > > > > > Speech covers all forms of media,
> both
> > > > > written,
> > > > > > > spoken, digital, etc. It also
> includes
> > > open
> > > > > > > discussion (in an open area such as a
> > > park
> > > > or
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > public area). So its true you have
> the
> > > > right
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > express yourself here, however, since
> > the
> > > > > > website
> > > > > > > is privately owned, the owner has the
> > > right
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > delete the content with only a few
> > > > > > restrictions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cary, as the owner, has the right to
> say
> > > > > anything
> > > > > > he wants that's protected by the First
> > > > > Amendment.
> > > > > > He can restrict what others write as
> much
> > > as
> > > > he
> > > > > > wants. If someone feels they're being
> > > > unfairly
> > > > > > censored, they are more than welcome
> and
> > > able
> > > > > to
> > > > > > go start their own website,
> > > > > > theotherfairfaxunderground.com.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Compare it to a newspaper. The
> Washington
> > > > Post
> > > > > can
> > > > > > publish any First Amendment-protected
> > > article
> > > > > they
> > > > > > want, but just because I send them
> press
> > > > > releases
> > > > > > or letters to the editor doesn't mean
> > they
> > > > have
> > > > > to
> > > > > > publish them. They're not restricting
> my
> > > > > freedom
> > > > > > of speech because I can always go start
> > my
> > > > own
> > > > > > newspaper.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If this was a government-run website,
> > then
> > > > yes,
> > > > > > people would probably have some ability
> > to
> > > > > > complain about censorship and First
> > > Amendment
> > > > > > violations. However, if this was a
> > > > > government-run
> > > > > > website, you can bet your sweet bippy
> > there
> > > > > would
> > > > > > be terms of service that would preclude
> > > 9/10
> > > > > posts
> > > > > > from appearing on here at all.
> > > > >
> > > > > You're mostly right, however Freedom of
> > > Speech
> > > > is
> > > > > not limited to "Government owned
> websites"
> > or
> > > > > anything else government owned. However,
> > > you're
> > > > > right the owner still has certain rights
> to
> > > > remove
> > > > > or restrict inappropriate material, etc.
> In
> > > the
> > > > > case of the RIP threads where certain
> items
> > > are
> > > > > being posted (foul language, etc) would
> > fall
> > > > into
> > > > > that category. However, the law is based
> on
> > > > > intent. Crimes and punishments are based
> on
> > > the
> > > > > proof of intent.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > There is NO WAY in hell you went to law
> > school.
> > >
> > > Not only did I go to law school, I went to
> Yale
> > > University and was in the top of my class. In
> > > addition, I became a partner at a major law
> > firm
> > > here in the DC area in my late 20's.
> >
> > You didn't go to law school. There is no way
> > anyone who went to even a third tier school
> would
> > have such a poor understanding of the law.
>
>
> There is NO way someone who graduated law school
> at 22 or 23 made partner at a "Major DC Law firm"
> before 30. And even if this was plausible or
> possible you sure as hell would not have the free
> time to peruse message boards. 100% Bullshit.

You're information is a little outdated. These days if you do well in law school and pass the bar relatively early, and have political science as a minor you can practically write your own ticket. Besides I'm not even the first or the youngest. Time to get out of your parent's basement and learn how the world really works.

Oh, it should be noted that I didn't cash in any favors nor did either myself or anyone in my family know anyone in the firm. Another key ticket if you're looking into corporate or political law is to establish a good strong base with your clients. Personal and professional relationships ARE essential.

Legal Eagle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JBass Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > BS Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Legal Eagle Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > BS Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > Legal Eagle Wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----
> > > > > > MrMephisto Wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----
> > > > > > > Legal Eagle Wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----
> > > > > > > > Your argument has merit, however,
> > > Freedom
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > Speech covers all forms of media,
> > both
> > > > > > written,
> > > > > > > > spoken, digital, etc. It also
> > includes
> > > > open
> > > > > > > > discussion (in an open area such as
> a
> > > > park
> > > > > or
> > > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > public area). So its true you have
> > the
> > > > > right
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > express yourself here, however,
> since
> > > the
> > > > > > > website
> > > > > > > > is privately owned, the owner has
> the
> > > > right
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > delete the content with only a few
> > > > > > > restrictions.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cary, as the owner, has the right to
> > say
> > > > > > anything
> > > > > > > he wants that's protected by the
> First
> > > > > > Amendment.
> > > > > > > He can restrict what others write as
> > much
> > > > as
> > > > > he
> > > > > > > wants. If someone feels they're being
> > > > > unfairly
> > > > > > > censored, they are more than welcome
> > and
> > > > able
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > go start their own website,
> > > > > > > theotherfairfaxunderground.com.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Compare it to a newspaper. The
> > Washington
> > > > > Post
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > publish any First Amendment-protected
> > > > article
> > > > > > they
> > > > > > > want, but just because I send them
> > press
> > > > > > releases
> > > > > > > or letters to the editor doesn't mean
> > > they
> > > > > have
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > publish them. They're not restricting
> > my
> > > > > > freedom
> > > > > > > of speech because I can always go
> start
> > > my
> > > > > own
> > > > > > > newspaper.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If this was a government-run website,
> > > then
> > > > > yes,
> > > > > > > people would probably have some
> ability
> > > to
> > > > > > > complain about censorship and First
> > > > Amendment
> > > > > > > violations. However, if this was a
> > > > > > government-run
> > > > > > > website, you can bet your sweet bippy
> > > there
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > be terms of service that would
> preclude
> > > > 9/10
> > > > > > posts
> > > > > > > from appearing on here at all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You're mostly right, however Freedom of
> > > > Speech
> > > > > is
> > > > > > not limited to "Government owned
> > websites"
> > > or
> > > > > > anything else government owned.
> However,
> > > > you're
> > > > > > right the owner still has certain
> rights
> > to
> > > > > remove
> > > > > > or restrict inappropriate material,
> etc.
> > In
> > > > the
> > > > > > case of the RIP threads where certain
> > items
> > > > are
> > > > > > being posted (foul language, etc) would
> > > fall
> > > > > into
> > > > > > that category. However, the law is
> based
> > on
> > > > > > intent. Crimes and punishments are
> based
> > on
> > > > the
> > > > > > proof of intent.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > There is NO WAY in hell you went to law
> > > school.
> > > >
> > > > Not only did I go to law school, I went to
> > Yale
> > > > University and was in the top of my class.
> In
> > > > addition, I became a partner at a major law
> > > firm
> > > > here in the DC area in my late 20's.
> > >
> > > You didn't go to law school. There is no way
> > > anyone who went to even a third tier school
> > would
> > > have such a poor understanding of the law.
> >
> >
> > There is NO way someone who graduated law
> school
> > at 22 or 23 made partner at a "Major DC Law
> firm"
> > before 30. And even if this was plausible or
> > possible you sure as hell would not have the
> free
> > time to peruse message boards. 100% Bullshit.
>
> You're information is a little outdated. These
> days if you do well in law school and pass the bar
> relatively early, and have political science as a
> minor you can practically write your own ticket.
> Besides I'm not even the first or the youngest.
> Time to get out of your parent's basement and
> learn how the world really works.


LOL, You are claiming that there is now a shortage of lawyers? You can write your own ticket? Thats hilarious. REALLY? You don't even attempt to refute the data, basically conceding that it is correct. That article was written less than 6 months ago, I don't consider that outdated.

I know damn well how the world works, there are more lawyers graduating than there are firms hiring. There may be a few professions where a graduate can write their own ticket but law sure as hell isnt one of them. Petroleum engineer, Information Security, Computer Programmers, possibly. Lawyer, not a chance.

Again, if you are a partner at a prestigious DC law firm, you would NOT have the time to dick off on the internet (and based on how you reference that times have changed, you are not 65 and on your way out)

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There was a thread a while back about some Asian
> girl that got abducted and stabbed by some guy
> hiding in her car. There's nothing funny about
> that because she didn't do anything except be in
> the wrong place at the wrong time. That was a
> senseless, pointless death.

Not wishing to hijack your point but this girl's killer is still at large.

Nothing, nada, nix has been uncovered about her death.

But we did get a bunch of nice new fancy cameras put in place all around the area.........presumably the type that close the barn door behind the horse.

Legal Eagle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh, it should be noted that I didn't cash in any
> favors nor did either myself or anyone in my
> family know anyone in the firm. Another key ticket
> if you're looking into corporate or political law
> is to establish a good strong base with your
> clients. Personal and professional relationships
> ARE essential.


Who are you trying to sell? This is straight out of a self-help sales seminar that you would see at the Holiday Inn at 11:00 on a Tuesday.

I will say it again, because it is so obvious. There is no way Legal Eagle went to law school, let alone passed the bar exam. No way in hell.

MrMephisto Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> First of all, the "WHAT ABOUT FREEDOM OF SPEECH"
> argument carries no weight because this is Cary's
> website to run however he chooses. He could shut
> it down tomorrow and there's not a damn thing
> anyone can do about it. Nobody's First Amendment
> rights are being violated. If someone really wants
> to say a dead person is "wormfood" and talk about
> fucking the corpse, they still have the right to
> get some friends together, make soome picket
> signs, and attend the funeral. See also: Westboro
> Baptist Church.
>
> To reiterate, this is a privately-owned forum made
> available to the public, not a public forum. There
> is a difference.
>
> Second, I don't disagree with Cary deleting the
> posts that contribute absolutely nothing to the
> conversation. If some kid kills himself and all
> you have to say is "he sucked dick" or "I would
> enjoy sodomizing his corpse with a pool cue," then
> you don't really have anything to contribute to
> the conversation at all. However, I would raise an
> eyebrow if he started deleting posts that,
> although they represent an unpopular view or
> opinion, still represent someone's opinion in the
> context of the topic. For example:
>
> OP: "Little Joey killed himself today. Everyone's
> really sad. We'll miss you, little Joey."
>
> Goofus: "I am glad he's dead. I would enjoy having
> sexual relations with his rotting corpse."
>
> Gallant: "It makes me sad when someone kills
> themselves because people who commit suicide go to
> hell and suffer for eternity. I blame the recent
> rash of suicides on families moving away from
> Christ's love and living in sin. I will pray that
> other families accept Jesus Christ into their life
> so no more kids face eternal damnation."
>
> See the difference?



I love the goofus and gallant reference from the highlights magazine.

---------------------------------------------------
W.W.S.D. what would Scooby Doo

BS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I will say it again, because it is so obvious.
> There is no way Legal Eagle went to law school,
> let alone passed the bar exam. No way in hell.


Thinking that one of the youngest partners at a prestigious DC law firm has time message board on the internet is about as believable as Casey Anthony's innocence or that sales guys work on Fridays! It just aint true!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2011 04:44PM by JBass.

Legal Eagle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oh, it should be noted that I didn't cash in any
> favors nor did either myself or anyone in my
> family know anyone in the firm. Another key ticket
> if you're looking into corporate or political law
> is to establish a good strong base with your
> clients. Personal and professional relationships
> ARE essential.


"Political law"? Now I can be certain that you are full of shit. A government affairs or political law practicioner in DC is successful because he had prior experience.....



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2011 05:02PM by ITRADE.

BS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I will say it again, because it is so obvious.
> There is no way Legal Eagle went to law school,
> let alone passed the bar exam. No way in hell.

It doesn't matter to me either way, I'm the American dream. I came up from nothing, with an alcoholic for a father. I had to work while I went to school (middle and high school) in this area. It wasn't easy at all but I did it. Just because you can't or won't do something doesn't mean other people can't achieve. Maybe if I posted a picture of my new sports car would change your mind?

JBass Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BS Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I will say it again, because it is so obvious.
> > There is no way Legal Eagle went to law school,
> > let alone passed the bar exam. No way in hell.
>
>
> Thinking that one of the youngest partners at a
> prestigious DC law firm has time message board on
> the internet is about as unbelievable as Casey
> Anthony being innocent, or that sales guys work on
> Fridays! It just aint true!

Plus he is just dead wrong about where you went to law school and having a political science minor = writing your own ticket. Does he actually believe that someone who took 9 credits of US Government and a few other classes makes you more marketable? LOL. What makes you attractive for partnership is how big your book of business is and how reliable are the clients.

Any reputable firm in the DC area the average time is 7 to 8 years to make partner. RARELY does it happen earlier. And, if it does, it is a partner in name only, ie. non-equity partner.

JBass Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I cant find US data but in the UK, average age to
> make parther is 39 and change
>
> "On average, women make partner one year earlier
> than men at 38.9 years old"
>
> http://www.thelawyer.com/revealed-top-uk-firms-mak
> e-poor-showing-in-female-partner-stakes/1005590.ar
> ticle
>
> So this guy expects us to believe that he made
> partner over a decade earlier than the average, or
> in terms of the career span (22-39 = 17 years to
> make partner, on average, then 22- 29 = 7 years
> that our "lawyer did it)
>
> SO 7 years versus 17 means that out lil prodigy
> made partner in 41.2% of the time, or he made
> partner 58.8% earlier than average... Most
> partnerships are based on hours billed throughout
> the career with an average of 1700 billed hours
> yearly, SO, unless you were billing out (roughly)
> 3400 hours a year or 65 hours a week, 52 weeks a
> year, not including all of your non billable hours
> (Roughly 30%)... I call bullshit.


Actually, at most major firms in the US, the partnership will consider voting an associate into the partnership after the eighth year of practicing. Eight year track must include stellar success. Partnership will be considered after year nine or ten. If you don't make it by year ten, chances are you aren't going to make it.

Even more,

The recent wave of legal layoffs, rescinded job offers, and even bankruptcies has created the ugliest market for lawyers in more than a quarter century.
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/unemployed-and-struggling-lawyers-seek-solace/

Unemployed Lawyer Applies for 1,000 Jobs, Scores Zero Interviews
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/unemployed_lawyer_applies_for_1000_jobs_scores_zero_interviews/

The recession is taking a steep toll on the legal profession, an industry long seen as immune from the ups and downs of the economy. Trying to weather the financial crisis, the nation's largest law firms are laying off attorneys and delaying the hiring of others.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30196250/ns/business-us_business/t/now-even-lawyers-are-getting-axed/

So Legal Eagle, How exactly did you "Write your own ticket?"

Legal Eagle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe if I posted a picture
> of my new sports car would change your mind?


Sure go ahead. Let me show you mine first.

BS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> JBass Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > BS Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I will say it again, because it is so obvious.
>
> > > There is no way Legal Eagle went to law
> school,
> > > let alone passed the bar exam. No way in
> hell.
> >
> >
> > Thinking that one of the youngest partners at a
> > prestigious DC law firm has time message board
> on
> > the internet is about as unbelievable as Casey
> > Anthony being innocent, or that sales guys work
> on
> > Fridays! It just aint true!
>
> Plus he is just dead wrong about where you went to
> law school and having a political science minor =
> writing your own ticket. Does he actually believe
> that someone who took 9 credits of US Government
> and a few other classes makes you more marketable?
> LOL. What makes you attractive for partnership
> is how big your book of business is and how
> reliable are the clients.
>
> Any reputable firm in the DC area the average time
> is 7 to 8 years to make partner. RARELY does it
> happen earlier. And, if it does, it is a partner
> in name only, ie. non-equity partner.


Pretty much what I said. Some firms offer non-equity/equity track; others are equity track only. The non-equity/equity track is much more common in firms that are based outside of New York or LA.

ITRADE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you don't make it by year
> ten, chances are you aren't going to make it.


Welcome to "of counsel" status.

ITRADE and BS, thanks for the info, so it is possible to make partner in a decade, non-equity (junior partner).

But said individuals do not have time to fuck off on FFXU I also think its funny how he says "Maybe if I posted a picture of my new sports car would change your mind?" because if I just bought a new sports car I would say maybe if I took a pic of my Corvette/Porche/Lambo/Ferrari/M5. Complete horse shit. Plus, tons of people buy sports cars, sure as hell doesnt make them rich OR partners at a law firm. BS then more BS. Love it!

BS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ITRADE Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If you don't make it by year
> > ten, chances are you aren't going to make it.
>
>
> Welcome to "of counsel" status.

Thats about it. Of counsels are also folks who chose part time. A lot of women attorneys will go of counsel because they refuse to work 55 hour weeks. In other words, just because you made junior partner, it doesn't mean you can now phone it it from home or the course 2 days a week.

JBass Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ITRADE and BS, thanks for the info, so it is
> possible to make partner in a decade, non-equity
> (junior partner).
>
We had one guy who made partner in 7 years. He did the following he went to law school, then got his LLM. Spent 2 years working at a federal agency as a staff attorney and advisor to the chief ALJ. Transitioned to private practice and had a proven track of rain making.

> But said individuals do not have time to fuck off
> on FFXU I also think its funny how he says "Maybe
> if I posted a picture of my new sports car would
> change your mind?" because if I just bought a new
> sports car I would say maybe if I took a pic of my
> Corvette/Porche/Lambo/Ferrari/M5. Complete horse
> shit. Plus, tons of people buy sports cars, sure
> as hell doesnt make them rich OR partners at a law
> firm. BS then more BS. Love it!

I don't know. Depending on your practice, you could have down time. My work is very cyclical. I have weeks where I bill 35 hours and weeks where I bill 65 hours. I'm actually on a downhill slide now after two back to back 200+ hour months.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2011 05:00PM by ITRADE.

JBass Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ITRADE and BS, thanks for the info, so it is
> possible to make partner in a decade, non-equity
> (junior partner).
>
> But said individuals do not have time to fuck off
> on FFXU I also think its funny how he says "Maybe
> if I posted a picture of my new sports car would
> change your mind?" because if I just bought a new
> sports car I would say maybe if I took a pic of my
> Corvette/Porche/Lambo/Ferrari/M5. Complete horse
> shit. Plus, tons of people buy sports cars, sure
> as hell doesnt make them rich OR partners at a law
> firm. BS then more BS. Love it!

It's not just possible, but a little more probable and that's because of the large number of retirements in the past five years. I've seen some come back from retirement working at some of the smaller firms in Northern VA. As for "Writing my own ticket", there is no shortage of work even in this economy. In fact, my workload has increased quite a bit since the new year.

ITRADE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BS Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ITRADE Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > If you don't make it by year
> > > ten, chances are you aren't going to make it.
> >
> >
> > Welcome to "of counsel" status.
>
> Thats about it. Of counsels are also folks who
> chose part time. A lot of women attorneys will go
> of counsel because they refuse to work 55 hour
> weeks. In other words, just because you made
> junior partner, it doesn't mean you can now phone
> it it from home or the course 2 days a week.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I know plenty of "of counsel" folks who make good bank and don't have to put up with all the other crap.

Legal Eagle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's not just possible, but a little more probable
> and that's because of the large number of
> retirements in the past five years.

That statement right there indicates you have ZERO understanding about this whole process.

> I've seen some come back from retirement working at some of the
> smaller firms in Northern VA. As for

So?

> "Writing my own ticket", there is no shortage of work even in
> this economy. In fact, my workload has increased
> quite a bit since the new year.

All because you were a polisci minor, right?

Are we having fun yet?



fucking image will not pull up.

-----------------------------------------------

"...your suffering will be legendary even in Hell!"



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 05/26/2011 05:15PM by Pinhead the Cenobite.

BS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ITRADE Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > BS Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > ITRADE Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > If you don't make it by year
> > > > ten, chances are you aren't going to make
> it.
> > >
> > >
> > > Welcome to "of counsel" status.
> >
> > Thats about it. Of counsels are also folks who
> > chose part time. A lot of women attorneys will
> go
> > of counsel because they refuse to work 55 hour
> > weeks. In other words, just because you made
> > junior partner, it doesn't mean you can now
> phone
> > it it from home or the course 2 days a week.
>
> Oh, don't get me wrong. I know plenty of "of
> counsel" folks who make good bank and don't have
> to put up with all the other crap.

I'm not "of counsel", I'm an actual partner at the firm. I was lucky enough to land an account with a major fortune 500 customer. When one of the partners passed away from cancer, the firm became interested in additional partners. Both myself and another became partners that year. I was 28 years old (just short of 29). It just takes hard work and gumption.

Someone tell me I'm not the only one that thinks Legal Eagle and BS are talking out their asses.

i didnt read any of it, so you are not the only one.

BS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Legal Eagle Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It's not just possible, but a little more
> probable
> > and that's because of the large number of
> > retirements in the past five years.
>
> That statement right there indicates you have ZERO
> understanding about this whole process.
>
> > I've seen some come back from retirement working
> at some of the
> > smaller firms in Northern VA. As for
>
> So?
>
> > "Writing my own ticket", there is no shortage of
> work even in
> > this economy. In fact, my workload has
> increased
> > quite a bit since the new year.
>
> All because you were a polisci minor, right?

Of course! Most lawyers passing the bar have zero political experience and this is DC. Law and politics are like an old married couple in this town. Since most lawyers who pass the bar have little or no actual political experience, having this as a minor or even as an AA or BS, is surprising helpful. I suppose from your point of view, it would be hard to imagine. Hmmmm

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Someone tell me I'm not the only one that thinks
> Legal Eagle and BS are talking out their asses.

LOL. I'm also smoking a Tatuaje stogie while I listen to BS rattle on how everything in the world is impossible if he can't do it.

Legal Eagle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BS Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ITRADE Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > BS Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > ITRADE Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > If you don't make it by year
> > > > > ten, chances are you aren't going to make
> > it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Welcome to "of counsel" status.
> > >
> > > Thats about it. Of counsels are also folks
> who
> > > chose part time. A lot of women attorneys
> will
> > go
> > > of counsel because they refuse to work 55
> hour
> > > weeks. In other words, just because you made
> > > junior partner, it doesn't mean you can now
> > phone
> > > it it from home or the course 2 days a week.
> >
> > Oh, don't get me wrong. I know plenty of "of
> > counsel" folks who make good bank and don't
> have
> > to put up with all the other crap.
>
> I'm not "of counsel", I'm an actual partner at the
> firm. I was lucky enough to land an account with a
> major fortune 500 customer. When one of the
> partners passed away from cancer, the firm became
> interested in additional partners. Both myself and
> another became partners that year. I was 28 years
> old (just short of 29). It just takes hard work
> and gumption.

You don't land accounts. And they aren't customers. You are "retained" by a "client".

So how many Am Jurs did you rack up at Yale?

Don't listen to their negativity, Legal Eagle. People on here think I'm a janitor, but I just tell them that so they don't figure out that I'm really Barack Obama.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Someone tell me I'm not the only one that thinks
> Legal Eagle and BS are talking out their asses.

You got me. I don't own a Veyron.


As for the rest, it is dead on. Talk to any lawyer in the business.

I was trying to make it easier for BS to understand. Most professional people I've exchanged messages with on here usually seem to be more sales background oriented and don't understand the difference.

Legal Eagle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BS Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ITRADE Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > BS Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > ITRADE Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > If you don't make it by year
> > > > > ten, chances are you aren't going to make
> > it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Welcome to "of counsel" status.
> > >
> > > Thats about it. Of counsels are also folks
> who
> > > chose part time. A lot of women attorneys
> will
> > go
> > > of counsel because they refuse to work 55
> hour
> > > weeks. In other words, just because you made
> > > junior partner, it doesn't mean you can now
> > phone
> > > it it from home or the course 2 days a week.
> >
> > Oh, don't get me wrong. I know plenty of "of
> > counsel" folks who make good bank and don't
> have
> > to put up with all the other crap.
>
> I'm not "of counsel", I'm an actual partner at the
> firm. I was lucky enough to land an account with a
> major fortune 500 customer. When one of the
> partners passed away from cancer, the firm became
> interested in additional partners. Both myself and
> another became partners that year. I was 28 years
> old (just short of 29). It just takes hard work
> and gumption.

Sorry, no. They don't simply make someone partner because a former partner passed away. Its a partnership with a fixed number of shares. The shares of a deceased partner are simply redistributed to the other members of the partnership.

Please go on Mr. Becker.

Legal Eagle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not "of counsel", I'm an actual partner at the
> firm. I was lucky enough to land an account with a
> major fortune 500 customer. When one of the
> partners passed away from cancer, the firm became
> interested in additional partners. Both myself and
> another became partners that year. I was 28 years
> old (just short of 29). It just takes hard work
> and gumption.


Right.......I get it now. Yeah folks...he's for real.

People have been buying clients by hiring people for years.

ITRADE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Legal Eagle Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > BS Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > ITRADE Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > BS Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > ITRADE Wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----
> > > > > > If you don't make it by year
> > > > > > ten, chances are you aren't going to
> make
> > > it.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Welcome to "of counsel" status.
> > > >
> > > > Thats about it. Of counsels are also folks
> > who
> > > > chose part time. A lot of women attorneys
> > will
> > > go
> > > > of counsel because they refuse to work 55
> > hour
> > > > weeks. In other words, just because you
> made
> > > > junior partner, it doesn't mean you can now
> > > phone
> > > > it it from home or the course 2 days a
> week.
> > >
> > > Oh, don't get me wrong. I know plenty of "of
> > > counsel" folks who make good bank and don't
> > have
> > > to put up with all the other crap.
> >
> > I'm not "of counsel", I'm an actual partner at
> the
> > firm. I was lucky enough to land an account with
> a
> > major fortune 500 customer. When one of the
> > partners passed away from cancer, the firm
> became
> > interested in additional partners. Both myself
> and
> > another became partners that year. I was 28
> years
> > old (just short of 29). It just takes hard work
> > and gumption.
>
> You don't land accounts. And they aren't
> customers. You are "retained" by a "client".
>
> So how many Am Jurs did you rack up at Yale?

LOL at "customers"

Legal Eagle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was trying to make it easier for BS to
> understand. Most professional people I've
> exchanged messages with on here usually seem to be
> more sales background oriented and don't
> understand the difference.

I don't need anything explained to me. I have you figured out entirely. And ITRADE is 100% right that a partnership just doesn't open up when someone dies or leaves. It's not a co-op. Besides, even IF (and that is a big IF) what you say is true, you earlier said you were at a blue chip firm. No blue chip firm would act in the manner you described.

BS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Legal Eagle Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I was trying to make it easier for BS to
> > understand. Most professional people I've
> > exchanged messages with on here usually seem to
> be
> > more sales background oriented and don't
> > understand the difference.
>
> I don't need anything explained to me. I have you
> figured out entirely. And ITRADE is 100% right
> that a partnership just doesn't open up when
> someone dies or leaves. It's not a co-op.
> Besides, even IF (and that is a big IF) what you
> say is true, you earlier said you were at a blue
> chip firm. No blue chip firm would act in the
> manner you described.

LOL. You know nothing.

Legal Eagle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BS Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Legal Eagle Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I was trying to make it easier for BS to
> > > understand. Most professional people I've
> > > exchanged messages with on here usually seem
> to
> > be
> > > more sales background oriented and don't
> > > understand the difference.
> >
> > I don't need anything explained to me. I have
> you
> > figured out entirely. And ITRADE is 100% right
> > that a partnership just doesn't open up when
> > someone dies or leaves. It's not a co-op.
> > Besides, even IF (and that is a big IF) what
> you
> > say is true, you earlier said you were at a
> blue
> > chip firm. No blue chip firm would act in the
> > manner you described.
>
> LOL. You know nothing.

Nope. The sad thing is that with a little research you'd have not made all these simple mistakes that have exposed you as a fraud.

No response on the Am Jur either.

ITRADE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> No response on the Am Jur either.

Did you also notice that when he was talking about passing the bar he wrote, "pass the bar relatively early"

As if you had to take it multiple times you'd be making partner at 28. LOL.

And having a polisci minor in this city would make you that much more successful. First, the number of attys with polisci majors in this town are through the roof. And second, there are a ton of lawyers with actual political experience on the hill or in the administration.

BS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ITRADE Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > No response on the Am Jur either.
>
> Did you also notice that when he was talking about
> passing the bar he wrote, "pass the bar relatively
> early"
>
How precisely does one pass the bar "early"?

Hhahahahhahahahahahhahahaha what a waste of electrons!

BS Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ITRADE Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > No response on the Am Jur either.
>
> Did you also notice that when he was talking about
> passing the bar he wrote, "pass the bar relatively
> early"
>
> As if you had to take it multiple times you'd be
> making partner at 28. LOL.
>
> And having a polisci minor in this city would make
> you that much more successful. First, the number
> of attys with polisci majors in this town are
> through the roof. And second, there are a ton of
> lawyers with actual political experience on the
> hill or in the administration.

Sounds like a clear case of "Penis Envy" to me. LOL
Attachments:

BS is a fag Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BS Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ITRADE Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > No response on the Am Jur either.
> >
> > Did you also notice that when he was talking
> about
> > passing the bar he wrote, "pass the bar
> relatively
> > early"
> >
> > As if you had to take it multiple times you'd
> be
> > making partner at 28. LOL.
> >
> > And having a polisci minor in this city would
> make
> > you that much more successful. First, the
> number
> > of attys with polisci majors in this town are
> > through the roof. And second, there are a ton
> of
> > lawyers with actual political experience on the
> > hill or in the administration.
>
> Sounds like a clear case of "Penis Envy" to me.
> LOL

Yes, I am envious of Leagal Eagle's ability to attempt to lie his way into relevance. If only I could make up stories with huge gaping holes in them.

graymoose1 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I love the goofus and gallant reference from the
> highlights magazine.

Thank God someone got it. I was worried I wasted that one.

--------------------------------------------------------------
13 4826 0948 82695 25847. Yes.

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/07/2012 07:16PM by Alias.

ZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/07/2012 07:14PM by Alias.

I used to post in those threads a lot... I wouldn't make fun of the dead, though. I'd make fun of the poor spelling, and general lack of education, of the people who would get offended..

Signatures are for fags