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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
