Quick– read the following paragraph and tell me what you think:
The women legally arrived…in 2002; (their employers) then confiscated their passports and refused to let them leave their home, authorities said.
Domestic slavery? Nightmarish abuse of Sri Lankan maids, at the hands of Arab employers? That’s what I thought. I was only half right (Thanks, KXB).
Two Indonesian women were subjected to beatings and other abuse and forced by a couple to work in their home in a swank Long Island neighborhood without pay for several years, federal prosecutors said Tuesday.
Authorities said they uncovered the abuse after one of the women was found by police wandering outside a doughnut shop on Sunday morning, wearing only pants and a towel…[IHT]
Apparently, employees at the store thought the woman was homeless, until she started slapping herself and trying to utter the word “master”.
Varsha Mahender Sabhnani, 35, and her husband Mahender Murlidhar Sabhnani, 51, both from India, entered not guilty pleas at their arraignment in U.S. District Court and were ordered held pending a Thursday bail hearing. Their attorney did not immediately return a telephone call seeking comment. [IHT]
The women were only allowed outside of the house if they were taking out the garbage; when anyone visited, they were stashed in a 3×3′ closet. That’s pleasant compared to this:
The women were subjected to beatings, scalding water thrown on them, and forced to climb up and down stairs as punishment for misdeeds, prosecutors said. In one case, they said, one of the women was forced to eat 25 hot chili peppers at one time.
One of the women also told authorities she was cut behind her ears with a small pocket knife and both were forced to sleep on mats in the kitchen. They were fed so little, they claimed, that they were forced to steal food and hide it from their “captors.”[IHT]
It’s just so depressing. What quirk of destiny relegates one South Asian woman to endure the beatings of her Arab mistress while halfway around the world, her desi– albeit privileged– counterpart metes out similar viciousness to another brown human being? Sri Lankan and Fillipino maids get abused in the middle east, the Indonesian survivors from this cringe-inducing story were enslaved by people our parents might associate with, right here in the U.S and desperate, option-less women everywhere are exploited by those who should know better but don’t care. For shame.
What the heck do you find indirect about the Secretary of State’s and Attorney General’s testimonies for the Supreme Court?
And you keep projecting your own moral bankruptcy on others: questioning british motivations for banning widow-burning and human sacrifice in India; communist motivations for condemning american racism towards non-whites; and now american and european motivations for targeting indian apartheid. Was the end result of international condemnation of american and south african racism (towards africans, indians and other colored races) good or not? What do you think is the indian motivation for tolerating the unforgivable, inexcusable practices of rampant child slavery, hindu untouchability, child prostitution etc? Isnt that what you should be questioning?
How pathetic is that? In your twisted little world comments on Amazon.com trump the testimony of Supreme Court Justices, Secretaries of State, Attorney Generals etc!
The bottomline is this: if it takes international condemnation to finally force India to enforce its laws against untouchability, child slavery etc, then such pressure should be welcomed by all those who find these immoral practices inhumane and unacceptable.
Alright, not bad! I know that was tough. I was just waiting the evil twins: ignorant and naive to pop out, but you held in there. You get a gold star!
Now work with me..
Whatever small effect (and I’ll say it had more effect on South Africa, because, well, the US simply drives international dialogue. to its ends) it had, sure, I’ll agree it was good, but it’s on their schedule, their convenience.
I think you missed the “read” part of “read #242” I was quoting another review of Dudziak’s book, and implying that it trumped Amazon.com user reviews. As for the repeated quotes you post re: Associate Supreme Court Justices (and you didn’t post them again! way to go!). They don’t stand in contravention of the point I made regarding, the Government was more interested in “how they looked” to the world, rather than “what they were doing” – and those two are not synonymous.
I don’t disagree. Although, given corporate America’s dependence on acquiring low-cost products (ie Saipan, et al) that in part depend on child labor, I’d question the veracity on any such condemnation. And, I just question your usage of the American Civil rights movement as some kind of meaningful parallel anyhow.
Now c’mon, you’re doing so well, can we squeeze one more semi-civil response? I don’t wanna push it…
What the heck do you find indirect about the Secretary of State’s and Attorney General’s testimonies for the Supreme Court?
Not to pick nits, but an amicus brief is not “testimony”. It has no evidentiary value. An amicus brief is merely a comment from someone who is not a party to the case, but has some interest in the outcome. Anyone can submit an amicus brief for any appellate case. The amicus brief itself is not persuasive authority for the Court, although the Court may sometimes reference things from amici.
Hema,
Just out of curiosity, are you in the legal field? or just a legal buff?
HMF:
I’m an attorney. So sue me.
By the way, Prema, here is an abstract written on a conference paper written by Dudziak, in 2004 which postdates the publication of her book:
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p59413_index.html
excerpt:
“The paper does not argue that Congress explicitly drew upon foreign affairs powers in passing the Civil Rights Act. Instead it suggests that national security was part of the calculus when Congress weighed the importance of the national interests at stake in civil rights reform, and that assessment of the national interest must be kept in mind when examining the impact of civil rights reform…”
If child labour is 100% erradicated that does not mean those kids will be in school learning or doing something to better themselves. Some of them come from super poor families (the kind of poverty we here passing time leisurely on the internet cannot even conceive of), and they are working to be able to eat day to day.
This sort of thing isn’t too uncommon among a lot of people of various ethnicities, including my own. Perhaps it doesn’t go as far as physical torture but definitely includes underpaying staff, threatening them and making them work crazy hours. Personally, I think it’s more reflective of a person’s class than their racial background. It’s usually the ‘get rich at any cost’ people who do this sort of thing (not very classy but they want all the material appearances of wealth without bothering about the little things that the real upperclass actually do care about).
i really would not be surprised if we find out that this Cruela de Vil is actually 63 years old. lets be realistic she has 4 kids! I mean look at her she looks old and evil. I look forward to the press correction.
Child slavery – yes. A moderate approach to child labour – no.
The minimum age for entering the workforce in USA is 16. Some countries younger, others – older.
If a child assists a family member in their business on a semi-regular basis while going to school, no problem.
Or, if a poor child is employed in a non-exploitive way in order that they and their family not starve, what is the harm?
There is no funcitioning system in place in India to help all (millions) of these children. If many of these children don’t work, they don’t eat.
Mrs Vasha Mehender and her husband are so rich, yet, she looks so unhappy. Can’t imagine having so much money in the world but instead of doing good deeds and help the poor, she chose to torture them.
Shame on both of them. Hope they both go to jail. No more living in a mansion.
Ah, the new legal standard. Innocent until looking guilty.
Thank you, Prema. Frankly, I’d felt hurt, ignored, and let’s admit it, a tad bereft, that the delicate grace that is Hurricane Prema did not see fit to waft through my living room. However, could you please edify me as to which flavor dominates in my comments – ignorance, irrationality, or pretentiousness? Or is it a subtle and delicate blending of all of them, with an aftertaste of cranberry?
HMF:
Like I said, you are intellectually and morally dishonest to the core. Here’s the full abstract:
How is that different from what I wrote in the first place: “America changed in the 1960s in part because it was facing foreign condemnation for its legalized discrimination against minorities” which set you off on an idiotic incredulous rant:
And despite all the evidence you continue to pretend as if you were right all along! That shows the depth of your intellectual and ethical bankruptcy. Here’s a recap of some of the evidence; read and weep some more:
“President Truman’s civil rights committee cautioned: “[T]he United States is not so strong, the final triumph of the democratic ideal is not so inevitable, that we can ignore what the rest of the world thinks of our record.”
“there is little doubt that the climate of the era explains, in significant part, why apartheid in America began to unravel after World War II.” (Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States)
“The existence of discrimination against minority groups in the United States has an adverse effect upon our relations with other countries. Racial discrimination furnishes grist for the Communist propaganda mills, and it raises doubts even among friendly nations as to the intensity of our devotion to the democratic faith.” (Attorney General of the United States in an amicus brief for the United States filed in Brown)
“The United States is under constant attack in the foreign press, over the foreign radio, and in such international bodies as the United Nations because of various practices of discrimination against minority groups in this country. . . . Soviet spokesmen regularly exploit the situation in propaganda against the United States. . . .[T]he continuance of racial discrimination in the United States remains a source of constant embarrassment to this Government in the day-to-day conduct of its foreign relations; and it jeopardizes the effective maintenance of our moral leadership of the free and democratic nations of the world.” (Secretary of State Dean Acheson, in the amicus brief for the United States filed in Brown)
Thanks Prema for providing all this info…I was so tired of HMF’s rewriting his argument I couldn’t be bothered to answer back to him. I don’t agree with a lot of how you say things, but on this discussion, you have pointed out some great points to show how the international HR community facilitated passing US civil rights laws.
And despite all the evidence you continue to pretend as if you were right all along! —- So True!
Get real. An amicus brief filed by the Government cannot be dismissed so cavalierly especially when it testifies to the repercussions to national security of the issue being judged. Secondly:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_curiae
“A brief of an amicus curiae may be filed only if accompanied by written consent of all parties, or by leave of court granted on motion or at the request of the court, except that consent or leave shall not be required when the brief is presented by the United States or an officer or agency thereof, or by a State, Territory or Commonwealth.”
To dismissively lump a brief filed by the government along with those by “anyone” is plain naivety.
Any lawyer who thinks rationally will run circles around you.
To dismissively lump a brief filed by the government along with those by “anyone” is plain naivety.
You know, all this time I thought you were just irrational, but now it’s clear that you know almost nothing about anything at all. An amicus brief submitted by the government carries exactly the same persuasive weight as an amicus brief submitted by anyone else. The persuasive authority is the only relative issue here.
Any lawyer who thinks rationally will run circles around you.
Sure, and it carries extra weight coming from you, since you’re clearly an expert with regard to being irrational and knowing next to nothing about the law. But don’t let me stop you from trying to make a point by vilifying others. It’s such a cool and original way to make your point, after all.
May I gently interject my sexist two cents?
Aww. you were doing so well too.. I knew more than one semi-peaceful/respectful response per thread was too much to ask. Ah well, rest and recuperate.
I will acquiesce that the international community played a role, perhaps moreso than I had thought, and I have acquiesced this earlier too. (248 and 252)
But honestly PS, I thought you were being sarcastic and ironic, as Prema has clearly taken the “…rewriting their argument…” championships on this one. I can recite the Amicus Brief in my sleep, I’ve seen it so many damn times. But Prema refuses to acknowledge these points (with any civility anyway):
The comparison does not hold as the US would be hypocritical to condemn any kind of child labor practices elsewhere when atrocities at Saipan (a US protectorate) were going on under their noses. Furthermore, the US corporate lobby depends on low cost products that indirectly depend on questionable labor practices as done in countries like India, Indonesia, China, Malaysia, etc….
The US during the cold war interested in controlling it’s image, and did not have any kind of moral awakening. It was only through the passive resistance and the fierce struggles of Civil Rights leaders, coupled with an international climate that pushed them over the edge.
Even though Brown won in a 9-0 vote, there were significant groups opposed to any kind of integration, are you implying these people were “pro-communist” and didn’t want the US to save itself from easily being charged as hypocrites in their comdemnation of Soviet practices? No of course not, because they didn’t believe it in the same lot, a quote from the Southern Manifesto:
“This unwarranted exercise of power by the Court, contrary to the Constitution, is creating chaos and confusion in the States principally affected. It is destroying the amicable relations between the white and Negro races that have been created through 90 years of patient effort by the good people of both races. It has planted hatred and suspicion where there has been heretofore friendship and understanding.”
Friendship and understanding!??!
Re: the last Dudziak quote she drew out as an example of my moral depravity, whatever she wants to call. The statement right under her bold/underline ejaculation is exactly the point I was making. That Dudziak does not disagree with the given narrative of Civil Rights and Congress did not draw upon those foreign affairs powers explicitly. Which she chose to conveniently not bold and underline.
So put that in your pipe and smoke it… (but make sure no one else around you does)
Really? how do you underline and bold in real life?
This is coming from someone whose naivety and irrationality has been exposed in this very thread. Here is what you were claiming:
I guess you think you are more “rational” than the Supreme Court Justice, the Attorney General, the Secretary of State et al.
Yeah right. That just proves how very “rational” you really are.
An amicus brief submitted by the government carries exactly the same persuasive weight as an amicus brief submitted by anyone else.
Which is what you implied earlier as well:
And because the US’s brief was only one of more than 20, you “rationally” concluded that international affairs played an insignificant role in the Court’s decision! Which highlights your ignorance and naivety. It is asinine to think that an amicus brief filed by the Government telling the court of the negative international repurcussions of american apartheid carried “exactly the same persuasive weight as an amicus brief submitted by anyone else”.
Yay! A new word. Asinine. Prema, in order to help you generate the only changing aspect of your posts, here’s a helpful link.
You’re welcome.
Lol. Hopelessly dishonest aren’t you? You were indignantly claiming that it played no role whatsoever:
And because the US’s brief was only one of more than 20, you “rationally” concluded that international affairs played an insignificant role in the Court’s decision!
I think that considering that the Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion mentions international human rights as the basis for its decision in Brown v. Board of Education exactly zero times, it’s not unreasonable (or even naive and irrational…and oh, by the way, you forgot servilely anglophilic and casteist) to assume that international human rights played an insignificant role in the decision. Typically, the Court tends to cite the source of any authority it actually finds persuasive right in the decision.
an amicus brief filed by the Government telling the court of the negative international repurcussions of american apartheid carried “exactly the same persuasive weight as an amicus brief submitted by anyone else
It does carry exactly the same persuasive weight. That’s how the amicus process works. In fact, the Court is only allowed to give persuasive weight to arguments made by the parties themselves (except for jurisdictional issues it can raise sua sponte), and as the government was not a party, it rests in the same position as the other amicus curiae in the case.
I won’t bother to comment on the rest of your post, because frankly, what’s the point? You’re going to continue to think I’m irrational, because it saves you the trouble of having to actually understand anything I’m saying. It’s intellectual laziness on your part, and I can’t be bothered to try to fix that for you.
I don’t think international pressure played a significant role in Brown v. Board, but that’s not to say such things never influence the U.S. Supreme Court. For example, in Roper v. Simmons, the court cites international human rights decisions, sociological studies, and even court decisions from other countries, in deciding that executing minors is cruel and unusual punishment for those under 18 when sentenced.
American historical narratives tend to elide the role of international pressure in the formation of its anti-racism laws – in favor of national heroes (including liberal whites) and their struggles. Its no surprise that some Americans think the foreign pressure was no big deal.
American courts have also been notoriously insular and have resisted even considering how other countries’ courts have solved problems. There still is massive resistence …
American courts have also been notoriously insular and have resisted even considering how other countries’ courts have solved problems. There still is massive resistence …
Exactly right. Even in Roper, it was a 5-4 decision, and the dissenters did not like the majority’s use of international views on capital punishment.
In fact, this is what I’ve been saying all along…that the US judicial system is fairly insular and resistant to international pressure. But I suppose that just makes me naive and irrational.
You are a fine example of a rote learner who is clueless about the real world. As if the Supreme Court or the Congress would mention international moral pressure as one of the main reasons for ending racial discrimination in America, during a time of intense propaganda war against the Soviets who were attacking and exploiting this hypocrisy in a nation that was championing freedom and democracy. That this pressure played an important role in ending institutionalized racism in America (and allowing a colored woman like you to immigrate here and become a lawyer) is undeniable:
“Although the Brown decision did not refer to the international stage, there is little doubt that the climate of the era explains, in significant part, why apartheid in America began to unravel after World War II.” (Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of the United States.)
Clueless as usual. You clearly have no idea how the world works. To claim that the government’s brief to the Supreme Court testifying to how racism in America was harming it internationally, during a time of intense competition with an enemy that was bent on destroying capitalism, carried the same weight as that of any other joe blow’s amicus brief is just plain stupid.
You clearly have no idea how the world works
You clearly have no idea how the law works.
Although the Brown decision did not refer to the international stage, there is little doubt that the climate of the era explains, in significant part, why apartheid in America began to unravel after World War II
If you parse the sentence carefully, you’ll notice that Justice Ginsburg (who is about as smart a woman as there ever has been) doesn’t actually say the Brown court gave in to international pressure. What she’s saying is that the climate of the era contributed to ending segregation. I already alluded to this, several comments ago, by noting that the Court felt the time had come for a different interpretation of the 14th Amendment. Internal pressures can produce the sort of climate that Justice Ginsburg refers to as much as international pressures.
Su-nap. 4 cents now.
(in best Homer voice) Don’t forget Prema!
Yes she is indeed far smarter and far more rational than you. And I already quoted from her article in length proving your naivety and ignorance yet here you are acting as if Ginsberg agrees with you! Thats worse than stupidity. Thats intellectual dishonesty. Here’s her article again:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/publicinfo/speeches/sp_10-25-04.html
“The author of the Brown decision, Chief Justice Earl Warren, reflected some 18 years after the 1954 judgment:
Remember, too, that the Cold War was in full sway in 1954. As Michael Klarman observed in his monumental work FROM JIM CROW TO CIVIL RIGHTS, published this year: “In the ideological contest with communism, U.S. democracy was on trial, and southern white supremacy was its greatest vulnerability, made all the more conspicuous by the postwar overthrow of colonial regimes throughout the world.” President Truman’s civil rights committee cautioned: “[T]he United States is not so strong, the final triumph of the democratic ideal is not so inevitable, that we can ignore what the rest of the world thinks of our record.”
In an amicus brief for the United States filed in Brown, the Attorney General urged:
The brief included a letter from Secretary of State Dean Acheson on the adverse effects of race discrimination upon the conduct of U. S. foreign relations. Acheson wrote:
Oh I know Prema. because people can never change their opinions, right? This whole “nuanced approach” to understanding humanity is way out of line. The strict binary of 1 and 0 of your world, is undeniably the real way human nature operates. By the way, out of immense gratitude for setting me straight, I’d humbly offer some suggestions of things you may enjoy…
If you’re interested in checking out an entertaining TV show, here’s one, if you’re interested in getting from point a to point b without a car, you can try these guys, if you’re into urban music try these listening to her, and lastly, if you really, i mean REALLY wanna be hip.. get a pair of these…
Again the stubborn dishonesty. Show us where you acknowledged that I was right and you were wrong.
Lol. Look who’s talking. The same binary thinking genius who ranted on and on:
You call that a “nuanced approach”? Face it, you made a fool out of yourself. And by stubbornly defending your asinine assertions, or at least pretending to do so in desperate attempts to save face, you kept digging yourself into deeper holes.
And I already quoted from her article in length proving your naivety and ignorance yet here you are acting as if Ginsberg agrees with you!
Wow. Here you are quoting entire lines from her article, as if its Scripture, and you can’t even bother to spell her name correctly.
Be that as it may, I’m not saying that Justice Ginsburg agrees with me, but rather that you significantly overstate her thesis. She’s not saying that international pressures led to the Brown decision. She’s saying that international pressures caused by the US involvement in post-war Germany led to a change in internal views about race. That is NOT the same as saying the Brown court was motivated primarily by international pressure.
Hema: The Supreme Court does in fact often base its decision on the issues raised in amicus brief which were not raised by the parties themselves. See Spriggs, J. E, and P. J. Wahlbeck (1997) “Amicus Curiae and the Role of Information at the Supreme Court,” 50 Political Research Quarterly 365. Neither the parties argument nor the interest of the parties who file the amicus brief are considered persuasive by the Court. Whats considered persuasive at varying degrees is the source and authority of the law cited.
Neither the parties argument nor the interest of the parties who file the amicus brief are considered persuasive by the Court.
Agreed, but the parties usually frame the questions for certiorari, and the parties appear at oral argument, so they have more influence (in the normative real world sense that Prema appeared to be using the word “persuasive”) than any of the amici do.
Also, I recall reading here that the Court is technically not supposed to raise issues (other than jurisdictional ones) unless the parties brief the issues first. So, in that sense, the parties’ framing of the arguments is more persuasive than anything in an amicus brief.
The article you posted is one I’ve read before, and the gist seems to be that the amicus process basically fills the role of factfinding at the appellate level, but the Court doesn’t necessarily base its decisions on issues raised by amici. In fact, I’ve heard several scholars suggest it would be improper for the Court to do so.
Pathetic. Now you are grabbing at straws. And its funny to see someone who just called her the smartest woman ever, mock me for quoting from an article written by her heroine! How twisted is that?
What does it tell you when someone who you think is one of the smartest women ever does not agree with you?
You must have some serious reading comprehension problems to claim that I am “overstating” her thesis. I have been saying that international moral pressure played a significant role in the ending of institutionalized racism in America. That you “parsed” her quote and concluded otherwise shows that you need some parsing lessons as well. Try again in context of the rest of her article:
Agreed, but the parties usually frame the questions for certiorari, and the parties appear at oral argument, so they have more influence (in the normative real world sense that Prema appeared to be using the word “persuasive”) than any of the amici do.
If you agree, then why would you say something like this:
I hope you realize that the Supreme Court does not consider any ‘argument’ by the parties to be persuasive, period. Therefore the assertion that the Court is only allowed to give persuasive weight to arguments exclusively made by the direct parties is wrong at all levels. And between, what the hell is this business of Court giving persuasive weight to arguments by parties. Is that a new legal doctrine?
I am not being an asshole. However, I do remember you making a stupendously false assertion that a kid in a public university does not have the constitutional due process rights because of a lack of property interest. I am a little concerned that people here might be misled when we lawyer types infer things which are questionable at best.
Ok, the above post was a little harsh. I am having a VERY long day. Peace 🙂
ACfd:
Since you seem at least marginally interested in the issue, this is an excellent article on “issue creation” by the Supreme Court. The gist is that the Supreme Court does not see itself as a body for making policy, and therefore, usually does not consider issues raised by amici. It’s an interesting article for other reasons too, even if it is over 10 years old.
Prema:
What does it tell you when someone who you think is one of the smartest women ever does not agree with you?
What it says is that smart people can disagree on issues, and frequently do, or there would be no need for debate of any sort.
Besides, the sentence you keep quoting specifically says “Although the Brown decision did not refer to the international stage…” which is exactly what I’ve been saying all along. The Court doesn’t refer to international pressures in its decisions at all.
Furthermore, whether you agree that you are engaging in this or not, you are, in fact, overstating Ginsburg’s thesis. She is saying that post-WWII international events led to internal changes to the race climate in America, and that it was these internal changes that ultimately led to the Court’s Brown decision. You have to read the entire Ginsburg article to understand that, rather than just parsing it for quotes to bold and underline.
I also think you need lessons in catching more bees with honey than vinegar.
However, I do remember you making a stupendously false assertion that a kid in a public university does not have the constitutional due process rights because of a lack of property interest
I think we already addressed this issue via e-mail, and I recall that the problem was that we were discussing two separate issues, and talking at each other. I also recall that you made some baldfaced assertion about how you expected I never would send you the appropriate caselaw, but I did, and you never did acknowledge that here on SM. Yep, I remember everything forever! 🙂
And between, what the hell is this business of Court giving persuasive weight to arguments by parties. Is that a new legal doctrine?
I told you, persuasive in the non-legal sense, because Prema wasn’t making a distinction between persuasive in the normative sense and in the legal sense. And you know what, to quote George Costanza, you can stuff your sorries in a sack. I wasn’t actually wrong about the procedural due process issue, and certainly nothing on the level of stupendously wrong.
If you can be an asshole after a long day, well so can I.
It could be worse. Much worse.
Heh. Thanks, Rahul. I sort of needed that. It really has been a sucky day.
You flatter yourself way too much 😉
Dont pretend thats the issue here. The issue is the actual influence of international moral pressure not the court or congress’s acknowledgement of it. As the rest of that quote and the rest of that article clearly establishes, it did indeed play a significant role. Silly of you to continue to deny something so obvious.
Pretty thick aren’t you? You just made a point against yourself. Those “international events” that led to “internal changes” included the following mentioned prominently in Ginsburg’s article, which you claim to have understood but clearly have not:
“The United States is under constant attack in the foreign press, over the foreign radio, and in such international bodies as the United Nations because of various practices of discrimination against minority groups in this country. . . . Soviet spokesmen regularly exploit the situation in propaganda against the United States. . . .[T]he continuance of racial discrimination in the United States remains a source of constant embarrassment to this Government in the day-to-day conduct of its foreign relations; and it jeopardizes the effective maintenance of our moral leadership of the free and democratic nations of the world.” (Secretary of State Dean Acheson, in the amicus brief for the United States filed in Brown)
You flatter yourself way too much 😉
Yes, I do. Someone’s got to, no? 😉
At any rate, it’s clear we’ll never agree on this, so I’ll just let it go. That seems like the only reasonable thing to do at this stage, because I’m too tired to even type properly anymore. (This comment originally contained 18 typos).
Have a good weekend, Prema. And Rahul. And HMF. And even you, ACfd.
Right here, post #282.
“By the way, out of immense gratitude for setting me straight, I’d humbly offer some suggestions of things you may enjoy…”
And by the way, I’ll never again insinuate any flaw in your logic, your strategy is simply unconquerable: Bold, Underline, Ignore the response. Repeat if necessary (which it undoubtedly will be)
You’re absolutely correct, the moment I decided to engage you (assuming you’re capable of human being like discussion) I had a made a huge fool of me. Silly Rabbit. Trix are for kids.
They’re out on bail ($3.5 million):
I was just being nice back then, ACfd. Really. There was no point to me exchanging 16 e-mails with you on that score.
I don’t think I was “stupendously” wrong, and I don’t think you were unerringly correct either. We were discussing at cross purposes, and we both missed the point the other was trying to make.
And I still think it was low of you to toss out the “bet I never hear from her” canard and not even acknowledge (at the time) that you did in fact hear from me. Water under the bridge, I guess.
I give up. Last try.
I think we already addressed this issue via e-mail, and I recall that the problem was that we were discussing two separate issues, and talking at each other. I also recall that you made some baldfaced assertion about how you expected I never would send you the appropriate caselaw, but I did, and you never did acknowledge that here on SM. Yep, I remember everything forever! :)And you know what, to quote George Costanza, you can stuff your sorries in a sack. I wasn’t actually wrong about the procedural due process issue, and certainly nothing on the level of stupendously wrong.If you can be an asshole after a long day, well so can I
Oh really! Now you say you were not wrong. I digged up your email. This is what you said to me at the end of the email: