|
|
#1
09-30-2004, 07:20 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: authoritative
Hi All,
El Diablo wrote in another thread: [ QUOTE ] The reason I've been involved in these threads is that precisely because Cris does write reasonably well and often with an authoritative tone, some readers tend to assume that what she writes is correct. [/ QUOTE ] If readers do indeed make that assumption, it's a very bad assumption indeed. David Duke could offer a very eloquent argument in favor of racism, but the eloquence of the argument doesn't make it any less absurd. For the record, 99.999% of what I write in this particular forum -- as opposed to the strategy forums -- is purely for (my, and hopefully others') entertainment value. What I write in the strategy forums is different; then I'm giving my best understanding of the strategy of poker, and I'm very open to learning why and how that understanding is inadequate. But here ... *shrugs* ... I just play. Sometimes that's arguing for argument's sake, or what I call "arguing for sport." Sometimes it's patent humor (e.g.: my predictions for the 2006 WSOP). Sometimes it's my off-the-cuff take on whatever televised tournament we're discussing. Sometimes it's 3am-and-I'm-bored-so-I'll-write-something-and-see-if-it's-intelligent-in-the-morning. None of it is intended to be authoritative. I certainly don't consider myself to be an authority on anything except writing novels and criminal law (my former career). If my posts seem authoritative in tone, that's simply a relic of a my legal writing experience. No one should read any more than that into it, and they certainly shouldn't take my word for anything simply because I frame the words well. Cris 
|
|
#2
09-30-2004, 07:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: authoritative
Hi Cris -
Don't worry about it. I'm a genius in my own mind and even I've written some stupid stuff. Just curious, does it take thicker skin to be a criminal defense lawyer or to take part in Internet discussion boards? BTW - I still think you and Paul are honor bound to have the heads up Scrabble match. Challenges to heads up poker matches are a dime a dozen. This is the first time I've seen the heads up scrabble challenge and I don't think it should be passed up.
|
|
#4
09-30-2004, 08:00 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: authoritative
Hi Boris,
[ QUOTE ] Just curious, does it take thicker skin to be a criminal defense lawyer or to take part in Internet discussion boards? [/ QUOTE ] I guess that depends on what you mean. Criminal defense work, and especially criminal appellate work (what I did) is extremely stressful because the stakes are so high. But surprisingly, it doesn't require much of a thick skin. We lawyers will scratch and claw at each other's arguments in a courtroom, but then laugh and joke over lunch (or a poker game). My job was to argue my client's case as forcefully as I could. The prosecutor's job was to argue the state's case as forcefully as he could. Because we typically saw each other again and again, in case after case, we couldn't afford to make it personal. What many people don't realize is that it is the attorneys' job to educate the judge on the specific issues of law in a given case. The judge isn't expected to have memorized the entire legal code and precedents. The attorneys research the relevant issues, and present their respective arguments to the court, so the judge can weigh them and decide what the law of that case should be. An attorney who's trying to settle a score with opposing counsel won't do his/her job very well, and the court will suffer for it. Thus, we were trained to "leave the argument before the bar," and many of my closest friends in the legal community were opposing counsel against whom I argued on a near daily basis. On the Internet, it's an entirely different story. Many people can't distinguish between an argument and an attack; they can't "disagree without being disagreeable." So yes, I think it takes a much tougher skin to post on an Internet forum, even though the stakes are miniscule compared to the stakes in a courtroom. Cris
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
