ercles on 14/12/2009 at 01:12

---

Fuck, take it or leave it, I don't really care. I just think you could probably make your point in a much more effective fashion if you dropped the high horse (regardless of how much more you know than them) and just try to deal with people on their level.

Rug Burn Junky on 14/12/2009 at 05:25

---

Then help me make people like CCCToad realize the error of his ways and STFU when he's blabbering bullshit.

I can't do this all by myself.

CCCToad on 14/12/2009 at 07:21

---

Maybe I'm perfectly willing and eager to educated, but that only lasts until I get pissed off at your unwarranted and usually unprovoked abuse and tirades.

Its basic human psychology that un-necessary hostility and insults are going to provoke hostility in return rather than a willingness to listen, and its a basic truth you seem to have forgotten.

Rug Burn Junky on 14/12/2009 at 18:23

---

You've proven not to be willing to be educated. Over and over you do the same thing: obstinately stick to unsupportable positions based on misunderstandings of the basics. There's never a "hrm, I'll rethink this" moment, because you don't ever let reality penetrate your pre-standing misconception of the subject. When I tell you that you're wrong, it's not meant as an insult: it's simply because you're wrong.

I don't give a shit about "hostility in return." The problem is that you're not actually making sense with most of the stuff you're trying to say, because you don't understand it in the first place.

Besides, please tell me where I was unnecessarily "hostile" here. Your wounded ego at my pointing out your inadequacies doesn't count. Stop getting your panties in such a twist.

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

Hopper actually just hit on something that could analogize, though not in the way he meant, I'm sure. Legal analysis actually is like speaking another language. It takes a long time and a lot of hard work to get it right. There are specific meanings and terms that are not self evident.

Now let's just say that the law is French. In this analogy, I've spent a decade learning the language. I've lived in France for 3 years. I majored in it and received an advanced degree. I know my stuff.

Then CCCToad comes along, and he's read a French phrasebook or two, and took a two week vacation there 5 years ago.

Every time the subject of French language comes up, CCCToad takes it on himself to translate it. Each and every time it's gibberish.

So every time I correct him. I walk through the individual words, explain them and put the whole sentence together. And every time this correction is greeted with "I don't care if that's how YOU translate it, I think 's'il vous plait' means 'silverous platter.'" There's really not much I can say to that other than "That's just wrong." I can't fix it, merely flat out reject it. It's such an egregious mistake that any native or learned french speaker can conclude immediately that the proponent of the translation doesn't know what he's talking about.

That's the linguistic equivalent of most of CCCToad's legal ideas. Which is why I dismiss them out of hand. So after the 5th time, when he's sitting here refusing to believe me when I tell him that "je t'aime." has nothing to do with the direction of an aircraft, and that he should stop telling everybody else that it does, I'm not going to give him a very long rope.

Getting something wrong is nothing to be ashamed of. Getting something wrong and spitting in the face of someone who knows better is. Doing that over and over again? There's no excuse.

Now, to someone watching who has never, ever encountered a foreign language before it appears that either could be right. That's not their fault, and I've never once implied that it was.

I don't know why people are getting their hackles raised that my dismissive attitude within the context of these back-and-forth's somehow mean that I think I'm better than everyone about everything. I don't draw on that reserve of "I know better, you're wrong, shut up" outside of legal interpretation. But when I do, it's because its warranted.

When other people have raised questions about the law I've usually gone out of my way to explain it to them. But that only goes so far when specific individuals prove them selves to not be receptive to learning. Those situations have occurred with greater frequency recently not because of any fundamental change in my attitude so much as because CCCToad has repeatedly inserted himself into topics of which he only has a rudimentary understanding, at best. He is a plague upon legal analysis.

For that he is the singular filthy wretched commoner in the room, fortunate to be in my presence, if only he'd cower and realize it as he should. Most of the rest of you are just fine. Especially you, Andy.

Rug Burn Junky on 14/12/2009 at 19:51

---

No, I'm not arguing that there's "dishonesty" per se. In fact, I agree with every single thing in your post just now.

I do think the deck is stacked in favor of the BCS teams, and that not all teams truly have a "fair shot" at the title. I also think that given everything that goes into college football, this is entirely understandable, and warranted.

I was using "dishonesty" as shorthand, but you certainly could make the case that:
(A) The word Champion has certain connotations in American sports culture.
(B) It is expected that champions are determined by a full and fair playoff system.
(C) To the extent that a champion is determined by other means, the fairness is suspect in the minds of many.
(D) If an organization markets a Champion as such, when it is an open question as to its legitimacy, it is doing so "dishonestly."

Obviously, there are a lot of variables in that argument: the fairness of the alternative process, the extent to which it is questioned publicly, and the extent to which the organization ignores those questions.

Now, I think that that's a really weak argument, since I think there are other means of determining a champion, and I think that the ones who question the determination process are overstating the case.

But on its face it's a legitimate question to ask. Given that, it would be a legitimate aspect to legislate.

As I said, political and practical considerations would deem it otherwise: the seeming frivolity of it makes it a bad horse to back, but I was merely taking "dishonesty" as an assumption in order to validate the legality of Congress legislating in that area. Simple enough?