Well Susan, ask Attorney and ye shall receive . Susan made the following request of Attorney today:
"If you show me where you refuted something I said, I will happily own my error. Nothing pleases me more than to learn something new and to correct something I have misunderstood. I anxiously await my lesson!"
The following lesson has been provided by the letter "A"
If you show me where you refuted something I said
I have done that repeatedly. You are welcome to review my comments.
I will happily own my error.
That has demonstrably not been your prior practice. Instead, in each case you have run away from the issue, either throwing a childish tantrum or trying to change the subject.
I have done that repeatedly. You are welcome to review my comments.
I will happily own my error.
That has demonstrably not been your prior practice. Instead, in each case you have run away from the issue, either throwing a childish tantrum or trying to change the subject.
Backing up a few lines:
"I sincerely don't remember you ever REFUTING anything I have said. I remember you QUESTIONING fundamental statements of law, but refuting...no."
You are, yet again, radically mistaken. On the past two comment threads in which we have conversed, I have either refuted your statements or exposed the baseless presumptions inherent in them over and over again. This is obvious to anyone who simply reads the threads, but given your convenient lapses of memory whenever accuracy would prove to be troublesome to you, it would appear to be useful to refute you yet again. Which is what I now intend to do.
Refutation/Exposure of Baseless Overconfidence #1 (June 10):
Your "WTF
Missouri" comment sounded like you thought it highly unusual that they
don’t follow the FRCP rule numbers.
Attorney response:
It communicated nothing of the kind. Instead, it conveyed my feeling that categorizing the overwhelmingly common Motion to Dismiss under the unwieldy rule number 55.27 is notably convoluted and ugly. What I said is that Rule 55.27 is "a terrible name." You bizarrely inferred from that statement that I was surprised and/or previously unaware that some states "don’t follow the FRCP rule numbers"—a notion that finds no support in my "terrible name" comment.
To the contrary, all of three paragraphs above my "terrible name" comment, I had specifically pointed out that Missouri might not "follow the FRCP rule numbers":
So, again presuming that somebody has been properly served, my guess is that we’ll see a motion to dismiss (also known, though maybe not in Missouri (?), as a "Rule 12 motion") reasonably soon.
Where in the world you got the idea that I needed to be informed that different states number their procedural rules differently I have no idea.
--
You made a statement. I refuted it. You responded by running away and and have thenceforth entirely failed to address the issue.
Attorney response:
It communicated nothing of the kind. Instead, it conveyed my feeling that categorizing the overwhelmingly common Motion to Dismiss under the unwieldy rule number 55.27 is notably convoluted and ugly. What I said is that Rule 55.27 is "a terrible name." You bizarrely inferred from that statement that I was surprised and/or previously unaware that some states "don’t follow the FRCP rule numbers"—a notion that finds no support in my "terrible name" comment.
To the contrary, all of three paragraphs above my "terrible name" comment, I had specifically pointed out that Missouri might not "follow the FRCP rule numbers":
So, again presuming that somebody has been properly served, my guess is that we’ll see a motion to dismiss (also known, though maybe not in Missouri (?), as a "Rule 12 motion") reasonably soon.
Where in the world you got the idea that I needed to be informed that different states number their procedural rules differently I have no idea.
--
You made a statement. I refuted it. You responded by running away and and have thenceforth entirely failed to address the issue.
Refutation/Exposure of Baseless Overconfidence #2 (June 10):
As far as I can tell "Attorney" and Life in Pierce County are in good standing here, meaning they have not yet dared to disagree with any of your [Ginger Snap’s] doctrine[.]
Attorney response :
False. I have openly disagreed with and corrected Ginger repeatedly on this blog. I have, however, done all that with somewhat more tact than you apparently feel moved to display.
--
You made a statement. I refuted it. You responded by running away and and have thenceforth entirely failed to address the issue.
Refutation/Exposure of Baseless Overconfidence #3 (June 10):
Statement :
I don’t see you [Ginger Snap] taking the time to explain to them [Attorney and Stacy “Life in Pierce County” Emerson] why their request to stop the anon posting will not be granted.
Attorney response :
I have never requested that Ginger "stop the anon posting." I don’t recall seeing Ms. Emerson make any such request, either. I have no interest in telling the proprietor of this forum how he ought to run it. She and I, instead, have suggested that commenters on this blog post under pseudonyms (or their real names, if they prefer) rather than anonymously.
--
You made a statement. I refuted it. You responded by running away and and have thenceforth entirely failed to address the issue.
I don’t see you [Ginger Snap] taking the time to explain to them [Attorney and Stacy “Life in Pierce County” Emerson] why their request to stop the anon posting will not be granted.
Attorney response :
I have never requested that Ginger "stop the anon posting." I don’t recall seeing Ms. Emerson make any such request, either. I have no interest in telling the proprietor of this forum how he ought to run it. She and I, instead, have suggested that commenters on this blog post under pseudonyms (or their real names, if they prefer) rather than anonymously.
--
You made a statement. I refuted it. You responded by running away and and have thenceforth entirely failed to address the issue.
Refutation/Exposure of Baseless Overconfidence #4 (June 10):
Statement :
All I’m saying is that since you [Ginger Snap] DO claim to respect them [Attorney and Stacy "Life in Pierce County" Emerson], I would expect you to have the courtesy to respond to their suggestions/queries.
Attorney response :
To reiterate, I have no expectation that Ginger will respond in any way at all to the Attorney/Emerson suggestion that commenters here eschew anonymous posting in favor of pseudonymous posting. I did not direct that suggestion to Ginger, and I do not consider it the slightest bit disrespectful of him not to have responded to it.
When I have criticized and/or corrected Ginger on issues other than this one, I have found his responses to be entirely respectful and appropriate—which is not to say that we agree on all of the issues involved; in fact, I gather we don’t. I believe and hope that Ginger feels that my submissions have been likewise respectful.
--
You made a statement. I refuted it. You then ran away and entirely failed to address the issue.
All I’m saying is that since you [Ginger Snap] DO claim to respect them [Attorney and Stacy "Life in Pierce County" Emerson], I would expect you to have the courtesy to respond to their suggestions/queries.
Attorney response :
To reiterate, I have no expectation that Ginger will respond in any way at all to the Attorney/Emerson suggestion that commenters here eschew anonymous posting in favor of pseudonymous posting. I did not direct that suggestion to Ginger, and I do not consider it the slightest bit disrespectful of him not to have responded to it.
When I have criticized and/or corrected Ginger on issues other than this one, I have found his responses to be entirely respectful and appropriate—which is not to say that we agree on all of the issues involved; in fact, I gather we don’t. I believe and hope that Ginger feels that my submissions have been likewise respectful.
--
You made a statement. I refuted it. You then ran away and entirely failed to address the issue.
Refutation/Exposure of Baseless Overconfidence #5 (May 27):
Statement :
Missouri has no interest in and therefore no power to compel an out of state ISP to provide the identity of an out of state poster unless the offending post somehow targeted or involved Missouri.
Attorney response :
It’s simply obvious (isn’t it?) that any statement posted on the internet "involve[s] Missouri," in that anything posted on the internet is available to and therefore, at least in theory, is read in Missouri.
To the extent that Windsor’s lawsuit is a defamation lawsuit, the publication element—i.e., the transmission of the allegedly defamatory statement to someone other than the publisher himself—clearly "involve[s] Missouri," because all of the relevant statements were published in Missouri as well as everywhere else on the planet that has unfettered access to the internet.
So declaring that Missouri "has no interest in" Windsor’s claims "unless the offending post somehow targeted or involved Missouri" simply begs the question: does an internet defamation suit like this necessarily "involve[ ]" Missouri?
--
You made a statement. I exposed the unfounded presumption inherent in that statement. You claimed that you would address the problem ("before I take the time to support my comment on thejurisdictional issue...."), but you never did. You then ran away (covering your cowardly retreat with a sneering insult—“I will refrain from listing the flaws in your hypothesis, but itis clear that as you say, torts and PJ are not your forte’”) and entirely failed to address the issue.
Refutation/Exposure of
Baseless Overconfidence #6 (May 28):
Statement :
[I]t is my understanding that your practice does not involve civil litigation.
Attorney response :
You are mistaken. My practice involves almost nothing but civil litigation.
--
You made a statement. I both refuted and exposed the baseless overconfidence inherent in that statement. You then ran away and entirely failed to address the issue.
Refutation/Exposure of Baseless Overconfidence #7 (May 29):
Statement :
Interested readers [of my declarations] can always ask for more detail[.]
A simple request for clarification would have been sufficient.
Attorney response :
Interested readers are also capable of being badly misled by (presumably unintentional) implications of few-word contributions that lack relevant nuance. Oversimplified legal analyses can be very dangerous, as I hope you recognize.
[....]
Readers without an extensive legal background had no idea that "a simple request for clarification" was even necessary to elucidate issues that you glossed over.
Presuming, as it appears, that you don't have a relevant citation regarding the application of the International Shoe doctrine to internet defamation cases, I don't particularly need further clarification from you. The people who do need it wouldn't know that they need to ask you for it. Such are the pitfalls of oversimplification.
--
You made a statement. I exposed the baseless overconfidence inherent in that statement. You then ran away and entirely failed to address the issue.
Refutation/Exposure of Baseless Overconfidence #8 (May 28):
Statement :
I don’t recall seeing any citations in your posts here.
Attorney response :
Again, you’re mistaken. I have in fact posted a handful of citations in my contributions to this blog.
--
You made a statement. I both refuted and exposed the baseless overconfidence inherent in that statement. You then ran away and entirely failed to address the issue.
Refutation/Exposure of Baseless Overconfidence #9 (May 29):
Statement :I was speaking about the scenario you mentioned, where Windsor, who has no ties to Missouri, attempts to bring claims there against an out of state defendant, who presumably lacks sufficient general contacts with Missouri.
Attorney response :
First, the International Shoe standard only requires sufficient contacts, not sufficient general contacts, in order to meet the Constitutional requirement for personal jurisdiction. In order to defeat a personal jurisdiction defense, Windsor would not need to demonstrate that Missouri has general jurisdiction over any defendant.
Second, how can you possibly "presume" that the defendants lack sufficient contacts with Missouri? Windsor has explicitly alleged that the defendants have continually defamed him on the internet. Both the internet and the allegedly defamatory statements the defendants posted on it are widely available in Missouri. Are those facts not enough to establish sufficient contacts (or even sufficient general contacts) with Missouri—for the purposes of Missouri’s long-arm statute and state and federal case law pertaining to personal jurisdiction?
--
You made a statement. I exposed the baseless overconfidence inherent in that statement. I also directly exposed the fact that you had applied an irrelevant legal standard to the question—an error that would, under some factual circumstances, destroy your entire argument. You then ran away and entirely failed to address either issue.
Indeed, in response to the above refutations and exposures of your errors, you elected not to address any of your mistakes but rather to throw your infamous "as I read through your various posts, I can see that yourknowledge is far more advanced than mine" tantrum. As I’ve indicated more than once since, such a petulant and childish response is an indicator of the confidence you have in your ability to discuss matters relevantly and rationally, not to mention a signal that your motives on this blog have nothing to do with conducting respectful discussion or seeking the truth.
To conclude, then:
As I said and have
now proved, Anonymous, I have repeatedly refuted and/or exposed the baseless
overconfidence inherent in statement after statement you have posted on this
blog. And your unceasing tendency in response has been to duck and dodge every
issue, not infrequently utilizing insults and tantrums to cover your cowardly
escape. In the long list, above, of your misstatements and my corrections of
same, you have not once admitted error or even communicated
anything short of overwhelming confidence in your declarations.
In short, as I have now demonstrated, your entire behavior with regard to me (not that you've treated anyone else here any better) reveals you to be a coward, a boor, and a troll. A duty to defend the image of my profession (not to mention to protect the public from your miseducation) may force me in the future to respond to you in order to continue refuting your fallacies and exposing your thoughtlessness, but clearly your behavior is not worth anyone's time.
In short, as I have now demonstrated, your entire behavior with regard to me (not that you've treated anyone else here any better) reveals you to be a coward, a boor, and a troll. A duty to defend the image of my profession (not to mention to protect the public from your miseducation) may force me in the future to respond to you in order to continue refuting your fallacies and exposing your thoughtlessness, but clearly your behavior is not worth anyone's time.
