I never said that you have never asked any questions.
And I never said that you said that I never asked
any questions. (Whew. :p)
I asked questions. You said I didn't.
Reality hurts.
Well, as a matter of fact, yes, I have defended myself . . . coupled with the fact that I've never taken a single breath inside a prison, would tend to indicate that I have a rather high level of competence.
Ah, that's great!
Let us officially dub thee "competent". Now, let's answer the complete question: what are a few pairs of unrelated laws used to attack people all the time?
Yes, because you were just mentioning that you were not licensed in NH, just for the sake of inserting a random factoid about yourself?
...
The only possible reasons you would mention something specific like not being licensed in NH would be that you felt it related to your competence in these discussions.
Only possible reason? For telling me to "go read" all the time, you might wanna try it. Go look at what I explicitly wrote. All of it.
If you look through a number of legal books, treatises, periodicals, etc. you will nearly always see a (much longer) disclaimer like that. It's a warning to people. To let them know the author isn't writing as their personal attorney, and that no attorney-client relationship is formed, and that advice shouldn't be relied on. Honestly, it's more an insurance reason than anything else. Sounds like a possible reason to me; and the the correct one.
I didn't dodge any question. Another straw man. The two discussions ("attorneys" and "those in the liberty movement") were two separate discussions.
Do you know what a straw man argument is?
You've used it quite a few times now.
But not once correctly.
I really could care less what you assume. Do some research. I'm sure you could find some attorneys to consult, if you liked, just for one group.
No, no, no. You misunderstand.
I don't just want "some attorneys to consult". Not just any 'ole attorneys.
Who are a few of the attorneys
you previously said have read the particular statute?
Wonderful. I'm glad to hear you took my advice 
What advice is that, precisely?
That you further research the law of libel. To claim you're aware of those laws, you would've had to look into it a bit more, since there was a gap in your understanding. Since you're now aware, you must've looked into it some more.
We were just discussing some of them. Or are you going to claim memory issues, now?
Well, I don't recall "we" discussing them.
So if you're not being ambiguous on purpose, my memory just might be deficient!
If yours isn't deficient, could you please point out where these supposed contradictory statements are?
Again, I'd be more than happy to explain anything that wasn't clear.
Let's break down your response here to show how you've avoided addressing what I've said:
1. Maineshark applies the same standard to all people, including himself.
2. Applying the same standard to all people is a hallmark of libertarianism.
3. It is odd that B.D. Ross does not know that applying the same standard is a hallmark of libertarianism.
You claim #1. However, as I pointed in my previous post by quoting the exchange between you and Keltec, this is not always true. In such cases, you're holding yourself to a different standard for justifying claims, making inferences, and attributing statements to authors that they haven't written.
Yet, as usual, your response to what I've said is to immediately conclude the contrary--without any support for it.
Your unsupported and insuperable claims don't magically make that so.
#2 is a largely acceptable statement, but so broad that it could be ambiguous. #3 is irrelevant, as the issue is whether you are holding yourself to a different standard than you hold other people to. Not whether I believe #2 or not.
Ah, but it rather is important what you believe. As I've said before, I have not noticed many posts of yours which are anything but trolls, full of straw men and other nonsense. If you are not aware of, or do not believe in, things which are extremely critical to libertarian thought, then it seems more and more likely that you are no sort of libertarian, at all.
What?! No. Just... no.
(hangs head in shame... I have failed to reach theeese keeeds.)
What
I believe (about libertarianism) is not relevant to telling us whether
you apply a differing standard by which you're treating other posters.
Even if, my personal beliefs would not alone tell anyone whether my posts are trolls or strawmen.
I could believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (or something equally crazy).
But I could still look at the ocean, and exclaim, "Oh. It looks wet."
And I'd be correct.
But neither of those facts tells us anything--not even remotely--about how you're treating other people when you communciate with them.
Contrarily, as we like to hold people to a uniform standard, would it also be rather important what
you believe in? You seem to believe my posts are trolls and full of straw men. As the thread grows in size, the former looks more-and-more tenable. But the latter, I think, I've addressed that a few times already in this post. I don't think I've exaggerated any of your opinions so-far as to distort them beyond your actual claims. But if you can point it out (and convincingly tell me why you think it's not fair), I'll certainly own up to it.
Hmm, maybe I'm not a libertarian. Maybe I'm a communist. --Or a vampire!
Still wouldn't change the fact that you're holding other posters to a different standard than you're holding yourself to.
When you say that you don't.
And, hey, look Ma', I can argue fallaciously too! If you're unwelcoming to the liberty-minded people who visit this web site, "
you are no sort of libertarian at all."
--Sounds valid and convincing, doesn't it?
You seem like a fairly sharp guy. So I always just assumed you were being difficult. But now, I'm starting to suspect that you just might not know how to support what you're writing. With things like logic, reasoning, facts, or examples. Feel free to show us you can, if you can.
Once you manage to address the issues at hand with no straw men, then we can talk about ability.
...
Let's see... every single claim regarding these statutes... all of your straw men... need we go on?
...
This is not the "NH is underpopulated, so let's convince folks to move here" project.
The goal is to convince liberty-minded people to move. Not punks who think it's okay to point a gun at your neighbor's head if his dog barks, and other such individuals.
You really have no idea what a straw man argument is, do you?
Read the third-to-last line above. That's an example of one.
You inappropriately expanded what I wrote ("we should welcome liberty-minded people") to a "We should convince folks to move to NH just because it's underpopulated". That's a no-no.
And that pointing-a-gun-at-your-neighbors head-if-his-dog-barks thing?
You keep pulling that out of your hat.
But I don't think anyone has actually, ever said it.
Well, except when you first fabricated it.
Really? Why? That was pretty obviously of Buddhist origin. One would imagine that anyone who goes as far out of his way to imply a high level of "education" as yourself would have studied enough philosophy to recognize such a blatantly-Buddhist statement as that one. Curious...
Why? Because I did not know, and I wanted to. Is there anything "obviously" and "blatantly" Buddhist about it that you can point out? Could've just as well been some translated text from an Enlightenment author.
--AND before it slips my mind, where in the world was that pedestrian so that he wouldn't have been in public?
Save that I'm wrong from time-to-time, you're right, there's little common ground. Most of the content above is just bickering (though I'm really hoping you realize about the lack of support in your posts). This thread could continue in perpetuity. We're hardly addressing the substantive issues any more, so it's fast becoming a waste (though, amusing use) of time. Unless you can address any of the original issues I identified (identify the unrelated laws, attorneys, etc.), I'll try
really hard to ignore whatever illogical non-response you can cobble together. Unless I see something particularly juicy and just can't resist. But that's
not a goal you should aspire to!
