OT Two things

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

When I need
someone to suck the **** out of my septic tank there ain't but one
useful professional I can turn to.

damn... i'd never have thought that was a job you had to hire out...


Funny how a remarkable newspaper blurb posted here causes a lawyer
to publicly defend his profession.

oh jeezus... almost as funny as a freelance weenie's tirades in defense
of what i consider less worthy issues. it's all in the perspective,
isn't it? btw, i never read your newspaper blurb...

If someone posted a tirade against
computer weenies or freelance writers I would not feel compelled to
defend them or accuse divorce lawyers of having weak minds.

perhaps, but i doubt many will accept this assertion, given the
compulsive nature of your tirades and accusations against top posters
and spammers - a worthy effort indeed - not to mention your endearing
method of communicating with those you label as rednecks or
eco-unfriendly.

jeff

On 15 Apr 2004 22:21:36 GMT, (Tom Littleton) wrote:

Odd how people
don't look askance at other specialized professionals in the same light.


Some people. Maybe even most people, but there are a lot of
professions that I look askance at and wonder what the actual cost of
their services would be.

--

rbc:vixen,Minnow Goddess,Willow Watcher,and all that sort of thing.
Often taunted by trout.
Only a fool would refuse to believe in luck. Only a damn fool would rely on it.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

Jeff Miller wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:

Funny how a remarkable newspaper blurb posted here causes a lawyer
to publicly defend his profession.

... it's all in the perspective,
isn't it? btw, i never read your newspaper blurb...

It's absolutely HILARIOUS that the mere rumor of a newspaper blurb
would cause a lawyer to pontificate at length on a fly fishing
newsgroup and somewhat amazing that he'd do so for FREE. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote


Funny how a remarkable newspaper blurb posted here causes a lawyer
to publicly defend his profession. If someone posted a tirade against
computer weenies or freelance writers I would not feel compelled to
defend them

i think that observation is truly ironic. while your adoption of an
indiscriminate attack on an entire profession in the face of your empirical
experience with at least two of its members that must have, in all fairness,
indicated to you that decent human beings, whose company you have apparently
enjoyed, do practice law, with an obvious effort to be true to their duties
and fair in matters economic, is in itself not surprising, given the modus
opperandum of your internet persona (we lawyers have a weakness for latin,
no matter how poorly spelled), and the possibility that this entire
confrontation finds its origin in simple boredom, an objective observer can
only wonder at how the paucity of passion that you feel for your own work
is revealed by your suggestion that a similar attack on your endeavors would
fail to elicit a defensive response. that portrays you as a poorer man than
i had imagined you to be. my opinion is that we are not, as someone
famously said, "what we eat"; we are what we do for a living.

oh, well, i suppose i could have just said "**** you, forty", and had
about the same effect upon your thought processes.

syfitons
wayno

chuckling is good, but you probably should re-read our "OT" thread
before you resort to more misplaced hyperbole. initially, i responded
to your posted question (and to its implicit comment)...not the "rumored
newspaper blurb" - though, i'm sure i've probably heard/read similar
stuff before. ...and, as you know, there's always a price paid.

jeff

Ken Fortenberry wrote:



It's absolutely HILARIOUS that the mere rumor of a newspaper blurb
would cause a lawyer to pontificate at length on a fly fishing
newsgroup and somewhat amazing that he'd do so for FREE. ;-)

Ken feels compelled:
That's one of the stupider sentences ever posted here.

oh c'mon, it hardly comes close. My point, that you seem to miss, is that
personal injury lawyers are merely specialized professionals, doing their job.
It is amazing that they receive group criticism from people outside the
profession who haven't a ****ing clue what/how they operate.
Tom

Wayne Harrison wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:

... If someone posted a tirade against
computer weenies or freelance writers I would not feel compelled to
defend them

... while your adoption of an
indiscriminate attack on an entire profession in the face of your empirical
experience with at least two of its members that must have, in all fairness,
indicated to you that decent human beings, whose company you have apparently
enjoyed, do practice law, with an obvious effort to be true to their duties
and fair in matters economic, is in itself not surprising, given the modus
opperandum of your internet persona (we lawyers have a weakness for latin,
no matter how poorly spelled), and the possibility that this entire
confrontation finds its origin in simple boredom, an objective observer can
only wonder at how the paucity of passion that you feel for your own work
is revealed by your suggestion that a similar attack on your endeavors would
fail to elicit a defensive response. ...

Holy **** !! That's one hell of a sentence. Have you been taking lessons
on turgid, incomprehensible run-on sentences from our resident expert ?

Anyway, I did not indiscriminately attack an entire profession, I posted
a rhetorical question and a newspaper blurb, the latter Jeffie didn't even
bother to read by the way, and so now I'm waging weak minded attacks on
all lawyers.

An objective observer might have cause to wonder why some lawyers are so
sensitive and defensive.

snip
oh, well, i suppose i could have just said "**** you, forty", and had
about the same effect upon your thought processes.

Yeah, but there's something to be said for a good tirade, hope you
enjoyed writing it as much as I enjoyed reading it. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote
Holy **** !! That's one hell of a sentence. Have you been taking lessons
on turgid, incomprehensible run-on sentences from our resident expert ?

actually, i did that intentionally, in preparation for the unveiling of
my new internet persona, "really serious and self-important lawyer guy".
after all, some people clearly enjoy the dr.jeckyll/mr.hyde syndrome.

Anyway, I did not indiscriminately attack an entire profession, I posted
a rhetorical question and a newspaper blurb, the latter Jeffie didn't even
bother to read by the way, and so now I'm waging weak minded attacks on
all lawyers.

yfitons
a. wayne harrison, attorney at law.

"Wayne Harrison" wrote in news:MoRfc.4782$6m4.349637
@twister.southeast.rr.com:

yfitons
a. wayne harrison, attorney at law.


I always thought it was THE wayne harrison, attorney at law

Scott

oh c'mon, it hardly comes close. My point, that you seem to miss, is that
personal injury lawyers are merely specialized professionals, doing their
job.
It is amazing that they receive group criticism from people outside the
profession who haven't a ****ing clue what/how they operate.
Tom

It was a noble try, Tom. But when the graduate of IU's glass navel is
occluded, a constant from everything I've ever seen him post, he's unable to
see anything but shades of sepia or hear anything but the rumbling of his
own peristalsis.

FWIW, attorney's working on contingency basis were of help to me in the
aftermath of my auto accident and injuries. One of the two recovered no
more than I could have without him but was able to prevent me having to pay
for treatments that someone else should have. The other was able to get
more from a workers's comp carrier than I would have. Neither
misrepresented his capabilities or his fees. While I would have liked a
greater recovery, I don't feel that they did anything less than their best.

--
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
Drowning flies to Dark Star

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/i...age92kword.htm