Posts made by Ganymede

@Bennie said in Kinds of Mu*s Wanted:

Wednesdays are Whack Nights, * * * .

Would attract too many Shang folks. I'm out.

@Coin said in RL Anger:

@hedgehog said in RL Anger:

@Coin

I concur that people, as a rule, are problematic. I suppose that irresponsible cyclists confuse me most of all because I feel like they should have a bit more sense of how squishy we all are, since they aren't generally encased in two tons of plastic and steel and fiberglass, and therefore don't get that false sense of security.

I hate to be a broken record, but stupidity sort of preempts this sort of logical reasoning.

You know, in Ohio, people operate motorcycles with no helmets. Some even motor along I-75 in shorts and a tank top. Unsurprisingly, lots of motorcycle deaths around here.

@Arkandel said in RL things I love:

Poutine is disgusting.

Didn't know your mom was named that, although it makes sense if she's cheesy and greasy.

(I hate because I love.)

@SG

Fuck you.

I want poutine now.

@hedgehog said in World (Chronicles?) of Darkness Concepts You Would Enjoy RPing with:

Sure. But the nockers especially peeved me, because it was like 'hey - these guys are actually Welsh (maybe even Cornish) in origin, but we already saturated the splats with fae from the UK and Ireland. How do we rectify it?' 'I know! YIDDISH!'

Yeah, I never really understood that much.

Sluagh? Irish. Pooka? Celtic. Boggans, Nockers, Redcap, Sidhe? All very Brit-Isles.

Kind of why I lost interest in the game, I think.

@Pandora said in RL Anger:

I don't think the emphasis needs to be on the legal bits of the show, I would just seriously like to see Foggy stiffen his spine and snap this line out at someone in one of his moments of Awesome Lawyer in the Making.

If you made Daredevil any damn better, that shit would be minted.

@saosmash said in RL Anger:

There is this weird belief among plaintiff's lawyers that the more annoying you are the faster you win versus deep pockets. I used to work for a guy who thought this way. As it turns out, I learned very quickly that it's not true. And now I do indigent defense.

This is a filthy lie. I know because I do work on both sides. When I get a plaintiff's case, I call the opposing attorney as soon as I know who they are to discuss if we can come to a settlement and, if discovery is necessary, what I can do to get it going and completed ASAP.

Why? Because I get more authority to settle on defense when I don't have to piddle resources on stupid shit. So, I figure that if I cut through the bullshit as a plaintiff's attorney, I'll get some brownie points. Sometimes, this strategy works; other times, not so much.

@Derp

That's good. There's hope.

This taps into a peeve of mine: a large one. It goes to the whole "zealously advocating" thing. Many attorneys seem to think this means that you have to roadblock everything I try to do, or attempt to convince me of the merits and strengths of their clients' cases.

The thing is, if I'm looking to settle a case, I don't give a shit what you think of the merits and strengths. I am clearly trying to figure out a cost-effective way of resolving our clients' interests. This can be done if the other attorney isn't a fucking moron, but many of them seem entrenched in the idea that making my life difficult will make me want to settle things faster. This is not at all true, as I am backed, most of the time, by an insurance company.

I pretty much have unlimited resources and funds to tap into. If you want to play the game like that, fine. But realize that your client probably wants money as soon as possible, and to move on with their lives, you prick. And I'm willing to do that, if you just fucking cooperate with my requests for information. I haven't lost a motion to compel in my entire career because I only ask for shit that I know I am entitled to through the discovery process.

Just give me the damned documents.

@Derp said in RL Anger:

It's not that we forgot about practicality, we just don't agree with the premise that the easier way is the right way, especially when it comes to rights.

An attorney's primary duty is to his client, not to his own sense of what is right and wrong. The practical way is not necessarily the easiest way, but the normative way is usually not.

As an example, a trespass on one's real property: yes, it is against common law; yes, you are entitled to the judgment that what the defendant did was against the law; but, no, you aren't going to get $100,000 for your neighbor stepping on your lawn; and, no, I'm not going to take your case because you don't seem to understand that I have to prove damages in a civil action.

Even if someone handed me a $10,000 retainer, I wouldn't take that case. I feel that would be aiding and abetting stupidity.

@Arkandel said in Bump In The Night: A Chronicles of Darkness MUX:

Some people think Twilight is the best, to each their own.

And these people need to be chemically-sterilized or have their genitals removed by cauterization.

So, if my PC on BITN ever gets a lightsaber, you'll know what happened.

@Derp said in RL Anger:

But it's an easy in to Law (as far as there are any 'easy ins' -- poli sci, english, and a few others are more desirable, at least), and that's what I want it for.

Start looking into the logic problems. That's where most people trip up on the LSAT. In my practice, I've found that political science majors among the most annoying practicing lawyers; they are so caught up with "rights" and "entitlement" that they forget about "practicality."

I love politics, but I don't want to do this shit professionally, it's soul-wrecking, but apparently wanting to go to law school is a waste of time because I can't use it to find a 'real job'.

Don't believe the hype. There are plenty of law jobs. The problem is that law school does not teach you how to start up a career in law. Gone are the days of getting picked up by a large firm on grades alone.

@Arkandel said in RL Anger:

You are too eager to jump down people's throats and throw sarcastic, hostile comments around when you disagree with them; it seems important to you that there are sides, that there is a conflict, and that someone is out to get you so you're hitting back as hard as possible.

This makes it hard to hold a dialogue.

Then don't.

Some people don't want to engage in a dialogue.

@Derp said in RL Anger:

So, as noted, while Mietze is perfectly justified in her suspicion and actions, there is potentially another side of the story, here. One in which the man is not The Devil. And I was merely trying to make the point that, sometimes, people can show up and want to get in touch with no moustache-twirling involved.

I hope you can see that what's happening on the man's side here is irrelevant. If @mietze is justified in her reaction, then that's where the discussion ought to stop.

But, on the man's side for a moment: if you lack the social awareness that showing up at someone's work to compliment them on something that occurred 30 years ago is not the right thing to do, then, as I think I said in another topic, you're too stupid to remain alive.

Stupidity and innocence are two different concepts.

@Arkandel said in Bump In The Night: A Chronicles of Darkness MUX:

I read the Hobbit when I was in sixth grade and was absolutely blown away, and then the friend who lent me the book told me there was 'more to it' and handed me the Fellowship of the Ring. Holy shit, I spent that entire night reading it, it was the first time I ever lost sleep over a book - and it was so worth it. It single-handedly made a lifetime fantasy fan out of me.

See, I did this when I got my first copy of Guardians of the West, by Eddings. And I read the shit out of his books.

But then, I got older, and realized that Eddings produced an Americanized, tongue-in-cheek version of Tolkien.

However, when I started reading Tolkien, I realized why.

As interesting as some of Tolkien's stuff is, he's the George Lucas of fantasy writing. He should stick to the ideas, and let others -- like Lawrence Kasdan -- do the actual writing.

@Arkandel said in RL Anger:

You know what the weird part is? Something like @mietze's story would could easily be a Hollywood romcom plot.

Or a horror, thriller, or slasher movie.

If what you are about to do would only resound smartly in the romantic-comedy world, chances are that you shouldn't do it because it will be received with laughs or involve Katherine Heigl, two things that you ought to desperately avoid.

@mietze said in RL Anger:

I think a lot of women understand why I feel a little sick. And if you're ever tempted to see an "old flame" who was the "most beautiful girl I'd ever met" and is the most wonderful memory all these years...sometimes it's kind of scary when you say that after all those other actions.

A lot of men should understand as well.

That said, whatever happened to sending someone a nice, complimentary letter? In the age of e-mail, it's so much easier to do, and substantially less threatening.

@Lithium said in FATE/Disapora/Similar:

CoD is actually a fairly solid system if you remove all the supernatural splats and abilities from it. As mortal only it's fairly balanced.

I concur.

@Arkandel said in RL things I love:

@Ganymede has bypassed security protocols! We have a breach!

Fool. The Brotherhood cannot stop the Institute's Coursers.

@Arkandel said in RL things I love:

So @Ganymede is gone?

@EmmahSue wouldn't do you such an obvious favor.

@silentsophia said in RL Anger:

The kicker is he finished the conversation with: "But girls are more social, right?"

My experience with women has led me to conclude that being "more social" does not equate to "more socially-adept or acceptable."

@mietze

I can't tell if you're being dry or sarcastic or not.

But, not drily or sarcastically, I never said anything about being sweet and honeyed. I said "advocating and acting within the confines of what was socially-acceptable at the time". Back then, activism involved defiance of the law; however, "defiance of the law" is neither sweet nor honeyed.

Loving v. Virginia? Decided in the confines of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act? Approved in the confines of Congress.

You need not laugh or cry, but you can choose to. I cannot; I am lawyerbot.