Defending People

the tao of criminal-defense trial lawyering

Could You Send Me Some Comment Spam Instead?

Share

About The Author

Mark Bennett got his letter of marque from the Supreme Court of Texas in May 1995. He is famous for having no sense of humor when it comes to totalitarianism.

Comments

12 Responses to “Could You Send Me Some Comment Spam Instead?”

  1. J. Andy Lambert says:

    Is this com­menter seri­ous? Wow! It’s not sur­pris­ing that some back­wards extrem­ist still think like this. I sup­pose I shouldn’t be sur­prised that they can’t keep their mouth shut. Oh and a side note you write a great blog and I enjoy your tweets. Keep up the great work and the good fight.

    –J. Andy Lam­bert (soon to be CP)
    Aspir­ing Attorney

  2. Michael says:

    On the bright side, it’s nice to know that Henry Wade reads your blog.

  3. Anon. says:

    And [redacted] and her husband!

  4. north dallas lawyer says:

    Anon, 7:02

    It is extremely inap­pro­pri­ate for you to asso­ciate that type of lan­guage with the [redacted]. And if you are going to do it, have the balls to post your actual name. Don’t be a coward.

    Collin Dean Kennedy

    [Point well taken. Thanks, Collin. MB.]

  5. B.W. MaGurk says:

    Ya know, when I was grow­ing up here in Texas — 65 years ago — my granny used the term “NIg­ger” quite fre­quently, as did the rest of my fam­ily. The def­i­n­i­tion of the word that I learned from them, aunts, uncles, mother and grand­mother, was that a nig­ger was a no-account, lazy, shift­less, bum who refused to work. Race or color didn’t enter into it.
    I learned some­thing else from my rural fam­ily too, the impor­tant thing is char­ac­ter and atti­tude. Color, reli­gion, nation­al­ity or a per­sons social sta­tus was some­thing that made that per­son just that much more inter­est­ing.
    When I think of it, the peo­ple that I went to church with were a lot like that too.
    Too bad we aren’t like that today.

    • Mary O'Grady says:

      Sorry, but that “[r]ace or color didn’t enter into it” dog just won’t hunt. No white child ever came home from school cry­ing after being called a nigger.

  6. wtto says:

    It’s scary to remem­ber that peo­ple who believe that could end up on a jury. (If they don’t talk about it dur­ing voire dire).

  7. Anon. says:

    Dear Collin: “It is extremely inap­pro­pri­ate for you to asso­ciate that type of lan­guage with the [redacted]. ” Huh? There was no inaprro­pri­ate lan­guage used in the post and the post merely trails pre­ceded it. You made an inap­pro­pri­ated assump­tion of what Ben­nett redacted. In addi­tion, Bennett’s com­ment was dis­en­gen­u­ous in that it sup­ported your mis­taken pre­sump­tion. Also, I don’t work for HCDA and and I won’t respond to the foul and inap­pro­pri­ate lan­guage that is appar­ently endorsed by Ben­nett and other blog hosts.

    • Mark Bennett says:

      You are wel­come to say just about any­thing you want here, pro­vided that you sign your name to it. If you choose to remain anony­mous, you’re gen­er­ally still wel­come to com­ment as long as you refrain from ad hominem attacks.

      Collin rea­son­ably read your post as asso­ci­at­ing Ms. Redacted and her hus­band with the type of lan­guage used by the com­menter. As did I. I’d love to see another expla­na­tion for the impli­ca­tion you intended, but the rul­ing stands.

  8. north dallas lawyer says:

    Dear Still Anonymous:

    Give me a break. Your post clearly insin­u­ated (even if jok­ingly) that the afore­men­tioned peo­ple could have posted the com­ment made the basis of Mark’s thread on this subject.

  9. Anon. says:

    No other expla­na­tion is nec­es­sary and I did not ask for a rul­ing. Your assump­tion of what was intended by the com­ment is reach­ing and it remains in error, but fur­ther dis­cus­sion is fruit­less. We’lll have to leave it a dis­agree­ment. Let’s move on, shall we?

  10. Xanthippas says:

    Too bad we aren’t like that today.

    Another case of “good old days” syn­drome. As dis­crim­i­nat­ing (ahem) as your fam­ily might’ve been back then with that term, I can promise you that most of the peo­ple who used it then gen­er­ally over­ap­plied it to include all blacks, and that any­body who uses it today prob­a­bly does the same.

    As to the com­men­ta­tor who prompted this post…imagine that guy get­ting on a jury some­where. Do you think he’s a free with his opin­ions about var­i­ous races before judges, as he is on the intertubes?

Leave a non-anonymous Reply