Somebody said he isn't an idiot? Maybe just an ignorant bastard. The only thing he who should not be named is good at is carpeting the internet with his opinions, which some people are beginning to see as total crap. The reason for the spouting of shit is that research scores are influenced by blogs.
I made a comment about not trusting someone who called himself Russian when he was from the Ukraine. He was born in Kiev, the capitol of Ukraine. These days, Ukrainians constitute the largest ethnic group in Kiev, and they account for 2,110,800 people, or 82.2% of the population. His response:
"I was born into a highly Russified segment of society in what was at the time a highly Russified city in a latter-day Russian Empire. I almost never heard Ukrainian spoken, and Russian was my first language."
Well, it is the capitol of the Ukraine, there might haver been a couple of Ukrainians hanging about back then. The fact that he didn't care to see them says quite a bit. It also says what an arrogant fuck this guy is as well.
Which got to my response which dealt with the fact that Ukrainians see Russians as occupiers. They were forced to speak Russian under the Soviet Union. Never mind the Holodomor, a massive famine caused by Soviet Policies.
Add in Chernobyl.
Why would the Ukrainians like the Russians?
That's just what I see as his ignorance of the history of the country he was born in. He isn't much better on his new homeland's history either.
His legal opinions aren't very good and he is a law professor, and I don't think he is a member of a bar or actually practised law. I post those qualifications on my professional webpage and would expect anyone who is a practising lawyer to do so as well.
But that is pretty typical for most US law professors not to have actually set foot in a courtroom let alone tried a case.
If his answers to law school exams were anything like his responses to my comments, then this person isn't worth the bandwidth.
Actually this exchange shows up He who should not be named for the wanker he is:
{He who should not be named is head commentator at a legal site} which I read frequently, and asked him to check what I said about the death penalty above. He is a top legal scholar who regularly posts on legal topics. His reply: "Nope, sorry, not an expert on the death penalty, and swamped. Have to pass." I suppose I had better take his name off of my "death penalty" expert list.
Funny, but I googled He who should not be named and death penalty and the web is carpeted with his opinions. My guess is that He who should not be named doesn't want to be caught out for the ignorant bastard he really is by someone who knows what they are talking about. Personally, I would remove He who should not be named name from any list of experts except for one on being an expert in self-promotion.
I don't want to name him because that would only raise his score on the computer, which is what he wants.
He who should not be named agrees with Oscar Wilde that "The only thing worse than being talked about it not being talked about".
But as I like to say, I want to get things off my chest which is why I blog. I do this for myself.
But I am not going to say this character's name because I don't want him getting any more publicity. I just hope that others see him for what he is: an arrogant wanker whose opinions aren't worth wiping one's arse with who has used the system to get himself publicity.
Editorial comment: the author is related to a Ukrainian nationalist, Stepan Bandera, who was assassinated by the Russians in 1959
