Re: How's that again?

[Black Unicorn <unicorn@schloss.li>]

On Tue, 12 Mar 1996, jim bell wrote:

> some people around here think is just fine.  You might note that the same 
> people who have been most critical of my stance on the Leahy bill are the 
> same ones who vigorously opposed AP, suggesting that their motives are  
> questionable and certainly a bit "predictable."

Or that your tone and method of delivery combined with your knowledge of 
the subject matter at hand is consistantly lacking.

> You will notice, I assume, that I have been and can be tactful to most 
> people; where exceptions exist, they are typically among anonymous posters 
> (such as this "Black Unicorn") who has now admitted he's an elitist legal 
> snob and doesn't want anybody who hasn't spent a few years in law ("mental 
> reform") school to pass judgment on the judges, no matter how outrageous 
> their actions become.

I believe my concern was with your review of legislation and the impact 
of cases without any legal background.

Revise your statement to:

"doesn't want anyone who hasn't spent a few years in law school to pass 
judgement on pending legislation and the effect of supreme court decision 
thereon..."

and you'd be right on the money.

And I confirm again that I'm an elitist legal snob.  At least I know what 
I'm talking about.

> Jim Bell
> jimbell@pacifier.com

---
My prefered and soon to be permanent e-mail address: unicorn@schloss.li
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed,       potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him."    in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55  E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information