NationStates Jolt Archive

Accusing at attorney of violating the Professional Code of Responsibility -- of an ethical violation -- is an serious insult and I think is flaming.

Lacadaemon has been generally insulting, but this specific insult has been repeated -- despite requests that it be retracted.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8645173&postcount=523
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8646292&postcount=545
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8646344&postcount=548

This is so inappropriate. I never even mentioned the PCR. I don't even know what state he/she allegedly practices in.

I'm off now to look through that thread for some choice words.

Yah, you know what, I was over the line, I admit it. I should be more polite.

Nevertheless, his/her posts are full of invective. It got my irish up &c. I apologize.

(though I think some apologies to other people are in order as well)

It certainly is of bad taste, and perhaps of poor debating/argumentative skills, but flaming? Doesn't really look like it.

Of course, I'm not a mod though, but I refuse to give in and use a "Standard Disclaimer." :p

I'm not sure it is appropriate for me to respond, but I wish to do so.

It certainly is of bad taste, and perhaps of poor debating/argumentative skills, but flaming? Doesn't really look like it.

Of course, I'm not a mod though, but I refuse to give in and use a "Standard Disclaimer." :p

The accusation that I violated my professional ethics is, to me, more serious than an expletive he could have called me. I would have brushed off a simple insult. This is similar to accusing me of committing a crime.

It did not respond to my argument and was directed at me personally.

It took great restraint not to flame in response. In response to requests for a retraction (not even an apology), the insult was repeated.

Yah, you know what, I was over the line, I admit it. I should be more polite.

Nevertheless, his/her posts are full of invective. It got my irish up &c. I apologize.

(though I think some apologies to other people are in order as well)

Thank you for what I believe is an apology. I would politely request that you repeat it in the thread.

If you had either retracted the allegation or apologized when I asked (instead of repeat it), I would not have reported this incident.

Just for the record, I find 2 apologies in the thread. Both of them are mine. One of which you responded to with further attack.

I hope these comments are not inappropriate. I feel very strongly that I was wronged.

Perhaps now I could respond to the accusations without prompting further attack but it seemed any attempt to defend my character would only provoke further insult.

Bah! you try to meet people half way.

This is part of the discussion before I got involved.

rOFLASTC.

... <gasp> sorry <giggle> but you are asking to be ridiculed.

I return barb for barb.



So, if Congress passes a law tomorrow that defines speech as sign-language and only sign-language, then First Amendment suddenly only protects sign-language?

Sorry, boyo, but that is not how it works.

The statute does not define the Consitutional term. It cannot.



Wow. The Cornell university law department. I'm so impressed.

Even with a cite, I don't I'd care. I'll take the US Supreme Court and the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th Circuits over whoever at Cornell, thank you.

Regardless, how does this help you. Gee, it doesn't.





I've explained this several times. Am I using too big of words?

It. Is. Not. The. Type. Of. Weapon. That. Matters.

The logic of Miller is that the possession or use of a weapon is not protected under the Second Amendment unless the possession or use in question bears a "reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."

So, Gun X in the hands of joe blow on the street = not protected.

Same Gun X in the hands of Jim Milita for a purpose related to the preservation of a well-regulated militia maintained by the state = protected.

Clear enough, skippy?

despite the fact that this is a blatant distortion of the holding of miller, it is also very patronizing.

Apparently someone can dish it but can't take it.

I retract my apology in light of the post above. If someone can't be civil, well, then nor can I. I tried to patch this up, but whatever. I would note that the above quote is far more abusive than anything I have said to CT.

I will post no more in this thread, I am bored now.

I retract my apology in light of the post above. If someone can't be civil, well, then nor can I. I tried to patch this up, but whatever. I would note that the above quote is far more abusive than anything I have said to CT.

I will post no more in this thread, I am bored now.

I hope you mean the thread that you are getting all these quotes from. I didn't investigate this situation, so don't start attacking me as if I'm defending someone. I'm not. I'm neutral.

However, if someone else cannot be civil, let them make an ass out of themselves. You do not have the right to flame back in response to their flames. Two wrongs do not make a right. Two wrongs can, however, get two nations deleted.

I totally realize the Mods are very busy and that it has only been a few hours since I raised my complaint.

I just wanted to be clear that I would like a ruling Lacadaemon posts.

I will be disappointed but will obviously accept a "no, go away."

I understand that calling attention to this may get me warned, etc., for my actions. If I deserve it, so be it.

With all sincerity, thank you for your attention.

I've been following this thread without commenting, because it looked like you and Lacadaemon might actually settle this without intervention. That's what I hoped, because I haven't been following the Guns thread, and it pretty much looks like I'd have to immerse myself pretty heavily into the topic to understand the points you were making.

Here's the thing. On this site, you can claim to be anything you want. I just ran this ...Find A Lawyer > Name Search >
Search Results

Your search for Lawyers named Cat-Tribe found 0 listings. ... and am totally unsurprised to find no matches. Thus, I can't really point to a comment about ethical charges against you, the player. The NS nation The Cat-Tribe is the one being held to account here, and as far as I can tell you have no special legal standing here. That said, I'm sure you're actually a lawyer, and if such a comment came up publically in real life you'd be owed an apology. Possibly even grounds for litigation, but that's your field, not mine.

Has Lacadaemon been unreasonably rude? Possibly. He seems to admit it, even though he retracted his apology. Is the ethics charge actionable under the NationStates Terms of Service? I don't think so. The anonymity of the Internet does tend to put a damper on such things.

About all I can do here is say, Lacadaemon, knock off the flaming. You know you've been doing it, you've admited it in this thread. I can't tell you to apologize, even though I think it would be a good idea.

I also think it would be a good idea for The Cat-Tribe to acknowledge the half-way gesture, recognizing that appealing to yourself as an authority without revealing your RL credentials, does present a reasonable element of doubt.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator


... You two got any other babies you want me to cut in half?

I've been following this thread without commenting, because it looked like you and Lacadaemon might actually settle this without intervention. That's what I hoped, because I haven't been following the Guns thread, and it pretty much looks like I'd have to immerse myself pretty heavily into the topic to understand the points you were making.

Here's the thing. On this site, you can claim to be anything you want. I just ran this ...... and am totally unsurprised to find no matches. Thus, I can't really point to a comment about ethical charges against you, the player. The NS nation The Cat-Tribe is the one being held to account here, and as far as I can tell you have no special legal standing here. That said, I'm sure you're actually a lawyer, and if such a comment came up publically in real life you'd be owed an apology. Possibly even grounds for litigation, but that's your field, not mine.

Has Lacadaemon been unreasonably rude? Possibly. He seems to admit it, even though he retracted his apology. Is the ethics charge actionable under the NationStates Terms of Service? I don't think so. The anonymity of the Internet does tend to put a damper on such things.

About all I can do here is say, Lacadaemon, knock off the flaming. You know you've been doing it, you've admited it in this thread. I can't tell you to apologize, even though I think it would be a good idea.

I also think it would be a good idea for The Cat-Tribe to acknowledge the half-way gesture, recognizing that appealing to yourself as an authority without revealing your RL credentials, does present a reasonable element of doubt.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Forum Moderator


... You two got any other babies you want me to cut in half?

Thank you, Frisbeeteria.

I had thought I had accepted Lacadaemon's gesture and thank him/her, but I realize I buried that in argument.

Thank you, Lacadaemon. I hope we can put this behind us.

I would note -- as I did not point out here, but did in the thread -- that I did not claim authority based on being a lawyer. When directly asked, I said I was. When challenged on that I did not know what I was saying b/c I was not a lawyer, I said I was. The second was unwise.

Regardless your point is well-taken. I will also try to be less snide and abusive in my posts so as not to incite flames. I should shut up now.

Thanks. (save the baby!)

Hey, it's all never no mind to me: Cat tribe, I retract anything that I said that you may find offensive. And I hope this will not color our interaction in the future.

Hey, it's all never no mind to me: Cat tribe, I retract anything that I said that you may find offensive. And I hope this will not color our interaction in the future.

Cool. :cool: