Sweet, Hate Mail Too!
In case you haven't noticed... I seemed to have picked up a new "admirer" who is happy to post freely without hiding behind any masks of anonymity, unlike your humble blog author.1 Here are just a few of his jewels responding to this post:
Your liberal rhetoric betrays your ignorance.Well shucks... I didn't even realize that I had reverted to my gul dern "liberal rhetoric" in this post. A comment like this is also a great way to start a frank and open-minded discussion about the issues... you know, by name calling. The rant continues...
Plus, when you insult Scalia's intelligence...Where did I insult Scalia's intelligence? I freely admit, Scalia is brilliant. That's why I dislike him... he uses his brilliance to do what I feel is distorting the law to meet his own political aims. The rant continues...
Scalia's dissents will be remembered hundreds of years from now for their brilliance, wit, and foresight. I'm sure in hundreds of years, your first law review note will be remembered for wasting a tree.I won't even go into the obvious crush you have on Scalia for his "brilliance, wit, and foresight" (except to say that I would never characterize Scalia as having wit... because wit to me means whimsy or fun, and there is nothing whimsical or fun about Scalia), but I would like to thank you for your comment about my yet to be written law review note for three reasons. First, because you said that it will only be remembered for wasting paper, that must mean you think it will be published... so thank you for recognizing my inherent ability to write publishable work.2 Second, because you said my note would be "remembered," that means you think it will be a memorable note... thank you for that. And third, you said it would be my "first law review note," implying that I will write at least a second note, and possibly a long line of subsequent treatises on legal theory before my lengthy, but fruitful confirmation hearing.
Here's another "gem" from this post:
You even leave freakin' footnotes in your blog. What a tool.First off, the "what a tool" comment... priceless. I don't know how you come up with them... particularly since you are commenting on a post where I myself used the phrase "tool." I mean, not only did you take something I said and use it against me, but you were completely unoriginal in doing it. Bravo! Second, you brought up the fact that I use footnotes in my blog. Wow, I've never heard that before! No one has ever3 mentioned to me that I use footnotes in my blog. I'm reminded of the classic Adam Sandler sketch entitled "Tollbooth Willie" from his even more classic They're All Gonna Laugh At You! album, and I quote:
We-helll, I already heard that one you fuckin' unoriginal bastard. Go suck a cock you piece of fuckin' repeating shit!So, to sum up... 1) you're a dick; 2) you're quite brilliant (isn't that really what you want to hear?) and Scalia will be returning your calls and responding to your Valentines any day now (no wait... that's what you want to hear); and 3) the best part is you seem to dislike me so strongly, yet you keep coming back and giving me more hits, which increases my earnings on Google AdSense! Ka-CHING!
1Mr. Anonymous, in case you haven't figured it out yet... this is called sarcasm. Since you do not seem to know what this word means, I have taken the liberty of looking it up for you in the dictionary, and because I know you love footnotes soooo much (there's more of that sarcasm stuff!), I've taken the liberty of putting the definition in a foot-footnotea
2Before you start writing again, this is more of that sarcasm stuff, see supra note 1.
3Sarcasm again... I know, it's hard to keep up with... what with being a dick and all... that's why I like to keep you updated.
asarcasm - 1) a sharp and often satirical or ironic utterance designed to cut or give pain
posted by Unreasonable Man @ 9:52 PM
5 comments
5 Comments:
Anonymous commenter = big coward. Seriously, could you imagine ANYONE signing their actual name to that screed?
I agree that some of Scalia's jurisprudence will be remembered, but probably not as fondly as the commenter thinks.
Because it clearly takes a lot of balls to write a name like "nick," which then clearly identifies to everyone exactly who you are. Everyone is anonymous on the internet, jackass.
Wit, n. 1 The natural ability to perceive and understand; intelligence. 2 A person of exceptional intelligence. Your definition of wit doesn't quite cut it.
"He uses his brilliance to do what I feel is distorting the law to meet his own political aims."
I don't know how you can make a claim like that with a straight face when you've been mourning the loss of O'Connor. If there ever was a justice who abandoned any sort of consistency when she felt like pursuing her own political goals, she was it. You may not agree with Scalia's politics, but his approach is consistent and based strongly in the text of the constitution, while O'Connor's approach was based on which side of the quarter happened to land face up.
Just remember, you're not a tool because you use footnotes in your blog, you use footnotes in your blog because you're a tool.
The comment name "Nick" might not give a lot of identifying information... but linking to a blog that has your full name on it certainly seems to identify you.
No one is anonymous on the internet. That's just ignorant to say that anyone is. For example, just based on the time of your commenting, Mr. Anonymous, and my handy dandy tracking software, I know that you are from Arlington, VA (or at least your Internet Service Provider is) and what your internet protocal adress is, which I could easily use to find out who you are if I were so inclined.
I was mourning the loss of O'Conner not because of her legal abilities, which are still obviously very good or she wouldn't have been nominated to the Supreme Court, but because of who our President is who gets to name her replacement. And I don't know how you can say with a straight face what my opinions are. But, you are Republican, you know all, right?
And responding to a comment on a different post, I don't think freely admitting that at least 25% of the class got better grades than me is bragging about grades. Because, you see, saying "cracking the top quartile" means I may barely squeek in. But, you clearly do not read language too closely, you just assume it means whatever you want it to mean, and then twist it a little further. I can't imagine why Scalia is your hero.
FYI, here is one of Webster's definitions of wit...
The ability to relate seemingly disparate things so as to illuminate or amuse: a talent for banter or persiflage: a witty utterance or exchange: clever or apt humor
That seems to be pretty darn close to the whimsical and fun definition I used... so it seems my definition does cut it.
If the best response you have to my refutation of your tirade is my use of the word "wit," then you are a very poor debator, and I pity you.
Have heard much from "The Colonel" recently... maybe he finally decided to leave me alone after he say his bullying wasn't getting him anywhere.
Post a Comment
<< Home