LOOK HERE FIRST!

  • BUY MY BOOK--



    How to Feed a Lawyer (and Other Irreverent Observations from the Legal Underground)

    Click on the book cover for details!

« Liberal Lawyer Wanted for Dangerous Rocket Mission | Main | The Tuesday Morning Stock Market Minute »

Comments

Abnu

Ten things you don't want to hear from a judge at an orgy:

10. Don't you have a case before me?

9. There's something you could do for me, counsellor.

8. Call me Dickie.

7. I'll be the judge of that.

6. Isn't this a fuckin' wonderdrug?

5. We call this a "ciruit jerk".

4. Well, reeeeeeeeecuse me!

3. When are you going to begin your motion?

2. Would you like to approach the bench?

...and the number one thing you don't want to hear from a judge at an orgy...

1. This is a judicial hellhole.

Prof. Yabut

Some cold water for the Court: As How Appealing has noted, the Crimson has offered this correction:

In reference to Scalia Describes ‘Dangerous’ Trend:

The Sept. 29 news story "Scalia Describes 'Dangerous' Trend" misquoted Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia as saying that "I even take the position that sexual orgies eliminate social tensions and ought to be encouraged." In fact, Scalia said, "I even accept for the sake of argument that sexual orgies eliminate social tensions and ought to be encouraged."

This won't stop me, however, from recalling the ancient limmerick about the judge and the law clerk:


She offered her honor
He honored her offer
And all night long
His Honor was
on her and off her

But, don't quote me.
s/Prof Yeah Butt

Apparently Necessary Disclaimer: A joke that pokes fun at both males and females may be about sex, but it is not sexist.

Jeremy Richey

Evan,

I know you used the phrase "the well-known humorist," but many readers may not realize that this humor post acknowledges that the quote was ripped out of context. Perhaps a more clear disclaimer should have been used, so that the false information circulating out there regarding the quote is not perpetuated more. Should one make the assumption that readers will read comments and follow links?

But, then again, perhaps I am being too critical.

Prof. Yabut

Jeremy, Do we have to prominently say "Disclaimer: Satire" or "Warning: This Site Uses Humor" with every post? Do you think Justice Scalia is as thin-skinned as the Colorado Bar?

Evan

Jeremy: A good question, but I think the quote was purposely designed to be ripped out of context. Justice Scalia is adept at dealing with the public and the press, and I think he got exactly the rise out of the rest of us that he was looking for. (Assuming, of course, that's it's appropriate to use that particular phrase in this context . . . )

Jeremy Richey

Prof. Yabut,

The post seems to me to give a "fact," and then proceed to humor. Obviously, use of the boldfaced disclaimers you suggest would be silly in most instances, such as a post that was 100% satirical, or 100% humorous. This post is distinguishable, I think, due to its factual introduction. With that said, I do not think use of one of the boldfaced disclaimers is necessary even in this post; I would simply like to see language that is a little more clear.

Assuming arguendo, that readers don't look at the comments or links, I don't think this post is sufficiently clear to suggest to all readers that this quote was given merely in jest. It is most likely clear to many, but to many others it may not be. Besides the language itself not being sufficiently clear, this post could be as read as affirming the Oct. 1st post.

Finally, Evan did use a disclaimer. He used the phrase “the well-known humorist.” Now granted, it was not one of the boldfaced disclaimers you suggest. Again, I do not think use of one of those is necessary.

Evan,

I am not sure that Justice Scalia would want others to think that he actually believes that orgies are healthy. This makes him appear to be a hypocrite, a term which I have seen used in other blogs.

Evan and Prof. Yabut,

But reasonable minds can disagree . . .

Prof. Yabut

Jeremy, I believe it's impossible to write satire that doesn't some facts. If nothing could be said on the internet (or in print) that might confuse some one, we'd all have a lot more free time.

Rufus

Man, that Jeremy is one ... well, whatever. Evan, the first rule of satire and humor is that you never explain it. The second rule is that if someone, I don't know, say Jeremy for instance, is disturbed by it or thinks it unfair, you know you've hit the mark.

Prof. Yabut

Just thought I'd finish that verbless clause in my last Comment. Rather than "I believe it's impossible to write satire that doesn't some facts," it should read:


I believe it's impossible to write satire that doesn't both contain and twist some facts."

Oh, and Mr. Firefly makes good sense (but don't quote me).

Evan

Rufus, Prof. Yabut et al: Who started the idea that this post was satire? Or humor? Anyone who doesn't understand "the lifestyle" really shouldn't be reading this post. (Memo to the rest of us: How can I keep lurkers off this weblog?)

Prof. Yabut

I always thought you folks "in the lifestyle" liked having lurkers. Suddenly shy?

Mojo

Very funny post but I have to go become a monk now. Hearing about Scalia at an orgy just made me claw my eyes out, just in case I ever happen to see it. You multiplied that by ten!

Matt Homann

Don't forget this one: Your honor, may I have permission to poll the jury?

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Search Beyond the Underground


Sitemeter


Archives

cc