Duke Lacrosse Case [Continued]

[R. Richard]

Those attornys who do make $400/hour, do so because they are very good attornys. My sister is one. It is not have a quishy job. Those people work hard, long hours and are constantly buried in research. They make that kind of money because they are good, are smart and experienced enough to select the cases they can win, and have a high win percentage. They also have the respect of the other attorneys because they have high standards of ethics and ethical behavior. In addition, they have LOTS of court experience and can tear up most of the attorieys in town before a judge, if that's what is needed.

Excellent points. Perhaps your sister could tell us the legal specialty of Vernon Jordan. Vernon Jordan is one of the best known lawyers in the Washington D.C. area and makes a ton of money. Doubtless he tears up other, lesser lawyers in the courtroom. However, I am unable to find his specialty. TIA.

 

[Jenny_Jackson]

Excellent points. Perhaps your sister could tell us the legal specialty of Vernon Jordan. Vernon Jordan is one of the best known lawyers in the Washington D.C. area and makes a ton of money. Doubtless he tears up other, lesser lawyers in the courtroom. However, I am unable to find his specialty. TIA.

Try here --> http://www.baseballindc.com/about_us/bios/vernon_e_jordan_jr.asp

Vernon Jordan seems to be tied up with the Urban League, was an advisor to the Clinton Administration and is managing partener at Lazard Frères & Co. LLC, which is an investment banking firm (?) From a quick google, it looks like most of what Vernon Jordan has been doing is SEC law lately, but he was involed in the Monica Lewinsky case and others.

 

[Pure]

the question what lawyers deserve is hard to answer in the abstract.

but taking this $400/hr person (who is not necessarily the 'average lawyer'), we might ask is she or he worth 10 times what an average high school teacher is? (e.g. assume $40/hr).

of course some of these fees go to the firm, and in fact this person may make only 5 times what the teacher does.

we might ask, if she/he's worth 2-4 times what the ordinary GP medical doctor makes (figuring lots of them make 100-200 dollars per hour).

I think further there is a lot of variation in quality of lawyer's services, even where high priced. Most or all of his/her fee may due to the prestige of his firm, his connections, more than objective abilities in legal procedings.

It also might be pointed out that ( like doctors) they get the $400/hr even if they lose/fail. Nice work if you can get it..
---

Just to keep the discussion in touch with facts, here are some average figures reported at quintcareers.com

Surgeons, $145,600
Physicians, general practitioner, $137,700
Psychiatrists, $136,500
Airline pilots, $128,100
Dentists, $120,400
Engineering managers, $95,600
Lawyers, $92,700
Computer and information systems managers, $90,500
Marketing managers, $85,200
Pharmacists, $82,500
Sales managers, $82,000
Education administrators, $74,000
Public relations managers, $67,800
Construction managers, $67,600
Chiropractors, $66,600
Computer programmers, $61,700
Real estate brokers, $54,400
Registered nurses, $51,000
Funeral directors, $46,100
Secondary schoolteachers, $45,000
Police and sheriff's patrol officers, $44,500
Postal service mail carriers, $44,500
Carpenters, $34,900
Truck drivers, $33,200
Correctional officers and jailers, $33,200
News reporters, analysts and correspondents, $31,700
Automotive technician and mechanic, $31,600
Medical assistants, $24,300
Source: Career InfoNet

 

[R. Richard]

Try here --> http://www.baseballindc.com/about_us/bios/vernon_e_jordan_jr.asp

Vernon Jordan seems to be tied up with the Urban League, was an advisor to the Clinton Administration and is managing partener at Lazard Frères & Co. LLC, which is an investment banking firm (?) From a quick google, it looks like most of what Vernon Jordan has been doing is SEC law lately, but he was involed in the Monica Lewinsky case and others.

I have been able to find exactly one court case where Vernon Jordan was involved as a lawyer [not a witness or defendant.] Said involvement consisted of the filing of a brief in amicus curiae. This is a hard working $400+ an hour lawyer? The case is FURMAN v. GEORGIA CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF GEORGIA
No. 69-5003.
Argued January 17, 1972
Decided June 29, 1972 *




[ Footnote * ] Together with No. 69-5030, Jackson v. Georgia, on certiorari to the same court, and No. 69-5031, Branch v. Texas, on certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Imposition and carrying out of death penalty in these cases held to constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

No. 69-5003, 225 Ga. 253, 167 S. E. 2d 628; No. 69-5030, 225 Ga. 790, 171 S. E. 2d 501; No. 69-5031, 447 S. W. 2d 932, reversed and remanded.

Anthony G. Amsterdam argued the cause for petitioner in No. 69-5003. With him on the brief were B. Clarence Mayfield, Michael Meltsner, Jack Greenberg, James M. Nabrit III, Jack Himmelstein, and Elizabeth B. DuBois. Mr. Greenberg argued the cause for petitioner in No. 69-5030. With him on the brief were Messrs. Meltsner, Amsterdam, Nabrit, Himmelstein, and Mrs. DuBois. Melvyn Carson Bruder argued the cause and filed a brief for petitioner in No. 69-5031.

Dorothy T. Beasley, Assistant Attorney General of Georgia, argued the cause for respondent in Nos. 69-5003 and 69-5030. With her on the briefs were Arthur K. Bolton, Attorney General, Harold N. Hill, Jr., Executive Assistant Attorney General, Courtney Wilder Stanton, Assistant Attorney General, and Andrew J. Ryan, Jr. Charles Alan Wright argued the cause for respondent in No. 69-5031. With him on the brief were Crawford C. Martin, Attorney General of Texas, Nola White, First Assistant Attorney General, Alfred Walker, Executive Assistant Attorney General, and Robert C. Flowers and Glenn R. Brown, Assistant Attorneys General. [408 U.S. 238, 239]

Theodore L. Sendak, Attorney General, and David O. Givens, Deputy Attorney General, filed a brief for the State of Indiana as amicus curiae urging affirmance in No. 69-5003. Paul Raymond Stone filed a brief for the West Virginia Council of Churches et al. as amici curiae urging reversal in Nos. 69-5003 and 69-5030. John E. Havelock, Attorney General, filed a brief for the State of Alaska as amicus curiae in Nos. 69-5003 and 69-5030. Briefs of amici curiae in all three cases were filed by Gerald H. Gottlieb, Melvin L. Wulf, and Sanford Jay Rosen for the American Civil Liberties Union; by Leo Pfeffer for the Synagogue Council of America et al.; by Chauncey Eskridge, Mario G. Obledo, Leroy D. Clark, Nathaniel R. Jones, and Vernon Jordan for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

 

[S-Des]

the question what lawyers deserve is hard to answer in the abstract.

but taking this $400/hr person (who is not necessarily the 'average lawyer'), we might ask is she or he worth 10 times what an average high school teacher is? (e.g. assume $40/hr).

of course some of these fees go to the firm, and in fact this person may make only 5 times what the teacher does.

we might ask, if she/he's worth 2-4 times what the ordinary GP medical doctor makes (figuring lots of them make 100-200 dollars per hour).

I think further there is a lot of variation in quality of lawyer's services, even where high priced. Most or all of his/her fee may due to the prestige of his firm, his connections, more than objective abilities in legal procedings.

It also might be pointed out that ( like doctors) they get the $400/hr even if they lose/fail. Nice work if you can get it.

This doesn't even touch on the true scum of our society, the personal injury lawyer. They only get paid if they win (at least that's the way it is for most of them), but they get more than 50% of the settlement. So if my child is crippled for life by a doctor's mistake, she gets slightly less for her lifelong care and compensation than the bloodsucking lawyer gets. And people wonder why health care is so unbelievably expensive here.

 

[Boxlicker101]

This doesn't even touch on the true scum of our society, the personal injury lawyer. They only get paid if they win (at least that's the way it is for most of them), but they get more than 50% of the settlement. So if my child is crippled for life by a doctor's mistake, she gets slightly less for her lifelong care and compensation than the bloodsucking lawyer gets. And people wonder why health care is so unbelievably expensive here.

That's not the worst of them, though. In the case you describe, there is actual injury, and the injured person receives some compensation, even if not enough. Such lawyers are grossly overcompensated, but at least they do some good. Even worse are those vultures that will sue even when there is no grounds for suit. It would usually be so expensive to defend against such a suit that the defendants or their insurance carriers agree to an out of court settlement. The insurance companies don't care if they pay out small amounts. They pass these on to their clients in the forms of increased premiums. If they win the lawsuit, it is more difficult to pass on the expenses.

As for people representing themselves, this is a difficult proposition. Even getting into the courts, except for small claims, is a very complicated procedure, and the System looks with so much contempt of people representing themselves that they make it even more difficult. After all, they want to take care of their own, which is to say they want to take care of lawyers.

 

[sethp]

the da is taking a hit..

the da in the case is taking a huge hit on talk radio with at my last count 5 shows blasting him this week.

 

[Boxlicker101]

the da in the case is taking a huge hit on talk radio with at my last count 5 shows blasting him this week.

He deserves anything that happens to him.

 

[S-Des]

That's not the worst of them, though. In the case you describe, there is actual injury, and the injured person receives some compensation, even if not enough. Such lawyers are grossly overcompensated, but at least they do some good. Even worse are those vultures that will sue even when there is no grounds for suit. It would usually be so expensive to defend against such a suit that the defendants or their insurance carriers agree to an out of court settlement. The insurance companies don't care if they pay out small amounts. They pass these on to their clients in the forms of increased premiums. If they win the lawsuit, it is more difficult to pass on the expenses.

This happened to us. My dad owned a small business. He hired a friend to manage it (which he did fairly well). Eventually, my dad decided to let him go. About 6 months later, we were contacted by a lawyer. During his last few months, the manager had taken himself off the company insurance, then did something really stupid and hurt his back (supposedly). He sued for $15,000. It was the perfect amount because it would have cost too much to defend ourselves, so we just had to pay it (they call it a nuissance law suit). It was obviously a shakedown and would have been impossible without the scumbag lawyer.

Sorry for the threadjack. I just really hate lawyers.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Sorry for the threadjack. I just really hate lawyers.

I've paid over 50K in legal fees in my lifetime... haven't I hit my limit yet? I don't wanna have to pay any more lawyers...

 

[Pure]

This doesn't even touch on the true scum of our society, the personal injury lawyer. They only get paid if they win (at least that's the way it is for most of them), but they get more than 50% of the settlement. So if my child is crippled for life by a doctor's mistake, she gets slightly less for her lifelong care and compensation than the bloodsucking lawyer gets.

P: not to be contrary, or to apologize for lawyers' greed, but the 'contingency arrangement' you describe is not bad, necessarily.
something like it is quite common in Canada and the US. it goes like this: NOTHING up front: then 1/3 if it's settled out of court; 1/2 if it goes to court. both my mother and g.f. benefitted, since no money is spend up front; in one case the lawyer fronted the money for all the inquires, letters, etc. they surely would not have been able to afford paying retainers up front.

you have to realize that, when it goes to court, the winner has input regarding the settlement. so it is not necessarily that the kid was to get a million, and the lawyer gets half. rather, the lawyer states and documents his times, costs, fees etc and adds them on, i.e., here, he claims two million, with that split 50-50.

contingency schemes were OPPOSED by most of the legal profession at one time, but they have the advantage of being tied to results. no winning settlement, no pay; this is surely superior to having your lawyer lose and send you a bill for $200,000.

 

[S-Des]

I've paid over 50K in legal fees in my lifetime... haven't I hit my limit yet? I don't wanna have to pay any more lawyers...

Not until you declare bankruptcy (of course, you should probably hire a lawyer for that ).

 

[S-Des]

P: not to be contrary, or to apologize for lawyers' greed, but the 'contingency arrangement' you describe is not bad, necessarily.
something like it is quite common in Canada and the US. it goes like this: NOTHING up front: then 1/3 if it's settled out of court; 1/2 if it goes to court. both my mother and g.f. benefitted, since no money is spend up front; in one case the lawyer fronted the money for all the inquires, letters, etc. they surely would not have been able to afford paying retainers up front.

you have to realize that, when it goes to court, the winner has input regarding the settlement. so it is not necessarily that the kid was to get a million, and the lawyer gets half. rather, the lawyer states and documents his times, costs, fees etc and adds them on, i.e., here, he claims two million, with that split 50-50.

contingency schemes were OPPOSED by most of the legal profession at one time, but they have the advantage of being tied to results. no winning settlement, no pay; this is surely superior to having your lawyer lose and send you a bill for $200,000.

I agree in principle, but there has to be a limit. A lawyer getting 50%-60% of a 100 million dollar class action lawsuit is utterly obscene. Additionally, they should be liable in cases like mine where they push a nuisance suit (you bet your ass we would have fought if we could have afforded it).

A man got drunk, climbed his neighbor's fence, climbed the fence around his pool, then fell on the deck, breaking his neck. He was a parapalegic for life. Then he found a lawyer who sued the homeowners for millions. Although he originally lost, the lawyer found a loophole and they refiled and won. The scumbag lawyer made millions, the drunk moron made millions, and insurance premiums went up for the rest of us. There is no conceivable way that this isn't wrong.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

The case's defenders deconstructed

I think I have parsed out the attitude of those trying to defend the indefensible in this case. Since "in the big picture" groups matter more than individuals, and "social justice" more than individual justice, the fact that the individuals here did not commit the crime is almost a distraction. The important fact is that they belong to the hated class - affluent white males.

Does that sound too extreme to be plausible? It is only in this context that sense can be made of the way they quickly shift their discussion from the particulars of this case to anecdotes about other affluent white males who got away with crimes, or insinuations that such injustice is systemic. Obviously they would argue that the last item is far more important than the fate of these particular victims. A corollary: For defenders of this prosecution, speaking out against it is evidence that one doesn’t really care about the possibility that systemic injustice may still exist.

This case is very revealing of what its defenders think about the rest of us. Implicit in their suggestion that our outrage is primarily motivated by class sympathy for the victims is the inference that we would not be outraged were the roles reversed and poor black men were just as unambiguously railroaded by a corrupt prosecutor for blatantly political purposes. In other words, we are all racists.

What is their evidence for this? Have the individuals expressing outrage at this sham made racist remarks in the past? Have they ever displayed an animus toward poor blacks in the way this case's defenders have shown toward affluent white males? They have not, and yet they are presumed to be motivated by just such attitudes.

No doubt many on the left equate opposition to welfare entitlements, minority preference policies and similar government interventions as equivalent to racism, so that's all the evidence they need. Their opponents on such issues aren't just wrong, they're evil.

To be fair, those outraged by this case should look into their own hearts and ask: Are my own presumptions about the likely guilt or innocence of an individual influenced by race, class or gender, even unconsciously? Is my commitment to "innocent until proven guilty" total? The defenders of this prosecution are wrong to believe that such attitudes are determined by one's background, but not wrong to think that it can be influenced by this.

They are just as wrong to believe that those holding an opposing political ideology do so because they are racists, or “don’t care” about the poor – but you will never convince them of that. When they debate someone like me, their presumption is that I am motivated by malice, not good will. (A frequent consequence of this is the attitude that uncivil behavior toward vocal ideological opponents is acceptable.)

 

[R. Richard]

I think I have parsed out the attitude of those trying to defend the indefensible in this case. Since "in the big picture" groups matter more than individuals, and "social justice" more than individual justice, the fact that the individuals here did not commit the crime is almost a distraction. The important fact is that they belong to the hated class - affluent white males.

I think that the problem here is that the Duke lacrosse case is so difficult to defend on a facts basis that there is a need to step outside the narrow confines of facts and get into 'concepts.' If you just stick to facts, the case is an outrage. However, if you get into concepts like social justice and past crimes against blacks, then you can muster a good emotional argument.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I think that the problem here is that the Duke lacrosse case is so difficult to defend on a facts basis that there is a need to step outside the narrow confines of facts and get into 'concepts.' If you just stick to facts, the case is an outrage. However, if you get into concepts like social justice and past crimes against blacks, then you can muster a good emotional argument.

Personally, I don't think there is such a thing as a "good emotional argument". The only good argument is one based on facts in the specific case, rather on what other people of similar racial or ethnic backgrounds have done in the past or are doing now.

 

[Pure]

RRI think that the problem here is that the Duke lacrosse case is so difficult to defend on a facts basis that there is a need to step outside the narrow confines of facts and get into 'concepts.' If you just stick to facts, the case is an outrage. However, if you get into concepts like social justice and past crimes against blacks, then you can muster a good emotional argument.

P: the hypothesis that there was an assault by a couple duke lacrosse players is consistent with the evidence (except for the fellow IF he wasn't there).

all of you act like you know what happened. you don't. it may have been an assault, it may not.

it may well be an act than can never be proven, in part because the lady's cred is minimal. in that case, in the eyes of the criminal justice system, no crime.

---

RA Implicit in their suggestion that our outrage is primarily motivated by class sympathy for the victims is the inference that we would not be outraged were the roles reversed and poor black men were just as unambiguously railroaded by a corrupt prosecutor for blatantly political purposes. In other words, we are all racists.

What is their evidence for this? Have the individuals expressing outrage at this sham made racist remarks in the past? Have they ever displayed an animus toward poor blacks in the way this case's defenders have shown toward affluent white males? They have not, and yet they are presumed to be motivated by just such attitudes.

roxanne, oddly, has it in for those of us --i.e. the group-- who look at the history of groups in society. like most on the right, she's suddently keen to look at individuals where the people in question [good southern universities] looked at groups for years-- without complaint of the right, the republicans (most of them; not Ike, for example) etc.

has anyone wondered why almost all the lacrosse team is white? in a state that has a large black population??? could racist social structures be part of the answer? lingering prejudicial attitudes, as was the case, for example, in professional hockey?

ever wondered why black strippers were chosen?

---
PS. Yes, roxanne, one of the three was, for a time, convicted of an assault, using the 'fag' epithet. makes you wonder. ...no. not if you're a Republican.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

RA Implicit in their suggestion that our outrage is primarily motivated by class sympathy for the victims is the inference that we would not be outraged were the roles reversed and poor black men were just as unambiguously railroaded by a corrupt prosecutor for blatantly political purposes. In other words, we are all racists.

What is their evidence for this? Have the individuals expressing outrage at this sham made racist remarks in the past? Have they ever displayed an animus toward poor blacks in the way this case's defenders have shown toward affluent white males? They have not, and yet they are presumed to be motivated by just such attitudes.

roxanne, oddly, has it in for those of us --i.e. the group-- who look at the history of groups in society. like most on the right, she's suddently keen to look at individuals where the people in question [good southern universities] looked at groups for years-- without complaint of the right, the republicans (most of them; not Ike, for example) etc.

has anyone wondered why almost all the lacrosse team is white? in a state that has a large black population??? could racist social structures be part of the answer? lingering prejudicial attitudes, as was the case, for example, in professional hockey?

ever wondered why black strippers were chosen?

---
PS. Yes, roxanne, one of the three was, for a time, convicted of an assault, using the 'fag' epithet. makes you wonder. ...no. not if you're a Republican.

It's worth noting that this post makes no effort to challenge any element of my characterization of defenders of this lawsuit, adds further evidence for the correctness of that characterization, and even confirms both parts of the last point in my post: "When they debate someone like me, their presumption is that I am motivated by malice, not good will; a frequent consequence of this is the attitude that uncivil behavior toward vocal ideological opponents is acceptable."

Remarkable.

 

[Pure]

When they debate someone like me, their presumption is that I am motivated by malice, not good will.

hardly. you've turned into a real hunter after slights, possible insults, etc. i guess it enables you to avoid matters of content; it's 'this is too insulting to answer.'

my presumption is that you're dedicated to looking after the interests of the well to do. you're rather like a smart lawyer, 'in house' at microsoft.

as with this example lawyer, such dedication doesn't make you evil at all, just rather blind to issues affecting the majority. no, putting it better, you see certain issues sharply (say, tax structures)... when they impinge on the interests of those you favor.

It's worth noting that this post makes no effort to challenge any element of my characterization of defenders of this lawsuit,

if it's wrong to make judgements based on groups, as you suggest, then this characterization of a group of "defenders" ignores the individual stances of those of us who want the justice system to continue its present course in the Duke case. in a word, you're doing what you claim is objectionable.

 

[Boxlicker101]

RRI think that the problem here is that the Duke lacrosse case is so difficult to defend on a facts basis that there is a need to step outside the narrow confines of facts and get into 'concepts.' If you just stick to facts, the case is an outrage. However, if you get into concepts like social justice and past crimes against blacks, then you can muster a good emotional argument.

P: the hypothesis that there was an assault by a couple duke lacrosse players is consistent with the evidence (except for the fellow IF he wasn't there).

all of you act like you know what happened. you don't. it may have been an assault, it may not.

it may well be an act than can never be proven, in part because the lady's cred is minimal. in that case, in the eyes of the criminal justice system, no crime.

---

RA Implicit in their suggestion that our outrage is primarily motivated by class sympathy for the victims is the inference that we would not be outraged were the roles reversed and poor black men were just as unambiguously railroaded by a corrupt prosecutor for blatantly political purposes. In other words, we are all racists.

What is their evidence for this? Have the individuals expressing outrage at this sham made racist remarks in the past? Have they ever displayed an animus toward poor blacks in the way this case's defenders have shown toward affluent white males? They have not, and yet they are presumed to be motivated by just such attitudes.

roxanne, oddly, has it in for those of us --i.e. the group-- who look at the history of groups in society. like most on the right, she's suddently keen to look at individuals where the people in question [good southern universities] looked at groups for years-- without complaint of the right, the republicans (most of them; not Ike, for example) etc.

has anyone wondered why almost all the lacrosse team is white? in a state that has a large black population??? could racist social structures be part of the answer? lingering prejudicial attitudes, as was the case, for example, in professional hockey?

ever wondered why black strippers were chosen?

---
PS. Yes, roxanne, one of the three was, for a time, convicted of an assault, using the 'fag' epithet. makes you wonder. ...no. not if you're a Republican.

First, what do mean by "consistent with the evidence"? There is no credible evidence. The only evidence at all against them is the wildly varying string of stories told by the accuser. The massive amount of evidence in favor of their innocence has been enumerated by me in a previous post, ao I won't repeat it.

Personally, and I am sure this so for Roxanne too, I am outraged by this attempt by the DA to railroad these three men. I would feel exactly the same if the accuser were white and the accused were black.

Once again, I see, you are looking backward at what happened decades ago. What happened then in North Carolina has nothing to do with the three men, who are from Maryland, New York and New Jersey.

The racial makeup of NC has little or nothing to do with the racial makeup of the lacrosse team. I don't know what the percentage is, but I know that many of the players are from out of state, including the three accused. Since you ask, though, has anybody ever wondered why most of the Duke basketball team is black? Personally, I think that racial characteristics go deeper than skin color, and some of the physical characteristics of black people, such as bone structure and muscle concentration, tend to make them better basketball players than white people. I think the same thing might possibly be said for lacrosse and hockey players. Hockey, of course, is rooted in Canada and the rural northern US, where lakes freeze over in the winter. Most pro hockey players are from those areas and Europe, which would make them mostly white. This is changing but it hasn't changed very much yet.

It is my understanding that the party planners requested white strippers but had to accept the women who were available from the agency.

It is also my understanding that one of the three men was convicted of battery against a gay man, and that he might well be homophobic. However, that has nothing to do with this case, except very indirectly.

 

[Pure]

actually he battered a straight guy, forcing him to say, 'i'm a fag.'

jock mind.

 

[Pure]

beneath the veneer...

Scott wrote this about 2 hours after the alleged assaults. 41 is Scott's jersey number.

Mar 14, 1:58 am. Scott Mc Fayden’s email

To whom it may concern

Tommrow night, after tonights show, ive decided to have some strippers over to edens 2c. all are welcome.. however there will be no nudity. I plan on killing the bitches as soon as the[y] walk in and proceding to cut their skin off while cumming in my duke issue spandex.. all in besides arch and tack please respond

41

 

[Boxlicker101]

actually he battered a straight guy, forcing him to say, 'i'm a fag.'

jock mind.
Scott wrote this about 2 hours after the alleged assaults. 41 is Scott's jersey number.

Mar 14, 1:58 am. Scott Mc Fayden’s email

To whom it may concern

Tommrow night, after tonights show, ive decided to have some strippers over to edens 2c. all are welcome.. however there will be no nudity. I plan on killing the bitches as soon as the[y] walk in and proceding to cut their skin off while cumming in my duke issue spandex.. all in besides arch and tack please respond

41

OK, it was a guy he thought was gay. Either way, it still shows homophobia.

What McFayden wrote was hateful and detestable but it was also protected by the Constitution. I expect there are far worse things being said or written on computers by persons of all races about other races.

McFayden is not one of the accused.

 

[Pure]

i think you miss the point box. i'm trying to recall what grade it was--maybe 8-- when a stronger boy would humiliate a weaker, and force him to say, "I'm a fag." IOW if he says it, he is, and he's supposed to be embarrassed.

anyway, it appears Finnerty's conviction is going to be wiped out. mark my words. these boys are going to do just fine (if they get off).

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

When they debate someone like me, their presumption is that I am motivated by malice, not good will.

hardly. you've turned into a real hunter after slights, possible insults, etc. i guess it enables you to avoid matters of content; it's 'this is too insulting to answer.'

my presumption is that you're dedicated to looking after the interests of the well to do. you're rather like a smart lawyer, 'in house' at microsoft.

as with this example lawyer, such dedication doesn't make you evil at all, just rather blind to issues affecting the majority. no, putting it better, you see certain issues sharply (say, tax structures)... when they impinge on the interests of those you favor.

It's worth noting that this post makes no effort to challenge any element of my characterization of defenders of this lawsuit,

if it's wrong to make judgements based on groups, as you suggest, then this characterization of a group of "defenders" ignores the individual stances of those of us who want the justice system to continue its present course in the Duke case. in a word, you're doing what you claim is objectionable.

Nothing but meaningless word games in that last paragraph.

On whether I'm a "real hunter after slights, possible insults" - not at all. It may seem like that to one who perhaps doesn't even recognize the incivility and insults implicit or explicit in almost every one of his own posts responding to me - possibly because he presumes that those of my ideology deserve nothing less - and is thus taken aback when I point these out.

In the quoted post, for example, there is the implicit insinuation that I am unmotivated by justice, but am just "looking after the interests of those (I) favor." This insulting insinuation about motives extends not just to me, but to all who have complained about this particular travesty of justice. However, focusing on my status as an alleged "hunter of sleights" is an example of you doing exactly what you accuse me of, which is "avoiding matters of content" by focusing on an unrelated issue. The dodged matter of content is the characterization of your attitude toward ideological opponents contained in this post. Almost everything you have written in this thread before and since that post confirms that attitude.

Regarding your series of posts about the unsavory character of one of the victims in this case: Imagine Pure's reaction if the roles were reversed - it was three poor black men being railroaded - and someone like Box or RR were posting items about the unsavory background of one of the defendants. The fulminations would rock the heavens! The double standard Pure accuses others of could hardly be more apparent in this line of argument from him.