Postcards and cadre

Colleges and Universities A-Z Service Academy Parents
41

<p>I have no argument with what he said; heck, I think lawyers are a pain in the neck too. I also believed as he did before I became a lawyer. I am merely stating that it is too easy to blame the lawyers.</p>

<p>The argument, however, is not weak based on the actual Shakespeare quote. [You are familiar with the quote aren't you?]</p>

<p>My good friend Z [now that we are good friends] said that "Shakespeare was right." Presumably a reference to, Shakespeare's King Henry VI wherein the following exchange takes place: </p>

<p>JACK CADE: Be brave, then; for your captain is brave, and vows reformation. There shall be in England seven half-penny loaves sold for a penny: the three-hoop'd pot shall have ten hoops; and I will make it felony to drink small beer: all the realm shall be in common; and in Cheapside shall my palfrey go to grass: and when I am king,- as king I will be,-
ALL: God save your majesty! </p>

<p>JACK CADE: I thank you, good people:- there shall be no money; all shall eat and drink on my score; and I will apparel them all in one livery, that they may agree like brothers, and worship me their lord.
DICK "The Butcher" The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
JACK CADE. Nay, that I mean to do. Is not this a lamentable thing, that of the skin of an innocent lamb should be made parchment? that parchment, being scribbled o'er, should undo a man? Some say the bee stings: but I say, 'tis the bee's wax; for I did but seal once to a thing, and I was never mine own man since.- How now! who's there?
[emhasis added]
Context: Jack Cade was a pretender to the throne. He is referring to what he would do if he were King. Dick suggest that the first thing to do would be to kill "ALL" the lawyers.</p>

<p>Shakespeare did not qualify his character's statement that only unethical lawyers [or similar] should be killed. No, he said lets kill ALL the lawyers. It may be inferred from Z's original statement [Shakespeare was right] that he agrees with the notion of killing ALL the lawyers. [Symbolically of course] Subsequently, Z came back and qualified his statement regarding ethical ones.
That's okay, I have no particular quarrel with Z on this. As I said, lawyers make an easy target and, as I have said to Z privately, simple answers and spewage are to be expected on a site like this. I take no personal umbrage to this.<br>
Just as he, simplistically, states that there are "too few" ethical lawyers. [A statement that simply can't be proved.] At the end of the day, however, it just doesn't matter. There are unethical lawyers; there are unethical Navy officers, and, in at least one example, there appears to be unethical Mids. You could make the same statement about almost any profession or group of individuals. [One could point out, for example, that software "engineers" are not really engineers and that anybody who claims he is an "engineer" despite a lack of state licensing to that effect is exhibiting unethical behavior.]</p>

<p>So, at the end of the day, if you think the argument was weak . . . okay! Feel better? Good! Now drink your milk, eat a cookie, and go to bed. Tell everybody you know how you "bested" a lawyer on the internet. Get back with us when you have graduated from the AFA.</p>

<p>TN: Are you really C23 in disguise? Your arguments and tone, sounding as if you are older than your stated years, come off in a similar way.</p>

42

<p>I'm 20 (as of today). I don't know what you mean by C23. I'm guessing that was a member that used to post here. I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but I bring the debate tactics of a debate forum over here, so it's how I post.</p>

<p>Anyway, in regard to your post. Perhaps it is true that the current law system should be abolished and started again. As I said before, the Founders didn't like the law of the British, so they abolished it and started again. It didn't mean they wanted lawlessness, but rather that they wanted a different form. The law system of this nation has become so corrupt and unjust that it simply can no longer function in a moral way. To compare the corruptness of lawyers to that of Naval officers or other professions is quite the farce. On the one hand you have what always has been, and shall continue to be, a noble profession. On the other hand, you have what used to be noble but has turned into money-grubbing and no longer functions in its intended way. So on the one hand you have immoral people in a moral profession and on the other immoral people in an immoral profession. The former, Navy, the latter, law.</p>

<p>You know, the rest of your post was fine. Then you start into the ad hominem attacks, making childish jokes to show your superiority by age (but apparently not maturity). I find it quite interesting that the adults here in the parents forum can't help but make jokes instead of actually discussing things in a professional manner. As I've said before, one would hope that an "adult" such as yourself would be able to avoid immature internet bashing.</p>

<p>You, sir, can go to work tomorrow and tell everyone how you made fun of a 20-year-old on the internet. Bring your post along for added effect.</p>

<p>Get back to me when you can discuss matters, at the very least, as one of my peers, and at best, as someone supposedly older and wiser.</p>

43

<p>Oh dear...... I've started a urination contest....</p>

<p>Trust me, TN, you DON'T want to be confused with our resident Bolshevik troll, Confused23 (He lurks cluelessly in the Parents forum. Look for the trainwrecks; you can't miss him.).</p>

<p>As for the rest, well........ Just chill. Bill and I are simply trying to get a better feel for each other after some initial misunderstandings fanned by sincere passions (sounds like a bad novel). </p>

<p>My belief is that lawyers should be there to ensure a person is properly represented under the law and does not have his rights infringed upon. Sadly, however, that has evolved into the attitude of "Get him off no matter how rediculous the lie or the story. Just make sure I get paid." It has also degenerated into the "We'll sue, and since it's easier for the victim to settle rather than fight our completely rediculous allegations, we'll make a bundle which, BTW, 40% is mine." It's become a racket rather than the practice of law. It is disgusting and hideously damaging, and entirely infested with sharks and other vermin who should barely be breathing, let alone dictating changes to the laws the rest of us have to live under.</p>

<p>Now that I've said my part...... I hear postcards from Tahiti are particularly comment-generating during Plebe Summer! ;)</p>

44

<p>Her 6 year old brother is jealous because he thinks she is going on a Carnival Cruise! LOL She'll be in the Pacific as well. We are meeting her at Pearl Harbor at the end of June. Where is your mid sailing to? Just curious.
Tricia</p>

45

<p>Boy! See if I ever ask a simple question again! ;-)</p>

46

<p>heartcross, I was thinking the same thing, and how your innocent question took on a life of its own. This list should be renamed, "blog therapy."
usna09mom</p>

47

<p>Don't expect silly comments like the one you made that started all this to go unanswered.</p>

<p>Your comment above smacks of the little kid who throws the rock then hides his hand.</p>

<p>"Oh, no! I had NOTHING to do with this! Not me!" :rolleyes:</p>

48

<p>Now that you mention it, 09mom did not say anything about Maxim or Stuff magazines.</p>

<p>I guess the orginal question should have been: What "soft porn" magazines did you see in the mid store?</p>

49

<p>Now THAT I will grant you. I remember thinking that myself after the dustup started. Should have been my first question.</p>

<p>However, unless things have TOTALLY gone awry in the Midstore, and they really ARE selling soft porn (Playboy?), then that's all it can be.</p>

<p>Stuff? Never heard of it. I only know about Maxim because it's so darn prevalent in airport magazine racks.</p>

50

<p>Like I've been saying, all I want is a little respect from the parents. I find it quite humorous that I attract immature and derogatory comments. As they say, when someone resorts to ad hominem attacks you know you've won the argument. They might as well wave a white flag.</p>

<p>Z, Stuff is pretty much like Maxim.</p>

51

<p>Well TN, I think your last two posts have come off as somewhat arrogant and condescending, which is why the parents aren't treating you too seriously. No one should come across that way, particularly someone your age addressing a parents forum. Look at your last sentence:</p>

<p>"Bill, just because Z said he doesn't like what most lawyers have become doesn't mean that he wants to abolish them. The Founders of this nation rebelled against the British government, but that doesn't mean they wanted no government. To straw man his argument into one against all enforcement of law by hired professionals is to merely display how weak of an argument you have against what he said." </p>

<p>That last sentence was somewhat childish and even provoking. You can make your argument without telling everyone how weak it is . In your last post you almost made it it sound like you just learned what ad hominem means in school and wanted to use it in a sentence! ;) I know that's not the case, it's just how it came across. </p>

<p>So I wouldn't say that Bill was making an ad hominem argument -- he was, in fact, annoyed and expressing sarcasm. Your remark really did come across as childish, so Bill called you on it. </p>

<p>Having said all that, I have come to really enjoy most of your posts and contributions to this board. Would you do me the favor and take this post in the spirit in which I wrote it: as a parent who is grateful and appreciative of EVERY appointee and candidate on this board, and just wanted you to know why you are being preceived negatively by other adults.</p>

52

<p>I identified Bill's use of a strawman and his immature comments. The fact that he resorted to both of these is, as I said, a display of how weka his arguments are.</p>

<p>Z simply said that the system is broken, while Bill turned that into saying that the system should be completely abolished and we should have no lawyers, then making references to China, etc. That's silly and anyone can see that as obviously NOT what Z had in mind.</p>

<p>Once again, I would expect adults at least twice my age to be able to refrain from making immature comments instead of actual posts. I have never resorted to such tactics, which makes it all the more sad.</p>

53

<p>Don't the midshipmen have access to the computer anyway to look up "soft porn" sites if they have any free time? Isn't this permissible as long as its a legal site? It seems like the boys should have some personal freedoms and this way it remains private.</p>

54

<p>
[quote]
while Bill turned that into saying that the system should be completely abolished and we should have no lawyers, then making references to China, etc. That's silly and anyone can see that as obviously NOT what Z had in mind.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, Bill was right. He understood exactly what I meant and responded to it. As is almost always the case, blanket statements require attention to the exceptions.</p>

<p>The fact that the "exception" in this case means we have to deal with the one lawyer out of every million or so who is actually worthy of being called "human" is besides the point. :D</p>

55

<p>TN: I almost postec the following this morning; then I just figured it wasn't worth it. Then, you go and prove what I was going to say and didn't.</p>

<p>All you want is a little respect from the parents. Why? We are anonymous, meaningless, people. What we think of you is immaterial. So, why do you want our respect? I don't care if I have your respect?</p>

<p>The reason that some [at least I] sometimes respond in an "immature" way is a response to, as AFDAD said, the way that those persons [you] come off as sounding. In much the same way as C23 comes off as sounding immature, arrogant, and merely looking to post to provoke a response--look at C23 post in another thread having to do with how parents should respond to the question of why they are permitting their child to attend USMA--that is the way you sometimes come off. </p>

<p>C23 just throws out an inflammatory comments that has nothing to do with the topic and then responds in a way that comes off as pretentious, arrogant, and idiotic. I suppose this is an ad hominem attack if you want to put it that way. Immature on my part? Perhaps; but, in many cases, it doesn't matter what any of the adults say, no mantter how correct or founded in fact, you [and C23 as an example] will come back with something else. So, it doesn't matter what I type and, then, the "ad hominem" attacks sort of spill out.</p>

<p>Use my answer to Z. It is logical and based on Shakespearean quotes. You don't like the answer. [Even, my new, best pal Z has acknowledged that I understood his comment.] Z did not "simply" say that the system was broken. He was referring to a specific quote. I responded to that. You still won't acknowledge that.</p>

<p>In other threads, you have come off as sounding more experienced than I find plausible. You work in a nuclear plant as I recall. You have commented on the security situation in nuclear plants. Yet, what are you, about 20? If the operational security of our nuclear plants is in the hands of a 20-year old [which might not surprise me entirely] then we TRULY do have problems. </p>

<p>Then you keep using the term "strawman argument" as a derogation of my argument. [Interchangeably, and incorrectly I might add, with the term "strawman." Posts #40 #52] A "strawman argument" is "a tenuous and exaggerated counterargument that an advocate puts forward for the sole purpose of disproving it." A "strawman" is a third party used in some transactions as a temporary transferee to allow the principal parties to accomplish something that is otherwise impermissible.</p>

<p>Thus, one cannot "straw man [an] argument" [post #40] but you could make a stsrawman argument. Further, I did not "use a strawman" [post #52] in any of my posts. I simply did not make a strawman argument. My argument was neither tenuous nor exaggerated. It was based on quotes from the play. I did not exaggerate. The statement was not tenuous, it was based on Z's comment and made a simple inference. I also did not substitute a third party within a transaction. There is no "straw" connection.</p>

<p>The point is not that you have used a incorrect association. Many adults do that all of the time. The point is that you keep trying to drive this issue home as if it mattered. This is not a debate forum. As Z and I have acknowledged, the internet is a very flat medium for discussion. A person's nuance, inflection, reasoning, do not come across very well in a forum such as this.</p>

<p>I can tell you that Z and I are in a conciliatory mood towards each other because we were finally able to agree on some issues. More importantly, I can tell you that Z's posts have taken on a more mature [in my opinion] "tone" in recente weeks. Much different than his initial outburst. I respect that a great deal. He listened to some of the "tsk tsk" posts made earlier this year by some adults and has grown in response. It is an indication of maturity. </p>

<p>So . . . not wanting to put too many words in the mouths of others, the simple answer is that we parents respond to postings in the way that we interpret the original post. If we interpret your post--regardless of how you meant it--as immature, we respond in a like fashion. Learn how to treat others with maturity and you will be treated likewise.</p>

56

<p>I honestly don't care what you think of me, or I wouldn't keep posting in this thread. However, what I will continue to point out is you calling me "immature" while you and other parents make "milk and cookies" and "play video games" comments to my posts simply because you couldn't think of anything better to say. I don't care if you do this, as the only one acting immature in this situation is the one making these comments. However, I will continue to call it like I see it.</p>

<p>Basically what you're saying is, when you see my "immature" posts (and I've yet to see how you classify them so) it then gives you free reign to make derogatory comments and act like an imbecile, simply because, as your post so eloquently implies, "I started it". Brilliant.</p>

<p>See, there you go again. You take what I said (which was that I worked at a nuke plant) then extrapolated that into me "running security at a nuke plant". That's a strawman. You build your own argument for me, then destroy it for you.</p>

<p>I used to work at a nuke plant. I had a co-op there, which ended recently. And I worked in the electrical engineering department, not security. There are people my age working in security (not running it, mind you) as guards.</p>

<p>I'm not quite sure why you brought that up. I also worked in the engineering department of the same utility for electrical service reliability. Again though, I'm not sure what my work experience has to do with anything.</p>

<p>The "strawman" to which I was referring to (and I'm going to repeat myself here) is that where you took Z's post about lawyers as him saying that we should abolish lawyers completely, then made comparisons to China and other "lawless" countries. That's not what he said, you decided that's what you wanted to hear.</p>

<p>Finally, Heaven forbid I come off as sounding more experienced than you find possible. Stupid maturity. I should become a pot smoking, beer drinking, McDonald's working loser like every other kid I went to college with.</p>

57

<p>finally idiot boy has found the fallacy in the conservatism</p>

58

<p>How can you compare me to this ^? I'm honestly offended. This kid is the liberal anus, spewing all their crap out day in and day out, without making a lick of sense.</p>

59

<p>Thought I’d pipe in here.... I suppose many of us, both adults and students could be accused of some degree of arrogance in our posts. However, in my humble opinion, there is absolutely NO comparison between TN’s passionate posts and the hateful, offensive and clearly arrogant ones by C23!</p>

<p>( i guess this post can be construed as arrogant too ;) )</p>

60

<p>
[quote]
I can tell you that Z and I are in a conciliatory mood towards each other because we were finally able to agree on some issues. More importantly, I can tell you that Z's posts have taken on a more mature [in my opinion] "tone" in recente weeks. Much different than his initial outburst. I respect that a great deal. He listened to some of the "tsk tsk" posts made earlier this year by some adults and has grown in response. It is an indication of maturity.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Thanks. :o</p>

<p>The opinions and intensity are still there. It's just a little better controlled. ;)</p>

<p>
[quote]
How can you compare me to this ^? I'm honestly offended. This kid is the liberal anus, spewing all their crap out day in and day out, without making a lick of sense.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Isn't he a hoot?</p>

<p>Do what I did: hit the "ignore" function on the little creep. It's loads of fun watching people react to the little loser without having to stomach his stupidity directly.</p>

<p>It's almost as useful as a good towel! :D</p>

<p>
[quote]
hateful, offensive and clearly arrogant

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Madam, those are attributes that apply to sentient human beings. Clueless clearly isn't. You give him too much credit. ;)</p>