I always have an affection for the lazy dudes that can't even be bothered to get off the bench and stand near the pedestrians when they beg. To me that's just saying they can't even be bothered to try.

There are at least two other typos in the Bluebook that I've found. You're not alone.

Dude you totally ROCK. You ARE Lord of the Bluebook!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

could you find something a little gayer to be lord of? lord of the fuzzy slippers perhaps? lord of the curio cabinet?

Dude. Ismael, or LawNut, if you prefer. Please do your readers a favor: Give up this self-gratifying moment from the Halls of Obscure Reference Manuals and feed the homeless already.

Say, that reminds me, would you mind sparing some change for the homed? The ATM's two blocks away and my feet hurt...

kristine:
Yes, there are, sadly, a few mistakes in The Bluebook that I'm aware of. Allow me to list them:
1. If you look up "Mistakes in quotations, indicated by "[sic]," in the index of the 18th Edition, you'll see that mistakes is spelled "Mitsakes." Now, my SME counterpart emailed the editors and they tried to pass it off as a joke which, given the context, might be plausible. Except that the 2Ls report that later printings have corrected the spelling. So, the jury's still out.

2. Under New Mexico statutory compilations on page 220, "N.M Stat. Ann." is not written in large and small caps for Michie's statutes.

3. There's at least one more I know about, although I can't remember where it is.

Dee:
Unfortunately, one does not get to pick what one is lord of. Though I'd love to be the Lord of Bikini-Clad Women or the Lord of Leather-Clad Women or the Lord of School-Girl-Uniform-Clad Women, the lordship fates have seen it fit to make me Lord of The Bluebook, and I just have to accept that.

TheExpat:
I assume that, in another life, you were known as "The Wheel." Is that correct?

I'd really hope that bums at least have a standard comeback for statements like that, something that provides even a semblence of defending their existence as leeches. I would really hope the question "Why don't you get a job" wouldn't stun them into utter incoherence. The state of bumitude is really sad if this is a fair representation.

I mean, call me heartless, or callous, or unkind... No really, call me those things. Those fuckers just piss me off.

It brings joy to my heart to hear you admit that the homeless are deserving of stern roundhouse kicks to the face. Now it would make you a hypocrite to criticize me for refusing to provide financial, logistical, or moral support to the common bums that adorn this fair city.

Mr. Utah,
I think there's a very sharp distinction between worthless, lazy bums like the kid I'm talking about and people who have just been fucked by the system, mental handicap, physical handicap, or some other actual affliction.

And I wouldn't hit the guy. Although I would tell him to go to hell.

Still, I think you were justified in all of your encounters with the homeless.

yes, the lordship gods are capricious sluts.

and your last comment reminds me of a bit of totally (in MY opinion) uncessary bit of bum-baiting. i wasn't there, but i remember hearing this story about maybe the vancouver roadtrip? chris' friend bug or boog or whatever went along and some guy asked him if he had any change. whereupon bug/boog pulled a wad of cash out of his pocket, counted it in front of the guy, and said "no, i don't". i didn't like taht story to the point that it made me not like him.

Just so you know, in your "Note to Potential Employers" you misspelled "lawyer" in the second to last paragraph. "In short: I want to be a laywer". Yes, I am a cite-checker. No, I'm not a potential employer, I just felt like reading what you might say to one.

ripping on panhandlers. you're starting to sound like dicta.

Dee,
I don't think I had heard that story before, but it makes sense. I don't know about those guys - Boog and whatever the fuck Quill's nickname was.

In any event, I agree that that's unnecessary and mean in some circumstances, but I could see myself doing that in the presence of a guy who clearly has no right to be a bum. Moreover, that seems like something that would get you stabbed.

WLR2L,
Welcome to the blog. While you're welcome to keep your anonymity, you shouldn't do so out of fear of reprisal. Nothing you say here will be held against you in the real world.

In any event, thanks for pointing out my typo - that would have been embarrassing, especially given the fact that my point was how awesome I am.

sadielady,
I'll take being compared to dicta as a compliment. In any event, I'm not ripping on panhandlers per se, just lazy fucks who are perfectly capable of getting a job but choose, instead, to feed off of the generosity and gullibility of their fellow men.

Ismael,

I find that whenever the topic of the homeless comes up, the actually destitute and hard up are often lumped in with the somewhat more approachable (read: white) lazy fleabag shithead. Thank you for drawing a distinction within this thread.

Finally, I find your assumption about my identity to be bourgeois and tardily apprehended.

Would you like to touch my monkey?

Why would I ridicule you for sticking it to those Harvard bastards? By finding a mistake in the Bluebook, you've made my day.

Thanks for not ridiculing me, Elise.

Those Harvard bastards wrote back. Let me tell you, they are humorless fucks. I'll post the email exchange tomorrow.

dear un beliver some of those street people are actually those started up fot their next life living on this earth rember when jesus was walking to damascus he was also a street person/eric in illinois

Eric,
I momentarily considered ridiculing you for your lack of skill in the areas of punctuation, spelling, typing, and English generally. However, I decided to take the high road and not do that. Nevermind the fact that I just did that.

On another note, I don't really know what you mean, but I've been trained to be generous in the interpretation of argumets in opposition to my own. Therefore, I'll address an argument you seem to be wanting to try to make.

You seem to be saying that I should't judge the people begging for money on State Street. Your claim seems to be that Jesus, the most influential man in human history, was once a poor homeless guy, just like the people on State Street. Therefore, your argument continues, I shouldn't assume that the State Street hobos are worthless simply because they're homeless.

The problem, as I see it, is two-fold. First off, while I'm not a Biblical scholar, it seems that Jesus was above begging strangers for money. Second, and more importantly, if Jesus was real, then he was certainly poor and not worthless. But that doesn't mean that all poor people are not worthless. In fact, the opposite seems to be true: given the examples of Jesus and all the intentionally homeless people on State Street like the one in my post, Jesus seems to be the exception that proves the rule.

Now, maybe I'm misconstruing your argument. If that's the case, let me know. Given your limited typing abilities, though, that seems like it'll be hard for you to do. So, I'll tell you what. If I've correctly understood your argument, mash a bunch of letter keys like so: "uajfadsasfvuh." If I've incorrectly interpreted your argument, mash a bunch of number keys like so: "45665465467312324774."

Cool.