I am not a licensed lawyer - Fuck you @artilleryfroth you jackass

[RadicalCentrist]

Of course he isn't a lawyer, but an E-Lawyer.

Different knowledge is needed for cases of cyber crime.

 

[Autopsy]

You're not allowed to give auto-repair advice unless you have a PhD. in Mechanical Engineering, passed the FE exam, and have +3 years experience working at a Pep Boys.

I had no idea there was a round 1 of @artilleryfroth 's autistic attempt of trying to hookup with @AnOminous. Protip: I don't think he's interested.

The most surreal part about this whole thing and ongoing spergery that has brought this back into attention is that @artilleryfroth is and has been treating this like some sort of "Stolen Valor" situation, as if people want to be, or even generally respect, lawyers.

Information is not qualified and legal analysis is not complicated. You do not have to be a lawyer or particularly intelligent to form a detailed legal argument, you just need to sink in some time and keep a wide scope of research. The thing that having qualifications and experience does is reduce your basic blind-spots, which does two things:

1. Allow a lawyer to eviscerate a non-lawyer in court, because a non-lawyer will take a look at the list of stupid shit people have to do in court and wonder if they stumbled into a very bad tabletop session. Roll for amicus support, motion for leave, and penetration depth... One good argument does not a court win make.
2. Reduce the likelihood of being dragged into a rabbit-hole due to "inability to censor," where all sources involved are viewed as incorrect entirely, so no matter how much you synthesize them the final product is (also) incorrect- at least by the standards of most professionals. School gives everyone a foundation in the correctestest™ interpretations™ (even where they make little sense) which has the upside of preparing you for the counterarguments you will receive, even if no sane person outside that environment would ever formulate them.

By the same token as #2, valid legal arguments with salient interpretations are also ignored because "everyone in practice agrees they don't hold water," despite hinging on a flimsy precedent, or being blatantly contradicted by the text of the law and/or testimony provided by lawmakers of the time regarding their intent & interpretation. That doesn't make the argument itself wrong, but it does mean laymen can be caught off-guard and dismissed more easily.
Every professional field is susceptible to that effect, but most especially law, and here's why: it's all fake and gay. Baseline assumptions in science can sometimes take decades to rewrite due to collective bias, because you have to convince scientists that their entire career was shit and they were wrong about everything, and alternative explanations are usually compelling- but eventually the "correct model" will be the only one that can pass the shit test, and the thing that makes it correct is that it reflects reality, not because some judge said so once while plastered out of his mind.
How do you do that with law? You can't. There is no Newton's Third Law of Motion to Dismiss, and if the American legal system cared about best serving human beings, optimized outcomes, instead of just who does the best paperwork, it wouldn't be the American legal system. Not that most other countries' are much better, of course.

So who the fuck wants to be a lawyer on the internet? Again, no one likes lawyers anyway. If anything, it makes you look worse than a normal human being who only cares about the law because the law keeps trying to ruin their day.

 

[Iron Jaguar]

OP vs Froth

https://youtu.be/ZyjWCDIzNK4

 

[AnOminous]

So who the fuck wants to be a lawyer on the internet? Again, no one likes lawyers anyway. If anything, it makes you look worse than a normal human being who only cares about the law because the law keeps trying to ruin their day.

That's the weirdest part of this schizoposter's obsession with me. If you look at the me vs. schizo thread in the first place where this deranged, sexually obsessed weirdo PMed me out of the blue, literally my first response to any accusation of being a lawyer was to deny it. And I have a years-long history of specifically disclaiming being a lawyer, giving legal advice, or any such thing.

And yet this crazed freak thinks I am claiming to be one despite all evidence to the contrary.

Literal schizo.

 

[Haramburger]

The most surreal part about this whole thing and ongoing spergery that has brought this back into attention is that @artilleryfroth is and has been treating this like some sort of "Stolen Valor" situation, as if people want to be, or even generally respect, lawyers.

Information is not qualified and legal analysis is not complicated. You do not have to be a lawyer or particularly intelligent to form a detailed legal argument, you just need to sink in some time and keep a wide scope of research. The thing that having qualifications and experience does is reduce your basic blind-spots, which does two things:

1. Allow a lawyer to eviscerate a non-lawyer in court, because a non-lawyer will take a look at the list of stupid shit people have to do in court and wonder if they stumbled into a very bad tabletop session. Roll for amicus support, motion for leave, and penetration depth... One good argument does not a court win make.
2. Reduce the likelihood of being dragged into a rabbit-hole due to "inability to censor," where all sources involved are viewed as incorrect entirely, so no matter how much you synthesize them the final product is (also) incorrect- at least by the standards of most professionals. School gives everyone a foundation in the correctestest™ interpretations™ (even where they make little sense) which has the upside of preparing you for the counterarguments you will receive, even if no sane person outside that environment would ever formulate them.

By the same token as #2, valid legal arguments with salient interpretations are also ignored because "everyone in practice agrees they don't hold water," despite hinging on a flimsy precedent, or being blatantly contradicted by the text of the law and/or testimony provided by lawmakers of the time regarding their intent & interpretation. That doesn't make the argument itself wrong, but it does mean laymen can be caught off-guard and dismissed more easily.
Every professional field is susceptible to that effect, but most especially law, and here's why: it's all fake and gay. Baseline assumptions in science can sometimes take decades to rewrite due to collective bias, because you have to convince scientists that their entire career was shit and they were wrong about everything, and alternative explanations are usually compelling- but eventually the "correct model" will be the only one that can pass the shit test, and the thing that makes it correct is that it reflects reality, not because some judge said so once while plastered out of his mind.
How do you do that with law? You can't. There is no Newton's Third Law of Motion to Dismiss, and if the American legal system cared about best serving human beings, optimized outcomes, instead of just who does the best paperwork, it wouldn't be the American legal system. Not that most other countries' are much better, of course.

So who the fuck wants to be a lawyer on the internet? Again, no one likes lawyers anyway. If anything, it makes you look worse than a normal human being who only cares about the law because the law keeps trying to ruin their day.

what a bunch of long-winded, smart-sounding garbage, would place on retainer

 

[Bender]

I had no idea there was a round 1 of @artilleryfroth 's autistic attempt of trying to hookup with @AnOminous. Protip: I don't think he's interested.

I joined, hung around bit and @AnOminous suddenly decided that he wants me to suck his dick (click "View More Comments"). It seems pretty easy to get laid with him, lol.

 

[AnOminous]

I joined, hung around bit and @AnOminous suddenly decided that he wants me to suck his dick (click "View More Comments"). It seems pretty easy to get laid with him, lol.

Calm down robot.

 

[Sped Xing]

Calm down robot.

At least he's a Mexican bot instead of a Russian.

 

[Bender]

Calm down robot.

Sounds like you're interested and just don't want to admit it, baby!

 

[Bender]

Enhance:

I knew you were a tsundere, lol.

 

[UnKillShredDur]

That's the weirdest part of this schizoposter's obsession with me. If you look at the me vs. schizo thread in the first place where this deranged, sexually obsessed weirdo PMed me out of the blue, literally my first response to any accusation of being a lawyer was to deny it. And I have a years-long history of specifically disclaiming being a lawyer, giving legal advice, or any such thing.

And yet this crazed freak thinks I am claiming to be one despite all evidence to the contrary.

Literal schizo.

Wait, you aren't a lawyer? How dare you deceive us like this!

 

[Ronnie Rocket]

@AnOminous, have you been arrested for impersonating a lawyer yet? Because here's an avatar for your eventual incarceration.

 

[AnOminous]

@AnOminous, have you been arrested for impersonating a lawyer yet? Because here's an avatar for your eventual incarceration.

View attachment 2088924

They'll never keep me in captivity.

 

[Ronnie Rocket]

They'll never keep me in captivity.
View attachment 2088942

Here's one for when you're ready to be your true self, sister.

 

[Dyn]

I'm a real lawyer.

 

[ogmudbone]

I'm a real lawyer.

For lolcow and lolcow. I myself have a license to thrill.