if TER turned the alias feature off on the Politics and Religion Board?

duh

Duh

I wasn't the one who couldn't figure it out!

The chickenshits on the left and right would either have to put up or shut!  Wouldn't that be special!

instead of pretending to be so many other people

except amuse himself dicking with dumb crackers like you.

we're smart!

sumbitch!

no life of your own so you seem to live on the T&R board 24/7

no real friends so you make up childish aliases to pretend to be other people

so desperate for attention that you have some pathological desire to comment on every post and when no one replies you reply to yourself as someone else congratulating yourself for your own brilliant insights

so embarrassed by your own words that when you paint yourself into a corner you just shit all over the thread trying to hide all evidence

that was quite a tantrum you threw in the thread a little below. stamping your feet, holding your breath, and peeing in your pants.

it truly is a sad life you lead. But maybe one day you will grow up. Its unlikely, but hold out hope. It's all you've got.

It must suck to be you. You have my deepest sympathies.

is safe with us.

by inventing bullshit.

I forget now.  Was it you?

some people get paid to think and write for a living.  They are called "literate".  For them, thinking and writing isn't hard, or slow.

They also understand that it's easiest to (1) stick with the truth, and (2) ask questions if you don't understand something.

Now, if you had a point, you could post it.   This bullshit about the people you know is, well, bullshit.   Because this is the internet, and we already know you're a dog.

Uhhhh, zisk, you just described yourself.



"no life of your own so you seem to live on the T&R board 24/7

no real friends so you make up childish aliases to pretend to be other people

so desperate for attention that you have some pathological desire to comment on every post and when no one replies you reply to yourself as someone else congratulating yourself for your own brilliant insights

so embarrassed by your own words that when you paint yourself into a corner you just shit all over the thread trying to hide all evidence

that was quite a tantrum you threw in the thread a little below. stamping your feet, holding your breath, and peeing in your pants.

it truly is a sad life you lead. But maybe one day you will grow up. Its unlikely, but hold out hope. It's all you've got.

It must suck to be you. You have my deepest sympathies."

Getting ganged up on by 8 different JackOs AND a twelve year old prentending to be an adult definitely generates a certain amount of sympathy from me, but somehow I think Zisk will survive.

Yeah, you.   Are you gonna whine about how nobody has anything to say now?

blow him.

Isn't sex, even oral sex with a minor illegal? lol

Just wonder what it might be like if you took a day off.  But you could never do that could you?  This is what you live for.

he rates buying each of my clients full service, and 15% for me.  And none of these half-assed BJs either, we want messy sweaty knocked on her ass inside AND out.

Cash up front gets a discount.  How about a gangbang with oh, say, Kalifornia and maybe Jai and a couple players to be named?

or pay for it?

don't worry you are just a child and have plenty of years left to develop a life. For Jack0 it may be too late.

You do need to learn how to read better though. Illiteracy make keep you out of a decent college when you finally graduate from high school in another 5 or 6 years.

may be that he has deluded himself into thinking he is accomplishing something other than making himself look foolish.

It doesn't really matter how many times he calls me a liar, or from how many different aliases he needs to use to do it. Until he provides some evidence, its just another of his empty accusations we've all gotten used to.

you claim you called a couple of "constitutional scholars", and others point out that's obviously incredible.

The fact is, if you had an argument, you could post it in less time.  Instead, you insist upon the authority of unidentified people, knowing it's impractical to identify them.  That's one reason it's obviously incredible.

Within the limits of a forum, let me point out a couple of things.  1st, it's uncontestable that due process is in fact a procedural issue, and anybody taking a bar review course knows that - so whether there is a due process violation depends on the process.

2nd, it's black letter that the 14th amendment was the basis for extending the bill of rights to the states.

Neither you nor your sources address these simple & key issues.  Those (and a couple more elaborate points) and the mechanics of your descriptions convince me that you're lying through your teeth.

What puzzles me is why you don't just ask, "what do you mean" or "how do you figure that" and the only likely explanation is also pretty simple - you're an asshole.

you made the accusation -- burden of proof is on you

"you claim you called a couple of "constitutional scholars", and others point out that's obviously incredible."

there are no others. its just you. you really think hiding behind multiple aliases makes anyone believe they are all not just you? And then you, and just you, keep calling me a liar. So at minimum, you are lying about that. Pretending to be other people does not make you other people.

I can understand why, based upon your own personal experiences, YOU think its not possible that I could actually call a colleague and ask a simple question. Your colleagues probably don't want to have anything to do with you. Ever.

"What puzzles me is why you don't just ask, "what do you mean" or "how do you figure that"
another lie by you. You played this card before and it was pointed out then that I did ask -- that was my immediate question back to you, and your reply made some obscure reference to "fascist and criminal organizations" and nothing else. We've already covered this. Now we are just in repeat mode.

I will relate that in a follow up convo over dinner the poly sci guy did get a good chuckle  out of your comment that any real poly sci prof would say only a law prof can answer a question regarding the due process clause. Did you know at the time how ignorant that statement was or are you just realizing it now? Without my computer in front of me at dinner of course I did not read it to him verbatim, but that was the gist of what you said. So I guess you won't be buying any of his books on constitutions.

You should be happy though. We were talking about you. That is the only reason you are here, right? So that someone else might talk about you?

You were, after all, the one who immediately insisted everything must be a lie because there is no way I could possibly have actually had any contact whatsoever with other scholars. Of course the only reason you got into this is because their view is completely different from yours, which in your mind could just not be true. The rest of the interchange in that thread was just about how ignorant you were about how easy it is pick up a phone and call people I interact with on a regular basis. At which point under your various aliases you vacillated between claiming these people don't exist, and that the people do exist but have no idea what they are talking about.

I really don't care to waste any more time explaining the same thing to you over and over again. Unlike you, I have a life that precludes me from spending as much time here as you do. My opportunity cost of time is apparently much higher than yours.



-- Modified on 6/20/2008 4:36:28 PM

go fuck yourself

and your story stinks on way too many levels.

It could be true.  And the heavens could open, and Jesus float down from the clouds.

But that's not the way I'd bet.  And you know exactly why.

BTW - nobody learns con law except in law school, and nobody learns it well except by working with it.  The very fact that you claim to talk to "scholars" undermines your claims - you don't find "conlaw scholars" in a polisci dept, or indeed in most law schools, because most law schools move conlaw classes among several profs who don't have the time to spend on a single issue.

It doesn't take a "scholar" to be able to discuss it intelligently - but it does take somebody with a working knowledge.

Eg, anybody who doesn't instantly recognize that due process is a procedural issue is FOS.

So you go cry to your next date about how we don't believe you.



-- Modified on 6/20/2008 5:34:50 PM

are you pathetic, or what?

Your buddies the scholars talk about snarking on a forum?  What a bunch of fucking losers.

We think we know the answer to that one.  Zisk may be Slovenian for goat dinkleberries, but it seems to translate as "fucking liar" in several others.

*snoorrrkkkkkkkkkk*

Yep you are the center of attention everywhere and always. Out for dinner and drinks for roughly 90 minutes or more, and at some point I update him on your incredible statement that any real poly sci guy would say only a law prof can answer a question about the const. He chuckled, said "Oh, really?" and we moved on to other topics. Took a whopping 2 minutes perhaps.

You're a star! Are you ready for your close-up?

Meanwhile, you are sitting at home once again, eating cold Chef Boy-Ar-Dee right out of the can, the whole time hunched over your computer posting away on TER, and thinking up a bunch of new childish aliases.

So yes, I do pity your life. You seem very lonely. If only you could one day make a real friend you might not have to pretend to be so many different people at once.

-- Modified on 6/21/2008 3:42:27 PM

"nobody learns con law except in law school"
"you don't find "conlaw scholars" in a polisci dept, or indeed in most law schools"

It truly is remarkable how ignorant you are about academia. You should stop bringing it up because every post you make on the subject makes you look even more foolish.

Where are you getting your information, or do you just make it up to support your position? For pete's sake, do a simple search on law schools and poly sci depts across the country. Const. law is a STANDARD course to teach in any poly sci dept and regular in most law schools as well.

To PROVE your ignorance, I'll go slow so that even you can follow along. Unfortunately, that means I will have to spell out every little detail for your benefit.

First, let's get a definition of scholar, shall we?
This is from Merriam-Webster.com


1: a person who attends a school or studies under a teacher : pupil
2 a: a person who has done advanced study in a special field

1a is clearly too broad but would undermine you even more easily. I expect most would consider 2a the working definition.

So according to you, no one in poly sci has ever done advanced study on const law. That must be your claim if, according to you, there is no such thing as a const. law scholar in poly sci. This is what's known as a logical argument. You should have learned about that in law school if not way earlier.

It is actually the rare poly sci dept (must be quite small) that does not offer courses in const law. In fact, larger depts will have multiple scholars who teach and do research in const. law.

If you are incredibly lazy, just go to APSA website (apsanet.org). They have over 40 divisions, one of which is explicitly const. law. They have sessions devoted exclusively to this at their annual conference. The smaller regionals do as well. There are hundreds of members of the const law section at APSA. And again, that's just those who are members of APSA.

So its now been PROVEN that there are plenty of people in poly sci who study and teach const law. I don't know how you can claim they are not const scholars.  
To further undermine your claim, even the law profession recognize poly sci as scholars in the area of const law. There are joint conferences between AALS and APSA in this area. Again, a simple google search will bring up a variety of them. Here is one example of an entire conference on const law; you can see how many people there are from poly sci (or govt/politics) depts -- just at this one conference. As well as how many different law schools are represented, at just this one conference. So much for no one in poly sci can be a const law scholar, and most law schools don't have anyone who does scholarship in that area either. Are you going to drop this now? And just for the record, there are also const scholars in history, and other depts, although those are much fewer in numbers.

Holy crap, are you ignorant. Its one thing to be ignorant on a subject, but at least know where you are ignorant. To state your claims with such arrogance and assurance when even a minimal amount of effort on your part would have shown you were wrong, is just incredulous. You know absolutely nothing about poly sci. Zilch. Stop bringing it up.

Every reason you have given that you somehow know for a fact that none of my colleagues can possibly be considered a const scholar has been proven to be total crap. This one is just the most ludicrous.

"we don't believe you"
still running that charade as well? For once be honest. You don't believe me. Fine, you don't. But enough with the nonsense that all your different aliases you try to trash me with are really different people.

Or have you finally gone over the edge and actually now believe that each time you use a different alias you are really a different person? If so, you should consider seeking professional help for your disorder. There are trained counselors and psychiatrists who specialize in this. Or is that also something that can only be taught in a law school?



-- Modified on 6/21/2008 5:15:37 PM

Unfortunately, they are all inside his head and only manifest themselves here on TER. lmfao

and we scholarified wit him!

you don't know how it's different from other courses.

You don't learn conlaw except in law school, because no other course teaches you to learn and practice the law yourself.  What you hear is what somebody else thinks about it.  You don't learn to figure it out yourself.

There's a lot more con law than anybody can learn in 2 semesters of law school.   Labelling a course con law doesn't mean it prepares you to deal with the subject in a bar exam, or discuss it in any detail.

You're the ignorant feller here, son.

And of course we could get back to any number of other issues that show your disingenuousness, except that you've bored the shit right out of me.

different approach in law school versus say a poli sci course.  Law school exists to teach you how to do it yourself.  Other courses exist for other purposes, and tell you what other people think about it, usually from a generally historical perspective.

Of course you don't understand.  That's obvious.  You can't see how transparent you are here.

What convinces me you are lying is the intersection of several issues - (1) no attempt to address the substance, relying instead on unstated and unprovable claims to authority; (2) avoidance of simple key truth-tellers; (3) insistence & reliance on highly unlikely mechanics; and (4) failure to correct or address any of those issues when pointed out.

ie conclusory discussion with the obligatory lawyers on the panel who understand that their audience has NOT been thru the course, and doesn't care about the elements of a specific problem.

What I am telling you is that a political scientist looks at things differently than a lawyer.   You can't call somebody a "law scholar" of any kind unless they have the skills you pick up in law school.   There could be a few self-taught out there, just like there could be a few self-taught MDs.

But it's entirely different thing to approach law or medicine or any profession from the POV of social impact, versus the POV of a practitioner.  If you want an opinion about a disease, you probably have to go to a practitioner - the public health administrator is not going to help you.

Anybody closely involved in the subject would tell you that instantly.   Nobody who knew anything about it would venture a serious opinion based on hearsay in a forum post.  

The academics - indeed the people - I know don't even talk about forum posts.

So you're a liar, and an egotistical one.  I've heard of worse.

quite a combo you got going for ya

"You don't learn conlaw except in law school"

obviously false. You learn about const law in a course on const law. As already established, they exist elsewhere.

I never said a course on const law in poly sci is the exact same as in law school, so stop lying about that. All I ever said was he was const law scholar, which as proven by DEFINITION, he is. End of story. You are the one that said it was impossible to have a const scholar in a poly sci dept - that they don't exist. You were proven wrong. Proven. End of story. You click on your posts often enough--why can't you properly read what you wrote?


Furthermore, they're not scholars because they TOOK the course you idiot. They're scholars because they TEACH it and RESEARCH it. FFS, I gave you the dictionary definition of "scholar" and still you can't understand.

I'm beginning to doubt you ever set foot on a college campus, let alone went to a law school. Did you get your degree on-line from Phoenix University?

If you wanted an opinion about a broken leg, would you go to somebody who taught history of medicine, or public health?

So if you want an opinion about due process, who do you go to, a practitioner or a historian?  Would you call a historian a "scholar" of the subject?  

Your description of the subject and your transactions is way beyond incredible.   You just dig yourself deeper by not addressing the original point.

Law schools are designed to teach law.  A polisci prof teaches polisci, ie what a political scientist (an oxymoron if there ever was one) thinks about law or other subjects.  He's NOT a legal scholar of any kind.   If he knew shit about due process, he'd have pointed out that it all depends on the procedure.

You're a fucking liar.

I found a fambly pitcher!

you certainly seem to have a lot of pictures of goats. Such a shame that ogling them is the only way you can get an erection.

A lawyer or a political (cough) scientist?

If the answer is something you need to discuss over dinner with 2 (cough) scholars, perhaps we need to adjust your meds.

conclusively presumed to be a DOG!

IOW, dipshit, we don't care who you know or what they say.  Make your own argument, or STFU!

If he studied the subject, wrote scholarly papers about past court decisions, and/or taught courses on the subject, then of course I would. Because I understand the definition of a "scholar". Apparently you don't. Whereas the rest of your profession, if you really are a lawyer, does also. Or does the AALS not count either?

Keep calling me a liar if it makes you feel better while pretending to be several different people. I've already proven that I've used the term correctly, and that's the end of that. If you want to continue to lie about what you've said, and when you've said it, that's on you.

This is all the time I have to spare tonight teaching you basic English. So follow up with your standard vomit of multiple aliases.

anybody that knows anything about the subject would have told you that due process is a procedural issue, and there wasn't enough information to give an answer.

That really disposes of the issue.  Period.

Your insistent claim that you called 2 academics who gave you one line answers to an incomplete question posted on a forum is unbelievable.

Keep digging, buddy.

you really ARE an asshole

MY BOY is the PRESIDENT!

And he knows EVERYTHING!  Just ask & I'll tell you, right here on the internet.

to pretend to be many different people, who are we to spoil your fun? but don't expect the rest of us to buy into your delusions.

Take a deep breath and repeat after me. "Pretending to be many differnent people does not make it so."

Now take your meds and behave like a good little lunatic. I'd hate to have to put you back into your straightjacket, but you know it's for your own good.

hurt you.

Just kidding!  He'll probably buttrape your delicate rightwing feelings without even knowing it, and nobody gives a shit!  Well, except the other delicate rightwing sweeties.

sockpuppet, definition:
"A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception within an Internet community."
"sock-puppeting" is defined as "the act of creating a fake online identity to praise, defend or create the illusion of support for one’s self, allies or company."

Sounds exactly like you. If you had anything useful to add you wouldn't need to constantly resort to this in each and every thread. You must have over a dozen aliases in this thread alone, all the while pretending they are different people. Not only can you not be honest about what you post, you can't even be honest about how you post. And in your total narcissism, you probably believe I click on every one of your multiple alias postings. I have neither the time nor desire to do so. At most, I choose the one in a specific reply sequence that from the title appears to be the least inane. As such, I am privy to only a tiny fraction of your expressed ignorance.

All you've done is shout the equivalent of "liar liar pants on fire" repeatedly when everything you offered (upon insistence) to back up your claim has been proven false.
Your level of ignorance is matched only by your arrogance. It might almost be amusing if you didn't insist on showing it off so often. Then its just repetitious.

You know nothing about academics, so you call them "loonies". You know nothing about political science, so you call it an "oxymoron".
You claim no one other than a law prof can be called a const. scholar. That was PROVEN false by DEFINITION. You still can't accept it.

You apparently don't even know anything about law professors or law school in general. Not too surprising. You have various aliases where you pretend to be an accountant, a psychologist, an economist, etc etc, so now you have an alias where you pretend to be a lawyer. It seems more likely that what limited knowledge of law you have came from watching a few reruns of Ally McBeal.

If you knew anything at all about law school, you wouldn't claim there are hardly any const law scholars at law schools (already PROVEN false) and that you know this because law courses are only designed to help you pass the bar, or that only a lawyer can answer questions pertaining to the law. How stupid that is. That's akin to saying only medical doctors teach in medical schools, and only historians teach in history depts etc etc. Do you believe that too? (Demonstratively false, by the way in case you really are that ignorant.)

FFS, law schools routinely have on their faculty people who have never in their life taken the bar, or even have a JD. These are the people who are supposed to teach the information that you never learned. And before you throw off your next lie and claim that could only be true at some worthless law school, take a look at Harvard law faculty as just one example. And the very few schools all of whose permanent faculty only hold a JD almost always have adjunct or visiting faculty that come to teach classes there, without a JD. Or have joint appointments with other depts without at JD. If you'd bother to look it up, you'd see it on each law school's faculty page. You are simply totally ignorant about law schools. I can't believe you ever attended one.

And your bullshit that any real law prof would have had to answer exactly as you do, is arrogance at its highest levels. How can you speak for each and every law professor when you don't even know the first damn thing about them?

Your continued ignorance is on further display when you think by adopting multiple aliases that use my username (how desperate are you to want to be me? get your own life.) and then rip on the south is somehow a personal attack on me. Do you think I'm a southerner? Yet another ignorant assumption on your part.

What a colossal waste of time its been dealing with you. Unlike you, I have both a job and life, and simply can't waste anymore time dealing with a thread-shitting sockpuppet such as yourself.

Of course we all know what comes next. You reply here with yet another round of multiple aliases in a desperate attempt to drown this out, and then click on each of your own posts repeatedly to make it appear as if they are being read by others.

You are both pitiful and pitiable. Enjoy the rest of your lack of a life.

get your own rebar & hot sauce