I received some critical reaction from “serious” law professors regarding my use of “stfu” in my Hobby Lobby post. Here is a particularly florid one from a corporation’s guy who so far as I know has never stepped into a trial courtroom let alone any other courtroom.For a second and a half, I wondered which corporation Bainbridge might belong to. You'd think that a judge knocking another man's writing ("particularly florid") would take care not to let a grocer's apostrophe slip into his own ("corporation’s guy"). And what's with the gratuitous "never stepped into a trial courtroom" backed with the lame "so far as I know"? And "serious" with scare quotes? You'd think a federal judge lambasting a lawprof would be more careful, less pettish.
Without intending to shove a stick in the eye of such types, I encourage them to read Christopher M. Fairman, FUCK, 28 Cardozo Law Review 1711 (2007). I then encourage them to grow up.A violent metaphor, couched in denial, followed by an appeal to authority — a serious lawprof. I guess we're supposed to assume the appropriateness of a well-deployed "fuck." I haven't read "FUCK" yet, but I may get to it. I'll think about it. For now, I'll just say that a stick is a phallic symbol and aimed into an eye is close enough to a rape metaphor that I'd caution against using it in the same sentence as yelling "FUCK."
And here's Professor Bainbridge who — having been told to "grow up" — calls the judge "DummKopf."
ADDED: The "florid" post of Bainbridge's accused Kopf of "(thinly veiled) anti-Catholicism," which (understandably) irked Kopf. Kopf says Bainbridge cited no evidence, but the evidence was Kopf's own statement that all the Justices in the Hobby Lobby majority are Catholic. That's some evidence, but not enough to meet the burden of proof in the courtroom Kopf has no knowledge of Bainbridge ever stepping into if somehow the question of Kopf's anti-Catholicism were an issue.