The Bicker Board

[MyManao]

Careful MyManao..

Worry not, I don't reply to spam. And I certainly wouldn't our in-house wannabe..

[HiloJulie]

I've presented the evidence, I've published peer-reviewed papers, and that would certainly constitute proof in court. The list I showed also includes my PhD thesis. I don't care what you claim, I am officially a doctor. I don't use that title very much, especially in Hawaii, because everyone is mostly laid back and doesn't care, but you, as a self-described lawyer, should know I'm entitled to be called doctor. I don't ask that of anyone else other than other professionals if that's the route they want to use. On the other hand, I will not add "esq" when addressing you because you haven't earned it.

But you have now joined MyManao with his baseless claims. At some point, you might want to stop and think for a bit.

So, you’re a Doctor. Some may argue your right to be called a Doctor, as we saw with the abuse Dr. Jill Biden had to endure with that same title, but nonetheless, when a Doctorate degree is earned, yes, you’re entitled to be called Doctor. You may introduce yourself as a Doctor to others or be introduced by others into a group as Doctor. In a court of law, both parties' legal teams (and others) could be admonished by the court for not calling or refusing to call you Doctor.

As for you NOT calling me “esq” or “esquire,” that is perfectly fine with me, but since you clearly know nothing about law, attorneys or the use of the term esquire you would know that an attorney is only ever referred to as esquire in formal written communication rather than in speech, casual conversations, or chit chatting on a public forum. 

So, an attorney using or being addressed with the term esquire would only be done on a legal document or professional correspondence, on a attorney’s business card, letterhead, or signature, professional emails, court filings and official paperwork.

Further, attorneys never refer to themselves as esquire in speech nor do they ever introduce themselves or be introduced by others into a group as esquire. I would never walk into a room and say “Hi, I am HiloJulie, esquire.” But you, on the other hand, can walk into a room and say “Hi, everybody! I am Doctor Tom.”

Which is how I shall refer to you from now on! 

At any event, it still does not change what you are, nor what I am, but at some point, YOU might want to stop and think for a bit. And fortunately, whatever it is you suspect, think or don't think is totally irrelevant to me.

[TomK]

Further, attorneys never refer to themselves as esquire in speech nor do they ever introduce themselves or be introduced by others into a group as esquire. I would never walk into a room and say “Hi, I am HiloJulie, esquire.” But you, on the other hand, can walk into a room and say “Hi, everybody! I am Doctor Tom.”

Which is how I shall refer to you from now on! 

That's fine; it would be respectful, since I sacrificed a lot to get where I am, and it's my correct title, but I've never asked to be called "doctor."  It's you and MyManao that have a problem with my PhD credentials. It's not as if this information hasn't been available for the last 35 years, so you guys deal with it the way you think best.

[kalianna]

Pardon the interruption, but who except yourselves gives a flyinʻ pattootie about your "credentials" on an anonymous little local website?

[TomK]

Pardon the interruption, but who except yourselves gives a flyinʻ pattootie about your "credentials" on an anonymous little local website?

Well, you do. If you didn't, why ask the question?

[HiloJulie]

Pardon the interruption, but who except yourselves gives a flyinʻ pattootie about your "credentials" on an anonymous little local website?

To be clear, I AM NOT the one demanding proof of anyone's credentials. I have stated what my occupation was and still is, even though I am now retired and no longer "Of The Firm" but now "Of Counsel" with my former law firm. The Doctor wishes to be public, disclosing his published works, degrees etc. whereas I desire to be anonymous on this public forum and thusly do not disclose my personal identifying information, nor information that I am required by law to keep confidential and will not disclose. Yet I have been (consistently) demanded to defend myself in ways I desire not to by the Doctor, which does not change the fact of what my occupation was or is and in the Doctor's eyes, by me not disclosing that information makes me "full of lies and bullshit."

At any event, I would never consider degrading the Doctor's knowledge of, education of, nor occupation of all things related to science, telescopes, the laws of physics as well as his chosen field and occupation. I will, however, continually point out that he knows absolutely nothing about attorneys and the legal aspects of the law.

[TomK]

Pardon the interruption, but who except yourselves gives a flyinʻ pattootie about your "credentials" on an anonymous little local website?

To be clear, I AM NOT the one demanding proof of anyone's credentials.

Nor am I. I'm pointing out that you and MyManao are posting misinformation and posting straw man arguments, and neither of you can back up the claims you make. That's it in a nutshell. I would expect a lawyer to understand that.

[HiloJulie]

Nor am I. I'm pointing out that you and MyManao are posting misinformation and posting straw man arguments, and neither of you can back up the claims you make. That's it in a nutshell. I would expect a lawyer to understand that.

Well, Doctor, there is a very big difference between "CAN'T" and "WON'T"

I would expect a scientist would understand the difference, so therefore I am going to say that as a scientist YOU do know the difference and then have intentionally said I "CAN'T" instead of saying I "WON'T" in yet another of your endless attempts at trying to discredit me, which really, at the end of the day, is more or less is the very definition of a "straw man?"

[TomK]

Nor am I. I'm pointing out that you and MyManao are posting misinformation and posting straw man arguments, and neither of you can back up the claims you make. That's it in a nutshell. I would expect a lawyer to understand that.

Well, Doctor, there is a very big difference between "CAN'T" and "WON'T"

I would expect a scientist would understand the difference, so therefore I am going to say that as a scientist YOU do know the difference and then have intentionally said I "CAN'T" instead of saying I "WON'T" in yet another of your endless attempts at trying to discredit me, which really, at the end of the day, is more or less is the very definition of a "straw man?"

I suggest you get your paralegals to work on your response. It needs some serious editing. It makes very little difference if you can't or won't list the lawsuits you've been involved in. Either way, you don't come across as credible because you've made claims that you can't back up with evidence. Your case is deeply flawed from the very start.

[HiloJulie]

I suggest you get your paralegals to work on your response. It needs some serious editing. It makes very little difference if you can't or won't list the lawsuits you've been involved in. Either way, you don't come across as credible because you've made claims that you can't back up with evidence. Your case is deeply flawed from the very start.

Clearly, I was wrong. You "DON'T" understand the difference between "CAN'T" and "WON'T." My bad. I thought that would have been like taught in grade school scientist class. Or, you are intentionally swapping the distinct meanings of "CAN'T" with "WON'T" to fuel your continued straw man argument.

Oh, and by the way, if I am not a lawyer, how and why would I have paralegals? At some point, YOU might want to stop and think for a bit.