Jay Tea: The Avis of Bloggers.

Jay:

Here's what I learned from your "Now I lay me down to think" piece. It's hard to see the light through the flame. Maybe if I had attributed that proverb to some ancient Chinese philosopher people would go back and discover what I'm talking about. As it is, folks will just think it's the ranting of another nobody from nowhere with a nothing job and no life. Who's to say?

Jay Tea, why don't you get over it. If you were a bit less self-absorbed your threads might carry a bit more weight. Just saying.

Don't piss Jay Tea off. Then he'll leave, and Paul will post more.

Jay Tea is using himself to generalize to "laymen" in general, I believe.

I can think of 10-15 qualities of Jay Tea’s personality (some positive,some negative) that seem to come through in his writing.

But how anyone could pick up a “self absorbed” vibe is beyond me.

There is nobody more powerful than a man imbued with common sense who can express himself clearly.

Shut your pie-hole jmar. Jay's one of the best.

I expect a full troll blast-off any moment now. The prep crew has already done their part.

Jay Tea, why don't you just paint a giant target on yourself and get it over with. You sure do like to set yourself up for the rantgasm of the masses.

Jay, I don't consider "layman" to be a put down.

Everyone is a "layman" in most disciplines in life. Just because I possess superior training and experience than you in one particular field, that does not mean you are less of a person or less entitled to your opinions. Similarly, I am probably a "layman" in areas where you might have superior knowledge, training or experience. I cannot even count the broad range of fields in which I consider myself to be a "layman."

However, as a "layman," I listen very closely to those with more training or experience. I might question them or even challenge them to test my understanding of their wisdom, but I would never pretend to know more or be better equipped to handle an issue in their bailiwick. Even when I think I'm gaining sophistication in my understanding of a topic, I always defer to the true experts.

Your analysis of the Second Amendment rubbed me the wrong way, as you well know. It was not your conclusion, but what I considered a clumsy and unsophisticated attempt at something more complex than most people want to admit. I did not feel your analysis compelled the conclusion. I vented my frustration inappropriately, and for that I apologize. But if you read into my inelegant rant something suggesting I am a better person than you, that was not a statement I intended to make.

Jay: calling someone a layman is just a polite way of declaring them uneducated and their opinion as unworthy of serious consideration.

Sometimes that isn't completely unwarranted. For example, how many Major League General Managers take their cues from callers into sports radio shows?

But in politics, there are no education requirements. Nobody gets silenced because they haven't an advanced degree from Harvard's school of government. All that should matter is whether, as you put it, they're any good at making a point.

P.S. there's no reason to describe yourself as a nobody.... there's plenty of people who will do that for you.

Almost everyone in the world is a nobody from nowhere with a nothing-job and no life. There's something noble in that. It happens to be what makes the world go 'round. I too have strong opinions about some things. I'm not a clever with the written word so most of my time is spent "doing" not "saying".

The opinions of "laymen" were the basis of our constitution.

I also make a lot of typos.

But in politics, there are no education requirements. Nobody gets silenced because they haven't an advanced degree from Harvard's school of government. All that should matter is whether, as you put it, they're any good at making a point.

In politics yes, but in law there are education requirements. After all, we all know what kind of client a person who defends himself legally has.

That being said, I would have to disagree with Mark's main purpose for being here. The blogosphere and the internet in general are populated by thousands upon thousands of people who talk about law and the constitution without the slightest bit of education on them. Jay presented a well thought out position on gun rights and the 2nd amendment from a non-lawyers point of view, and meant it as such. It was far better than most opinions I've seen on the internet on this issue, and since Jay was not trying to present the argument in court or before a legislative body, and I assume has no plans to, than it doesn't matter one lick what his credentials are. He gave a regular person's opinion about a document that we all have had to read (at least in this country; at least I hope we all have), and nothing more. This of course would not be very helpful if I wanted to try a gun rights case in court, but who would go to the internet for sound legal arguments anyway?

So anyway, Mark, if it is your intent to cry foul on all internet commentators who make legal arguments without the education or experience to back them up, but rather are simply giving their commoner's opinion of the document upon which this country is founded, well you have a lot of work ahead of you. Why are you wasting time here? I hear some people on another site are saying the 5th amendment prevents us from going on game shows twice!

Hmmm-just wondering why you consider Rush,North and Pat jerks?

"And that is not purely ego talking..."

I agree. That would be Ivory Soap Pure-ly ego talking. To actually inform your readers that you are an exceptional writer is, well, egotistical. To feel that you must do it demonstrates you are thin-skinned.

Sure, you SAY you sit back and smile when called a layman (not disparagingly), yet you make several posts clearly demonstrating you can't take the heat.

You can admit it: The layman comment pissed you off. That, coupled with your clear predisposition to smear the legal profession, was a recipe for a series of comments in which your loyal readers had to struggle to defend you.

If your such a good writer, STFU about it and just write. We just may keep reading.

As a lay person in most fields, I can say this from my own experience: Experts can see what's around the next three corners before I even perceive there's a corner on the path. In many fields, I don't even know what I don't know. In other words, the vastness of my ignorance is beyond my comprehension. I think this applies to all laymen.

With a blog as popular as Wizbang, any writer should expect that their readership includes experts who can see around corners that the laywriter has not foreseen. Some readers will skip over the posts and ignore them. Some will roll their eyes and move on. Some may have eaten the wrong thing for breakfast, and get ornry. Expect some ridicule, whether its deserved or undeserved. This is a risk you take whenever you attempt a task that ordinarily requires specialized training or experience. That risk is magnified when the topic is controversial, such as any constitutional issue while the Supreme Court has vacancies.

Of course, you'll also hear from opinionated pinheads who have no more expertise than you or anybody else.

So, my advice is to wear thick skin, be prepared to take your lumps, and have fun with it. Don't be defensive, don't be apologetic, don't call yourself a "nobody." Just listen closely to everything, accept or regect whatever works for you, and grow from the experience. It should not be taken personally.

If a legal education is needed to understand the Constitution then why don't the people with legal educations agree about decisions.

But the sharpest legal minds, after going over the same material for decades, don't agree.

The differences do not come from education or lack of same. They do not come from the meaning of words. They come from deciding whether we follow the words as written or as they should have been written to suit our wishes today.

The Constitution does have several gray areas where judges have been guessing for two centuries. It also provided a way to handle these - by amendment - and Congress should draft more for ratification or rejection by the states.

The legal system is not solely to blame for acting when Congress goes decades without proposing amendments.

The next amendment should roughly reverse the present process. i.e. Any 3 states could propose an amendment. If Congress did not reject the proposal within a year the ratification process would begin with a 7 year limit.

FloridaOyster wrote:
The opinions of "laymen" were the basis of our constitution.

Here's one even better, FO. Our "laymen" are the basis for most of the prosperity in the entire world.

Jay Tea, you drivel with the best of them. I should know... it's my forté. Well, it would be if I passed the boards.

I raise my drivelglass in your honor. Cheers!

Mantis, I'm not sure what you think my purpose is for being here. In fact, I'm not sure why I'm here. My involvement did not originate with any conscious purpose, rather it evolved from time on my hands (recent retirement, and my kids are on vacation with their mother), a couple of beers, and a crotchety mood. Then, it snowballed irresponsibly.

Frankly, I agree with everything you posted. Well put.

I guess John was lying his ass off when he said he was going to Volokh from now on. STFU yourself, you drooling troll. Better yet, give out the URL to your blog so retards like yourself can post "STFU and write, dickwad, you suck, I'm going somewhere else" repeatedly in your comments.

And mantis, damn you for saying things I agree with. That's not supposed to happen! :)

It's all been worth it just to read the word, "rantgasm."

So, you just never know, Jay Tea, what word treasures you inspire in others. "Rantgasm" is a treasure. Or, it's a box of recycling. Or, it's a used pair of shoes. Or, it's a petulent child's ten a.m. display. Or, it's...

It's just great, whatever it is.

But, Jay Tea, did you ever resolve that "Best Bloger Without His Own Blog" dilemma?

Just asking...

~;-}

Mark: With a blog as popular as Wizbang, any writer should expect that their readership includes experts who can see around corners that the laywriter has not foreseen.

Dam, now I am agreeing with Mark. (My analysis of the 5th and 14th got cut short yesterday because all hell broke loose at work, and I never got back to it, but I work for a living and time is money....)

Mark: Some readers will skip over the posts and ignore them. Some will roll their eyes and move on. Some may have eaten the wrong thing for breakfast, and get ornry. Expect some ridicule, whether its deserved or undeserved. This is a risk you take whenever you attempt a task that ordinarily requires specialized training or experience. That risk is magnified when the topic is controversial, such as any constitutional issue while the Supreme Court has vacancies.

Of course, you'll also hear from opinionated pinheads who have no more expertise than you or anybody else.

Especially when you set up the Mac vs PC threads!!

And in my own defense, I have never come out against Macs per se, I just like to burst the bubbles of those that think that a Mac can do everything just as well as a PC. Of course they can't, just as a PC can't do EVERYTHING that a Mac can.

We chose based upon our needs, and that is what I tell people who come to me for help. In this field I've been around the block a few times more than the common man. (24 years myself, plus 75+ in my family at last count). The only cut and dried answer I can give for what computer to buy is when we are helping a relative like "Grandma" to buy one. The correct answer is the PC or Mac that you can support over the phone, whatever that is.

"Best BLOGGER Without His Own Blog"...sorry, was writing with a Russian accent ("Best Bloger") fer a minute earlier. Err, sumthin'.

Ok, Jim. I was starting to like you there for a minute, but that's passed.

ANYBODY WHO THINKS A MAC CANNOT DO EVERYTHING BETTER THAN A PC is just a fucking pinhead. Sorry, it had to be said.

So Jim, until I hear you concede with a resounding "UNCLE!" you're on my shitlist. Not that its worth anything.

Um, I'm no expert but is the PC versus Mac even a legitimate debate? Shouldn't that comparison be Win32 versus OSX? I mean give me a PC shell and I'll install an OSX core. Give me a Mac shell and I'll install W2K core. Give me either shell and I'll install Linux. Now which is superior? I get headaches just pondering the permutations. The foolishness of this partisanship is astounding and displays only the ignorance and lack of credentials of its participants.

Again, I'm no expert. Still... ;-)

Anyhoo, Jay Tea, have another round on me. You're not yet as think as some drunk you are.

Ok, Jim. I was starting to like you there for a minute, but that's passed.

ANYBODY WHO THINKS A MAC CANNOT DO EVERYTHING BETTER THAN A PC is just a fucking pinhead. Sorry, it had to be said.

So Jim, until I hear you concede with a resounding "UNCLE!" you're on my shitlist. Not that its worth anything.

Ok Mark. I will put up and then you can appologize (note that in my original post I did state there were things a Mac could do that a PC can't.

I can name things a PC can do, that a Mac can't. How many blood meter programs can be found for the Mac? How many blood meter interface programs are there for the Mac? Would you like to try for ZERO? And for those of us that are diabetic, this can be REAL important.

And please, don't even try for the PC emulators, as a veteren of many many emulators, the one thing I will say is that they don't, especially when dealing with interfaces and communications protocals.

Now how about Dive computer interfaces? The current count for the Mac has recently been raised to ONE! And that one requires a PDA in addition to the dive computer to work.

Now for the big one. How about CASE tools? The Mac comes up with a big goose egg again. (A really good CASE tool will require communications and interfaces with many machines, plus it pushes the envelope for performance on a PC, let alone a Mac running an emulator.)

Since I run software in all three of these categories, then by defintion, I NEED a PC and a Mac can NOT do everything better than a PC.

As a lawyer, you don't neccessarily need any of those three types of software, so you can choose to go with a Mac. The pinheads are the ones who decide that a Mac is for EVERYONE, regardless of need. If you fall into that category, then you can wear the label.

Um, I'm no expert but is the PC versus Mac even a legitimate debate? Shouldn't that comparison be Win32 versus OSX?

No, but the ability to ask that question does put you ahead of 90% of the layman. Since this is my field, I have found that I have to reduce it to that level to even start to suck in the pinheads....

As for your second question, the native hardware doesn't run the other in each case, that's what emulators are for. The problems with emulators include:

1. They take a BIG performance hit.
2. They do not do communications protocals well.
3. They do not do interfaces to other machines well (see #2).
4. The emulators are ALWAYS 1 release behind the software they are emulating.
5. The software vendors will not support you running on an emulator, they don't have time and won't commit the resources.

For an example of this, how many people use OS/2 to run windows programs anymore? Yet Os/2 was supposed to be a better Windows than Windows.

Well, I do try, -S-, I do try. I figured "rantgasm" was an appropriate word, given the subject.

RE: Jim's reply (July 21, 2005 05:33 PM)

Sorry, Jim. I was trying to be facetious considering the main actors of the original debate and the ongoing credentialism validating opinions. All in good fun.

But your elaboration does shed more light on the subject. By the way, would you mind flashing your EE degree when you point your torch? Gotta screen ya' from the riff-raff and know-nothings.

OK, Jim. UNCLE!

You know I was kidding, don't you?

I own both Macs and PCs. I prefer Macs, and I always have. Currently, there is no need for me to own a PC, as the few PC tasks I have can be adequately run in emulation. But, I certainly understand why so many do run PCs.

As for dive computer interfaces, the Mac had several in the late 1980's. And, I'm confident the current one would run adequately through emulation because they're not very CPU or graphics intensive. Alas, that no longer concerns me because a medical condition now prevents me from diving. (Believe me, if I got narc'd on a regular basis, I would not have sounded the way I did in the 2d Amend. thread.)

As for the other apps you mentioned, I haven't a clue.

I've been a Mac owner and fan since 1984, and became almost evangelical when they nearly went extinct in the late 90's. Now I'm just content to walk into PC offices with my powerbook, and access their entire networks without need for tedius configuration. Their jaws drop as I complete my project and print while they're still trying to get their Dells to communicate with the network. Ok, I guess I'm still a little evangelical.

chiming in a bit late, but, from everything I ever learned in school and from reading about the Consitution, it was written so that any citizen could understand it, not just lawyers.

I would argue that there are more "laymen" affected by The Constitution than there are lawyers, judges, you know...experts. Of course we have opinions about it and compared to the education of most of the men who wrote the thing, it's a very educated opinion.

Funny how it's usually the "experts" that screw the thing up.

RE: Mark's post (July 21, 2005 05:51 PM)

I've been a Mac owner and fan since 1984, and became almost evangelical when they nearly went extinct...

Ah, nostalgia. Your mention of '84 reminds me of the classic Apple ad that ran one time (during the SuperBowl?). Perhaps the most memorable ad I've ever seen... and it ran but once. Amazing.

Boy are we off the beaten path. Beer me.