Regarding Northcott

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Northcott has now, in at least two (http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/showpost.php?p=16115&postcount=16) posts (http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/showpost.php?p=16115&postcount=16), admitted that he is deliberately trolling me. And he's very, very good at it.

Unfortunately, I've been unable to take several posters' suggestions and put him on ignore, because he sometimes makes interesting points and other posters keep asking me to respond to them.

Consequently, I am undertaking to adopt the following course of conduct:

(1) I will not respond to any insult or accusation Northcott makes against me. No matter how horrible or unfair, I will simply behave as if it wasn't posted.

(2) If any other poster wants to know my reaction to an insult or accusation, they should ask and I will respond to them as to what I say about it.

(3) Where Northcott makes a substantive point that I think is worth responding to I will do so, but in the third person directed to the rest of the board.

(4) If Northcott embeds a substantive point in an insult or accusation of sufficient foulness that I miss it as I avert my attention from the insult or accusation, then please feel free to point out the ignored point and I will respond to it in the manner outlined in (3).

I reserve the right to cease this course of conduct should Northcott start to play nice again.

My quid pro quo to the rest of the board is this: If you (i.e. any poster other than Northcott) have lived up to your side of (2)-(4) and Northcott successfully trolls me - that is, he successfully gets me so upset that I react to him angrily and directly - you can point at me and laugh and I'll happily admit I'm a doofus for falling for it.

Note: The above does not, of course, apply to any poster I have on ignore.

I sincerely hope this works to stop substantive discussions being derailed by what must be incredibly tedious spats between Northcott and me.


Full Disclosure: This thread and its tone is of course inspired by, and to some extent a parody of, this thread (http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/showthread.php?t=1071).

[Brynja]

Atticus-

man why are you being such a douchebag here?

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Atticus-

man why are you being such a douchebag here?

Whatever :rolleyes:

I've found what I think is a solution to the problem. I'm not sure what else there is to say. :shrug:

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Double post.

[Northcott]

Atticus-

man why are you being such a douchebag here?

At the very least he's confused "dislike him" with "trolling him". Trolling presumes that I'm not necessarily serious in what I say. I am. Or that my sole aim is fishing for a reaction. It's not. Providing a counter-point is. The rest is just entertainment value.

This should make you happy, Atticus: I've become increasingly bored by the tedium of trying to get the same points across to you again and again and again. Switching tactics from slow, patient explanation to beating you over the head with a bombastic rendition of the same point is no longer amusing. I'll undoubtedly continue to point out what I think are utterly inane ideas or cop-out excuses, but you're likely to receive a lot of "I've explained that to you, I'm not wasting my time with it again" responses.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

At the very least he's confused "dislike him" with "trolling him". Trolling presumes that I'm not necessarily serious in what I say. I am. Or that my sole aim is fishing for a reaction. It's not. Providing a counter-point is. The rest is just entertainment value.

This should make you happy, Atticus: I've become increasingly bored by the tedium of trying to get the same points across to you again and again and again. Switching tactics from slow, patient explanation to beating you over the head with a bombastic rendition of the same point is no longer amusing. I'll undoubtedly continue to point out what I think are utterly inane ideas or cop-out excuses, but you're likely to receive a lot of "I've explained that to you, I'm not wasting my time with it again" responses.

Now, boys and girls, what's fascinating about this post - is this post (http://www.kaytastrophe.com/vb/showthread.php?p=16447#post16447).

[Northcott]

Positively captivating. You run with that, Forrest -- run! Just, please, keep it to this forum.

I'm borderline obsessive-compulsive, and you managed to bore me a little while back. I can only imagine how irritating our exchanges must be to the rest of the board.

[EhtoZed]

Atticus, why do you stick around here when it's painfully obvious no one wants you here?

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Atticus, why do you stick around here when it's painfully obvious no one wants you here?

(1) Strangely enough, it seems a (very few) do want me here.

(2) I'm learning new things by being here.

[Stratego]

Atticus, why do you stick around here when it's painfully obvious no one wants you here?

I think if he gets at least two of us to go athiest he wins a set of steak knives.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I think if he gets at least two of us to go athiest he wins a set of steak knives.

Yeah, I call it "Faust's Wager". Lucifer even said he'd throw in the soul of Blaise Pascal...

[The Winslow]

I'm borderline obsessive-compulsive, and you managed to bore me a little while back. I can only imagine how irritating our exchanges must be to the rest of the board.

Let's just say "board" becomes a spelling mistake.

[EhtoZed]

(1) Strangely enough, it seems a (very few) do want me here.

(2) I'm learning new things by being here.
Wouldn't you learn more, and maybe have more people want you here, if you didn't go around aggravating as many people as possible?

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Wouldn't you learn more, and maybe have more people want you here, if you didn't go around aggravating as many people as possible?

Perhaps. However, "aggravating as many people as possible" was certainly not my intent (except perhaps with respect to Northcott when things got particularly heated, I must confess).

My perception is that I've been polite but persistent in following a particular issue. Others have a different perception. That's unfortunate, but I've done my best (obviously without success) to avoid or combat that impression.

[Brynja]

Whatever me all you like- you know you are behaving badly. If you pulled this bullshit in the board room or in meetings with your colleagues you would be mocked out. You know this, and I know this and I think most of the board does too. The act of feigning innocence is growing tired, you are not a stupid man, and we also know that.

If anything this constant barrage of pro-atheist commentary has gotten me to think which is a good thing.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Whatever me all you like- you know you are behaving badly. If you pulled this bullshit in the board room or in meetings with your colleagues you would me mocked out. You know this, and I know this and I think most of the board does too. The act of feigning innocence is growing tired, you are not a stupid man, and we also know that.

Funnily enough my "terrier like persistence" (as one judge called it) gets praised when used in cross-examination and usually works very well with judges. And if you think I'm somehow offensive, you should see the way judges behave. Board room and meetings, however - you're more likely to be right there.

So no, there's no "feigning" going on here. (Which doesn't eliminate the possibility of self-deception, of course. I'd deny it, but I can't discount the possibility. However, let's not get into the topic of self-deception in a discussion relating to the rational basis for religion - we might upset people. ;) )

Oh, and one other thing: I'm a lot more stupid than you think. It's one of my professional strengths. There's nothing more effective that a stupid lawyer who knows he's stupid.

If anything this constant barrage of pro-atheist commentary has gotten me to think which is a good thing.

Well, that was one of my goals.

[Northcott]

Let's just say "board" becomes a spelling mistake.

I ain't gonna deny it! :o

My perception is that I've been polite but persistent in following a particular issue. Others have a different perception. That's unfortunate, but I've done my best (obviously without success) to avoid or combat that impression.

When the Jehovah's Witness folk and the Mormons come around every Saturday morning, knocking on doors, interrupting people's breakfasts, and trying to politely (but forcefully) invite themselves into people's homes to proselytize without invitation -- they irritate the shit out of people too. It doesn't matter how polite the words are if the intent isn't.

[Brynja]

Funnily enough my "terrier like persistence" (as one judge called it) gets praised when used in cross-examination and usually works very well with judges. And if you think I'm somehow offensive, you should see the way judges behave. Board room and meetings, however - you're more likely to be right there.

So no, there's no "feigning" going on here. (Which doesn't eliminate the possibility of self-deception, of course. I'd deny it, but I can't discount the possibility. However, let's not get into the topic of self-deception in a discussion relating to the rational basis for religion - we might upset people. ;) )



Well, that was one of my goals.


Atticus-

I don't care if others behave worse- it does not provide you with the excuse to behave poorly. And as to cross-examination- yes such tactics work well with that- but you have stated time and again you are here to understand, learn and debate. That statement reveals your intent - either conscious or unconscious. You aren't here to debate- it is an inquisition of belief.

As to the delusion- you can remedy such things with serious self-reflection and meditation.

[Harry]

I think it's a pity that the admins/moderators here don't play around with the options at their disposal more often. I personally think this thread would be a real hoot if it were merged with the "Vaginal Scent" thread.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Atticus-

I don't care if others behave worse- it does not provide you with the excuse to behave poorly. And as to cross-examination- yes such tactics work well with that- but you have stated time and again you are here to understand, learn and debate. That statement reveals your intent - either conscious or unconscious. You aren't here to debate- it is an inquisition of belief.

As to the delusion- you can remedy such things with serious self-reflection and meditation.

You're quite right, the judges comment was an irrelevant piece of context.

And as I said in the other thread, I think you seriously misunderstand the purpose of proper cross examination (at least in Australian legal ethics). It's not like US TV at all.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I think it's a pity that the admins/moderators here don't play around with the options at their disposal more often. I personally think this thread would be a real hoot if it were merged with the "Vaginal Scent" thread.

"Regarding Northcott: Vaginal Scent"

I like it!

[Brynja]

Please respond to the meat of my previous post.

[Northcott]

And as I said in the other thread, I think you seriously misunderstand the purpose of proper cross examination (at least in Australian legal ethics). It's not like US TV at all.

Unless Australian lawyers aren't trying to win cases, then cross examination has the exact same purpose: winning. In a discussion on philosophy or religion the people who have a "must win" mentality are usually fanatics seeking to convert others.

[Northcott]

"Regarding Northcott: Vaginal Scent"

I like it!

Don't tell me you need somebody to tell you what it is... :shock:


I decline!

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Unless Australian lawyers aren't trying to win cases, then cross examination has the exact same purpose: winning. In a discussion on philosophy or religion the people who have a "must win" mentality are usually fanatics seeking to convert others.

A barrister's first duty is not to his client. It's to the court.

It's a solicitors who's first duty is to his client. Barristers are there to give an independent opinion. It's tat independence that gives them their credibility before the judges.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Please respond to the meat of my previous post.

I thought I had.

What, in your view, remains unaddressed?

[Northcott]

A barrister's first duty is not to his client. It's to the court.

That's a wonderful ideal, but one that I sincerely doubt is held above winning. In looking at your own discussions about your legal experiences, the number of times that you've joyously described getting to the truth pales in comparison to the number of times you've joyously described winning -- usually in aggressive or confrontational terms.

I can dig the aggressive spirit. It's the heart of competition, whether you're standing in front of a judge, or two guys with padded gloves in front of a referee. The very heart of pugilism is the "sweet science", "the manly art of self-defense", sportsmanship, physical development, etc. All lofty ideals. It all goes to shit when the cards are down, however, and two guys are tearing at each other to win.

Ideals are lovely. They grant us a measure of nobility. Only a very rare, select few are actually able to maintain them in the face of any form of adversity, however -- and a number of those few are simply deceiving themselves about where their intent really lies.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

That's a wonderful ideal, but one that I sincerely doubt is held above winning. In looking at your own discussions about your legal experiences, the number of times that you've joyously described getting to the truth pales in comparison to the number of times you've joyously described winning -- usually in aggressive or confrontational terms.

I can dig the aggressive spirit. It's the heart of competition, whether you're standing in front of a judge, or two guys with padded gloves in front of a referee. The very heart of pugilism is the "sweet science", "the manly art of self-defense", sportsmanship, physical development, etc. All lofty ideals. It all goes to shit when the cards are down, however, and two guys are tearing at each other to win.

Ideals are lovely. They grant us a measure of nobility. Only a very rare, select few are actually able to maintain them in the face of any form of adversity, however -- and a number of those few are simply deceiving themselves about where their intent really lies.

The (extremely numerous) times I've advised clients to back down don't make good war stories - "And then I wrote the client a very strongly worded email setting out the weaknesses in his case and the consequences of losing and dropping a hint (that the solicitor would get but the client wouldn't) that I'd return the brief if he tried to instruct me to carry on with the case" doesn't make a fun story. Kicking arse when I've come to the view that I should kick arse does. There's a reason why I'm yet to lose a case that I've run solo - I don't run cases I wouldn't decide my way if I was a judge (which is, after all, what I want to be). I'll lose one soon - my judgement's not that good. But it will be because I was wrong to run it (or maybe because the judge is a moron, but that's far less likely).

As a matter of fact, I'm pretty sure I know which one I'm going to lose - it's on next week. But that one will be because the judge is a moron.

I lost the CA case the week before last, but I didn't run that solo. I'm still trying to work out if we should have lost on the merits or if it was because we weren't clear enough about what we were arguing. It's complicated by the fact that our clients undermined our best point by their own crazy actions during the trial - note to self, in future avoid acting for crazy hippy APEC protesters who believe that the "rule of law" is "fascist capitalist propaganda" (at least don't act for them pro bono Ben!). But my guess is that I'll come round to the view that we had a bad case and I made the wrong call.

[doc]

A barrister's first duty is not to his client. It's to the court.

It's a solicitors who's first duty is to his client. Barristers are there to give an independent opinion. It's tat independence that gives them their credibility before the judges.

I thought thier first duty was to run up billable hours ??

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I thought thier first duty was to run up billable hours ??

Given that barristers are sole traders, not so much.

But that's certainly is how it felt when I was a solicitor in a corporate firm.

[Northcott]

Given that barristers are soul traders...

I knew it! :shock: