Patterico's Pontifications

4/19/2013

BREAKING: Nadia Naffe Lawsuit Dismissed

Filed under: General,Nadia Naffe — Patterico @ 5:49 pm

Some (more) bright news at the end of a depressing week:

Details to follow at Popehat.

For now, I will say only that I have the greatest lawyers in the world: Kenneth P. White (Ken from Popehat), and Ron Coleman (from Likelihood of Confusion).

Comments are open.

UPDATE: Ken’s post is up here. I plan to blog this result in more detail on Monday morning. There are several reasons for this proposed delay. Hopefully, the entire country will not be as focused on tonight’s arrest of the Boston Marathon bomber. Hopefully, the steady drumbeat of depressing news of violence will have dwindled to a trickle. Finally, traffic should be back to normal weekday levels. I hope to publish my detailed post on this at a moment when the glorious tradition of people reading blogs at work is being observed with all the energy America’s workforce has to offer.

But for now, I would like to focus your attention on three brief points.

First: Ken quotes two footnotes from the judge’s tentative ruling, which was confirmed (and expanded upon) today. The judge twice threatened Nadia Naffe and/or her attorney with sanctions “for Plaintiff’s (and/or her counsel’s) willingness to play fast-and-loose with the language that is actually at issue here.” That’s a quote from the judge, folks. I didn’t make it up. As Ken points out, while the judge did not ultimately follow through on the threat, the language is nevertheless telling. To quote Ken:

Though Judge Wu did not ultimately award sanctions, I look forward to quoting those words on appeal or in a state court motion for sanctions if Naffe re-files there.

Second: Ken and I in particular got to face, not just criticism, but “vapid and dishonest partisan hacks” who criticized both of us for standing up for free speech — including “the greasy, demi-literate, demented Hutt who wrote an extended quasi-sexual fantasy about a mob murdering Patrick and me.”

Hi, Bill Schmalfeldt! I understand you were curious about the result of this case. I’m happy to be sharing that with you! And, your sick, twisted fantasies notwithstanding, nobody has yet beaten me or Ken with baseball bats or tire irons. No group of men has thrown us in front of a moving truck as part of a conspiracy to cause our deaths. (If you think I am exaggerating, I have uploaded a .pdf of Schmalfeldt’s violent fantasy here.)

Third: Ken’s post, and the conduct of Ken White and Ron Coleman throughout this litigation, is an inspiration to people everywhere who stand up for free speech. Ken makes the point well when he says this:

I defended [Patterico] because the First Amendment that lets him speak freely lets me speak as well. I defended him because malicious, frivolous, and politically motivated lawsuits aimed at censorship make it a little more dangerous for each of us to speak. I defended him pro bono because frivolous lawsuits can effectively censor people even when they eventually fail, because the expenses of lawsuits can be ruinous.

When I told Ken this evening by email that I could not thank him enough, he told me: “[T]o pay me back, keep writing what you want to write, and encourage people to support free speech, especially for people with whom they disagree.” That brings tears to my eyes. It makes me want to stand up and start singing “God Bless America.” And, on a more practical level, it redoubles my resolve to continue donating to organizations like FIRE — and to continue to stand up for free speech rights on this blog, even when I disagree with the opinions being expressed.

That’s more than I expected to say in this post — and yet, I plan to blog this result with a little more specificity on Monday. For those of you who have specific questions about the litigation, I hope to be able to point you to court documents that address some of the issues, and make it clear why this litigation has been such an abusive attack on legitimate criticism of a public figure.

In the meantime, go read Ken’s post in its entirety, and please give him and Ron Coleman your thanks for the service they have done, not just for me, but for the cause of free speech in America.

UPDATE x2: Thanks very much to Instapundit for the link. Once any new readers have finished bookmarking this site, I hope they visit the blogs of my pro bono lawyers: Popehat and Likelihood of Confusion.

UPDATE x3: And don’t forget to become a fan of Patterico on Facebook and to follow me on Twitter!

210 Responses to “BREAKING: Nadia Naffe Lawsuit Dismissed”

  1. Ding.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  2. YAY! Congrats Pat

    Monitor (31b737)

  3. Also, per @andrewbuzzfeed, chechmate.

    Two good things happened today.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  4. well good, congrats.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  5. Congrats, man. Is O’Keefe in the clear too?

    jb (bd3b0f)

  6. Congrats to you and your team.

    John Pomeroy (09e1a3)

  7. The pony-worthy Popehat is promising a post. It’s going to be one of my favorites.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  8. Congrats Pat!

    Dawnsblood (fbd76c)

  9. Bravo! Looking forward to when you can say more.

    Auntie fraud (2f38aa)

  10. Good news. Better would be these guys labeled vexatious litigants

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  11. There will be a rending of garments and a gnashing of teeth over at Team Kimberlin tonight.

    Frankie (9006d1)

  12. Congratulations!

    aunursa (7014a8)

  13. Hope you and your family rest easier.
    congrats.

    mg (31009b)

  14. Good for you Patterico.

    Ag80 (19f299)

  15. Thanks Ken and Ron, and Congratulations Patterico!

    tyree (84087f)

  16. Congratulations to you all … and watch out for SWATtings.

    htom (412a17)

  17. Also, her cat has furballs. Congratulations!

    Craig Mc (2e96c5)

  18. That is good news. Congratulations to all.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  19. Great news. Congrats to Patterico and Mrs. Patterico.

    Dana (292dcf)

  20. Maybe inappropriate, but I’ll ask anyway- what jurisdiction was the suit in, as I see one is with CA bar and the other NY and NJ?

    Still in need of a lawyer for a friend to deal with an unjust SLAPP suit (in PA) that has cost some defendants bankruptcy/home, even though the perpetrator of the suit is now under federal indictment (for the things that were claimed to be slanderous accusations).

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  21. Outbloodystanding!

    roy in nipomo (160066)

  22. Congratulations. Can you sue her for a frivolous lawsuit?

    NJRob (fe68e7)

  23. Patterico, congratulations. Finally a bit of good news after dreadful events one after another.

    MD, the best advice I can offer is to seek out Ken from the Popehat blog and explain your friend’s situation to him. Unfortunately, I’m sure Ken cannot possibly help everyone who has been faced with one of these suits, but he sure seems to help a lot of folks dealing with legal thuggery. If only there was a Ken White for every Judge Vaughey. Then, the legal profession would be admired.

    Dustin (2da3a2)

  24. Congratulations to the Pattericos and the defense team. A big SUCK IT to the bad guys. It was a stupid, silly suit from the start.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  25. Congrats, the good guys win!

    Patricia (be0117)

  26. omg it’s like she’s being rapebarned all over again by the justice system

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  27. The good guys win in the long run.

    d_fitz (ae2aaf)

  28. I haven’t read a word from Popehat, yet, but: Congratulations!

    Even though this was bound to happen, it still must be a weight off your mind, and this is the very best of news!

    Dianna (f12db5)

  29. It would have been more fun to get a deposition from Señorita Liar and Rowhowser first

    J/K. Congrats!!!!!!

    JD (b63a52)

  30. There have been so many events in these weird entangled lawfare episodes where something I took for granted didn’t happen, and something I found impossible did happen.

    It’s good to see a rightside up event, but I’m sure this took a lot of hard work from Patterico’s two lawyers. Every hour they gave to this cause was very valuable, and this success is the result of generosity.

    It is a shame that this lawfare can work against some people who do not have the resources or savvy.

    Dustin (2da3a2)

  31. Can you comment more about the absurd case against you?

    Kaitian (133e3c)

  32. UPDATE: Ken’s post is up here. I plan to blog this result in more detail on Monday morning. There are several reasons for this proposed delay. Hopefully, the entire country will not then be more focused on a more meaningful story. Hopefully, the steady drumbeat of depressing news of violence will have dwindled to a trickle. Finally, traffic should be back to normal weekday levels. I hope to publish my detailed post on this at a moment when the glorious tradition of people reading blogs at work is being observed with all the energy America’s workforce has to offer.

    But for now, I would like to focus your attention on three brief points.

    First: Ken quotes two footnotes from the judge’s tentative ruling, which was confirmed (and expanded upon) today. The judge twice threatened Nadia Naffe and/or her attorney with sanctions “for Plaintiff’s (and/or her counsel’s) willingness to play fast-and-loose with the language that is actually at issue here.” That’s a quote from the judge, folks. I didn’t make it up. As Ken points out, while the judge did not ultimately follow through on the threat, the language is nevertheless telling. To quote Ken:

    Though Judge Wu did not ultimately award sanctions, I look forward to quoting those words on appeal or in a state court motion for sanctions if Naffe re-files there.

    Second: Ken and I in particular got to face, not just criticism, but “vapid and dishonest partisan hacks” who criticized both of us for standing up for free speech — including “the greasy, demi-literate, demented Hutt who wrote an extended quasi-sexual fantasy about a mob murdering Patrick and me.”

    Hi, Bill Schmalfeldt! I understand you were curious about the result of this case. I’m happy to be sharing that with you! And, your sick, twisted fantasies notwithstanding, nobody has yet beaten me or Ken with baseball bats or tire irons. No group of men has thrown us in front of a moving truck as part of a conspiracy to cause our deaths. (If you think I am exaggerating, I have uploaded a .pdf of Schmalfeldt’s violent fantasy here.)

    Third: Ken’s post, and the conduct of Ken White and Ron Coleman throughout this litigation, is an inspiration to people everywhere who stand up for free speech. Ken makes the point well when he says this:

    I defended [Patterico] because the First Amendment that lets him speak freely lets me speak as well. I defended him because malicious, frivolous, and politically motivated lawsuits aimed at censorship make it a little more dangerous for each of us to speak. I defended him pro bono because frivolous lawsuits can effectively censor people even when they eventually fail, because the expenses of lawsuits can be ruinous.

    When I told Ken this evening by email that I could not thank him enough, he told me: “[T]o pay me back, keep writing what you want to write, and encourage people to support free speech, especially for people with whom they disagree.” That brings tears to my eyes. It makes me want to stand up and start singing “God Bless America.” And, on a more practical level, it redoubles my resolve to continue donating to organizations like FIRE — and to continue to stand up for free speech rights on this blog, even when I disagree with the opinions being expressed.

    That’s more than I expected to say in this post — and yet, I plan to blog this result with a little more specificity on Monday. For those of you who have specific questions about the litigation, I hope to be able to point you to court documents that address some of the issues, and make it clear why this litigation has been such an abusive attack on legitimate criticism of a public figure.

    In the meantime, go read Ken’s post in its entirety, and please give him and Ron Coleman your thanks for the service they have done, not just for me, but for the cause of free speech in America.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  33. Very nice post by Ken at Popehat. Also, this comment makes me curious about what he said at oral argument.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  34. UPDATE: Thanks very much to Instapundit for the link. Once any new readers have finished bookmarking this site, I hope they visit the blogs of my pro bono lawyers: Popehat and Likelihood of Confusion.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  35. We need a law requiring the plaintiff to psy the defendant’s costs plus penalties if he loses and the judge calls it a vexatious lawsuit. Congrats.

    gtwreck (77ff4e)

  36. DRJ,

    I know what Ken said, but I’m going to leave it up to him to tell the story if he wants. I’ll just say I had absolutely no problem with what he said or the manner in which he did it. None at all.

    I won’t give specifics now. But if you have read my update and Ken’s post, however, you may have begun to get a small glimpse into the conduct of Naffe and her lawyers — and the manner in which they represented my statements to the court. (A manner which caused the judge to threaten them with sanctions, not once, but twice.) You might be able to understand how someone could get exercised about that.

    And when I have done my post on Monday, that should become even more clear.

    I plan to generally stay out of this comment section, but I thought your comment was worth responding to.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  37. Thank you for your comment, Patterico. I should have been more specific because I’m curious what the other side did that prompted Ken’s passionate response. In retrospect, it was probably related to the actions that led the court to consider sanctions.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  38. That would be a good guess, DRJ.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  39. There is some justice in this world, overdue as it were.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  40. Good news, for all of us.

    Machinist (b6f7da)

  41. Congratulations on the dismissal. I should take this opportunity to eat crow for defending Naffe in any capacity. Vexatious litigant, indeed.

    Leviticus (17b7a5)

  42. Leviticus,

    I have not discussed the case on the blog, but on Monday I plan to provide links to documents from the case. I will point you to 2 or 3 of them that lay out some facts that put things in perspective. You really ought to take a look. Most of them are already in Ken’s post.

    The cretins have been crowing about the case while having no earthly idea what it’s about — or even whether yesterday was a trial date (their claim) as opposed to a date to hear motions to dismiss (reality). They have blabbed and blabbed with zero knowledge of the facts.

    Patterico (fa70e5)

  43. Those same cretins were basically implying that you called in a bomb threat to put off the court date.

    Kaitian (133e3c)

  44. Seems that your attorney is channeling Voltaire without attribution.

    Lloyd Martin Hendaye (05799f)

  45. Kaitian:

    Actually, Aaron Walker and/or I am the one(s) who were suggested as the source of that bomb threat at the Carroll County (MD) courthouses. The real suspect is now in custody. http://hogewash.com/2013/04/20/westminster-bomb-threat-suspect-in-custody/

    W. J. J. Hoge (9c4b9d)

  46. “[T]o pay me back, keep writing what you want to write, and encourage people to support free speech

    Kudos to Ken White!

    It’s often noted that the mere threat of a lawsuit is, in too many instances, enough to give the win to a plaintiff (and certainly his, her or their lawyers). Because, in effect, the plaintiff will have successfully extorted money from the defendant, just from his or her (or their) effort to avoid being in a courtroom by making a lawsuit go away.

    It’s not just leftwing kooks who exploit the system, even though I wouldn’t be surprised if the plaintiffs described below are big fans of the Democrat Party and the left (as most trial lawyers happen to be, and as is probably the case with their most shameless clients).

    usc.edu, September 2007:

    USC and the developer of a proposed mixed-use student housing development for the university’s students have filed a lawsuit against Conquest Student Housing. The litigation is the result of a two-year campaign by Conquest to monopolize the student housing market around USC’s University Park Campus and its threats to attack competing development projects.

    The lawsuit alleges a pattern of racketeering, abusive litigation, extortion, fraud and intimidation by Conquest officials who described themselves as the “Al-Qaeda” of USC student housing, even going so far as to state they know how to legally “bomb” competitive development projects.

    Conquest officials have said they would do whatever it takes to prevent the construction of the University Gateway Project being developed by Urban Partners, LLC on land leased from the Shammas Family and USC.

    That’s why I hope people like you (ie, your two lawyers) are in the frontline of pro-bono assistance, at least from members of the legal trade who realize that “ambulance chasing” is a very corrupt, greedy facet of the judicial system.

    sacramento.news10.net, October 2012: An American with Disabilities Act lawsuit was the last straw for a struggling, longtime burger business. Ford’s Real Hamburgers on Sutterville Road [in Sacramento, Ca] shut down just weeks after the governor signed a new state law that would crackdown on ADA lawsuit abuse.

    Several attorneys have filed an exceptional number of lawsuits based on ADA violations. Attorney Scott Johnson has filed nearly 2,200 of them in federal court. More often than not, businesses settle after paying thousands of dollars. Others have no choice but to shut down for good. Ford’s, who was sued by Johnson, decided to close its doors.

    Texas West BBQ in Sacramento also faced a lawsuit brought by Johnson in 2007. Property owners Louise and M.L. Haynes made the needed changes. But then, in March of this year, they were hit with another lawsuit by another attorney. They say it’s frustrating. The second lawsuit is forcing Texas West BBQ to make more changes to be ADA-compliant. Those changes, including better striping in the parking lot, wider doors, and a larger bathroom, will cost the Haynes nearly $35,000.

    “It scares you because it’s so expensive and time-consuming,” said Louise Haynes.

    Gov. Brown just signed a bill co-authored by Senate President pro Tempore Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, that would prevent frivolous lawsuits. It would ban demand letters. It gives the defendant time to fix the ADA violations. It’ll also prevent lawyers from stacking multiple claims to increase pay-outs.

    “It prevents what I like to call ‘legalized extortion,’” said Travis Hausauer who is co-chair of Californians Against Lawsuit Abuse. His Squeeze Inn Burger restaurant was sued twice by two different attorneys. “I got sued in court the first time, then I got sued in federal court the second time around,” said Haushauer.

    Many people believe the state law is a positive step. But some say it won’t stop ADA lawsuits because attorneys will continue to file lawsuits in federal court.

    “We need to support Dan Lungren’s bill going before Congress. it’s called the ACCESS bill that would give people a chance to fix the problem before they’re sued,” said Haushauer. The ACCESS bill is currently on hold in the Senate. But proponents say it’ll spell relief that they desperately need from excessive lawsuits.

    Mark (6d6213)

  47. I should take this opportunity to eat crow for defending Naffe in any capacity.

    I know you’re on the left (and, yea, there are sleazebags on the right and center too), but you should be getting a sense that if a person of liberal persuasion is in the middle of a story, he or she often (not always, but often) will not deserve gallons of tears and sympathy. That’s far truer now (in this era of who-give-a-damn, anything-goes, drunk-with-self-entitlement behavior) than in the past.

    Mark (6d6213)

  48. Congratulations. After all of Walker’s troubles with the retired Maryland justice of the peace, it is encouraging that some members of the bench can still be found who understand their duties in regards to preventing the abuse of the legal process.

    On an unrelated note, whenever I attempt to follow a thread from your home page, I receive a script error notification. It is related to the following URL:

    http://cdnapi.kaltura.com/index.php/kwidget/wid/0_dvl34hnp/uiconf_id/3775332/st_cache/66807?referer=http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/video/boston

    and I’ve found that if I press the “no” 13 times, the message finally releases control and I can proceed to the comments section.

    bobathome (c0c2b5)

  49. Naffe’s attorney is a real scumbag himself, I can imagine why Ken lost control briefly.

    SPQR (f9b4cf)

  50. Nadia Naffe’s attorney seems to have been about as honest as the gelatinous walrus BillS and Rowhowser.

    JD (b63a52)

  51. Congratulations, Patterico! May those who have abused the legal system against you get what they so richly deserve.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (2c3aa5)

  52. Congratulations Pat.

    Mattsky (bbcbfe)

  53. #46,

    Hoge,

    Actually, there was apparently a bomb threat called to the courthouse where Frey’s court date was held at (The same day I believe his case was dismissed). They (who I shall not name) tried to imply that it was Frey who called it in so that he could affect his hearing. Nevermind that the whole case was absurd on its face from Naffe anyways.

    Kaitian (133e3c)

  54. This is good news. My disagreement with your view of the world runs deep, but I’ve always felt that attempts to shut you down (particularly attempts that try to use your job against you) threaten my own right to express my views in public. This is a victory for everyone who cares about free speech and the Internet.

    Tim McGarry (3d81ba)

  55. I should take this opportunity to eat crow for defending Naffe in any capacity.
    Comment by Leviticus (17b7a5) — 4/19/2013 @ 10:52 pm

    According to my sources:
    Some combination of oregano and green chilis stuffed into a crow then covered with mud and baked in the sun then served with hominy corn bread should work out nicely

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  56. throw a fried egg on top and that’s damn good eating what you got there

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  57. Patterico @ 33:

    When I told Ken this evening by email that I could not thank him enough, he told me: “[T]o pay me back, keep writing what you want to write, and encourage people to support free speech, especially for people with whom they disagree.” That brings tears to my eyes. It makes me want to stand up and start singing “God Bless America.” And, on a more practical level, it redoubles my resolve to continue donating to organizations like FIRE — and to continue to stand up for free speech rights on this blog, even when I disagree with the opinions being expressed.

    I’m taking it that you, Patrick, have learned to appreciate “free speech” now more than where you were a month or so ago when you considered taking away my free speech rights on your blog.

    Unless I stepped up to the challenge of explaining myself on a certain issue, you threatened to put my posts into moderation, and in fact did just that when you were unable to see my response which had indeed been placed in moderation.

    Under similar circumstances now, would you today consider to block my submissions?

    I would hope that your experience in this Naffe case has taught you a lesson about free speech, Patrick.

    PS: I am withholding any comment on the decision rendered in this Naffe v Frey case, until I learn the details. Nevertheless, I congratulate you and your attorneys for prevailing in a case in which you successfully defended your position.

    Perry (d7a158)

  58. Mr. Perry i am so sorry that happened to you

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  59. Perry, your comment illustrates the fundamental unseriousness of your every trolling comment.

    SPQR (f9b4cf)

  60. I understand well, SPQR, that trolling to you is defined as disagreeing with you.

    Perry (d7a158)

  61. Perry:

    You really are a sanctimonious punk. Your condescending lectures and snark might be useful if they carried any authority, but you lose credibility when you equate “free speech” with posting on someone else’s blog.

    What an idiot. I mean that by definition, not as an insult.

    Ag80 (19f299)

  62. Another of your falsehoods, Perry.

    Your attempt to compare being banned from commenting at a private blog by its owner with someone using the court system to punish speech with which she (and the rest of the Brett Kimberlin crime family) disagreed is offensively stupid trolling.

    SPQR (f9b4cf)

  63. Maybe just for one day, on just this one particular thread, you could have at least given it a try to make it not all about you, Perry.

    elissa (5e1c41)

  64. when you considered taking away my free speech rights on your blog.

    Lying liar.

    JD (b63a52)

  65. PS: I am withholding any comment on the decision rendered in this Naffe v Frey case, until I learn the details.

    Not knowing jack shlt about a topic has never stopped you from spewing your verbose hackery before.

    JD (b63a52)

  66. “I’m taking it that you, Patrick, have learned to appreciate “free speech” now more than where you were a month or so ago when you considered taking away my free speech rights on your blog.”

    Perry – You are an idiot of the highest order. You have no free speech rights on this blog. It is private property, something which leftists such as you commonly misunderstand unless conservatives try to comment at lefty blogs. People comment here only with sufferance of the blog owner.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  67. SPQR @ 63:

    Your attempt to compare being banned from commenting at a private blog by its owner with someone using the court system to punish speech with which she (and the rest of the Brett Kimberlin crime family) disagreed is offensively stupid trolling.

    A private blog owner who preaches free speech ought to respect same on the blog, else be guilty of hypocrisy. So that’s my point.

    And please note, I have expressed no opinion yet on the court case.

    Perry (d7a158)

  68. Perry actually shows his affinity for the BK crime family by finding the cloud around the silver lining … or the silver lining in the cloud … that of Patterico “learning his lesson” from being sued and threatened with bankruptcy by a minion of the BK crime family and the crime family’s lawyer.

    SPQR (f9b4cf)

  69. Hypocrisy is the common refrain of silly leftists that know not of what they speak.

    We await your educated opinion of the subject post with bated breath.

    JD (b63a52)

  70. And please note, I have expressed no opinion yet on the court case.

    Noted. Do you promise to educate yourself on all other topics before commenting?

    JD (b63a52)

  71. SPQR @ 69:

    Perry actually shows his affinity for the BK crime family by finding the cloud around the silver lining … or the silver lining in the cloud … that of Patterico “learning his lesson” from being sued and threatened with bankruptcy by a minion of the BK crime family and the crime family’s lawyer.

    Again, I’ve said nothing about the court case; so you’re making something out of nothing, SPQR. That’s weak!

    Perry (d7a158)

  72. You are a liar, Perry, I got that very sentiment from your comment at Comment by Perry (d7a158) — 4/20/2013 @ 11:06 am

    SPQR (f9b4cf)

  73. I would hope that your experience in this Naffe case has taught you a lesson about free speech, Patrick.

    What experience in this case do you think he should draw wisdom from?

    JD (b63a52)

  74. Perry, your speech isn’t squelched. THe fabulous Perry blog awaits your every jot and scribble.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  75. JD, seriously, is my 11:34AM a reasonable inference from Perry’s 11:06AM?

    I feel that it was not a misrepresentation of his comment at all.

    SPQR (f9b4cf)

  76. Perry,

    A hallmark of dishonest, trollish argumentation is lack of reference to specific facts and proof. Let me address your claims by specifically reminding you what happened when I threatened to ban you. After weeks of your being labeled a troll by commenters here, I decided to give you a chance to prove you were not a troll. I addressed a specific claim you had made that was factually false. I provided proof that it was false, and demanded you address it. I came back onto the blog and saw numerous comments from you to others, but no response to my comment. I threatened to ban you. Then, JD indicated that your response had been caught in the spam filter. I apologized to you and withdrew the threat to ban you.

    That I missed the comment in the filter was my mistake. I apologized and you accepted the apology.

    It’s disappointing that you now cite this episode as an example of me being AGAINST free speech, when it is actually an example of me standing up for it. I go out of my way to permit people who argue honestly to post on this blog, as long as they do not unfairly disparage my professionalism or clearly demonstrate themselves to be a troll. This means that, at times, I have to fight my commentariat, which sometimes labels people trolls simply because their arguments are garbage. But if I think there is a chance that a crap argument is honestly held, I am reluctant to label someone a troll — sometimes, I suspect, even when they actually are.

    However, I do not apologize for banning trolls who clearly prove themselves to be trolls. Someone whose overarching goal is not to argue honestly, but to DISRUPT the free speech conversations of others with mocking and distraction, does not add to free speech, but detracts from it.

    It’s a shame that you choose to characterize my threat to ban you as essentially the opposite of what it actually was.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  77. daleyrocks @ 67:

    Perry – You are an idiot of the highest order. You have no free speech rights on this blog. It is private property, something which leftists such as you commonly misunderstand unless conservatives try to comment at lefty blogs. People comment here only with sufferance of the blog owner.

    It’s all quite simple, daleyrocks: One should not publicly preach free speech, then refuse to practice it privately, else no credibility, else be labeled a hypocrite. Now rock, Daley! :)

    Perry (d7a158)

  78. Not at all, SPQR, Perry just doesn’t have the stones to state it.

    JD (b63a52)

  79. You didn’t ask me but it’s a sign.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  80. Perry demonstrates his complete misunderstanding of “free speech”

    JD (b63a52)

  81. I would hope that your experience in this Naffe case has taught you a lesson about free speech, Patrick.

    It has.

    It has taught me that honest speech about a matter of public concern is a good thing, and is worth fighting for — even when that fight entails the threat of frivolous, abusive litigation.

    It has shown me that there are honorable people like Ken White and Ron Coleman who are willing to step up to the plate and stand up for people whose free speech has been threatened.

    As I indicated, that inspiring experience has only strengthened my previously existing commitment to foster the cause of free speech, even for people like you.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  82. I would be interested — and likely somewhat disgusted — to learn what lesson Perry thinks I should have taken from this experience.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  83. Patterico, I believe that Perry’s “lessons” would all resemble some form of “knowing what’s good for you”.

    Such after all, is the core principle of the Democratic thug government Perry so incompetently defends.

    SPQR (f9b4cf)

  84. I would hope that your experience in this Naffe case has taught you a lesson about free speech, Patrick.

    What experience in this case do you think he should draw wisdom from?

    Crickets!

    JD (b63a52)

  85. I’m going to let Perry speak for himself on this one.

    What lesson should I have learned, Perry?

    Patterico (9c670f)

  86. but to DISRUPT the free speech conversations of others with mocking and distraction, does not add to free speech, but detracts from it.

    Comment By Patterico

    So Jd Is Banned?

    truthteller (743228)

  87. OK Patrick, that was well expressed, both factually and philosophically.

    But let me point out, that you have several “trolls” on here who fit your definition but never get called out, some of whom have commented on this thread in just the last few minutes. Of course you should do what you wish on your blog, but for these trolls to call me a troll is beyond ridiculous, as I’m sure you would agree.

    I consider it a privilege to participate on your blog, and useful as well, as our political differences should be debated. That’s communication.

    Perry (d7a158)

  88. It’s also a demonstration of a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes infringement of free speech rights.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  89. “It’s all quite simple, daleyrocks: One should not publicly preach free speech, then refuse to practice it privately, else no credibility, else be labeled a hypocrite. Now rock, Daley!”

    Perry – No, you spoke of having rights here and in that you are quite mistaken and should admit your error. Since Patterico has entered the conversation, I will bow out.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  90. Tillman is so cute. Twoofteller is utterly transparent.

    JD (b63a52)

  91. As to what lesson you have learned, I am inclined to think that given a similar circumstance, you might not now be so quick to place me in moderation, based on your experience in the Naffe v Frey case. My first impression, without suficient specific knowledge of the case, is that Naffe et al were attacking your free speech rights with threats, bordering on terrorizing you and your family. Is this a reasonable characterization of it?

    Perry (d7a158)

  92. What about the frivolous Naffe suit is related to moderating trollish behavior?

    JD (b63a52)

  93. As to what lesson you have learned, I am inclined to think that given a similar circumstance, you might not now be so quick to place me in moderation

    If I had seen your comment responding to mine, I never would have placed you in moderation. As I have explained several times, I made an error in overlooking a responsive comment from you that was in moderation. If you’ll pardon my saying so, it’s a little churlish of you to purport to accept my apology for that oversight, and to then continue rubbing my nose in it, as if it makes some kind of statement about my respect for free speech . . . which it doesn’t.

    If you’re not harping on my error, then let’s consider the counterfactual hypothetical: imagine a world in which you hadn’t, in fact, responded to my comment calling you out. Would I not be within my rights to ban you as a troll? If you came on here, made a false factual assertion, I called you out on it, and you pointedly ignored my correction while leaving several other comments, are you saying that behavior would contribute to free speech?

    Patterico (9c670f)

  94. daleyrocks @ 90:

    Perry – No, you spoke of having rights here and in that you are quite mistaken and should admit your error. Since Patterico has entered the conversation, I will bow out.

    No, daleyrocks, I have not stated that I have rights on this blog. My point is about preaching about free speech rights, then hypocritically not practicing same in private, like on private blogs. This then is not impressive to me.

    Perry (d7a158)

  95. I will agree with others here that your “rights” to be free of government control of your speech are NOT commensurate with your (non-existent) “rights” to post on this blog.

    I do not, however, suggest that the two are entirely unrelated — and I do agree that people who preach free speech should attempt in good faith not to ban good faith disagreement with a heavy hand.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  96. I would have thought that what Patterico could have learned from his Naffe experience – if he didn’t already know it perfectly well – is that it would be wrong to have Perry swatted or to try to get him fired from his day job (assuming he has one) for writing stupid or offensive things on his own (I mean Perry’s) website, though he (Patterico) is perfectly free to ban him here at any time for any reason or none.

    Dr. Weevil (841ed6)

  97. i learned a lot about rapebarns mostly

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  98. Patterico:

    Someone up thread complained about getting an error message. I am getting that same message. Maybe it is a problem on my end but here is a copy of most of it: (I couldn’t copy the whole message for some reason).

    http://cdnapi.kaltura.com/index.php/kwidget/wid/0_dvl34hnp/uiconf_id/3775332/st_cache/66807?referer=http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/video/boston-marathon-bombings-fbi-releases-images-suspects-18992236&autoPlay=false&addThis.playerSize=392×221&freeWheel.siteSectionId=nws_offsite&closedCaptionActive=true&

    Ipso Fatso (1e3278)

  99. I don’t recall the specific details of Perry’s incident, but I know there were several times when I was a moderator when I moderated someone for a brief time — to let things cool off; to gather more facts about what was going on; or (regrettably) because I was mistaken or missed something in the filter. Those brief intervals probably seem like a ban to the moderated commenters but I don’t view it that way.

    It takes time and people to keep a blog like this running, and temporary problems are inevitable. But permanent bans are extremely rare here and that’s extremely rare at blogs of this size. I know it’s because Patterico wants it that way, and I consider it proof of his commitment to free speech for all.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  100. Oops. What this does is link to some video. There must be some reason for me getting an error message when I log in to your site. FYI.

    Ipso Fatso (1e3278)

  101. What would be hypocritical would be if Patterico had banned Perry (which he didn’t) and then had gone over to Perry’s website and posted his own comments there afterwards. Someone did that to me years ago: banned me from his site for a comment that was only offensive in so far as it showed he was utterly wrong on some statement he had made, and then came over and posted critical comments on my site. That was blatantly hypocritical, and I of course banned him and deleted the comments made after he’d banned me. But Patterico hasn’t done anything like that, and I really don’t see what bans and counterbans have to do with swatting or suing people for what they write on-line.

    Dr. Weevil (841ed6)

  102. Ipso Facto,

    I’m still having problems using the link function. I think there are some technical issues but I can’t figure out what they are. Last week, I thought it might be related to Firefox. Do you mind if I ask whether you use Firefox?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  103. Patrick, I plead guilty to being “churlish”.

    That said, how easy is it for anyone of us to miss reading a challenge made, or a question asked, given the large volume of participants on your blog, then to be put in moderation for not stepping up to the challenge, when a reminder could be attempted first.

    That incident is now in the past and resolved, therefore I retract my question about your free speech learning curve.

    In my experience, there have been a handful of Right-leaning blogs which have banned me for expressing my views in debate on said blogs. I’ve seen Left-leaning blogs do the same to their political adversaries. I view these behaviors as being actions exhibiting weakness, regardless which side does the banning.

    Perry (d7a158)

  104. Ipso Fatso,

    I mistyped your name in my last comment. My apologies.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  105. “No, daleyrocks, I have not stated that I have rights on this blog.”

    Perry – That is a bald-faced lie. I quote your word below.

    “when you considered taking away my free speech rights on your blog.”

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  106. A pox on all houses then move along, huh Perry?

    JD (f6c1a6)

  107. OK daleyrocks, I misspoke in that quote. I admit that I do not have free speech rights on a private blog. But I stand by my hypocrisy statement.

    Perry (d7a158)

  108. “OK daleyrocks, I misspoke in that quote. I admit that I do not have free speech rights on a private blog. But I stand by my hypocrisy statement.”

    Perry – It weakens your hypocrisy comment considerably given how Patterico operates this blog and your lack of historical experience with it. Failing to acknowledge a blatant error on your part that multiple commenter were pointing out and now claiming you merely misspoke and commenting on lessons Patterico should have learned from a case with which you claim no familiarity just reinforce to me why I do not consider you an honest or trustworthy commenter.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  109. “OK daleyrocks, I misspoke in that quote. I admit that I do not have free speech rights on a private blog. But I stand by my hypocrisy statement.”

    What hypocrisy statement are you standing by? I thought you just now retracted your suggestion that I had been hypocritical.

    Patterico (f416ac)

  110. Dear Perry,

    Hi. My name is Ken. I have the honor of being Patrick’s lawyer.

    Perhaps I don’t know too much about free speech, Perry. I mean, I’ve studied it for my entire adult life, and I’m a member of the First Amendment Lawyers Association, and I write about it all the time in my blog and other sites and newspapers, and I’ve won numerous anti-SLAPP motions, and I just won motions in Patrick’s case. But let’s stipulate that perhaps I don’t have the refined grasp of it that you do.

    So you’ll have to discount what I am about to say.

    Your view of free speech and “hypocrisy” is fatuous and incoherent, Perry.

    Free speech means freedom from government suppression, directly or through the legal system, Perry. Free speech doesn’t entitle you to have other people listen to or respect you. It doesn’t entitle you to step up onto somebody else’s soapboax. If I want to come into your house and bloviate about something you don’t care to hear about — say, how Tannhauser is the perfect Wagner opera, or 4th edition D&D is a travesty — you don’t have to let me. In fact, even if I would like to talk about a subjecct that interests me, you don’t have to let me into your living room to talk if you believe, perhaps justifiably, that I am an asshole and you find my presence irritating.

    I fight for free speech all the time, Perry. I also ban trolls and assholes from my blog when I feel like it. So do my cobloggers. (Sometimes, instead, I edit their comments to confess to a love for paste or molesting dachshunds.) It’s our living room, not a government forum. Kicking assholes out is not a violation of free speech. It IS free speech. It’s part of our freedom of speech and freedom of association. It’s our house, not anybody anybody else’s house.

    My stance on free speech in general, and my stance on banning twats from my blog, is only hypocritical if you don’t understand what free speech is. If I criticize other blogs for banning people for being assholes, then I am being hypocritical. (Actually I only criticize blogs that ban people solely for expressing disfavored viewpoints, and even then I don’t call it a violation of free speech, because that would make me sound embarrassingly ignorant.)

    Patrick is considerably more tolerant of trolls, assholes, and bad behavior than I am. No doubt he has developed a thick skin for uncivilized behavior by being constantly surrounded by other prosecutors. At any rate, he is not violating anybody’s free speech, and he is not being a hypocrite, and nobody who actually cares about free speech, or the meaning of words, would say so.

    Thank you.

    Ken

    Ken (1ff322)

  111. Don’t forget that Perry refused to learn his lesson and was banned from Dana’s First Street Journal site permanently, after two previous trial suspensions, for threatening to inform another commenter’s employers (a teacher in a public school system) that his exercise of free speech on Dana’s blog involved the expression of views not approved by Parry. In view of the topic, it’s beyond contemptible that Perry’s hypocrisy runs so broad and so deep that he would attempt so blatant a two-faced fraud here.

    PS: Perry’s web site was set up with Dana’s help and to some extent at his expense and was maintained using Dana’s bandwidth.

    ropelight (4a3698)

  112. Don’t lie to your lawyer. You must be lying to your lawyer. Nobody is that much of a dishonest turd.

    Ken (1ff322)

  113. Ken:

    No doubt he has developed a thick skin for uncivilized behavior by being constantly surrounded by other prosecutors.

    I appreciate Ken’s sense of humor. I also appreciate his keen intellect and his willingness to help others.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  114. No doubt Perry stands by every hypocritical thing he’s ever said.

    Icy (bca094)

  115. Ken, if you comment was addressed to me, every word is true and easily verifiable, the facts are posted on Dana’s site.

    ropelight (4a3698)

  116. ropelight: sorry, right, thought that was written by Patrick.

    Ken (1ff322)

  117. Ken @ 111 (as quoted by DRJ at 114):

    Hey!! I resemble that remark!

    shipwreckedcrew (ff598b)

  118. Ken brings tears to my eyes a lot.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  119. Frankly, the fact that Perry contradicts his own statements within minutes is rather conclusive proof of both his fundamental dishonesty and trollhood.

    SPQR (768505)

  120. Don’t forget that Perry refused to learn his lesson and was banned from Dana’s First Street Journal site permanently, after two previous trial suspensions, for threatening to inform another commenter’s employers (a teacher in a public school system) that his exercise of free speech on Dana’s blog involved the expression of views not approved by Parry. In view of the topic, it’s beyond contemptible that Perry’s hypocrisy runs so broad and so deep that he would attempt so blatant a two-faced fraud here.

    Which more than puts paid to any claim of “hypocrisy” by Perry.

    Threatening to go to employers with word of non-work related political commentary … where have we seen this tactic before? Bueller? Bueller? Bueller?

    SPQR (768505)

  121. I didn’t know he had done that. Is that true, Perry?

    I don’t know that I want such a person commenting on my blog. Any response to that accusation, Perry?

    Patterico (9c670f)

  122. As I recall, Dana was defending Perry here recently. Nevertheless, maybe you should ask Dana if that story is true.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  123. DRJ:

    No Firefox, I am using IE9. I have only started having this problem recently and I wonder if it may be due to a recent update. It is titled a Script Error. As I said, it may be a problem with my browser as well. As for the name misspelling, no apologies needed. god knows I do it plenty as well (:.

    Ipso Fatso (1e3278)

  124. FWIW I still have not seen anything from Perry about what lessons should have been learned from the BS Naffe lawsuit, insofar as how it would relate to a single comment in moderation on a website.

    FREE PERRY !!!!!

    JD (f6c1a6)

  125. Is that story true, Dana?

    Patterico (9c670f)

  126. I’ve seen Left-leaning blogs do the same to their political adversaries.

    You can say that again.

    news.investors.com, March 2012: Not exactly shocking news for those exposed to them for years, but the respected Pew Research Center has determined that political liberals are far less tolerant of opposing views than regular Americans.

    In a new study, the Pew Center for the Internet and American Life Project confirmed what most intelligent Americans had long sensed. That is, whenever they are challenged or confronted on the hollow falsity of their orthodoxy — such as, say, uniting diverse Americans — liberals tend to respond defensively with anger, even trying to shut off or silence critics.

    The new research found that instead of engaging in civil discourse or debate, fully 16% of liberals admitted to blocking, unfriending or overtly hiding someone on a social networking site because that person expressed views they disagreed with. That’s double the percentage of conservatives and more than twice the percentage of political moderates who behaved like that.

    Only 1% of moderates would block or shut out someone who dared to disagree with them, compared to 11% of liberals, whose rate was nearly three times that of conservatives.

    The same 11% of liberals would block or unfriend people who offended them by daring to argue about political issues, vs 6% and 7% for other political views.

    Liberals (14%) even blocked or shut out those they deemed posted too frequently on politics, vs 8% and 9% for moderates and conservatives, respectively.

    Liberalism seems to trigger innately two-faced and phony emotions in its adherents.

    Mark (6d6213)

  127. Ken @ 111:

    …. But let’s stipulate that perhaps I don’t have the refined grasp of it that you do.

    So you’ll have to discount what I am about to say.

    Your view of free speech and “hypocrisy” is fatuous and incoherent, Perry.

    Free speech means freedom from government suppression, directly or through the legal system, Perry. Free speech doesn’t entitle you to have other people listen to or respect you. It doesn’t entitle you to step up onto somebody else’s soapboax. If I want to come into your house and bloviate about something you don’t care to hear about — say, how Tannhauser is the perfect Wagner opera, or 4th edition D&D is a travesty — you don’t have to let me. In fact, even if I would like to talk about a subjecct that interests me, you don’t have to let me into your living room to talk if you believe, perhaps justifiably, that I am an asshole and you find my presence irritating.

    Ken, by your condescending statement, you are rebutting an argument I have not made. So why is this?

    Moreover, need I remind you that you are participating on a blog now, and are not in a courtroom pulling out all stops to defend your client.

    Here is my statement on hypocrisy, which Patrick also seems not to have internalized, or perhaps, my communication has been faulty:

    @ 90: My point is about preaching about free speech rights, then hypocritically not practicing same in private, like on private blogs. This then is not impressive to me.

    I hope that clears my position up for you, Ken.

    Perry (d7a158)

  128. Ah, Patterico, you have not internalized Perry’s wisdom.

    That’s your problem.

    SPQR (768505)

  129. Is ropelight’s story true, Perry?

    Patterico (9c670f)

  130. So, Perry, when has Patterico’s “preaching about free speech rights” included preaching that everyone has a right to post anything they want on everyone else’s website? That’s not the same thing as preaching that anyone ought to be able to blog their own opinions on their own websites or in the comments of any other website that is willing to have them, without having to worry about being ‘swatted’, sued, or fired from their jobs because someone else disagrees with them. It seems to me that he preaches the latter, but not the former.

    And you have been specifically accused (comment 112, repeated in comment 121) of trying to get someone fired for what they wrote on a website, which would make you a hypocrite and something worse than a mere hypocrite. Aren’t you obligated to reply to that accusation? It’s devastating, if true, and Patterico has already asked you three times (comments 122, 126, 130) whether it is true.

    Dr. Weevil (841ed6)

  131. Aren’t you morally obligated, I should have written, not legally.

    Dr. Weevil (841ed6)

  132. Patterico @ 122:

    I didn’t know he had done that. Is that true, Perry?

    I don’t know that I want such a person commenting on my blog. Any response to that accusation, Perry?

    First, here is ropelight’s politically motivated, tattle-tale allegation @ 112:

    Don’t forget that Perry refused to learn his lesson and was banned from Dana’s First Street Journal site permanently, after two previous trial suspensions, for threatening to inform another commenter’s employers (a teacher in a public school system) that his exercise of free speech on Dana’s blog involved the expression of views not approved by Parry. In view of the topic, it’s beyond contemptible that Perry’s hypocrisy runs so broad and so deep that he would attempt so blatant a two-faced fraud here.

    It is true. Being a school teacher for a time myself, there were two bloggers on Dana’s former blog whose politically motivated, incessant personal attacks and gutter language were not what one would expect from school teachers, both teachers in my state of Delaware. There was no threat as such, rather a hypothetical, questioning how their school administrators would react were they to be informed. In the case of one of them, I indicated that I knew where he taught, but never a blatant threat to inform his administration. This was interpreted as a threat. In the third case, a blogger bragged that he had placed a significant quantity of money in the Cayman Islands, to which I suggested that he might be doing so to avoid US taxes. He immediately threatened to sue me, upon which Dana basically panicked.

    Interesting enough, the one teacher immediately cleaned up his act, and the other one quit commenting. The third individual still comments, occasionally on this very blog.

    To fully understand this dynamic, you would need to have been aware of the context. In an attempt to change the overall dynamic and tone, Dana decided to discontinue that blog and start a new one, his current blog.

    Regarding banning me because of a dynamic on another blog, not present at all on your blog, that’s of course your decision to make, Patrick.

    Perry (d7a158)

  133. Perry,

    Do you know whether Dana agrees with your explanation of what happened on his (Dana’s) blog?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  134. I have yet to see proof of the rumor that Perry has sexual relations with dachshunds.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  135. DRJ, you will have to ask Dana that.

    Perry (d7a158)

  136. here is a pic of an underage dachshund (NSFW)

    http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7qza7Gxvb1rusg24o1_500.jpg

    happyfeet (c60db2)

  137. “I know where you live” style statements like that are implicit threats. There is no reason to bring it up unless you are dangling the notion you have the power to get to/ rat on your target.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  138. Perry:

    So, basically, you decided that you were the supreme arbiter of the correct behavior of a couple of teachers that you disagreed with.

    Then you decided to tell the teachers that did not follow your code of conduct: “Hey that’s a nice little job you have there. It would be a pity if something happened to it.”

    You are not just an idiot. You are a small-minded scold. You are a tool.

    Before you ran off your last friend, did he or she call you a name?

    Ag80 (19f299)

  139. Excluding very friendly jests or more benign and congenial contexts, I would rate that a threat. Framed by animosity, and an allusion to how an employer might react, it would be hard to read it any other way.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  140. Regarding banning me because of a dynamic on another blog, not present at all on your blog, that’s of course your decision to make, Patrick.

    It’s clear you made a threat to report these people to their employers. It’s too bad that you are that type of person because such people are a menace, in my view, and are people opposed to free speech.

    Since you don’t see a problem with what you did, I am going to treat you the same way I treat Kman, who has skirted the line on this very blog with personal threats of intimidation with respect to the workplace (which is especially sad because he has experienced them). I will not ban you, but I will moderate your comments to ensure that you are not threatening people at their workplace. I simply can’t tolerate that kind of behavior here.

    You know: because free speech.

    Your comments will be released when I get around to it.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  141. A defense that includes the words “no threat as such” and “never a blatant threat” is as good as a confession. I have taught secondary school most of the last twelve years, and I would certainly take what Perry himself admits to doing as threats to my job security.

    Dr. Weevil (841ed6)

  142. If you (or Kman) ever show a sincere understanding of why your threatening comments regarding someone’s workplace are a problem, I will unmoderate you.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  143. I indicated that I knew where he taught, but never a blatant threat to inform his administration.

    That sounds like the sort of threat you make when (1) you want plausible deniability about whether you are making a threat, or (2) you are a devoted troll, or (3) you are a political operative troll policing incorrect thought, or (4) you’re too much of a pussy to make a threat openly.

    It really doesn’t sound like the sort of thing said by anyone who would ever have anything worthwhile to contribute to a conversation.

    Ken (1ff322)

  144. I also might think about reconsidering the moderation — and I will conduct a full investigation of the comments at issue and their appropriateness — if Perry can prove to me that the people he threatened were leftists.

    At the very least, that would be some indication that his threats were motivated by genuine concern and not politics. That would be prima facie evidence that his actions *possibly* had some merit. At least enough evidence to impel me to look into it.

    As it stands, however, I would bet a considerable sum that Perry threatened a conservative. His brand of “gap bridging” demands threats to people who oppose his political views. It’s just how he rolls.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  145. My last comment could be twisted into a claim that I approve threats to leftists, but any person with half a brain will see my point: someone who pronounces themselves appalled by a statement made by someone whose politics they agree with is (at least facially) more credible than someone who is denouncing a political opponent.

    Common sense.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  146. “It’s just how he rolls.” I think that last word is missing a T.

    Dr. Weevil (841ed6)

  147. I agree with Patterico’s response but I don’t understand why Dana would ban someone and then encourage Patterico to let the same person comment here. That doesn’t sound like the Dana I know. Are they different people? If not, I’d like to hear from Dana.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  148. Perry displays his weakness when he tries to silence those he disagrees with. I don’t think he quite understands that.

    Colonel Haiku (233082)

  149. Our host asked:

    Is that story true, Dana?

    Yes.

    DRJ then asked, after Perry’s comment:

    Do you know whether Dana agrees with your explanation of what happened on his (Dana’s) blog?

    I’m certain that is how Perry views it, though the facts are not in dispute. This is the banning article.

    I did not like doing so, and the traffic and discussion on my site has suffered considerably, but I really had no choice. I’d like to see another liberal commenter or three replace Perry at TFSJ, because the discussion was much livelier when he was there, but the personal infighting became impossible. John Hitchcock wanted aphrael to return! At least thus far, I have not seen any activity on this blog which has been similar, and I would not advocate banning him here.

    Perry wrote:

    Interesting enough, the one teacher immediately cleaned up his act, and the other one quit commenting. The third individual still comments, occasionally on this very blog.

    Perry, Hoagie, a commenter named Hube and I met for lunch one day in Hatboro, Pennsylvania, at a nice restaurant Hoagie picked out, and a meal for which he treated us all, even though it was supposed to be Dutch treat. He essentially threatened the job of one person with whom he dined, and accused another of a felony, despite the fact that our luncheon was friendly and personable.

    It is true that I provide Perry’s website. The url costs me a whopping $10 a year, and I have both unlimited bandwidth and unlimited domain names through my hosting service, so providing him with bandwidth costs me nothing extra.

    The blogger Dana (af9ec3)

  150. DRJ wrote:

    I agree with Patterico’s response but I don’t understand why Dana would ban someone and then encourage Patterico to let the same person comment here. That doesn’t sound like the Dana I know. Are they different people? If not, I’d like to hear from Dana.

    I wouldn’t advocate banning any commenter on another site on which he had not committed a banning offense. I don’t want to silence any voices if not absolutely necessary.

    The blogger Dana (af9ec3)

  151. I wouldn’t advocate banning any commenter on another site on which he had not committed a banning offense. I don’t want to silence any voices if not absolutely necessary.

    I am not banning Perry, but I have to moderate people who threaten people’s jobs.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  152. I will also point out that Perry’s full name and town of residence were known to several commenters. Perry did not want his full name to be used, and when I encountered it by others who were urinate off at him, I redacted his last name.

    The blogger Dana (af9ec3)

  153. ==I also might think about reconsidering the moderation==

    Well if you feel you must–but no rush. Perry hogs space and obviously craves attention but adds nothing to the dialogue and in fact apparently seeks to distract from useful dialogue. (As exemplified on this very thread.) Unlike the case with most other commenters who come to this site to think aloud and to share good links, I can think of not one time Perry has ever posted something here where I’ve read it and thought, “Hmm–now you know, that’s kind of interesting. I had never thought of it quite that way before.”

    elissa (5e1c41)

  154. 68. Again, I’ve said nothing about the court case; so you’re making something out of nothing, SPQR. That’s weak!

    Comment by Perry (d7a158) — 4/20/2013 @ 11:39 am

    This is also how the lying jerk rolls.

    He’s whining that he didn’t say anthing about the court case.

    When the heart of the matter is that he compared being putting into moderation to a court case in comment #58:

    I would hope that your experience in this Naffe case has taught you a lesson about free speech, Patrick.

    He then proceeds to attempt to move the goalposts as if not offering an opinion about the Naffe case is a defense.

    What a lying weasel. That, I believe, is the definition of being a troll.

    Steve57 (da9e0e)

  155. Ken, more like all four.

    SPQR (792cf3)

  156. Congrats on the win, Pat.

    Steve57 (da9e0e)

  157. elissa #154 – one of the things that I both respect and enjoy about this blog is that a significant number of posters and commenters have an actual practising sense of humour … taking themselves and each other just enough yet not too seriously …

    I also appreciate that our revered and esteemed blog-host explains the what and the why of a situation when he finds himself feeling the need to discipline a commenter … that gives the offending commenter a sporting chance to show respect for the rules of this, our blog-host’s recreational area … as such, it gives the possibility to redeem mistakes …

    Oh – and I, too, enjoyed Ken’s deft use (#11) of language to toss out the occasional zinger for the enjoyment of his friends and readers … (grin) … and, even better, phrased in such a way that the perceiver has to actively *choose* to take offence (which not uncoincidentally tends to confirm the accuracy of such observations … hmmmm – sorta brings to mind another hat, as used at Hogwart’s …

    Alasdair (a28b33)

  158. Fair enough, the blogger Dana #151.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  159. Dana runs a damn fine blog. It’s well written, focused, timely, and thoughtful, but it suffers from an ongoing lack of participation because for way too long he allowed idiots and assholes, like Perry, to dominate the debate. Over and over, Dana put up with jerks for years on end who wouldn’t last two weeks here or anywhere else the host understood that bad business drives out good business.

    I’m not running down Dana, I respect him, he’s one of the good guys, a Billy Budd, who for all his good qualities somehow fails to grasp the wisdom behind the concept of culling the fruit so one rotten apple doesn’t spoil the barrel. Dana did everything he could do to accommodate Perry’s ungrateful and unacceptable thuggish behavior, but in the end even Dana had to draw the line, and then Perry not only stepped over it, he arrogantly claimed he had the right to do so even as he denied Dana’s right to enforce his own clearly stated rules on his own blog.

    ropelight (4a3698)

  160. It bothers me that I can’t attract more lefty commenters here whom I can trust not to resort to thuggish tactics when they encounter opposing opinions.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  161. There are only so many aphrael’s in the world, Patterico, and his time is limited.

    I think you’d be better off using your posts to present the pros and cons of issues and to encourage commenters to do the same. I think there are many fair-minded commenters here who would do a good job presenting both sides of most issues.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  162. When pleading come back to bite you:

    She does not identify any particular employment she claims to have lost. Nor does she appear to account for the fact that she has admitted to a role in the wiretapping of Maxine Water’s office, see FAC PP30-32, another fact that is — unfortunately for her — “available for all prospective employers to read.”

    ROFLMAO

    scrubjay (9582d6)

  163. i wouldn’t hire her because i would be scared she might make accusations that upon closer inspection were revealed to be either unsubstantiated or flatly untrue

    but i would share my deviled eggs with her

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  164. Ken and Patrick — you should discuss suggesting to Judge Wu that he publish his decision. Nothing like having your name associated with a F.Supp.2nd citation for ….. ever?

    shipwreckedcrew (ff598b)

  165. Mr. feets, is that a euphemism?

    Icy (bca094)

  166. I would like to agree that 4th edition D&D is in fact a travesty.

    luagha (73c609)

  167. only if i sprinkle on the paprika

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  168. Icy, to happyfeet, everything is a euphemism.

    SPQR (768505)

  169. Hey, hi, just got out of my Sabbath duds out East and catching up now with the fun.

    Pat, it was an honor to work with and for you and to help out here. As you know this was really Ken’s show, and he was utterly boss-man-like, as you youthful hep cats say!

    I am so delighted with both the outcome and the traffic to my blog today that I am releasing the lien on your house that we had agreed to as security for my fees.

    Ron Coleman (35ca2a)

  170. I am so delighted with both the outcome and the traffic to my blog today that I am releasing the lien on your house that we had agreed to as security for my fees.

    Can I keep my firstborn too? She’s been asking all day.

    Patterico (9c670f)

  171. Perry, Hoagie, a commenter named Hube and I met for lunch one day in Hatboro, Pennsylvania, at a nice restaurant Hoagie picked out

    Wow, what Perry described and what you confirm has a surrealistic ring about it. Perhaps that’s due to my sense that Perry — based on his comments through the months — is a fictional character (ie, does anyone in real life have so little common sense?!) or certainly a teenager who, if he were hanging out with others, would be surrounded by a bunch of other kids.

    There’s something about the writings of very liberal people — unseen and anonymous in, for example, an internet forum — who when I try to picture what they look like often make me think of a young person in school, either grade or college.

    Mark (6d6213)

  172. “I am so delighted with both the outcome and the traffic to my blog today that I am releasing the lien on your house that we had agreed to as security for my fees.:

    Ron – Thanks for the great work on behalf of the Pattericos. I would be happy to take that lien off your hands. Just email Patterico and he can give you the contact information.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  173. Pat, you tell her she’s off the hook! I’ll send along the paperwork pronto.

    Daleyrocks, that’s just sick!

    Ron Coleman (35ca2a)

  174. “Daleyrocks, that’s just sick!”

    Ron – Ima a giver. I know how having all that paperwork around can be a burden.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  175. Congratulations, Patterico. I could not tune in earlier because …

    DRJ and Ipso Fatso, this site was also crashing on me until susequent posts moved a graphic Patterico had borrowed from Hot Air off the front page (the one Ipso Fatso point to in his comment 99). The problem is an embedded Hot Air script which my security treats as a virus (McAffee). I have had this problem with Hot Air embeds before and I have not messed with my security trying to fix it because for all I know it may be an infection at Hot Air. I just resign myself to “no Patterico”.

    nk (875f57)

  176. nk:

    Thanks for the heads up. For some reason the error message only shows itself when I go to comment here. It did not this time for some reason. (Maybe because it is 4:24am here in bright, warm and sunny Chicago and being a conservative gremlin, it is still asleep!!)

    Ipso Fatso (1e3278)

  177. Patterico:

    Congratulations on you and your legal teams victory. I am very pleased but, no doubt, not as much as you are!!!

    Ipso Fatso (1e3278)

  178. For some reason the error message only shows itself when I go to comment here.

    It did it to me if I tried to navigate in any way, including exiting the site. It would not let me stay and it would not let me go. Kind of reminded me of the end stage of my marriage, actually. I used Task Manager to shut browsing down.

    It did not this time for some reason.

    That’s because the offending embed is now on another page (Previous Posts), having being pushed off the front page by new posts.

    And yes, it is a beautiful day in Chicago. The snow has even melted off my car.

    nk (875f57)

  179. Perry stated:
    “In the third case, a blogger bragged that he had placed a significant quantity of money in the Cayman Islands, to which I suggested that he might be doing so to avoid US taxes. He immediately threatened to sue me, upon which Dana basically panicked.”

    That blogger would be me. I was in no way “bragging” about anything. I was answering a question ( or arguement ) by Perry as to why people and corporations bank off shore. I think it was related to the question of Romney having such accounts. Anyway, I pointed out to Perry ( even though he already knew it ) that my wife and I have businesses in Asia and to facilitate payments and move money quickly we have off shore accounts. This is a common business/financial practice with international dealings. He did not “suggest” I held those accounts to avoid taxes (which is legal and our duty ) rather the inferrance was I was attempting to illegally evade taxes, a felony. At that point it went from an suggestion to an accusation. One which, had it gone farther could have caused great financial harm to myself, my family and my business. I do now as I always have: pay all my taxes* to to the extent my accountants think I’m nuts. The reason I do so is because a). it’s my duty and b). when doing business internationally one must be lilly white in financial affaires or one will not get credit or financing.

    As Dana stated above, Perry, Hube, Dana and I met for a down right nice and friendly lunch. I thought we all had fun and all parted friends. Even when Perry’s banning on Dana’s site was later debated, twice I said I did not think he should be banned. By that time I’d gotten used to his circular reasoning so it didn’t bother me that much. But things did get out of hand with a few other commentators and that was that.

    What ropelight did not mention is that by the time Dana banned Perry, Perry had driven more than one participant from Dana’s site. So it boiled down to self preservation, not free speech.

    On this site I have not seen Perry doing anything bannable in my opinion, but it is the opinion of Patterico that counts, not mine. I consider it a priveledge to comment on someone’s site and tho I may voice strong and PC incorrect opinions from time to time I do so respectfully.

    I might add that due to life long dyslexia, I misspell often and jumble words and letters. Sorry for this and feel free to correct my posts.

    * I frequently pay taxes in both the country the money is earned in AND the United States. And any income brought to the US is taxed as such. I love America and have always done my duty toward her. What I don’t like are persons who somehow believe they are entitled to anything I’ve earned and go about trying to take it (“You didn’t build that” ). And just so the Pery’s know if the US had lower corporate tax rates and had more favorable banking regulations we could make this country the Banking Capitol of The World. There are trillions out there that could be working here but it won’t because our government will seize it at the mere mention of a dispute. Then it’s up to you to pay to get your own money back. And the law suits here are an abomination.

    Hoagie (3259ab)

  180. Hoagie – Perry has indeed exhibited much the same regurgitard behavior you describe above on this blog, although not at the level of personal threats since he knows few of the commenters. He’s perfectly fine sticking to lobbing personal insults.

    The pattern you describe of taking talking points directed at the Romney campaign and applying to them you is something we have seen him do here with considerable frequency. He regurgitates talking points on taxes, health care, immigration, gun control, you name it, without the slightest evidence of having read the background information or understanding the flaws of what he is advancing. He acts just like an animatronic talking point generator and when those talking points are debunked, he just comes back the next day and repeats them again as if nothing happened.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  181. I am weary of stepping over Perry’s posts. At best you just want to say “Yes Mary, pass the potatoes to your Aunt Gardiner” but there’s always the feeling that there’s something wrong with him and that making trouble is his game.

    SarahW (b0e533)

  182. daily, he’s an ex-high school teacher, an old dog long in the tooth and set in his ways now bereft of a captive audience who not only refuses to learn new tricks, he insists on performing all his old tricks ad nauseum because he craves constant attention, and that’s all he knows.

    ropelight (18f73c)

  183. daleyrocks said:
    “He acts just like an animatronic talking point generator and when those talking points are debunked, he just comes back the next day and repeats them again as if nothing happened.”

    I understand and that’s what I was referring to when I mentioned his “circular reasoning”. But the constant repetitive propaganda is not in itself dangerous nor destructive. Boreing yes, but there is no threat there. We all understand by now he cannot think outside the box and there is never a good answer to a problem other than The Collective. And, like most leftists he’s better at fixing the blame than fixing the problem. It’s who and what he is and he’s way too old to change. Old dogs being what they are and all.

    But to me unless he actually threatens someone I see no need to enact sanctions. However, once again that is not my call.

    The thing is we need to be very careful of how much personal information we put out there. Realize it will cost an innocent man the same amount to defend his reputation as it will a guilty man to defend his crimes.

    Hoagie (3259ab)

  184. I welcome the Perrys of the internet world — not because anything we say here is going to change Perry’s mind, but because people who might otherwise agree with Perry may read our responses and decide he’s not worth believing.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  185. This discussion today regarding he-who-regurgitates has been enlightening, especially Ken’s discussion of the first amendment and the analogy to Patterico’s living room. This level of discussion may enhance the blog’s readership, but for myself, I find that most of the time we are just reacting to h-w-r with the same old arguments, which gets to be repetitous. This isn’t to say that the arguments are incorrect, but the sun rises every day, and it really isn’t necessary to report that it has risen once again, even if some fool has proclaimed that the sequesters are going to cause the sun not to rise on weekends. Such dialogues do not improve the blog in my opinion.

    And as reported above by nk at #175, my browser (IE-9) no longer reports a script error when I link to a comment off the home page. I’m impressed that nk determined that the problem was a Hot Air embed that is no longer part of the home page. I did find that pressing “no”, meaning do not continue to process the script, while trapped in the IE-9 error message 13 times cleared the problem without having to halt the process. So there’s no need to abandon Patterico when this happens.

    bobathome (c0c2b5)

  186. Bravo, nk #175.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  187. Hmm,
    I routinely access PP on two different computers, one running XP with Mozilla as the browser,
    and another running 7 with IE (something old) as the browser.
    I haven’t tried today, but over the last several days when I used the computer running IE when tried to navigate on PP I had this notice of a script that was jammed or some such with I think abc(lots of something)widget(something). Hitting the “stop script” button many times would allow me to move on, only needing to do it again, but I never had the problem on the computer with XP and firefox.

    Then (as I mentioned elsewhere) I got this phone call from someone claiming they were from Microsoft and they had detected an error message sent from my computer, and they wanted me to go to the computer and help me to “fix the problem”. He had a thick accent that seemed Indian subcontinentish.

    I didn’t know what to think, but thought it might have been something bad just as easily as something legit from Microsoft (caller ID had unlisted number or some such message).

    Any thoughts??

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  188. #187, MD, Unlisted number? That’s more than fishy, it’s a flashing TILT sign. I’d rank it next in line behind a Nigerian Letter.

    ropelight (18f73c)

  189. MD, don’t! Don’t let anyone remotely access your computer.

    And even if you think you know it’s a scriptsn.dll error in your security and not genuine malware do not mess with it in any way not unless you have both backup discs for your system and the disks to reinstall your security.

    nk (875f57)

  190. MD in Philly, if you think there is too much money in your bank accounts and wish to share your credit card accounts with CC fraud hackers who only wish to feed their family on your wealth, I would go right ahead and let “Microsoft” remote access your computer from a caller ID blocked number …

    ROFL

    SPQR (768505)

  191. Since there are a lot of lawyers who hang around this site I thought I’d post this link to an article by Steven Harper titled “The Entire Legal Profession Is On The Verge Of Imploding”, which is an except from his book The Lawyer Bubble; A Profession in Crisis.

    I’d enjoy reading informed reactions to this.

    The unlikely prospect of amassing great wealth wasn’t what attracted me to the law. Rather, I saw it as a prestigious profession whose practitioners enjoyed personally satisfying careers in which they provided others with counsel, advice, judgment, and a unique set of skills. Mentors at my first and only law firm taught me to focus on a single result: high-quality work for clients. If I accomplished that goal, everything else would take care of itself.
    Today, the business of law focuses law school deans and practitioners in big law firms on something else: maximizing immediate profits for their institutions. That has muddied the profession’s mission and, even worse, set it on a course to become yet another object lesson in the perils of short-term thinking.
    ….Behind the change is a drive to boost current-year performance and profits at the expense of more enduring values for which there are no quantifiable measures.
    …Law school deans are supposed to be the profession’s gatekeepers, but far too many have ceded independent judgment in an effort to satisfy the mindless criteria underlying law school rankings…
    But with the acquiescence of the ABA, deans inflate their schools’ rankings with incomplete and misleading information and encourage prospective students to pursue dreams that, for most of them, are impossible, all in the name of increasing applications, enrollments, and tuition revenues.

    Vulnerable young people become convinced that anyone can succeed as a lawyer. Because much of their undergraduate audience consists of liberal arts majors who can’t decide what to do next, law schools appear to be an attractive default option. Add a universal human affliction — confirmation bias — and the fit becomes too perfect: law schools tell prospective students what they want to hear, and sure enough, they hear it.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/steven-harper-on-the-lawyer-bubble-2013-4

    elissa (8c85ee)

  192. elissa,

    I’m from the same generation as Stephen Harper and I’m also disappointed in today’s law schools, administrators, and some (but not all) of the faculty. For too many, the focus has turned to money, adulation, and PC diversity instead of turning out quality legal professionals. Sadly, it is the same problem we’ve seen in K-12 and college education.

    As a result, many law school graduates will learn the hard way that a legal degree is not guarantee of a profitable career — just as college graduates are learning the hard way in our difficult economy. It’s a lesson that is very difficult to swallow on the micro level but sorely needed on the macro level, and in the long run I hope it will result in better lawyers and a better quality product for legal consumers.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  193. Some law school cirriculum is designed to actually turn out bad lawyers.

    But the question of where the profession is going in terms of business models is different from the many faults of law schools.

    SPQR (768505)

  194. As a practical matter, I think we may see law school shortened from 3 years to 2 years and/or more emphasis on clinical skills, especially in the second and third years. In effect, after the first year of law school may be more like a medical internship, and some law schools will open their own law firms or associate with law firms to give their students hands-on experience.

    But SPQR is right that this doesn’t address the long-term impact on the legal business model. My gut feeling is that we’ll see more boutique law firms and lawyers who independently contract to provide set services at set fees. The delivery mechanism will be varied, everything from traditional law firms to Craigslist. And the big law firms will face more pressure to abandon the associate model and provide better value at a set fee.

    The only caveat I would add is that this will probably happen at different speeds in different places. Thus, just as big cities have more variety in restaurants, stores, services, etc., I expect there will soon be more variety in their legal services. We may not see the changes as quickly in smaller cities. The law schools that recognize how things will change in their geographical sphere, and prepare for it, will do better than those that don’t.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  195. Attention needs to be paid to the poor jamoak who’s never been in trouble but suddenly out of nowhere needs a very good lawyer for himself or someone in his family. If one needed someone other than an ambulance chaser, the big firms have always been considered a safe (if expensive) bet as the first place to turn. One assumed they had the best of the best attorneys on staff and had successful lawyers with a wide range of advanced education, areas of legal expertise and experience.

    In the brave new world where will regular people turn? Desperate unemployed law grads advertising on Craigslist does not sound like the way– or a place– you should hire a lawyer, or get a date.

    elissa (8c85ee)

  196. Comment by ropelight (18f73c) — 4/21/2013 @ 12:27 pm
    Comment by nk (875f57) — 4/21/2013 @ 1:55 pm
    Comment by SPQR (768505) — 4/21/2013 @ 1:59 pm

    Thank you all for your comments, though I think SPQR took a bit of liberty in “showing his concern”.

    I know that sometimes the computer asks you to ok sending info to Microsoft, etc when there is an error, but I had never heard of such a phone call, either as a legitimate thing or as a scam. Is this a scam you have actually heard of before?

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  197. I may be missing something obvious but—-How would Microsoft even know your number or how to call you, Md? Your security company yes– and the computer/tablet company if you did a warranty registration. Your IP, Yes. But Microsoft?

    elissa (8c85ee)

  198. elissa,

    I think that’s a big problem, both now and in the future. Just as doctor’s know from the grapevine who are the best health care providers to take their family to, lawyers know some people are better than others. But everyday people have to learn the hard way. I’m not sure what the answer is, but in some ways I think having a Craigslist or Angie’s List option where people can leave feedback about their experiences is actually an improvement from how it’s done now.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  199. I have little idea, elissa. Our internet is via a DSL connection bundled with our telephone, so being a MD of very little technical brain I thought it might be possible.
    But my level of suspicion was high so I said no thank you.
    (In addition, with the thick accent it was hard to understand him, so I really didn’t want to hang on the line with him.)

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  200. MD in Philly,

    It’s a scam. Read this Microsoft warning:

    Microsoft will not make unsolicited phone calls to help you with your computer. If you receive a phone call like this, hang up.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  201. in some ways I think having a Craigslist or Angie’s List option where people can leave feedback about their experiences is actually an improvement from how it’s done now.
    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 4/21/2013 @ 6:29 pm

    The problem I see in that is the level of disinformation even on feedback things.

    It is hard to know who to trust for anything. In a small town everyone knows if car mechanic Joe can be trusted with a tricycle or not, in a big city the choices are nearly endless, which to me often just makes things harder.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  202. Thanks, DRJ.

    Something new (in the way of scams) every day.
    It was just funny that it happened after I did have a recurring problem with IE.

    If they call again I’ll send them to SPQR.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  203. I agree it isn’t ideal, MD, but let’s take your small town example. In small towns, patients/clients go to Doctor A or Lawyer B because he or she has been recommended to them or is well-known, friendly and nice. Frankly, that doesn’t make them a good doctor or lawyer. It makes them a popular doctor or lawyer. I know many examples where the popular doctor or lawyer isn’t the one that other doctors and lawyers take their families to see.

    Add in the impact of advertising, which is mostly an issue with lawyers but can also affect how people choose their doctors, and the average person has a hard time separating spin from real information.

    Of course, it’s true that online forums can have planted reviews and may not be trustworthy, but I get a lot of good information from places like the Amazon.com reviews. I don’t see why that can’t be a resource for people who need health care and legal advice.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  204. MD, do you have an aquarium? Years ago I knew a door to door salesman who claimed that no matter what product he was peddling he knew the instant he spotted an aquarium that his commission was assured.

    ropelight (18f73c)

  205. Comment by ropelight (18f73c) — 4/21/2013 @ 6:51 pm

    Well…I was going to say that our last aquarium shattered when thrown from a second floor window at a door to door salesman, but that is not true.

    But the aquarium we do have is on the second floor and is empty. Prior to being empty it was the first floor of Percival the Rat’s 2 story home.
    (“Percival was a fine rat…” said in an English accent, reminiscent of the words of farewell said for Aragog the giant spider)

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 4/21/2013 @ 6:41 pm
    Agreed, DRJ, I was intending more to agree with you on how hard it is to find someone one can have confidence in.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  206. MD in Philly, liberty? Moi?

    SPQR (792cf3)

  207. elissa

    I’ll copy what DRJ said. I’ve been out of law school for going on thirty-one years but even back then I saw it as much a hurdle as a step. Which is not to say that I did not learn a lot. I did. But I learned a lot more and kept on learning in practice. I had a job in a big Chicago law firm (law clerk) during my last two years in law school for one thing. In licensed practice I learned from other lawyers and I kept on teaching myself.

    I suppose I would grade a good lawyer on these three things — competence, zealousness, ethics. The standard for all three is “the highest achievable” and they are all exercised for the benefit of the client. Achieving that does not necessarily automatically translate to wealth, power and women, which seems to be Mr. Harper’s real complaint ;), you also need to have some business sense and remember that this is your profession and not your hobby. (Actually, I kind of see Mr. Harper as kind of whiny who’s knocking it cause he couldn’t make it, but then I’ve always been overproud of my profession.)

    As far as picking a good lawyer, word of mouth is the most reliable but quiz the guy raving about his lawyer. What did he do? What did he charge? A satisfied client could just be one who does not know any better.

    FWIW. The more I learn, the less I know I know.

    nk (875f57)

  208. PS. Did you see the Heritage final round, today? That’s competence. ;)

    nk (875f57)

  209. The suit was ridiculous.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.7543 secs.