Re: Diesel Dyke Danica failed this year!

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:j0b863pg144tmfm0hg405meeiqoqr6kmah@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 20:47:51 -0700, "Grizzlie Antagonist"
<lloydsofhanford@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"John Larkin" <jjlarkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
news:rhv663tloi0nno3s8q7j857umb6n88n8s7@xxxxxxxxxx
On Sun, 03 Jun 2007 18:06:22 -0700, Grizzlie Antagonist
<lloydsofhanford@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jun 3, 9:48 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 27 May 2007 17:15:10 -0700, Grizzlie Antagonist

<lloydsofhanf...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Diesel Dyke Danica didn't even come CLOSE to winning the Indy 500
this
year.

In fact, it says right here that she had an accident.

http://sports.yahoo.com/irl/races/1/results

You weren't born with a penis, DDD. So as much as you want to be a
man, you never will be. That's your misfortune.

And the accident apparently wasn't fatal. That's the world's
misfortune.

Tell us about your car racing experience.

John



Tell us about your experience practicing law.


Practicing law is repulsive to me.


Why not do it anyway? I haven't killfiled you yet. I force myself to
communicate with you. Don't you suppose that that's repulsive to me?

You've accused others of being "wimps" for expressing values and beliefs
different than yours, so why not do something that you don't enjoy doing
in
order to prove your own fortitude?

I have no need to prove my fortitude. For better or worse, I was born
reckless, and fear is a minor component of my life.



That's bull***. You're tyrannized and dominated by women.



It's about power and greed and
coercion, a less-than-zero-sum game.



Law is such a big pasture that this observation is not even valuable as a
generalization.

Some areas of law and some legal environments are like this. Others are
not.



I've been close friends with
three lawyers (two of them were girlfriends) and I saw how the power
games ate their souls.


Ridiculous. You've been stating for weeks that everything that men do is
vile and evil (simply because men do it) and that everything that women do
is kind and good (simply because women do it).

I never said anything remotely like that.



Yes, you did, and you say it again further on in this post.



What I, and the guys who
work with me, do is valuable, because it makes the world generally a
better place. What my wife, and her co-workers do is valuable because
it makes the world specifically a better place.




How close are all of you to being canonized as saints?



So how could two women possibly have fallen prey to the same temptations
that men have fallen to? Obviously, by your lights, that could never
happen.

Woman can be anything that men can, good or evil or powerful or whiney
and wimpy.



That's not what you say further down.



These two lady lawyers thought they were doing good. P was
the head of a state Legal Services Corp, and T worked for a firm that
made a career of suing the state of California on behalf of juvenile
felons in custody in state-run camps. P found that the politics was
cynical and often drug-fueled (I one supplied a quantity of highly
illegal material that was consumed on the floor of the State Senate,
and it wasn't smoked)



You perform a similar function in this newsgroup.




and T found out that her firm actually benefited
the partners and didn't give a damn about the kids.

Hey, you're a lawyer: what's the statute of limitations on furnishing
illegal substances to politicians?



I could tell you, but then I would have to bill you.



What's more, people like you have been saying for years that as soon as
women acquire a significant presence in a particular profession, that
profession would become a more humane and nurturing environment.

I believe that. Don't you?



That's contrary to what you said earlier about both men and women being
capable of a variety of qualities, and no one who has seen small-breasted
hairy female gadflies with law degrees behaving contentiously over minor
issues believes it, including the gadflies themselves.




So I'm sure that you didn't mean to say that the power game "ate away at
the
souls" of two women. What I'm sure that you meant to say is that these
two
women were at the forefront of some badly needed reform -- in the name of
which they sacrificed all thought of personal gain -- and that they
carried
it out over the objections of a hidebound tyrannical male establishment.

P did, for some years, and finally gave up. T was a junior staff atty,
so was powerless, so just found the experience depressing. All three
(I include my male friend) seemed to acquire an attitude, perhaps
similar to yours, that the world is to blame for their problems, and
the world should be changed by applying force. It ain't so, of course.


I'm only interested in personal or business
relationships that are voluntary in all sides.


I don't understand this remark at all. I've never seen anyone had a gun
put
to his or her head and been forced to hire an attorney.

You are forced to defend yourself when someone else hires an attorney
and takes action against you.


Depending upon the situation, there might very well be insurance (i.e.,
homeowners, errors & omissions, etc.) available to assist the party being
sued.


Sometimes the action is justified,
sometimes it's not. They manage it much better in the UK.


With respect to the practice itself of law, transactional attorneys draft
agreements that clients "voluntarily" enter into after some coaxing and
negotiation.

I'm glad you used quotes on "voluntarily".


That was a precursor to the concepts of "coaxing and negotiation".

Sometimes people need a good deal of persuasion in order to get them to take
bad-tasting medicine. Obviously, if two or more parties with relatively
equal bargaining power enter into either transactional negotiations or into
negotiations for the purpose of resolving litigation, the deal that is
struck (if a deal is struck) is going to disappoint everyone to some
extent -- and there will be a lingering perception that some sort of
coercion was used to make the deal.

That doesn't mean that everyone doesn't benefit from the deal that is struck
or that sensible people won't privately acknowledge, at least to themselves,
that the deal was still in their best interest.

By blaming the legal profession for the fact that men and women aren't
angels, you're reversing cause and effect.




Luckily, I have an
excellent attorney that gives me sound advice and keeps me out of
trouble.


But even litigation attorneys -- attorneys who go to court to fight over
disputes -- resolve the vast majority of cases short of trial, or the
courts
would be even more crowded than they already are.

Yes, we settled the case I mentioned. And we made *them* pay all the
expenses.


Both the criminal and civil justice systems are revolved around making
every
effort to settle a dispute short of actually conducting a formal trial.


Yes, but the trial stands as a threat. Some law is certainly
necessary, but in the US the legal system largely serves the legal
system.


To some extent, that's true. I believe that you said that you were an
engineer. I have no real idea of what that entails. But as I became more
familiar with your profession, I'm sure that I could find examples to show
that the discipline of engineers largely serves the profession.

And to some extent, it isn't true at all that the legal system largely
serves the legal system. Ask any attorney forced by judicial fiat to
represent a client who isn't paying him.


And it doesn't make a lot of people happy, even the attorneys.

John



"Most good lawyers live well, work hard, and die poor."

- Daniel Webster


.