Law School Discussion

Law Students => Current Law Students => Topic started by: Choop on January 04, 2006, 05:04:34 AM

Title: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: Choop on January 04, 2006, 05:04:34 AM
It seems a lot of people complain that law school and life as an attorney involves a lot stress, long hours, and depression.  I got a decent LSAT score but I've lately been thinking I would rather be a paralegal because I can still work in law but I would also have time to do other stuff like play with my future kids, sit on the couch and drink beer, and read mystery novels, etc.

So, I'm wondering what the draw is for you current students.  Besides high salaries, what about working as a lawyer attracts you to the career despite the negatives?  A ton of people go to law school, so there must be some good things I haven't thought of yet.
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: zemog on January 04, 2006, 05:52:15 AM
The potential good that you can do.  Ever seen Ford Coppola's "The Rain Maker?" Great movie and inspiration. I'm actually interested in law and want to fight for the little guy and can care less of the money (especially since I don't care I attend a third tier toilet).  I know you have actually heard this a million times, but my reason is genuine as I've been working for over ten years now in a successful corp job (and still do through LS) and will give up salary when I switch careers. 

Most people in my PT program are alot older with successful careers and I'd say the older they are, the chances they are in school is to just learn law. To pursue something they are actually interested in and not chasing the dollars.  It seems that the younger wipper snappers are the ones that are in it for the money.  And of course there is nothing wrong with that.   
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: lincolnsgrandson on January 04, 2006, 06:13:59 AM
You're asking the wrong people.  We're not lawyers. 
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: LostMyMonkeys on January 04, 2006, 11:35:03 AM
This is me, almost exactly. Working professional, etc etc. Except I'm not making a whole lot of money right now. And I plan to do so once I become a lawyer. I have worked in the public sector for much of my professional life and I am done with it. Show me the money.
This is also my second go around at law school (left halfway through the first time to join my husband overseas). So going back, and having to repeat everything, I damn well be sure this is what I want to do, especially with as much debt as I will be in after it's all said and done.

For me it's about what I can do for other people. How I can solve their probelms and help them live a betetr life.



The potential good that you can do.  Ever seen Ford Coppola's "The Rain Maker?" Great movie and inspiration. I'm actually interested in law and want to fight for the little guy and can care less of the money (especially since I don't care I attend a third tier toilet).  I know you have actually heard this a million times, but my reason is genuine as I've been working for over ten years now in a successful corp job (and still do through LS) and will give up salary when I switch careers. 

Most people in my PT program are alot older with successful careers and I'd say the older they are, the chances they are in school is to just learn law. To pursue something they are actually interested in and not chasing the dollars.  It seems that the younger wipper snappers are the ones that are in it for the money.  And of course there is nothing wrong with that.   

Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: Wild Jack Maverick on January 04, 2006, 05:46:06 PM
It seems a lot of people complain that law school and life as an attorney involves a lot stress, long hours, and depression.  I got a decent LSAT score but I've lately been thinking I would rather be a paralegal because I can still work in law but I would also have time to do other stuff like play with my future kids, sit on the couch and drink beer, and read mystery novels, etc.

So, I'm wondering what the draw is for you current students.  Besides high salaries, what about working as a lawyer attracts you to the career despite the negatives?  A ton of people go to law school, so there must be some good things I haven't thought of yet.

Law and Chess are very similar.

Why lawyers aren’t normal
http://www.legalweekstudent.net/ViewItem.asp?id=19311
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: giraffe205 on January 04, 2006, 07:15:18 PM

Law and Chess are very similar.

Why lawyers aren’t normal
http://www.legalweekstudent.net/ViewItem.asp?id=19311

I haven't checked out the link yet, but I think that the most common characteristic found among law students is that we are all over achievers. We'll do whatever it takes, w/in the bounds of ethics, to win or make the deal go through. We're politely aggressive.
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: LostMyMonkeys on January 04, 2006, 09:11:46 PM
I go to a TTT yet my professor is quoted in that article. Does that make my school more legit?
Or the article less so?
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: VCartman on January 05, 2006, 10:06:56 PM
Great article. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is actually really well-founded and is a useful tool.

What's your type? http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp

Vivian, INFJ  :-*
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: dft on January 05, 2006, 10:54:08 PM
Great article. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is actually really well-founded and is a useful tool.

What's your type? http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp

Vivian, INFJ  :-*

I came out as an ISTJ, which is the most common type for lawyers according to that article.

I'm barely in the "S" (sensing) category -- borderline "N" (intuitive).

  ISTJ
Introverted   Sensing      Thinking   Judging
Strength of the preferences %
56             1              50            78
 
You are:

    * moderately expressed introvert
    * slightly expressed sensing personality
    * moderately expressed thinking personality
    * very expressed judging personality
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: Mimimimi on January 06, 2006, 03:31:46 PM
It seems a lot of people complain that law school and life as an attorney involves a lot stress, long hours, and depression.  I got a decent LSAT score but I've lately been thinking I would rather be a paralegal because I can still work in law but I would also have time to do other stuff like play with my future kids, sit on the couch and drink beer, and read mystery novels, etc.

So, I'm wondering what the draw is for you current students.  Besides high salaries, what about working as a lawyer attracts you to the career despite the negatives?  A ton of people go to law school, so there must be some good things I haven't thought of yet.

If you're a paralegal, you're going to absorb all the stress of a law firm and in addition to that be sh*t on by the lawyers.  If you want to work in law, may as well go balls out unless you think you'll feel ok with forever being pretty much an assistant in your field.  I had sort of a secretarial job after college, thinking it wouldn't be so bad to just work 9-5, enjoy my outside life, etc.  Frankly, even 9-5 takes a lot out of you and I'd rather spend 60 hrs a week being a lawyer than 40 hrs a week being a paralegal.  I will admit that I am somewhat prestige-driven, though. 

But even if you aren't prestige driven, I don't think being a paralegal would be much less stressful than being a lawyer.  When the lawyers are working late, who do you think is helping them?  However, you would save yourself the law school debt, I guess.
Title: The Benevolent 'Pedagogue' of Humanity
Post by: cushions are defective on January 09, 2006, 06:09:49 AM
Great article. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is actually really well-founded and is a useful tool.

What's your type? http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp

Vivian, INFJ  :-*

My type was ENFJ

moderately expressed extrovert

distinctively expressed intuitive personality

slightly expressed feeling personality

slightly expressed judging personality
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: Wild Jack Maverick on January 09, 2006, 01:08:47 PM

Law and Chess are very similar.

Why lawyers aren’t normal
http://www.legalweekstudent.net/ViewItem.asp?id=19311

I haven't checked out the link yet, but I think that the most common characteristic found among law students is that we are all over achievers. We'll do whatever it takes, w/in the bounds of ethics, to win or make the deal go through. We're politely aggressive.

I would not use the term "over achievers," which means that a person is performing at a level beyond their tested capabilities. For example, I suppose most law students have rather high IQ's, therefore it is normal for them to have the mental capability of studying, understanding and practicing law.

I have noticed many arguments against online law schools. I suppose I should remind some of the posters that there are many who have the mental capabilities of studying law, but perhaps not other qualifications such as the ability to relocate or commute, the lack of other commitment which would allow them to put full effort into law school, or the physical stamina which would assist them in acquiring the regular three year degree, or a four year degree (part time). And then, there are some who want to study law simply because they enjoy learning.
Title: "Field Marshall"
Post by: thewaysupposedtobe on February 18, 2006, 04:22:57 PM
Quote
Great article. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is actually really well-founded and is a useful tool.

What's your type? http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp

Vivian, INFJ  :-*

My type appears to be ENTJ

Enneagram type: 3, variant: sexual (sx/so/sp)
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: Wild Jack Maverick on February 18, 2006, 04:46:54 PM
It seems a lot of people complain that law school and life as an attorney involves a lot stress, long hours, and depression.  I got a decent LSAT score but I've lately been thinking I would rather be a paralegal because I can still work in law but I would also have time to do other stuff like play with my future kids, sit on the couch and drink beer, and read mystery novels, etc.

So, I'm wondering what the draw is for you current students.  Besides high salaries, what about working as a lawyer attracts you to the career despite the negatives?  A ton of people go to law school, so there must be some good things I haven't thought of yet.

Valence x Expectancy x Instrumentality = Motivation

Valence (Reward) = the amount of desire for a goal (What is the reward?)
Expectancy (Performance) = the strength of belief that work related effort will result in the completion of the task (How hard will I have to work to reach the goal?)
Instrumentality (Belief) = the belief that the reward will be received once the task is completed (Will they notice the effort I put forth?)
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: bis on February 18, 2006, 05:36:22 PM
Here it is a great test for you fellas interested in this sorta thing

(http://sviweb.sccd.ctc.edu/dennisk/images_link/a41.jpg)

http://personal.ansir.com/
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: Pittman2 on February 20, 2006, 07:06:26 PM
This isn't one of those "free" online tests, like some online IQ tests, where one completes the questions but then must pay to get the result (e.g. score), is it?
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: dft on February 21, 2006, 03:57:00 PM
This isn't one of those "free" online tests, like some online IQ tests, where one completes the questions but then must pay to get the result (e.g. score), is it?

that's what i was subconsciously thinking when i quickly glanced over that post.
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: CoxlessPair on February 21, 2006, 04:02:46 PM
If you are now aware that you were thinking it, was it really a subconscious thought? Shouldn't it beyond the reach of voluntary recall?
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: dft on February 21, 2006, 04:12:24 PM
If you are now aware that you were thinking it, was it really a subconscious thought? Shouldn't it beyond the reach of voluntary recall?

i considered going to the site while thinking briefly about it but then, without realizing the reason why, decided not to go and closed out the thread. then when i saw the above post, i realized the precise reason why i didn't want to go to the site. actually it may not have been the precise reason. i may have been worried that i would have to waste my time filling out some crap (without having to pay) just to take the survey.

how's law school goin anyway coxless?
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: lp on February 22, 2006, 04:00:28 AM
I don't know about you guys but the ANSIR test appears to be frighteningly true!
Title: on the "professionalism" of these tests
Post by: madam on February 22, 2006, 04:23:19 PM
Great article. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is actually really well-founded and is a useful tool.

What's your type? http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp

Vivian, INFJ  :-*


The Pitfalls of Professionalism

A certain amount of specialization is necessary to handle any large task, or any large body of knowledge. But the barriers we set up between specialties tend to become overdeveloped. The professions acquire an inertial mass that deadens everything they touch. We confront a proliferation of disciplines and -ologies, most of which function primarily to protect their own professional turf. We fragment learning at the expense of the richness and flexibility that should be inherent in a living body of knowledge.

It is difficult, in the present climate in this country, to come out against professionalism in any field. The prevailing culture in our organizations and institutions is strongly biased toward a deeply embedded 'rational/empirical' approach that favors professionalism. We glorify science and technology, opt for increased role specialization in all fields of human inquiry and put our faith (more or less blindly) in credential-granting institutions and hierarchies. We increasingly believe that if we are to be taken seriously we must acquire (a proliferating array of) 'professional' credentials, and pursue status in 'the professions', often at the cost of neglecting the pursuit of 'truth'.

In every field of human endeavor we seem to see increasing professionalism - even in those fields where this development is particularly suspect. For example, we expect our elected officials to be 'professional' politicians, in contrast to valuing increased democratic participation of the citizenry at large, despite the fact that this often puts us at the mercy of 'experts' and despots. Last night I heard a TV commentator suggest that in our justice system juries should be replaced by judges, as judges are 'professionals' who would better 'understand' the 'scientific evidence'. This is truly dangerous stuff.

Because there is such a strong bias in favor of professionalism, because it is so obviously and indisputably good in our society, we may feel hard-pressed to conceive of its alternative. What might we suggest in lieu of 'professionals'? Surely not 'amateurs', a word that evokes a peculiar and unacceptable image of science as a 'pastime', and the scientist as dilettante.

Contrasting professionalism with 'amateurism' merely stacks the deck in favor of the 'professional', as far as I am concerned. It is my contention that what we should be comparing the 'professional' scientist to is not the amateur, but the real scientist! And, as a matter of fact, this is basically what Thomas Kuhn did do, quite some time ago, in his seminal work in the field of philosophy of science -- he distinguished between 'normal' science and 'revolutionary' science. Let me briefly explain this distinction. Part of what it is to be a 'professional' is to 'profess, declare, or avow an opinion, belief or practice'. It involves a 'declaration of belief in and obedience to' a particular paradigm and its associated matrix of theories and practices. And declarations of belief in prevailing paradigms and obedience to the specific rules established within such paradigms can be anathema to the search for truth.

The normal scientist (who might also be called the 'professional scientist') works within a given paradigm, according to the rules of that paradigm - whereas the revolutionary scientist struggles to work with competing paradigms (and hence often with ambiguity and paradox), facilitating shifts from one paradigm to another. The revolutionary scientist, in order to do her job, must be able to step out of the current paradigm - no easy task. Because it is so very difficult for someone who is immersed in a paradigm to transcend it, as Kuhn and many others who have followed him have pointed out, revolutionary scientists are usually outsiders. They are not the 'normal' scientists, who have established themselves so deeply in the prevailing paradigm that they have difficulty identifying and challenging the tacit assumptions associated with that framework. The outsider, precisely because she is not wed to the prevailing paradigm, is not limited to 'professing' the theories that that paradigm judges to be 'valid' and 'relevant'.

Theories are paradigm-specific entities; theories relevant in one paradigm are irrelevant in another. For instance - what appeared 'relevant' to Einstein were treated as 'anomalous' facts, totally irrelevant, to propents of the prevailing paradigm of the day. When one announces that there is only one set of 'relevant' theories which everyone should learn, he is tacitly coming down on the side of the 'normal' scientist, who (by definition) is more concerned about 'professing' the views of a particular paradigm than facilitating shifts in paradigm (ie, 'scientific discovery'). The 'revolutionary' scientist, who is almost always a paradigm outlaw, is more likely to balk at the word 'relevant' employed in this way, as this very word is often used in the attempt to discredit his or her best work. [To see how this happens you have only to look at recent biographies of the pioneers in 'chaos science' - many of whom had trouble in acquiring credentials in their 'professions', as a result of their pursuit of what was seen as 'irrelevant' interests by 'the professionals', even while they were making their most significant scientific discoveries!]

The difference between amateur and professional is that professionals are taught to be highly self-critical. The hallmark of a real scientist is to doubt one's own most cherished ideas and theories. It is mainly the revolutionary scientist, the outsider, who characteristically demonstrates this capacity for self-criticism. The 'normal' scientist, our 'professional', characteristically does not. For the epitome of self-criticism is the capacity to shift paradigms, to uncover deeply rooted paradigmatic assumptions, to question the 'relevancy' of seemingly relevant facts, and notice the significance of seemingly 'irrelevant' facts. And this capacity is the hallmark not of the normal scientist, but of the revolutionary scientist.

It may be the case that all scientists, whether 'normal' or 'revolutionary' types, are critical (for, after all, they are mainly 'thinking' types - predominantly 'NTs'). But most direct their criticism to others (and characteristically put themselves in the position of defending, not criticizing, the 'professions' to which they have gained admittance at great personal expense).
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: madam on February 22, 2006, 04:23:34 PM
Are we limited to describing, for example, enneagram work as a 'scientific' endeavor? Many practitioners in the area of psychology (including some giants in the field - Freud and Jung amongst them) desperately sought to have their work confirmed as 'science', which implied (and continues to do so) a 'rational-empirical' approach. Jung, for instance, seemed to want to be considered an 'empiricist' (and sought to avoid the label of 'mystic'). But at what cost? And what, indeed, is the price that we pay for conceiving of enneagram studies as primarily a matter of 'science', to be conducted first and foremost by scientists, according to the prevailing (rational-empirical) model of science?

Well, at one level, the answer is obvious: matters that the empiricist finds it most difficult to deal with (such as spirituality) will tend to be ignored or undervalued. While, for instance, we may become progressively more absorbed in the finer details of 'consistency in typing individuals' (as this is something that 'scientific' psychology appears to be suited to address), we are likely to steer away from discussions of the 'spiritual' uses of enneagram studies (as science typically avoids what it construes as 'metaphysical' concerns) and downplays the use of the enneagram as a means for developing compassion between individuals.

One has only to look at what happened, as a matter of historical record, when the MBTI replaced the original Jungian typology. Whereas Jung (and the Jungians) describe one type (the 'introverted intuitive') primarily in terms that make it clear that this type is most at home with mystical experience (Jungians characteristically use Boehme and other mystics as typical of that type), the MBTI fails to mention, let alone highlight, this connection. Apparently 'mysticism' is not a legitimate endeavor, at least in the organizational context in which the MBTI is characteristically utilized. Might the 'introverted intuitive' argue that the MBTI has thrown the baby out with the bathwater? Is the Enneagram in for a similar 'dumbing-down' at the hands of science, with its empiricist bias?

In contrast to emphasizing 'consistency and uniformity in typing', could one envision someone arguing that the most important effect the enneagram (or any system of typology) has is in heightening our capacity for self understanding and for empathy with individuals of a different persuasion? From this perspective, the important thing may be the struggle that we actually go through in attempting to perceive things from radically different perspectives, for it is this struggle that builds our 'empathic muscles'. Let me try to make an analogy - Jung somewhere said that each time a therapist took on a new client, she (the therapist) was better off dropping theoretical assumptions and building a totally new theory around the individual, in his/her uniqueness. From this perspective, would it really matter if every individual that uses the enneagram arrived at an understanding of it that was peculiar and unique to that individual?

Does it really matter if individuals see radically different things in the enneagram, and use it for different applications? Sometimes novels and/or poetry or other forms of art are judged by the degree to which they continue to generate new interpretations and insights. Why not ask for as much in a theory of personality? Perhaps personality theory (and maybe even psychology) is, in the final analysis, actually more akin to 'art' than 'science'. Ancient wisdom is often cast in ambiguous terms that defy easy analysis, and resist consistent and uniform explanation, forcing us to go deeper and deeper - this is part of the charm, the beauty, the wisdom of such systems. Why settle for the linear and easily understood where one can have such richness and dimensionality, complexity and depth?
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: black forest on February 24, 2006, 05:49:32 PM
Here it is a great test for you fellas interested in this sorta thing

(http://sviweb.sccd.ctc.edu/dennisk/images_link/a41.jpg)

http://personal.ansir.com/

Nice picture!
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: Pittman2 on February 24, 2006, 11:43:43 PM
Madam, you're a good writer. Why is what you wrote relevant? Just curious. It was interesting, notably.
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: BigRedWarEagle on February 25, 2006, 09:31:23 AM
INTJ...Introvert, Intuiting, Thinking, Judging

Interestingly enough, it's called the "Mastermind" personality!  I like that.
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: michelle my belle on April 04, 2006, 07:37:12 AM
Here it is a great test for you fellas interested in this sorta thing

(http://sviweb.sccd.ctc.edu/dennisk/images_link/a41.jpg)

http://personal.ansir.com/

Nice picture!

And a nice test as well :)
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: LoverOfWomen on April 04, 2006, 08:44:54 AM
To answer the title question, the best part about being an attorney is the thrill of cutting someone else down to size.  The money's nice as well.  Oh, also something about the rule of law and maintaining social order, etc.  ;D
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: meeno on April 05, 2006, 09:58:11 PM
To answer the title question, the best part about being an attorney is the thrill of cutting someone else down to size.  The money's nice as well.  Oh, also something about the rule of law and maintaining social order, etc.  ;D

Ogay.
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: orky13 on April 06, 2006, 05:40:43 PM
ENTJ here :) If nothing else, tests like that help you understand what you could potentially focus on as far as adjusting unconsious traits if necessary.
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: tamika on April 09, 2006, 07:06:52 AM
Today's lawyers are "an unhappy lot" and many of them wish they had gone into some other line of work, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has told to an overflow audience in a University of Wyoming meeting.

Ethical standards have declined since an era when people "trusted and respected" lawyers. Job dissatisfaction among lawyers is widespread, profound and growing worse. Studies have shown that lawyers are three times as likely as those in other professions to suffer depression, and that drug dependency, divorce and suicide are also significantly more common among them.

A California study showed lawyers to be profoundly pessimistic about the future of the legal profession and found that only half said they would enter the profession if they had it to do over again. At the 30th anniversary of her Stanford Law School class, O'Connor said "the vast majority" of her previous classmates said in response to a question that they would not do it over again if they had the choice to make.

A win-at-all costs mentality prevails. Many attorneys believe that zealously representing their client means pushing all the rules of ethics and decency to the limit. In contemporary practice, lawyers often speak of their dealings with other lawyers as war, and act accordingly. But they ought not to look at litigation as war, or arguments as battles, or a trial as a siege. Civility is not a virtue that the majority of lawyers today choose to advertise.
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: gondola on April 19, 2006, 06:47:13 AM

Civility is not a virtue that the majority of lawyers today choose to advertise.


Do you think they possess it in the first place?!
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: HLS Fan on April 19, 2006, 10:25:23 AM
I'm a practicing lawyer in a mid-sized firm.  I love what I do:

- You get paid to think about interesting and challenging things. 
- Most of the people you work with are smart.
- You get to see, and often redirect, the inner workings of society -- big business, small business, politics, bureaucracy, the criminal justice system, you name it.
- The rush you get when someone comes to you with a problem that s/he can't handle, and you make it go away.
- The prestige that comes with belonging to one of the "learned professions."
- The other perks -- your own office with a view, freedom to come and go as long as your work is covered, support staff to take care of annoying stuff like IT, copier jams, burnt-out lights, etc.
- The pay.  Doing any job full-time is hard; you might as well get a good salary in return.

On the other hand, the "helping others" part of law is not such a big plus for me.  Anyone who provides a good or service that people willingly pay for is equally "good" for society in my book.  But then I'm a libertarian.

And, yes, there are times when I want to throw the phone out the window and go live on the beach in SoCal.  But thankfully they are rare.  The good times do make up for the bad times.

The key IMO is finding a practice area that suits your personality, finding a good firm in a city you like, and keeping your expenses well below your income.
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: silvercannonca on April 19, 2006, 05:29:29 PM
ESQ now has a great, honest perspective.  I'm a practicing lawyer in a mid-sized firm.  I'm in a smaller firm and agree with all except, the support staff aren't neccesarily helpful and the boss doesn't allow much flexibility in the come and go.  I was a paralegal for two years before going to law school, and a friend of mine still is, pulled in $109,000 last year.  she worked long hours, but didn't have to.  only the bigger firms in the bigger cities will pay that, but the plus is, as a paralegal you can start counting the extra money in the paycheck with each OT hour.  also, paralegal doesn't bring the work home with them, you have more flexibility to say, 'i'm going on vacation', and during the work day you have a lot more fun because you don't exactly engage your mind doing bates stamping, copying, etc.  the downside of that lifelong paralegal is, you never have control over who you work for whereas after you've been practicing awhile, you can decide you aren't working for the jerk client or jerk boss and go do it on your own (or from the start).  and, a 60 year old attorney practicing is prestige, a 60 year old paralegal, not so much

another perspective.  if you get into a I or II tier law school, you will probably get into a mid to large size firm with great benefits.  if you go to a lower tier, you'll start out lower tier firm, or the solo guys who are difficult, and the benefits aren't so good because of size.   if you are a good paralegal with smarts but not the money or lsat to go to a top tier school (the lower tier schools will throw more scholarship money your way if you have a top tier lsat), but don't care about the office, the prestige, or the choice of who to work for, then paralegal at a top firm is a good route.  especially if you are beyond, say later 20's because you will be out of the job market for 3-4 years, and your first year or two will not be making big bucks.  throw in the law school debt, and it'll take a good 6 years or more to recover from the law school debt to get back where you were as a paralegal pre-law school.

if you get into a top 20, no brainer, go!  anything less, depends on what's important to you.
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: gigi on April 19, 2006, 06:38:03 PM

if you get into a top 20, no brainer, go! anything less, depends on what's important to you.


I'd say top 10, maybe 14, silver. As it has been said many many times by now on this board, there's simply no point in going to law school and becoming a lawyer if you don't make enough money to counter the horrible effects that law school and law as a career will have on you. For 90% of lower tier school graduates this means that they're simply @ # ! * e d in the ass given the fact that they will lead a very stressful life while earning a lousy salary even many years after they graduate!
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: W on April 22, 2006, 05:45:08 AM

{...} As it has been said many many times by now on this board, there's simply no point in going to law school and becoming a lawyer if you don't make enough money to counter the horrible effects that law school and law as a career will have on you. {...}
 

This has not been really said here ... at least not in this exact same manner ...
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: pappy13 on April 22, 2006, 06:12:51 AM
Madam, you're a good writer. Why is what you wrote relevant? Just curious. It was interesting, notably.

It's also polite and common practice within our profession to CITE THE WORK OF OTHER PEOPLE

That is an article written by John Fudjack in 1995

http://tap3x.net/EMBTI/page15.html
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: HLS Fan on April 22, 2006, 06:27:20 AM
Thanks, pappy13.  I don't know why people paste large chunks of others' work onto boards like this.  As soon as I get the feeling that some poster has done that (and you can usually tell within the first few phrases), I just skip the whole post.
Title: Is law school right for me?
Post by: www on April 22, 2006, 06:59:46 AM
Signs that point to yes:

- You like sifting through fine details
- You are sure you EITHER want to practice law in some way *OR* are a real go-getter trailblazer who is secure forging a non-traditional path.
- You like learning (I mean genuinely enjoy stuffing new facts into your head regularly, thinking hard about challenging issues).
- You are comfortable mentally grasping and juggling ambiguities but ultimately comfortable making a hard and fast decision.

Signs that point to no:

- You're very unassertive.
- You don't like dressing up. While you CAN get a law degree and go into a career that doesn’t require you to dress "professionally," the odds are against you.
- You are dead-set on making the world a better place. I add this with some reserve, but in my heart I believe that people who go into law with 100% altruistic motives tend to get jaded and burned out.  Want to really change the world?  Start your own company, join the Peace Corp, do volunteer work every weekend.  While you CAN do this stuff with a law degree, it just doesn’t seem like the most time or cost efficient method, IMHO.
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: lolla on April 23, 2006, 06:18:53 PM
the thing that's good about an attorney is that you can think, act, and feel like an ass, while not being called so ... because attorneys are thought to be smart instead of dumbasses!
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: tuned on July 20, 2006, 03:30:28 AM
I've had many friends who made the commitment to an expensive legal education only to discover they hated law because it didn't meet their expectations. Now they work as attorneys only because they don't want to "waste" their degrees. On the other hand, I've known people who thought law school wasn't so bad and love their jobs. It's really a matter of knowing what you want and what to expect.

Law school applicants fall into three categories:

The Idealists
"I want to help people and change the world ..." I, too, was once an idealist. After becoming fed up with my job as a social worker, I thought going to law school would be the best way to give me the ability to change social policy. While lawyers do have the ability to affect change on a case-by-case basis, it is important to realize (as I eventually did) that there is a tremendous amount that lawyers can't change.

Deborah Aaron, author of "What Can You Do With a Law Degree? A Lawyer's Guide to Career Alternatives Inside, Outside, & Around the Law," emphasizes that law school may not be the best way to make your dream of changing society come true. "It's a very expensive way to contribute," she said. "Law school is so expensive and public interest jobs pay so little that you can't afford to go out and change the world and do good." She also points out that affecting change through law is the exception rather than the rule. "The law has been significant in changing things: Brown vs. Board of Education, for example. You could be one of those rare few lawyers, but I wouldn't recommend going to law school with this as your sole goal," she said.

The Dazed and Confused
"When in doubt, go to law school ..." So many of my friends who have struggled to find a career have said to me, "Well, I guess I can always go to law school." It's as if law school was their last-ditch attempt to become a respectable member of society. They know they don't want to be doctors or go into business, so why not be a lawyer? Some go to law school without even wanting to be lawyers -- they cling to the hope that their degree will be useful no matter what career path they choose. These are the people who are most likely to be unhappy in law school and even unhappier when they graduate.

A legal education provides exceptional training for a variety of fields. Going to law school knowing that you don't want to practice law is okay as long as you have some idea of how your education will fit into your career goals. Going to law school just because you have nothing else to do is a serious mistake. There is definitely something to be said for the benefits of having a law degree, but law school is a demanding and rigorous experience that warrants a little more consideration and certainty than making it a when-all-else-fails type of alternative.

The Realists
"Money, money, money!" and "Esquire is such a cool courtesy title ..." It can be a nice way to make money, but statistically you're better off going into computer work than law. On average, entry-level computer workers earn more than entry-level attorneys. There are positions that offer prestige and very substantial salaries. But those positions are highly competitive and require a serious time commitment. So, if you're just in it for the money, you should probably revise your plans. Still, a definite benefit of being an attorney is the tremendous power you wield. One thing about being an attorney is the instant prestige and respect you get from others.
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: U2 on July 20, 2006, 09:56:21 PM
The majority of law students are The Idealist & The Dazed/Confused & The Realist all together
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: klinex on July 21, 2006, 04:01:47 AM

the thing that's good about an attorney is that you can think, act, and feel like an ass, while not being called so ... because attorneys are thought to be smart instead of dumbasses!
 

;)
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: johns259 on July 21, 2006, 02:27:48 PM

if you get into a top 20, no brainer, go!  anything less, depends on what's important to you.


What schools would you say round out the top 20? Just wondering.
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: favicon on September 04, 2006, 11:50:55 PM

Here it is a great test for you fellas interested in this sorta thing

(http://sviweb.sccd.ctc.edu/dennisk/images_link/a41.jpg)

http://personal.ansir.com


: a. Obsessive-Compulsive disorder
: b. Conscientious Style
: c. Diligent
: d. E1
: XSTJ

: a. Narcissistic disorder
: b. Self-Confident Style
: c. Visionary
: d. E3
: EXTX

: a. Dependent disorder
: b. Devoted Style
: c. Kinsman
: d. E6-substyle fobic
: IXFJ

: a. Borderline disorder
: b. Mercurial Style
: c. Eccentric
: d. E4- substyle
: XSFP

: a. Paranoid disorder
: b. Vigilant Style
: c. Philosopher
: d. E6-substyle counterfobic
: XNTJ

: a. Passive-Agressive disorder
: b. Leisurely Style
: c. Scintilator
: d. E9
: IXFP

: a. Anti-Social disorder
: b. Adventurous Style
: c. Extremist
: d. E7
: XSTP

: a. Schizoid disorder
: b. Solitary Style
: c. Sage
: d. E5-substyle
: INTP

: a. Schizotypical disorder
: b. Idiosyncratic Style
: c. Evokateur
: d. E5-substyle
: INTJ

: a. Hysterical disorder
: b. Dramatic Style
: c. Healer
: d. E2
: EXFJ

: a. Borderline / Manic-depressive
: b. Mercurial Style
: c. Eccentric
: d. E4-substyle
: XXFX

: a. Avoidant disorder
: b. Sensitive Style
: c. Sentinel
: d. E6-substyle fobic
: IXXJ

: a. Masochistic/Self -defeating disorder
: b. Self-Sacrificing Style
: c. Empath
: d. E4
: INFX

: a. Sadistic disorder
: b. Agressive Style
: c. Realist
: d. E8
: XXTX
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: thejeweleryexchange on September 05, 2006, 12:31:01 AM
What exactly is the (b) category of each of the listings?
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: t h e r e p o m a n on September 05, 2006, 12:41:15 AM
In 1984, John Oldham M.D. began work on a personality system for normally healthy people based on the neurotic categories of the psychiatrist's "bible", the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, referred to in shorthand as DSM. Dr. Oldham worked on the committee for DSM-IV and is one of the leading psychiatrists in the United States. Currently, there are 14 different styles (or types) in Oldham's system.

(http://i.walmart.com/i/p/09/78/05/53/37/0978055337393_500X500.jpg)

The following descriptions are from the highly-recommended book The New Personality Self-Portrait by John Oldham and Lois Morris. If you are interested in this personality system, the book is vital for understanding it.
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: t h e r e p o m a n on September 05, 2006, 12:51:29 AM
Oldham's Style -- Myers-Briggs Type -- Enneagram Type
-----------------------------------------------
Conscientious -- ENFJ -- 1
Sensitive -- INFJ -- 4w5
Vigilant -- ENFP -- 6w5
Dramatic -- INFP -- 4w3
Aggressive -- ENTJ -- 8
Idiosyncratic -- INTJ -- 5w4
Inventive -- ENTP -- 3w4
Solitary -- INTP -- 5w6
Leisurely -- ESTJ -- 9w8
Serious -- ISTJ -- 9w1
Self-Sacrificing -- ESFJ -- 2
Devoted -- ISFJ -- 6w7
Self-Confident -- ESTP -- 3w2
Adventurous -- ISTP -- 7w8
Mercurial -- ESFP -- 7w6
Artistic -- ISFP -- 7w6

This other list matches common MB Types and Primary Functions with a person's dominant Oldham style. The MB/Function types were based on the underlying themes and descriptions of the Oldham styles. Even though the MB type might not match the Primary Function, nor does the function have to be primary for the Oldham style, it still represents the basic "flavor" of the personality style.

Oldham's Style -- Myers-Briggs Types -- Primary Function
---------------------------------------------------
Adventurous -- xSTP (ESTP, ISTP) -- Extraverted Sensing
Aggressive -- ExTJ (ESTJ, ENTJ) -- Extraverted Thinking
Artistic -- xSFP (ESFP, ISFP) -- Extraverted Sensing
Conscientious -- xSTJ (ESTJ, ISTJ) -- Introverted Sensing
Devoted -- xSFJ (ESFJ, ISFJ) -- Extraverted Feeling
Dramatic -- ESFx (ESFJ, ESFP) -- Extraverted Feeling
Idiosyncratic -- INTx (INTJ, INTP) -- Introverted Intuition
Inventive -- ENxP (ENTP, ENFP) -- Extraverted Intuition
Leisurely -- IxFP (ISFP, INFP) -- Introverted Feeling
Mercurial -- ExFP (ESFP, ENFP) -- Extraverted Feeling
Self-Confident -- ExTP (ESTP, ENTP) -- Extraverted Thinking
Self-Sacrificing -- ExFJ (ESFJ, ENFJ) -- Extraverted Feeling
Sensitive -- INFx (INFJ, INFP) -- Introverted Feeling
Serious -- ISxJ (ISTJ, ISFJ) -- Introverted Sensing
Solitary -- IxTJ (ISTJ, INTJ) -- Introverted Thinking
Vigilant -- xNTJ (ENTJ, INTJ) -- Extraverted Intuition
Title: The more things change the more they are the same
Post by: t h e r e p o m a n on September 05, 2006, 12:57:11 AM
Here it is another approximation:
 
Obsessive-Compulsive personality
 Conscientious Style
 Diligent
 1w2, 1w9
 
Compensatory Narcissistic personality (not in DSM-Axis II)
 Variant of Self-Confident Style
 -
 3w4
 
Phallic Narcissistic personality
 Self-Confident Style
 Visionary
 3w2
 
Dependent personality
 Devoted Style
 Kinsman
 6w7
 
Borderline personality
 Mercurial Style
 Eccentric
 7w6
 
Paranoid personality
 Vigilant Style
 Sentinel
 6w5, 8w9
 
Passive-Agressive personality
 Leisurely Style
 Philosopher
 9w8
 
Anti-Social personality
 Adventurous Style
 Extremist
 7w8
 
Schizoid personality
 Solitary Style
 Sage
 5w6
 
Schizotypical personality
 Idiosyncratic Style
 Evokateur
 5w4
 
Hysterical personality
 Dramatic Style
 Healer
 2w3, 4w3
 
Avoidant personality
 Sensitive Style
 Scintilator
 4w5
 
Masochistic/Self -defeating personality
 Self-Sacrificing Style
 Empath
 2w1
 
Sadistic personality
 Agressive Style
 Realist
 8w7
 
Depressive personality
 Serious Style
 Idealist
 9w1
 
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: sowle on September 06, 2006, 02:40:01 AM
You guys have too much time on your hands! Are you in law school? Otherwise you could not have so much spare time!
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: Katie T on September 06, 2006, 09:19:28 AM
What's good about being an attorney?
What about the respect of the community?  Attorneys are held in high regard and often chosen as leaders in society.  A good attorney is a valuable friend and associate.  When you pass the bar, you demonstrate an ability people look up to, and you establish yourself as part of the society's foundation.  I think you'll find that your opinion as an attorney carries more weight than it does as a paralegal.
Katie T.   
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: ranaok on September 06, 2006, 07:21:52 PM

The prevailing culture in our organizations and institutions is strongly biased toward a deeply embedded 'rational/empirical' approach that favors professionalism.


Here it is a post along the same lines,


The idea that the universe has a rational structure that the mind can apprehend characterizes an older trend in European philosophy called "rationalism." Rationalism traces its roots to Rene Descartes and to the birth of modern philosophy. Most of 20th century European philosophy was a direct reaction to this older tradition, a reactionary attempt to explore the possibility that the universe has no rational structure for the mind to apprehend. Phenomenology, for example, as advocated by Edmund Husserl confines itself to observing and describing our own consciousness without drawing any conclusions regarding causes or connections.


http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/students/index.php/topic,2385.msg33197.html#msg33197
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: boston08 on September 06, 2006, 10:49:37 PM
Here is a good discussion of the pros and cons of a legal career:
_____________________________ _____________________________ ________________

Date: September 6th, 2006 2:24 AM
Author: TheRepoMan

0Ls [0Ls are those who have not entered law school yet], by now, you've probably had a few people warn you about going into the law. Perhaps a practicing lawyer has told you to not become a lawyer. Maybe a law student has warned you not to go to law school. You probably laughed nervously and stuck your nose back into your TestMasters prep book thinking "What do they know?"

They know a lot.

By all means, listen to them. They are not trying to shut you out of some exclusive guild. They are trying to help you. Misery lies ahead. They are giving you a coded warning about what the morass you are willingly throwing yourself into is actually like.

"The law" is just some bull invented by people. It's not a legitimate academic field of study, like sociology or philosophy. There are no "right answers." You will learn how to justify any position, no matter how outrageous. You will hear these terms, among many others, until you want to f**cking puke: "public policy considerations," "reasonableness" and "balancing." You will seriously consider questions such as whether or not a four year old can batter an adult woman, without pausing to think about how absurd the question is in the first place. You will jettison any common sense, decency and fair-mindedness you once had and replace it with mechanical, pseudo-intellectual thought processes that do nothing to advance the quality of life in our society. Laws are written and applied arbitrarily. If not, they are applied depending on political considerations. Liberals and conservatives are equally guilty of this. "The law" is nothing more than a set of fictions agreed to by elites -- it is a giant lie. For the rest of your professional career, day in and day out, your job will be to read this enormous tangle of equivocal language, evasions and hedges. You will find that the quality of both academic and professional writing in the law is uniformly terrible. Your job will be to pass it off to others that you can somehow make sense of the senseless. Being a lawyer is futile. Your soul will be sucked out of your eyeballs and you will regret going to law school. It's nothing like it's portrayed on TV or in the movies or in potboiler paperback legal thrillers. Don't waste your time, don't take the LSAT, don't blow $140,000 on a law school tuition. You are still young. Enjoy your bodies while they still work, enjoy this planet before humans destroy the environment entirely. Go outside. Bike. Hike. Go to the beach. Play football. f**ck. Go to a bar with your friends. Do whatever it is you really want to do, like become a chef or fly airplanes.

Just don't go to law school.

Date: September 6th, 2006 10:18 AM
Author: Pinderhughes

This is as good an articulation of the pitfalls of law as I've seen written. All true.

Date: September 6th, 2006 12:33 PM
Author: Doctor Zaius

If you want money for supporting a family, vacations, and some standard of living there's a good chance you'll need to enter the corporate world. Whether you're an ibanker, analyst, accountant, or lawyer - your concerns will largely be the same. Too many hours, disillusioned idealism (which you really should have left in college anyway), 'fictional' rules invented and largely adhered to by elites..

So the OP is suggesting not to goto law. What praytell should I do? Become a graduate student in one of the more 'academic' fields like sociology? Become a farmer or choose another job where I do 12+ hours of PHYSICAL labor (which is always worse than the air conditioned office hrs whined about here). Please. The only thing this rant proves is that OP has never held a real job outside of the law. With no basis for comparison its yet another annoying case of grass is greener syndrome.

Date: September 6th, 2006 12:42 PM
Author: William Walton

The last post is correct. Work sucks.....it's as simple as that. Do they think being a Big 4 accountant is more fun than being a lawyer? What about slaving away in middle managment at some retail chain? Management sucks people. And most people burn out of banking so it must suck too.

Date: September 6th, 2006 12:50 PM
Author: Doctor Zaius

Right. The majority of corporate jobs are middle management in nondescript back offices. Talk to those guys about their soul. Half of their jobs are being shot to India and the ones that remain revolve around ensuring that TPS reports have the correct amount of signatures or that their budgets come in favorable. BIG four accountants end up working as much as some lawyers for less than half the pay and usually in the client's 'audit room' which is a windowless closet shared with 10 other drones. Soul sucking seemingly meaningless and arbitrary work is not isolated to the field of law.
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: Kaliope on September 07, 2006, 01:56:41 PM
Being a paralegal is no subsitute for being an attorney.  I have five years of paralegal experience, work for a leading company in my field and still don't make enough to buy a house in the current market.

To most attorneys, paralegal, legal assistant, legal secretary and receptionist have the exact same definition.

However, I can't tell you enough what a good decision it was for me to work as a paralegal pre-law school.  The most important reason is that I know what I want to do after law school. I know what it will be like and I know that I enjoy it.  It's an extreme comfort given tuition rates.

The second benefit to being a paralegal is being exposed to the real life of various kinds of attorneys.  I've seen real estate, development, land use, T&E, entertainment, workers comp, personal litigation etc.  I know what it's like to be one of these attorney's for a day....but that came at the cost of waiting five years to go to law school.

In the end, if you have no great career asipirations and don't mind working for typically demanding people, it's fine.  Don't think for a second it will satiate any genuine desire to be an attorney.
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: seine on September 09, 2006, 05:13:04 AM
Quote
"The law" is just some bull invented by people. It's not a legitimate academic field of study, like sociology or philosophy. There are no "right answers." You will learn how to justify any position, no matter how outrageous. You will hear these terms, among many others, until you want to f**cking puke: "public policy considerations," "reasonableness" and "balancing." You will seriously consider questions such as whether or not a four year old can batter an adult woman, without pausing to think about how absurd the question is in the first place. You will jettison any common sense, decency and fair-mindedness you once had and replace it with mechanical, pseudo-intellectual thought processes that do nothing to advance the quality of life in our society. Laws are written and applied arbitrarily. If not, they are applied depending on political considerations. Liberals and conservatives are equally guilty of this. "The law" is nothing more than a set of fictions agreed to by elites -- it is a giant lie.
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: tom on September 11, 2006, 01:01:07 AM

What about the respect of the community? Attorneys are held in high regard and often chosen as leaders in society.


Are you sure that that's the case?
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: ontheright on September 11, 2006, 04:35:07 AM
LOL tom! Sounds like Joan Crawford shouting "Why can't you give me the respect that I'm entitled to? Why can't you treat me like I would be treated by any stranger on the street?" ;)
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: johns259 on September 11, 2006, 10:29:59 AM
It's a mixed bag. On the one hand, a majority of elected officials hold a JD. On the other hand, entering law school you have a statistically greater chance of being a criminal defendant than a criminal defense attorney (Dershowitz, "Letters to a Young Lawyer").
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: verbal on September 11, 2006, 10:55:00 AM
ENTJ
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: TheSunDevil on September 11, 2006, 11:55:47 AM
It's a mixed bag. On the one hand, a majority of elected officials hold a JD. On the other hand, entering law school you have a statistically greater chance of being a criminal defendant than a criminal defense attorney (Dershowitz, "Letters to a Young Lawyer").

great book  ;)
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: niels on September 12, 2006, 08:03:31 AM

ENTJ


Wanna meet up?
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: einszweidrei on September 14, 2006, 05:09:44 AM
LOL tom! Sounds like Joan Crawford shouting "Why can't you give me the respect that I'm entitled to? Why can't you treat me like I would be treated by any stranger on the street?" ;)


Because I am NOT one of your fans!

;)
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: JBBroadShot on September 14, 2006, 07:03:40 AM
Don't have the time to read all of the previous posts, so this may have already been said, but I worked as a paralegal at a top 5 firm before heading to law school.  Your hours can be just as unpredictable as an attorney's.  You may at times go home earlier depending on the situation, but if a deal comes up they need you to proof (corporate) or something actually goes to trial or a important brief is due (litigation) your ass is theirs.  I say if you can handle some hours and the monotoney, and get into a good law school (and in turn a good firm), just go for the lawyer route.  Same hours, better work, better future, much better pay.
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: TheSunDevil on September 15, 2006, 12:49:36 PM
better office furniture
Title: The Secret Cube
Post by: sembrano on September 17, 2006, 06:59:10 PM
Play it here,

http://personal.ansir.com/cube.htm
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: bu on September 17, 2006, 07:06:58 PM

Quote
"The law" is just some bull invented by people. It's not a legitimate academic field of study, like sociology or philosophy. There are no "right answers." You will learn how to justify any position, no matter how outrageous. You will hear these terms, among many others, until you want to f**cking puke: "public policy considerations," "reasonableness" and "balancing." You will seriously consider questions such as whether or not a four year old can batter an adult woman, without pausing to think about how absurd the question is in the first place. You will jettison any common sense, decency and fair-mindedness you once had and replace it with mechanical, pseudo-intellectual thought processes that do nothing to advance the quality of life in our society. Laws are written and applied arbitrarily. If not, they are applied depending on political considerations. Liberals and conservatives are equally guilty of this. "The law" is nothing more than a set of fictions agreed to by elites -- it is a giant lie.



Indeed, seine, that post is great! I guess the truth couldn't be spoken more eloquently!
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: boston08 on September 17, 2006, 11:16:09 PM
Indeed, seine, that post is great! I guess the truth couldn't be spoken more eloquently!

He was quoting me. And I was quoting someone else. See above.
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: dinas on September 18, 2006, 01:12:46 AM
OK.
Title: THAT'S HOW IT DESERVES TO BE WRITTEN
Post by: dslaw on September 18, 2006, 06:23:36 PM
THE "LAW" IS JUST SOME bull INVENTED BY PEOPLE. IT'S NOT A LEGITIMATE ACADEMIC FIELD OF STUDY, LIKE SOCIOLOGY OR PHILOSOPHY. THERE ARE NO "RIGHT ANSWERS." YOU WILL LEARN HOW TO JUSTIFY ANY POSITION, NO MATTER HOW OUTRAGEOUS. YOU WILL HEAR THESE TERMS, AMONG OTHERS, UNTIL YOU WANT TO @ # ! * I N G PUKE: "PUBLIC POLICY CONSIDERATIONS," "REASONABLENESS" AND "BALANCING." YOU WILL SERIOUSLY CONSIDER QUESTIONS SUCK AS WHETHER OR NOT A 4-YEAR-OLD CAN BATTER AN ADULT WOMAN, WITHOUT PAUSING TO THINK ABOUT HOW ABSURD THE QUESTION IS IN THE FIRST PLACE. YOU WILL JETTISON ANY COMMON SENSE, DECENCY AND FAIR-MINDEDNESS YOU ONCE HAD AND REPLACE IT WITH MECHANICAL, PSEUDO-INTELLECTUAL THOUGHT PROCESSES THAT DO NOTHING TO ADVANCE THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN OUR SOCIETY. LAWS ARE WRITTEN AND APPLIED ARBITRARILY. IF NOT, THEY ARE APPLIED DEPENDING ON POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS. LIBERALS AND CONSERVATIVES ARE EQUALLY GUILTY OF THIS. THE "LAW" IS NOTHING MORE THAN A SET OF FICTIONS AGREED TO BY ELITES -- IT IS A GIANT LIE.
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: così fan tutte on September 24, 2006, 06:32:45 PM

OK.


build what, take down what, dinas?
Title: Re: The more things change the more they are the same
Post by: MacDonaldTrifecta on November 05, 2006, 05:21:16 AM
Here it is another approximation:
 
Obsessive-Compulsive personality
 Conscientious Style
 Diligent
 1w2, 1w9
 
Compensatory Narcissistic personality (not in DSM-Axis II)
 Variant of Self-Confident Style
 -
 3w4
 
Phallic Narcissistic personality
 Self-Confident Style
 Visionary
 3w2
 
Dependent personality
 Devoted Style
 Kinsman
 6w7
 
Borderline personality
 Mercurial Style
 Eccentric
 7w6
 
Paranoid personality
 Vigilant Style
 Sentinel
 6w5, 8w9
 
Passive-Agressive personality
 Leisurely Style
 Philosopher
 9w8
 
Anti-Social personality
 Adventurous Style
 Extremist
 7w8
 
Schizoid personality
 Solitary Style
 Sage
 5w6
 
Schizotypical personality
 Idiosyncratic Style
 Evokateur
 5w4
 
Hysterical personality
 Dramatic Style
 Healer
 2w3, 4w3
 
Avoidant personality
 Sensitive Style
 Scintilator
 4w5
 
Masochistic/Self -defeating personality
 Self-Sacrificing Style
 Empath
 2w1
 
Sadistic personality
 Agressive Style
 Realist
 8w7
 
Depressive personality
 Serious Style
 Idealist
 9w1
 



-- Visionary

Contrary to popular opinion, serial killers are rarely insane or motivated by hallucinations and/or voices in their heads. Many claim to be, usually as a way of trying to get acquitted by reason of insanity. There are, however, a few genuine cases of serial killers who were compelled by such delusions.

Herbert Mullin slaughtered 13 people after voices told him that murder was necessary to prevent California from suffering an earthquake. (Mullin went to great pains to point out that California did indeed avoid an earthquake during his murder spree.)

Ed Gein claimed that by eating the corpses of women who looked like his deceased mother, he could preserve his mother's soul inside his body. He killed two women who bore passing resemblances to his mother, eating one and being apprehended while in the process of preparing the second woman's body for consumption. He also used the flesh of exhumed corpses to fashion a "woman suit" for himself so that he could "become" his mother, and carried on conversations with himself in a falsetto voice. After his arrest he was placed in a mental facility for the remainder of his life.


-- Missionary

So-called missionary killers believe that their acts are justified on the basis that they are getting rid of a certain type of person (often prostitutes or members of a certain ethnic group), and thus doing society a favor. Gary Ridgway and Aileen Wuornos are often described as missionary killers. In Wuornos' case, the victims were not prostitutes, but their patrons. Missionary killers differ from other types of serial killer in that their motive is generally non-sexual. Arguably, Jack the Ripper also fits this role.


-- Hedonistic

This type kills for the sheer pleasure of it, although what aspect they enjoy varies. Yang Xinhai's post capture statement is typical of such killers' attitudes: "When I killed people I had a desire [to kill more]. This inspired me to kill more. I don't care whether they deserve to live or not. It is none of my concern"[1]. Some killers may enjoy the actual "chase" of hunting down a victim more than anything, while others may be primarily motivated by the act of torturing and abusing the victim while they are alive. Yet others, like Jeffrey Dahmer, may kill the victim quickly, almost as if it were a chore, and then indulge in necrophilia or cannibalism with the body. Usually there is a strong sexual aspect to the crimes, even if it may not be immediately obvious, but some killers obtain a surge of excitement that is not necessarily sexual, such as Berkowitz, who got a thrill out of shooting young couples in cars at random and then running away without ever physically touching the victims.


-- Gain motivated

Most criminals who commit multiple murders for material ends (such as mob hit men) are not classed as serial killers, because they are motivated by economic gain rather than psychopathological compulsion.[citation needed] There is a fine line separating such killers, however. For example, Marcel Petiot, who operated in Nazi-occupied France, could be classified as a serial killer. He posed as a member of the French Resistance and lured wealthy Jewish people to his home, claiming he could smuggle them out of the country. Instead he murdered them and stole their belongings, killing 63 people before he was finally caught. Although Petiot's primary motivation was materialistic, few would deny that a man willing to slaughter so many people simply to acquire a few dozen suitcases of clothes and jewelry was a compulsive killer and psychopath. However, it is impossible to understand the true motivation in such cases.


-- Power/control

This is the most common serial killer. Their main objective for killing is to gain and exert power over their victim. Such killers are sometimes abused as children, which means they feel incredibly powerless and inadequate, and often they indulge in rituals that are linked, often very specifically, to forms of abuse they suffered themselves. One killer, for example, forced young girls to perform oral sex on him, after which he would spank the girl before finally strangling her. After capture, the killer claimed that when he was a child his older sister would force him to perform oral sex on her, then she would spank him in order to terrify him into not telling their parents.[citation needed] The ritual he performed with his victims would negate the humiliation he felt from his abuse as a child, although such relief would only be temporary, and like other such killers, he would soon feel compelled to repeat his actions until eventual capture. (The vast majority of child abuse victims do not become serial killers, of course, meaning that such abuse is not regarded as the sole trigger of such crimes in these cases.) Many power/control-motivated killers sexually abuse their victims, but they differ from hedonistic killers in that rape is not motivated by lust but as simply another form of dominating the victim.

Some serial killers may seem to have characteristics of more than one type. For example, British killer Peter Sutcliffe appeared to be both a visionary and a mission-oriented killer in that he claimed voices told him to clean up the streets of prostitutes.

Alternatively, another school of thought classifies motive as being one of three types: need, greed, or power.
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: MacDonaldTrifecta on November 05, 2006, 05:22:04 AM
Oops, sorry, wrong paste ..
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: triad on November 05, 2006, 05:25:22 AM

A ton of people go to law school, so there must be some good things I haven't thought of yet.


Of course there are. One of them is money.
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: ilove on November 05, 2006, 06:33:11 PM
The modern lawyer is haunted not by guilt but by anxiety. He seeks not to inflict his own certainties on others but to find a meaning in life. Liberated from the superstitions of the past, he doubts even the reality of his own existence ... His sexual attitudes are permissive rather than puritanical, even though his emancipation from ancient taboos brings him no sexual peace.

Fiercely competitive in his demand for approval and acclaim, he distrusts competition because he associates it unconsciously with an unbridled urge to destroy ... He (harbours) deeply antisocial impulses. He praises respect for rules and regulations in the secret belief that they do not apply to himself. Acquisitive in the sense that his cravings have no limits, he ... demands immediate gratification and lives in a state of restless, perpetually unsatisfied desire.

The lawyers' pronounced lack of empathy, off-handed exploitativeness, grandiose fantasies and uncompromising sense of entitlement make him treat all people as though they were objects (he "objectifies" people). He regards others as either useful conduits for and sources of narcissistic supply (attention, adulation, etc.) -- or as extensions of himself. Similarly, serial killers often mutilate their victims and abscond with trophies -- usually, body parts. Some of them have been known to eat the organs they have ripped -- an act of merging with the dead and assimilating them through digestion. They treat their victims as some children do their rag dolls.

Killing the victim -- often capturing him or her on film before the murder -- is a form of exerting unmitigated, absolute, and irreversible control over it. The serial killer aspires to "freeze time" in the still perfection that he has choreographed. The victim is motionless and defenseless. The killer attains long sought "object permanence". The victim is unlikely to run on the serial assassin, or vanish as earlier objects in the killer's life (e.g., his parents) have done.
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: Mr. Gekko on November 05, 2006, 07:38:08 PM

Similarly, serial killers often mutilate their victims and abscond with trophies -- usually, body parts. Some of them have been known to eat the organs they have ripped -- an act of merging with the dead and assimilating them through digestion.


Hannibal Lecter in "Red Dragon" ate organs of his victims.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0289765/
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: titntit on November 06, 2006, 05:56:31 AM
;)
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: theworldinahand on November 06, 2006, 10:45:20 PM
what's to wink about, titntit?!
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: butas on November 19, 2006, 09:17:23 AM
Right, it's not clear if titntit is winking to Mr. Gekko or the thread's starter ..
Title: Re: The more things change the more they are the same
Post by: ifididit on November 20, 2006, 04:57:18 AM

-- Visionary

Contrary to popular opinion, serial killers are rarely insane or motivated by hallucinations and/or voices in their heads. Many claim to be, usually as a way of trying to get acquitted by reason of insanity. There are, however, a few genuine cases of serial killers who were compelled by such delusions.

Herbert Mullin slaughtered 13 people after voices told him that murder was necessary to prevent California from suffering an earthquake. (Mullin went to great pains to point out that California did indeed avoid an earthquake during his murder spree.)

Ed Gein claimed that by eating the corpses of women who looked like his deceased mother, he could preserve his mother's soul inside his body. He killed two women who bore passing resemblances to his mother, eating one and being apprehended while in the process of preparing the second woman's body for consumption. He also used the flesh of exhumed corpses to fashion a "woman suit" for himself so that he could "become" his mother, and carried on conversations with himself in a falsetto voice. After his arrest he was placed in a mental facility for the remainder of his life.


-- Missionary

So-called missionary killers believe that their acts are justified on the basis that they are getting rid of a certain type of person (often prostitutes or members of a certain ethnic group), and thus doing society a favor. Gary Ridgway and Aileen Wuornos are often described as missionary killers. In Wuornos' case, the victims were not prostitutes, but their patrons. Missionary killers differ from other types of serial killer in that their motive is generally non-sexual. Arguably, Jack the Ripper also fits this role.


-- Hedonistic

This type kills for the sheer pleasure of it, although what aspect they enjoy varies. Yang Xinhai's post capture statement is typical of such killers' attitudes: "When I killed people I had a desire [to kill more]. This inspired me to kill more. I don't care whether they deserve to live or not. It is none of my concern"[1]. Some killers may enjoy the actual "chase" of hunting down a victim more than anything, while others may be primarily motivated by the act of torturing and abusing the victim while they are alive. Yet others, like Jeffrey Dahmer, may kill the victim quickly, almost as if it were a chore, and then indulge in necrophilia or cannibalism with the body. Usually there is a strong sexual aspect to the crimes, even if it may not be immediately obvious, but some killers obtain a surge of excitement that is not necessarily sexual, such as Berkowitz, who got a thrill out of shooting young couples in cars at random and then running away without ever physically touching the victims.


-- Gain motivated

Most criminals who commit multiple murders for material ends (such as mob hit men) are not classed as serial killers, because they are motivated by economic gain rather than psychopathological compulsion.[citation needed] There is a fine line separating such killers, however. For example, Marcel Petiot, who operated in Nazi-occupied France, could be classified as a serial killer. He posed as a member of the French Resistance and lured wealthy Jewish people to his home, claiming he could smuggle them out of the country. Instead he murdered them and stole their belongings, killing 63 people before he was finally caught. Although Petiot's primary motivation was materialistic, few would deny that a man willing to slaughter so many people simply to acquire a few dozen suitcases of clothes and jewelry was a compulsive killer and psychopath. However, it is impossible to understand the true motivation in such cases.


-- Power/control

This is the most common serial killer. Their main objective for killing is to gain and exert power over their victim. Such killers are sometimes abused as children, which means they feel incredibly powerless and inadequate, and often they indulge in rituals that are linked, often very specifically, to forms of abuse they suffered themselves. One killer, for example, forced young girls to perform oral sex on him, after which he would spank the girl before finally strangling her. After capture, the killer claimed that when he was a child his older sister would force him to perform oral sex on her, then she would spank him in order to terrify him into not telling their parents.[citation needed] The ritual he performed with his victims would negate the humiliation he felt from his abuse as a child, although such relief would only be temporary, and like other such killers, he would soon feel compelled to repeat his actions until eventual capture. (The vast majority of child abuse victims do not become serial killers, of course, meaning that such abuse is not regarded as the sole trigger of such crimes in these cases.) Many power/control-motivated killers sexually abuse their victims, but they differ from hedonistic killers in that rape is not motivated by lust but as simply another form of dominating the victim.

Some serial killers may seem to have characteristics of more than one type. For example, British killer Peter Sutcliffe appeared to be both a visionary and a mission-oriented killer in that he claimed voices told him to clean up the streets of prostitutes.

Alternatively, another school of thought classifies motive as being one of three types: need, greed, or power.


In the news media, we often hear about different types of killers. Terms such as serial killer and mass murderer and spree killer have, it seems, become a part of our vocabulary. However, do you know what the difference between them is? Ok, let's define them:

A serial killer is someone who has killed at least three victims, with a cooling off period between them. They often tend to hunt victims for a sexual thrill, and tend to keep doing it until they are caught, or are otherwise somehow stopped. E.g. Edmund Emil Kemper III.

A mass murderer kills four or more victims in one incident. Their actions can be described as an endgame strategy, and will often kill themselves after "making their statements" or will enter into a standoff with police. E.g. Timothy J. McVeigh

A spree killer kills at least three victims at multiple locations, without an emotional cooling off period between them. Usually their actions can be seen as a single continuous, lengthy storyline. E.g. Andrew Philip Cunanan.
Title: Re: The more things change the more they are the same
Post by: jerome on November 23, 2006, 04:14:52 PM

A spree killer kills at least three victims at multiple locations, without an emotional cooling off period between them. Usually their actions can be seen as a single continuous, lengthy storyline. E.g. Andrew Philip Cunanan.


The FBI thinks it does know the truth about Cunanan, who went on a cross-country killing spree after the farewell party. Cunanan was charged with 2 murders and was suspected of 2 more. How is it that this charismatic young man with no criminal record suddenly transmogrified into someone police say is a sadistic multiple killer? Criminal experts say Cunanan appeared to be a so-called spree murderer rather than a serial killer. Serial killing in general may not be triggered by any loss or catastrophic event. Most serial killers kill just for the fun of it -- they kill for the power. What distinguishes spree killers from serial murderers is that they tend to be more spontaneous, more frenzied. They tend to leave more clues. Spree killers may be set off by some loss -- more like a mass murderer than a serial killer.

What happens in mass killings is that the killer seeks revenge against the people in his life who he thinks are responsible for all his personal problems. That may be part of Cunanan's motivation. It could be a financial loss, the loss of a relationship, a terminal illness. It could be anything. Spree killers tend to lack conventional moral grounding, a shortcoming that might, under extraordinary circumstances, lead them to view murder as a reasonable recourse. Cunanan seemed to be deceptive, manipulative -- a pathological liar. Those are the characteristics of a sociopath. A sociopath is a person who lacks conscience, who can't empathize with victims. They won't kill unless it's to their advantage. But if you all of a sudden become an obstacle to their success, watch out.

While Cunanan at least superficially seemed to have an ideal life in San Diego, investigators found cracks in his playboy facade and discovered clues about a much darker life that lay beneath the surface. From an early age Cunanan cultivated a reputation for being over the top. His parents were able to send him to the conservative Bishop's School in La Jolla, California. Cunanan was openly gay in high school, whistling at members of the boys' water polo team and taking an older man to the prom. Ironically, he was voted "Least Likely to Be Forgotten" by his classmates. In San Diego's predominantly gay Hillcrest area, Cunanan was known as a "party boy" who always had a gang of friends in tow. Although the only jobs he was known to have were as a drugstore clerk and a temp, he told friends variously that he was an heirloom importer, an actor, or an interior decorator; that he grew up in the south of France or the Philippines; that he came from a "rich Jewish family"; and that he had a trust fund. "He always had a good story to tell," said an acquaintance, "so it doesn't surprise me that some of them weren't true." Although he had "maxed out" 2 credit cards with a combined debt limit of $25,000, Cunanan never seemed short of money and often picked up the tab for large groups of his friends. His mother offered a blunt explanation for this: Her son was "a high-class homosexual prostitute," she told reporters. Whether this was the case is unclear, but something was undoubtedly afoot in late April that caused Cunanan to pack up and leave San Diego.
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: afewpegs on December 23, 2006, 07:36:31 AM

What's good about being an attorney?

What about the respect of the community? Attorneys are held in high regard and often chosen as leaders in society. A good attorney is a valuable friend and associate. When you pass the bar, you demonstrate an ability people look up to, and you establish yourself as part of the society's foundation. I think you'll find that your opinion as an attorney carries more weight than it does as a paralegal.

Katie T.   


"First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
             -- Shakespeare, King Henry VI, Part II, IV, ii


From Ovid, to Overlawyered, Shakespeare to Shark t-shirts, lawyers have been universally disrespected, even by (and sometimes especially by) those who know them the best and need them the most. Why? Put simply, human beings find it difficult to trust or respect liars — especially the dissembler who promises protection, disguises motives or parses words. Like it or not, to the average person, lawyers seem to be in the business of lying, their degree being a license to lie (and steal). The causes go far beyond the central role lawyers play in our "adversarial" legal system, although that doesn't help ("You see, my dear, both sides present slanted stories and the judge nevertheless figures out what the truth is and renders justice.")   
 
It's not hard to understand the public’s disrespect for the profession, when its main images are: criminal defense lawyers spouting sound bites on courthouse steps, the content of which often strains credulity, blames victims, and has very little to do with the important role of making the government prove its case; ceaseless tidal waves of personal injury ads, with lawyers promising to be your best friend and to fight selflessly to get you every penny you deserve; heroine and hero lawyers on popular TV shows who have very little problem using deception and ignoring ethical obligations

Except for real estate closings, the most likely significant personal contact with a lawyer for the average American often comes in the context of a divorce or custody fight — either their own or that of a close friend. In that setting, lawyers consistently make claims about the opposing client that are willful distortions of the truth, used for posturing or leverage. In pleadings and during negotiations, for example, baseless or trumped-up charges of parental unfitness and spousal cruelty are routinely made, and frequently considered to be skillful lawyering. The resulting scars and resentment of lawyers tend to last a lifetime.
 
A major study released last year for the ABA Section of Litigation on "Public Perceptions of Lawyers" (June 2002) merely confirmed the public's lack of confidence in the profession.   Instead of getting to the root of the problem, the organized bar combats millennia of ill will and bad press with canned speeches and a barrel of "mugs, magnets, t-shirts, hats, mousepads, buttons, stickers & more" straight from the Law Day Store. The profession acts as if it only has an image problem and not a fundamental crisis. Therefore, whenever bar leaders are published on the op/ed pages of the media, or quoted on the news pages, we only hear that the profession holds itself to "the highest ethical standards," and is working hard to improve its civility and protect its clients (usually from competition and choice). Their detractors are painted as opportunists with political agendas. And, lawyer jokes are depicted as the cause rather than the result of the public's distrust.   

The legal profession need more PR, but it must be Professional Responsibility, not Public Relations. Image crafting only sounds like more deception to the average (and above-average) American. Like more lies. Lost trust has to be earned the hard way — client by client, case by case, with the focus on competence, diligence, and loyalty toward the client; on responsibility toward society rather than toward guild and gelt; on virgorous overseeing rather than overlooking of ethical rules; and on service rather than self-importance. Legal consumers can't merely be told that the client comes first. They have to see it and feel it. Until then, the equation "lawyer = liar" will remain a truism in the mind of the common man, not just a humorous pun.
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: mantoytano on December 25, 2006, 03:03:23 AM
 

"First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers."
             -- Shakespeare, King Henry VI, Part II, IV, ii



I may be wrong, but is it not that this is quoted out of context?
Title: Through the Looking-Glass : It's a poor sort of memory that only works backwards
Post by: lawporn on February 20, 2007, 06:11:24 AM
Alice ponders what the world is like on the other side of a mirror, and to her surprise, is able to pass through to experience the alternate world. She discovers a book with looking-glass poetry, "Jabberwocky", which she can read only by holding it up to a mirror. Upon leaving the house, she enters a garden, where the flowers speak to her and mistake her for a flower. There, Alice also meets the Red Queen, who offers a throne to Alice if she just moves to the eighth rank in a chess match. Alice is placed as the White Queen's pawn, and begins the game by taking a train to the fourth rank, since pawns in chess can move two spaces on the first move.

Red King snoring, by John TennielShe then meets Tweedledum and Tweedledee, of whom she knows from the famous nursery rhyme. After reciting to her the long poem "The Walrus and the Carpenter", the two proceed to act out the events of their own poem. Alice continues on to meet the White Queen, who is very absent-minded and later transforms into a sheep.

The following chapter details her meeting with Humpty Dumpty, who explains to her the meaning of "Jabberwocky", before his inevitable fall from the wall. This is followed by an encounter with the Lion and the Unicorn, who again proceed to act out a nursery rhyme. She is then rescued from the Red Knight by the White Knight, who many consider to be a representation of Lewis Carroll himself.

At this point, she reaches the eight rank and becomes a queen, and by capturing the Red Queen, puts the Red King (who has remained stationary throughout the book) into checkmate. She then awakes from her dream (if it was a dream), and blames her black kitten (the white kitten was wholly innocent) for the mischief caused by the story. The two kittens are the children of Dinah, Alice's cat in the first book.
Title: Re: Through the Looking-Glass : It's a poor sort of memory that only works backwards
Post by: lauschool on February 22, 2007, 07:20:36 AM
"It's a poor sort of memory that only works backwards," as the White Queen says to Alice in "Through the Looking-Glass" was Jung's favourite quotes on Synchronicity. 
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: my stepson my lover on May 31, 2007, 04:49:12 AM
The modern lawyer is haunted not by guilt but by anxiety. He seeks not to inflict his own certainties on others but to find a meaning in life. Liberated from the superstitions of the past, he doubts even the reality of his own existence ... His sexual attitudes are permissive rather than puritanical, even though his emancipation from ancient taboos brings him no sexual peace.

Fiercely competitive in his demand for approval and acclaim, he distrusts competition because he associates it unconsciously with an unbridled urge to destroy ... He (harbours) deeply antisocial impulses. He praises respect for rules and regulations in the secret belief that they do not apply to himself. Acquisitive in the sense that his cravings have no limits, he ... demands immediate gratification and lives in a state of restless, perpetually unsatisfied desire.

The lawyers' pronounced lack of empathy, off-handed exploitativeness, grandiose fantasies and uncompromising sense of entitlement make him treat all people as though they were objects (he "objectifies" people). He regards others as either useful conduits for and sources of narcissistic supply (attention, adulation, etc.) -- or as extensions of himself. Similarly, serial killers often mutilate their victims and abscond with trophies -- usually, body parts. Some of them have been known to eat the organs they have ripped -- an act of merging with the dead and assimilating them through digestion. They treat their victims as some children do their rag dolls.

Killing the victim -- often capturing him or her on film before the murder -- is a form of exerting unmitigated, absolute, and irreversible control over it. The serial killer aspires to "freeze time" in the still perfection that he has choreographed. The victim is motionless and defenseless. The killer attains long sought "object permanence". The victim is unlikely to run on the serial assassin, or vanish as earlier objects in the killer's life (e.g., his parents) have done.


Very interesting!
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: christy on June 03, 2007, 12:50:56 AM

Nothing is good or bad about being an attorney. Who you are determines your level of happiness in whatever you do.


That's exactly the point, Gwiz! Lawyers/lawyer-wannabes are very unhappy people.
Title: Re: Through the Looking-Glass : It's a poor sort of memory that only works backwards
Post by: employmentlaw on June 16, 2007, 05:25:43 PM

"It's a poor sort of memory that only works backwards," as the White Queen says to Alice in "Through the Looking-Glass" was Jung's favourite quotes on Synchronicity. 
 

Could you expand a little bit please?
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: papabear on June 25, 2007, 02:28:14 AM
Synchronicity is the experience of two or more events which occur in a meaningful manner, but which are causally inexplicable to the person or persons experiencing them. The events would also have to suggest some underlying pattern in order to satisfy the definition of synchronicity as originally developed by Jung who coined the word to describe what he called "temporally coincident occurrences of acausal events." Jung variously described synchronicity as an "acausal connecting principle" (i.e. a pattern of connection that cannot be explained by direct causality), "meaningful coincidence" and "acausal parallelism".

It differs from mere coincidence in that synchronicity implies not just a happenstance, but an underlying pattern or dynamic expressed through meaningful relationships or events. Jung believed that many experiences perceived as coincidence were due not merely to chance, but instead, suggested the manifestation of parallel events or circumstances reflecting this governing dynamic.
Title: Sharks, Rays and Bottom Feeders
Post by: Wheres the Money, Noreen on June 30, 2007, 03:21:52 AM
When looking at how attorneys generally deal with third parties, you should divide them into Sharks, Rays and Bottom Feeders. Sharks are those attorneys that deal aggressively in most every circumstance, although not necessarily in an unpleasant fashion. Sharks are always on the prowl seeking to gain advantage in accordance with the law. While they operate within the bounds of the law, what they do is not always seen as fair. Rays are those attorneys that can be aggressive or docile depending on the circumstances. You are never quite sure whether the Ray is going to be aggressive or not. You have to be careful about unsuspectingly stepping on a Ray, thereby exciting them to the point where they want to sting you. They generally operate within the law and with a greater sense of fairness than their counterparts. Bottom Feeders are usually docile, but can be nasty little pains when they want to be. They are constantly moving in and out of shadows so you're never quite sure where they stand in any given situation. Bottom Feeders are self-centered creatures and would do just about anything to gain their next meal. Fairness is not a consideration and operating within the law is often an afterthought. You must always beware the Bottom Feeder, for you never know where it has been, whom it has been eating with and what it wants from you.

While Sharks might seem the most dangerous of the bunch, they generally are not for those accustomed to handling them. When you recognize the Shark fin sticking up, you always know where you stand. You understand that you will continually be circled and sized up for a possible attack, but ultimately you know it is coming so you are always prepared. You know your strengths and weaknesses beforehand as well as those of your opponent. However, many attorneys hate dealing with Sharks because they feel threatened by them and are afraid they may be eaten alive in the process. You don't generally find Sharks in legal matters that don't have some form of opponent or adverse third party. You tend to find them in litigation, contract negotiations, business purchases, sales, mergers, spin-offs & other business dealings, financial lending, debt negotiation & bankruptcy, employment & labor issues as well as a whole host of other types of legal matters involving adversely interested parties. They love a good fight. Sharks are generally always Sharks. They find it extremely difficult to become Rays, but can sometimes turn into Bottom Feeders.

Rays on the other hand are somewhat trickier to deal with than Sharks. Rays can be easy to get along with and extremely docile and friendly. At times they can also be extremely dangerous and aggressive. Therein lies the problem. Being aggressive with a Ray that wants to be friendly may get you nowhere or even worse, stung badly because you didn't play according to its rules. On the other hand, being friendly and unsuspectingly stepping on an aggressive Ray can also lead to undesirable results. Some Rays are docile, friendly and easy to deal with. Others are aggressive, but at times extremely friendly. The difficulty is that you are always trying to find the fine line between the dark side and the good side of this force known as the Ray.

Bottom Feeders, I believe, are the most dangerous of the bunch. While they can be both aggressive and docile, there always seems to be a hidden agenda driving them forward. This agenda can be so overpowering that they lose all reason and bite when they should be friendly or attempt to seek your favor when they should be tearing you to pieces. The Bottom Feeder's agenda is usually dark, unseemly and sometimes even illegal. It can be driven by greed, the desire for power, money or position, ego, ill will, lust or just be mean spirited. Part of the problem is you just don't know what the agenda is for sure. Never turn your back on this creature, because they will sell you down the river the first chance they get. Usually when a better meal comes along.
Title: Re: Sharks, Rays and Bottom Feeders
Post by: vaplaugh on June 30, 2007, 04:31:46 PM
When looking at how attorneys generally deal with third parties, you should divide them into Sharks, Rays and Bottom Feeders. Sharks are those attorneys that deal aggressively in most every circumstance, although not necessarily in an unpleasant fashion. Sharks are always on the prowl seeking to gain advantage in accordance with the law. While they operate within the bounds of the law, what they do is not always seen as fair. Rays are those attorneys that can be aggressive or docile depending on the circumstances. You are never quite sure whether the Ray is going to be aggressive or not. You have to be careful about unsuspectingly stepping on a Ray, thereby exciting them to the point where they want to sting you. They generally operate within the law and with a greater sense of fairness than their counterparts. Bottom Feeders are usually docile, but can be nasty little pains when they want to be. They are constantly moving in and out of shadows so you're never quite sure where they stand in any given situation. Bottom Feeders are self-centered creatures and would do just about anything to gain their next meal. Fairness is not a consideration and operating within the law is often an afterthought. You must always beware the Bottom Feeder, for you never know where it has been, whom it has been eating with and what it wants from you.

While Sharks might seem the most dangerous of the bunch, they generally are not for those accustomed to handling them. When you recognize the Shark fin sticking up, you always know where you stand. You understand that you will continually be circled and sized up for a possible attack, but ultimately you know it is coming so you are always prepared. You know your strengths and weaknesses beforehand as well as those of your opponent. However, many attorneys hate dealing with Sharks because they feel threatened by them and are afraid they may be eaten alive in the process. You don't generally find Sharks in legal matters that don't have some form of opponent or adverse third party. You tend to find them in litigation, contract negotiations, business purchases, sales, mergers, spin-offs & other business dealings, financial lending, debt negotiation & bankruptcy, employment & labor issues as well as a whole host of other types of legal matters involving adversely interested parties. They love a good fight. Sharks are generally always Sharks. They find it extremely difficult to become Rays, but can sometimes turn into Bottom Feeders.

Rays on the other hand are somewhat trickier to deal with than Sharks. Rays can be easy to get along with and extremely docile and friendly. At times they can also be extremely dangerous and aggressive. Therein lies the problem. Being aggressive with a Ray that wants to be friendly may get you nowhere or even worse, stung badly because you didn't play according to its rules. On the other hand, being friendly and unsuspectingly stepping on an aggressive Ray can also lead to undesirable results. Some Rays are docile, friendly and easy to deal with. Others are aggressive, but at times extremely friendly. The difficulty is that you are always trying to find the fine line between the dark side and the good side of this force known as the Ray.

Bottom Feeders, I believe, are the most dangerous of the bunch. While they can be both aggressive and docile, there always seems to be a hidden agenda driving them forward. This agenda can be so overpowering that they lose all reason and bite when they should be friendly or attempt to seek your favor when they should be tearing you to pieces. The Bottom Feeder's agenda is usually dark, unseemly and sometimes even illegal. It can be driven by greed, the desire for power, money or position, ego, ill will, lust or just be mean spirited. Part of the problem is you just don't know what the agenda is for sure. Never turn your back on this creature, because they will sell you down the river the first chance they get. Usually when a better meal comes along.

1) Wow. You know how to copy/paste. http://www.legal-advice-services.com/Page%203.html
2) And this is a dumb description, anyway.
Title: Re: The more things change the more they are the same
Post by: BKA on July 03, 2007, 08:22:40 PM

Ed Gein claimed that by eating the corpses of women who looked like his deceased mother, he could preserve his mother's soul inside his body. He killed two women who bore passing resemblances to his mother, eating one and being apprehended while in the process of preparing the second woman's body for consumption. He also used the flesh of exhumed corpses to fashion a "woman suit" for himself so that he could "become" his mother, and carried on conversations with himself in a falsetto voice. After his arrest he was placed in a mental facility for the remainder of his life.


Another stupid murderer was Lowell "Ed" Amos, a former Detroit business man whose mother and 3 wives died under suspicious circumstances. He was convicted in 1996 of murdering his third wife, Roberta "Bobbie" Mowery Amos (there's a 2006 Lifetime Network made-for-TV movie called "Black Widower.") Lowell was a former General Motors plant manager, and came from Anderson, Indiana. In December of 1994, Lowell and wife Roberta attended a company executive party at the Atheneum Hotel in Detroit. The Amos's went to their suite at 4:30am. At 8:30am, Lowell called Norbert Crabtree, another executive from the party, and seemed to be in a panic. Crabtree and another hotel guest named Daniel Porcasi went to the room, and Lowell told them that Roberta had died in an accident. Lowell said he needed to cleanup before calling police, and he asked Crabtree to take a leather case for him, which he did. Crabtree looked inside, and found a sports coat, a syringe without a needle, and a foul-smelling washcloth inside. Amos later reclaimed the bag, and its contents disappeared.

Amos told police that he and Roberta had engaged in sexual acts involving cocaine, and claimed she was still taking the cocaine when he fell asleep. He told police that she could not snort the drug due to a sinus problem, and that instead she took it "inside" her body (in her female private part) He said that when he woke up she was dead. Bobby's body contained over 15 times the lethal dose of the drug. Autopsy revealed that there was cocaine inside Roberta's vagina, but none externally. Prosecution said that he first gave her a glass of wine with two crushed Xanax in it, then when she was passed-out, he injected her vagina with the cocaine (dissolved in water), and then smothered her with the pillow when she began to convulse. On October 24th, 1996, Lowell was convicted of premeditated murder and murder using a toxic substance, both considered separate charges of first-degree murder.
Title: Re: The more things change the more they are the same
Post by: mireille on July 04, 2007, 02:54:02 AM

Another stupid murderer was Lowell "Ed" Amos, a former Detroit business man whose mother and 3 wives died under suspicious circumstances. He was convicted in 1996 of murdering his third wife, Roberta "Bobbie" Mowery Amos (there's a 2006 Lifetime Network made-for-TV movie called "Black Widower.") Lowell was a former General Motors plant manager, and came from Anderson, Indiana. In December of 1994, Lowell and wife Roberta attended a company executive party at the Atheneum Hotel in Detroit. The Amos's went to their suite at 4:30am. At 8:30am, Lowell called Norbert Crabtree, another executive from the party, and seemed to be in a panic. Crabtree and another hotel guest named Daniel Porcasi went to the room, and Lowell told them that Roberta had died in an accident. Lowell said he needed to cleanup before calling police, and he asked Crabtree to take a leather case for him, which he did. Crabtree looked inside, and found a sports coat, a syringe without a needle, and a foul-smelling washcloth inside. Amos later reclaimed the bag, and its contents disappeared.

Amos told police that he and Roberta had engaged in sexual acts involving cocaine, and claimed she was still taking the cocaine when he fell asleep. He told police that she could not snort the drug due to a sinus problem, and that instead she took it "inside" her body (in her female private part) He said that when he woke up she was dead. Bobby's body contained over 15 times the lethal dose of the drug. Autopsy revealed that there was cocaine inside Roberta's vagina, but none externally. Prosecution said that he first gave her a glass of wine with two crushed Xanax in it, then when she was passed-out, he injected her vagina with the cocaine (dissolved in water), and then smothered her with the pillow when she began to convulse. On October 24th, 1996, Lowell was convicted of premeditated murder and murder using a toxic substance, both considered separate charges of first-degree murder.


Just to be sure I'm getting this right - he used the syringe with no needle to inject Bobby's vagina with the cocaine dissolved in water in such a quantity that it would kill her? But then why did he have to smother her with the pillow, she would die by herself..
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: Nicorino on July 04, 2007, 05:39:45 PM

Another stupid murderer was Lowell "Ed" Amos, a former Detroit business man whose mother and 3 wives died under suspicious circumstances. He was convicted in 1996 of murdering his third wife, Roberta "Bobbie" Mowery Amos (there's a 2006 Lifetime Network made-for-TV movie called "Black Widower.") Lowell was a former General Motors plant manager, and came from Anderson, Indiana. In December of 1994, Lowell and wife Roberta attended a company executive party at the Atheneum Hotel in Detroit. The Amos's went to their suite at 4:30am. At 8:30am, Lowell called Norbert Crabtree, another executive from the party, and seemed to be in a panic. Crabtree and another hotel guest named Daniel Porcasi went to the room, and Lowell told them that Roberta had died in an accident. Lowell said he needed to cleanup before calling police, and he asked Crabtree to take a leather case for him, which he did. Crabtree looked inside, and found a sports coat, a syringe without a needle, and a foul-smelling washcloth inside. Amos later reclaimed the bag, and its contents disappeared.

Amos told police that he and Roberta had engaged in sexual acts involving cocaine, and claimed she was still taking the cocaine when he fell asleep. He told police that she could not snort the drug due to a sinus problem, and that instead she took it "inside" her body (in her female private part) He said that when he woke up she was dead. Bobby's body contained over 15 times the lethal dose of the drug. Autopsy revealed that there was cocaine inside Roberta's vagina, but none externally. Prosecution said that he first gave her a glass of wine with two crushed Xanax in it, then when she was passed-out, he injected her vagina with the cocaine (dissolved in water), and then smothered her with the pillow when she began to convulse. On October 24th, 1996, Lowell was convicted of premeditated murder and murder using a toxic substance, both considered separate charges of first-degree murder.


Just to be sure I'm getting this right - he used the syringe with no needle to inject Bobby's vagina with the cocaine dissolved in water in such a quantity that it would kill her? But then why did he have to smother her with the pillow, she would die by herself..


I tend to believe that injecting her with coke was more of a ruse rather than the actual killing method -- that is to say, he killed her and his other victims by smothering them (which he could have done very conveniently after they passed out due to the wine/Xanax combo he gave them) -- but he needed a medical cause of death for their supposedly accidental death, reason why he had to introduce coke into their bodies.
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: spoons on July 04, 2007, 06:42:10 PM


Just to be sure I'm getting this right - he used the syringe with no needle to inject Bobby's vagina with the cocaine dissolved in water in such a quantity that it would kill her? But then why did he have to smother her with the pillow, she would die by herself..


I tend to believe that injecting her with coke was more of a ruse rather than the actual killing method -- that is to say, he killed her and his other victims by smothering them (which he could have done very conveniently after they passed out due to the wine/Xanax combo he gave them) -- but he needed a medical cause of death for their supposedly accidental death, reason why he had to introduce coke into their bodies.


Exactly! Basically he killed his victims by carefully smothering them in order to leave no signs of violence on the bodies. The method was largely similar to that of Burke and Hare (William Burke and William Hare were two men who had moved to Scotland to work as laborers on the Union Canal and who began robbing graves to sell the corpses to Dr. Robert Knox, a popular anatomist at the Edinburgh Medical School.) Edinburgh's many schools and anatomists were willful participants in the trade in corpses -- this was so prevalent that watchtowers, iron fences, and defensive walls were built around Edinburgh's cemeteries in an effort to protect the bodies of the recently interred. Burke and Hare's distinction was that they decided to make their unpleasant job a little less arduous by eliminating the whole messy enterprise of digging up rotting corpses; instead, they simply killed people at random and delivered them fresh to Dr. Knox, who was good enough not to ask any awkward questions.

Settling first in Glasow, they found work in the construction of the Falkirk Canal. On its completion, the pair moved to Edinburgh, settling in a boarding house in Tanners Lane. Hare soon took a liking to the landlady, Margaret Laird, and soon entered into a relationship with her. Burke's mistress Helen MacDougal also took up residence in the house. Returning one night to find Laird in tears, Hare inquired as to what was wrong. It transpired that a lodger who had been staying in the boarding house had passed away the previous night, leaving several months rent unpaid. Laird had searched his room, but had found nothing. A coroner had pronounced the man dead, and his body lay in a coffin on the upper floors of the boarding house awaiting collection. That night, Burke and Hare entered the room where the coffin lay brandishing a crowbar. Together they prised off the lid of the coffin and removed the corpse. The coffin was sealed again, after being filled with bricks. The highlanders body was then carried to the house of Robert Knox (a relative of John Knox), who purchased the corpse for dissection in the medical faculty in Edinburgh for around 10 pounds, three times the rent owed for the rent.

Shortly after this incident, another resident of the boarding house lay on his deathbed. Burke and Hare waited, but his decline was taking weeks, and shortly the pair grew impatient and, entering his room by night, proceeded to smother him with his pillow. Again the body was taken to Dr. Knox, where it was sold for the sum of 10 pounds. It was at this point that Burke and Hare realised just how much money they stood to make out of their new-found trade, however neither of them wished to spend their nights freezing in a graveyard exhuming the corpses of the recently deceased. Instead, they formulated a faster, more efficient plan for acquiring corpses. Their plan was first put into effect in February 1828. First they selected their victim, this time an elderly woman named Abigail Simpson. They befriended her, took her back to their house in Tanners Close, where they plied her with drink. The next morning, they gave her yet more alcohol, until she was barely conscious. At this point, Hare held her down, while Burke, using his middle and index finger to pinch her nostrils closed and his thumb on her chin to hold close her mouth, suffocated her. Her body was taken to Knox, who, after commenting on how fresh it was, accepted the corpse. As usual, the pair had made themselves 10 pounds, minus the price of the gin used to intoxicate Abigail.

For months Burke and Hare carried out their gruesome plan, first selecting their victim, a person new to Edinburgh without any family to miss them, before plying them with drink at Tanners Close before suffocation. The two were indiscriminate about who they killed; as long as they fitted into the two categories listed above, they would suffice. They are known to have killed men, women and children. At one point, Burke and Hare came close to capture after becoming careless. In an attempt to double their earnings, they picked up two local prostitutes, Janet Brown and Mary Paterson, both of whom were plied with drink. While Patterson obligingly drank herself senseless, Janet Brown was more suspicious and, became so uneasy with the attention given to her by Burke decided to leave, therefore saving herself. Her friend, however, was less fortunate. Like the others, Mary Patterson was murdered in her drunken state. Unlike the previous victims, however, Patterson was a well-known figure in Edinburgh, having been in her trade for a number of years. When one of Dr. Knox's students was called to dissect the corpse, he immediately recognised her, having recently 'made use' of her services. Too embarrassed to mention this on front of his professors, he proceeded to dissect her, rendering her beyond recognition. Despite their crucial mistake, Burke and Hare remained undiscovered.

After this incident, they continued in their trade, at one point killing the daughter of their second victim. At one point Burke brought back an old woman and her grand-child. After dispatching the old woman, Burke took the boy, a deaf-mute, and murdered him, breaking the boy's spine over his knee. Difficulties between the two began to arise. After Hare carried out a transaction with Knox in Burke's absence, the pair had a ferocious argument, resulting in Burke and MacDougal leaving the house in Tanners Close, moving to a house near the west-port. Their separate accommodation helped to repair their friendship however, and soon they were back to killing. The next victim was Helen's cousin Anne MacDougal, who lived in Falkirk. Burke and Hare invited her over to stay with them, before killing her in their usual way. Both Helen MacDougal and Margaret Laird were aware that the killing was taking place and are known to have encouraged it. One of their final victims was known locally as 'Daft Jamie', a friendly and well-known man thought of as 'simple' and as a result often the butt of jokes by local children. He was dispatched in the usual manner, but was recognised on the operating table, and people noticed his absence on the streets. He was reported to the police as missing.

One night Burke brought home a woman called Mrs. Docherty. She was plied with drinks as was their usual procedure, however this time there were others in the boarding house. When they left to get more alcohol, Burke and Hare seized their chance and killed Mrs. Docherty. When the others returned, they inquired as to the whereabouts of Docherty. He apparently came across as paranoid and insisted that nobody went near the bed. Needless to say, at the first opportunity, somebody looked under the bed, where they found the body of Mrs. Docherty, covered in straw. Despite the bribes offered by Burke to keep the body a secret, the police were summoned, and Burke, Hare, Laird and MacDougal were all swiftly arrested. Hare and Laird turned Kings Witness, meaning that they were allowed to go free provided that they appear as witnesses at the trial of both Burke and MacDougal. This they did, before leaving to go to London, where it is said that Hare died a blind beggar after being pushed into a lime pit by a gang of Scots who recognised him. Laird was never heard of again. MacDougal was released after the jury returned a verdict of 'not guilty'. William Burke was found guilty of 16 charges of murder and sentenced to hang. This done, his body was stripped of its flesh, which was sold to the spectators. His skeleton is still on display in the Black Museum in the medical libraries in Edinburgh, along with a diary made from his flesh. A wallet made from his skin was reputably sold in England for over £2000 to a private collector. It should be noted that John Knox was never brought to trial.
Title: Re: The more things change the more they are the same
Post by: law shop on July 04, 2007, 09:31:10 PM

Just to be sure I'm getting this right - he used the syringe with no needle to inject Bobby's vagina with the cocaine dissolved in water in such a quantity that it would kill her? But then why did he have to smother her with the pillow, she would die by herself..


Indeed a stupid one! I mean, why did he inject her vagina with so much cocaine when he could have easily injected the "right amount" of it into her veins?
Title: Re: The more things change the more they are the same
Post by: scrt on July 04, 2007, 09:40:42 PM

Just to be sure I'm getting this right - he used the syringe with no needle to inject Bobby's vagina with the cocaine dissolved in water in such a quantity that it would kill her? But then why did he have to smother her with the pillow, she would die by herself..


Indeed a stupid one! I mean, why did he inject her vagina with so much cocaine when he could have easily injected the "right amount" of it into her veins?


It's not clear what he did; all we read about him, as to how he killed his victims -- if he did kill them -- are speculations by the prosecution. I mean, your observation makes sense, just like it's conceivable that he did not have to use cocaine at all -- he could have just put some more Xanax on her wine and that would be it!
Title: Re: The more things change the more they are the same
Post by: 6flags on July 05, 2007, 09:17:52 PM

Just to be sure I'm getting this right - he used the syringe with no needle to inject Bobby's vagina with the cocaine dissolved in water in such a quantity that it would kill her? But then why did he have to smother her with the pillow, she would die by herself..


Indeed a stupid one! I mean, why did he inject her vagina with so much cocaine when he could have easily injected the "right amount" of it into her veins?


I think the sex thing was an integral part of his killing scheme. 
Title: Re: The more things change the more they are the same
Post by: ayn on July 08, 2007, 09:33:03 PM

Just to be sure I'm getting this right - he used the syringe with no needle to inject Bobby's vagina with the cocaine dissolved in water in such a quantity that it would kill her? But then why did he have to smother her with the pillow, she would die by herself..


Amos forced coke into her female private part because the mucous membrane walls of twats absorb the coke into the bloodstream quickly and very effectively. Understandably Bobby had done such a things many times before for fun (a tingling sensation results).
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: landrover06 on July 09, 2007, 02:03:10 AM
The idea that I'm becoming one.
Title: Re: The more things change the more they are the same
Post by: height on July 09, 2007, 05:19:55 PM

Just to be sure I'm getting this right - he used the syringe with no needle to inject Bobby's vagina with the cocaine dissolved in water in such a quantity that it would kill her? But then why did he have to smother her with the pillow, she would die by herself..


Amos forced coke into her female private part because the mucous membrane walls of twats absorb the coke into the bloodstream quickly and very effectively. Understandably Bobby had done such a things many times before for fun (a tingling sensation results).


Looks like there were no traces of cocaine outside/in the vicinity of her female private part, though ..
Title: Re: The more things change the more they are the same
Post by: kaligula on July 13, 2007, 04:31:13 AM

Another stupid murderer was Lowell "Ed" Amos, a former Detroit business man whose mother and 3 wives died under suspicious circumstances. He was convicted in 1996 of murdering his third wife, Roberta "Bobbie" Mowery Amos (there's a 2006 Lifetime Network made-for-TV movie called "Black Widower.") Lowell was a former General Motors plant manager, and came from Anderson, Indiana. In December of 1994, Lowell and wife Roberta attended a company executive party at the Atheneum Hotel in Detroit. The Amos's went to their suite at 4:30am. At 8:30am, Lowell called Norbert Crabtree, another executive from the party, and seemed to be in a panic. Crabtree and another hotel guest named Daniel Porcasi went to the room, and Lowell told them that Roberta had died in an accident. Lowell said he needed to cleanup before calling police, and he asked Crabtree to take a leather case for him, which he did. Crabtree looked inside, and found a sports coat, a syringe without a needle, and a foul-smelling washcloth inside. Amos later reclaimed the bag, and its contents disappeared.

Amos told police that he and Roberta had engaged in sexual acts involving cocaine, and claimed she was still taking the cocaine when he fell asleep. He told police that she could not snort the drug due to a sinus problem, and that instead she took it "inside" her body (in her female private part) He said that when he woke up she was dead. Bobby's body contained over 15 times the lethal dose of the drug. Autopsy revealed that there was cocaine inside Roberta's vagina, but none externally. Prosecution said that he first gave her a glass of wine with two crushed Xanax in it, then when she was passed-out, he injected her vagina with the cocaine (dissolved in water), and then smothered her with the pillow when she began to convulse. On October 24th, 1996, Lowell was convicted of premeditated murder and murder using a toxic substance, both considered separate charges of first-degree murder.


Just to be sure I'm getting this right - he used the syringe with no needle to inject Bobby's vagina with the cocaine dissolved in water in such a quantity that it would kill her? But then why did he have to smother her with the pillow, she would die by herself..


There'd be too much noise, she began to convulse pretty bad and it could take some time until she'd expire on her own.
Title: Re: The more things change the more they are the same
Post by: so basically on July 15, 2007, 05:17:13 AM

Just to be sure I'm getting this right - he used the syringe with no needle to inject Bobby's vagina with the cocaine dissolved in water in such a quantity that it would kill her? But then why did he have to smother her with the pillow, she would die by herself..


Indeed a stupid one! I mean, why did he inject her vagina with so much cocaine when he could have easily injected the "right amount" of it into her veins?


I think the sex thing was an integral part of his killing scheme. 


If that'd be the case, what about his mother?
Title: Re: The more things change the more they are the same
Post by: genesis on July 15, 2007, 03:48:02 PM

Indeed a stupid one! I mean, why did he inject her vagina with so much cocaine when he could have easily injected the "right amount" of it into her veins?


It's not clear what he did; all we read about him, as to how he killed his victims -- if he did kill them -- are speculations by the prosecution.


Exactly! Initially the prosecution held that his motive for killing all the women was money, then when it came down to Bobby they said that although he lacked a financial motive his marriage was about to end. Roberta had already bought a house of her own, and had told friends and family that she wanted Lowell out of her life. They surmised that Lowell killed her because he couldn't stand rejection!
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: Edgar J. on July 15, 2007, 04:27:00 PM

What's good about being an attorney?

What about the respect of the community? Attorneys are held in high regard and often chosen as leaders in society. A good attorney is a valuable friend and associate. When you pass the bar, you demonstrate an ability people look up to, and you establish yourself as part of the society's foundation. I think you'll find that your opinion as an attorney carries more weight than it does as a paralegal.

Katie T.   


A woman told her physician that her husband had developed a penchant for anal sex, and she wasn't sure that it was a good idea.
The doctor asked: "Do you enjoy it?"
She said that she loves it.
He asked: "Does it hurt?"
She said that it feels wonderful.
The doctor then told her: "Well, then there's no reason that you shouldn't have anal sex, just take care not to get pregnant."
The surprised woman asked: "You can get pregnant from anal sex?"
The doctor replied: "Sure. Where do you think lawyers come from."
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: xferlawstudent on July 16, 2007, 07:58:32 PM
Circumstantial evidence is admissible.  Motive is not an element of crime.

Only TV law would have you believe otherwise
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: horus on July 17, 2007, 06:33:24 PM

Another stupid murderer was Lowell "Ed" Amos, a former Detroit business man whose mother and 3 wives died under suspicious circumstances. He was convicted in 1996 of murdering his third wife, Roberta "Bobbie" Mowery Amos (there's a 2006 Lifetime Network made-for-TV movie called "Black Widower.") Lowell was a former General Motors plant manager, and came from Anderson, Indiana. In December of 1994, Lowell and wife Roberta attended a company executive party at the Atheneum Hotel in Detroit. The Amos's went to their suite at 4:30am. At 8:30am, Lowell called Norbert Crabtree, another executive from the party, and seemed to be in a panic. Crabtree and another hotel guest named Daniel Porcasi went to the room, and Lowell told them that Roberta had died in an accident. Lowell said he needed to cleanup before calling police, and he asked Crabtree to take a leather case for him, which he did. Crabtree looked inside, and found a sports coat, a syringe without a needle, and a foul-smelling washcloth inside. Amos later reclaimed the bag, and its contents disappeared.

Amos told police that he and Roberta had engaged in sexual acts involving cocaine, and claimed she was still taking the cocaine when he fell asleep. He told police that she could not snort the drug due to a sinus problem, and that instead she took it "inside" her body (in her female private part) He said that when he woke up she was dead. Bobby's body contained over 15 times the lethal dose of the drug. Autopsy revealed that there was cocaine inside Roberta's vagina, but none externally. Prosecution said that he first gave her a glass of wine with two crushed Xanax in it, then when she was passed-out, he injected her vagina with the cocaine (dissolved in water), and then smothered her with the pillow when she began to convulse. On October 24th, 1996, Lowell was convicted of premeditated murder and murder using a toxic substance, both considered separate charges of first-degree murder.


Just to be sure I'm getting this right - he used the syringe with no needle to inject Bobby's vagina with the cocaine dissolved in water in such a quantity that it would kill her? But then why did he have to smother her with the pillow, she would die by herself..


There'd be too much noise, she began to convulse pretty bad and it could take some time until she'd expire on her own.


So basically cocaine-induced convulsions are similar to epileptic seizures? Does foam come out of the mouth as the case is in grand mal?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j957yP2E5j8&mode=related&search=
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: fire on July 20, 2007, 01:30:48 AM
horus, you are making us freak out! What the @ # ! * is that "foam out of the mouth" thing?!
Title: Re: The more things change the more they are the same
Post by: blepharitis on July 28, 2007, 02:50:03 PM

[...] Understandably Bobby had done such a things many times before for fun (a tingling sensation results).


Roberta had not done herself that sort of thing before -- she had put powder cocaine in her female private part (with lubricant so that it'd stick); she never injected herself with coke dissolved in water.
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: bermuda on July 30, 2007, 07:33:49 PM
But of course, blepharitis, why would she do that?
Title: Experts Split on Whether Chief Justice Roberts Has Epilepsy
Post by: carom on August 01, 2007, 03:15:48 AM

[...] similar to epileptic seizures? Does foam come out of the mouth as the case is in grand mal?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j957yP2E5j8&mode=related&search=


TUESDAY, July 31 -- U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts walked out of a Maine hospital Tuesday morning with a clean bill of health, one day after suffering a seizure and falling on a dock near his summer home. But doctors interviewed were divided on whether the seizure -- the second one the 52-year-old jurist has suffered in 14 years -- is a sign that Roberts has epilepsy, a neurological condition that could require him to take anti-seizure medication to control the disorder. Roberts left Penobscot Bay Medical Center in Rockport shortly before noon after suffering what doctors described as an unexplained seizure near his vacation home in Port Clyde on Hupper Island. The doctors who examined him found no sign of a tumor, stroke or any other explanation for the episode. He plans to continue his summer vacation, Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg told the Associated Press. Roberts' first reported seizure occurred while playing golf in 1993.

Dr. Steven Pacia, chief of neurology at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City, said that, given this was Roberts' second seizure, it's "likely" that he has epilepsy. "It's the most likely thing based on what we know from what's been released," he said. Pacia noted that seizures can result from an inherited susceptibility that is trigged by such factors as a lack of sleep or stress. "It sounds to me he does have idiopathic generalized epilepsy syndrome, which means that he has susceptibility to seizures under certain circumstances," he said. Dr. Laura Kalayjian, an assistant professor of neurology and co-director of the Epilepsy Center at the University of Southern California, agreed that Roberts probably has epilepsy. "The definition of epilepsy is two unprovoked seizures," Kalayjian said. The likelihood of someone having a second seizure after a first one is about 30 percent, Kalayjian said. "Now Roberts' risk of having another seizure is greater than 50 percent," she said.

Even if Roberts has epilepsy, it shouldn't affect his work, Kalayjian said. "The majority of people with epilepsy you wouldn't know they had epilepsy," she said. "About 70% of people with epilepsy do fine; they hold high level jobs, they drive. It's only 30% of people that have uncontrolled seizures that need specialized epilepsy centers to get their seizures under control." Another expert believes it's too soon to say that Roberts has epilepsy. "There are a lot of different causes that can be responsible for a seizure other than epilepsy, and some of those are very hard to detect with a regular MRI. They require more sophisticated tests," said Dr. Isabelle Germano, a professor of neurosurgery at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City. Germano agreed that two seizures are, by definition, epilepsy. "But, usually in the adult population, we don't see a 14-year interval between seizures," she said. "The delayed interval might make it something else."

Whether or not he should be taking anti-seizure medication is something Roberts' doctors will have to evaluate, Kalayjian said. "His doctors should be trying to figure out if there were any triggers that caused the seizure," she said. Kalayjian noted that medications do provide some protection by raising the seizure threshold. "It would give him [Roberts] an extra level of protection, especially if he is going to be driving or doing other activities," she said. But, anti-seizure medications aren't without side effects, Kalayjian said, including dizziness and sleepiness. Seizures can last a few seconds to a few minutes. The symptoms can vary -- from convulsions and loss of consciousness to some that are not always recognized as seizures by the person experiencing them or by health care professionals: blank staring, lip smacking, or jerking movements of arms and legs.
Title: Roberts v. Epilepsy
Post by: tg on August 01, 2007, 04:03:52 PM

[...] similar to epileptic seizures? Does foam come out of the mouth as the case is in grand mal?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j957yP2E5j8&mode=related&search=


TUESDAY, July 31 -- U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts walked out of a Maine hospital Tuesday morning with a clean bill of health, one day after suffering a seizure and falling on a dock near his summer home. But doctors interviewed were divided on whether the seizure -- the second one the 52-year-old jurist has suffered in 14 years -- is a sign that Roberts has epilepsy, a neurological condition that could require him to take anti-seizure medication to control the disorder. Roberts left Penobscot Bay Medical Center in Rockport shortly before noon after suffering what doctors described as an unexplained seizure near his vacation home in Port Clyde on Hupper Island. The doctors who examined him found no sign of a tumor, stroke or any other explanation for the episode. He plans to continue his summer vacation, Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg told the Associated Press. Roberts' first reported seizure occurred while playing golf in 1993.

Dr. Steven Pacia, chief of neurology at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City, said that, given this was Roberts' second seizure, it's "likely" that he has epilepsy. "It's the most likely thing based on what we know from what's been released," he said. Pacia noted that seizures can result from an inherited susceptibility that is trigged by such factors as a lack of sleep or stress. "It sounds to me he does have idiopathic generalized epilepsy syndrome, which means that he has susceptibility to seizures under certain circumstances," he said. Dr. Laura Kalayjian, an assistant professor of neurology and co-director of the Epilepsy Center at the University of Southern California, agreed that Roberts probably has epilepsy. "The definition of epilepsy is two unprovoked seizures," Kalayjian said. The likelihood of someone having a second seizure after a first one is about 30 percent, Kalayjian said. "Now Roberts' risk of having another seizure is greater than 50 percent," she said.

Even if Roberts has epilepsy, it shouldn't affect his work, Kalayjian said. "The majority of people with epilepsy you wouldn't know they had epilepsy," she said. "About 70% of people with epilepsy do fine; they hold high level jobs, they drive. It's only 30% of people that have uncontrolled seizures that need specialized epilepsy centers to get their seizures under control." Another expert believes it's too soon to say that Roberts has epilepsy. "There are a lot of different causes that can be responsible for a seizure other than epilepsy, and some of those are very hard to detect with a regular MRI. They require more sophisticated tests," said Dr. Isabelle Germano, a professor of neurosurgery at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City. Germano agreed that two seizures are, by definition, epilepsy. "But, usually in the adult population, we don't see a 14-year interval between seizures," she said. "The delayed interval might make it something else."

Whether or not he should be taking anti-seizure medication is something Roberts' doctors will have to evaluate, Kalayjian said. "His doctors should be trying to figure out if there were any triggers that caused the seizure," she said. Kalayjian noted that medications do provide some protection by raising the seizure threshold. "It would give him [Roberts] an extra level of protection, especially if he is going to be driving or doing other activities," she said. But, anti-seizure medications aren't without side effects, Kalayjian said, including dizziness and sleepiness. Seizures can last a few seconds to a few minutes. The symptoms can vary -- from convulsions and loss of consciousness to some that are not always recognized as seizures by the person experiencing them or by health care professionals: blank staring, lip smacking, or jerking movements of arms and legs.


It's all evident by now that we're gonna have an ersatz Chief of Justice ... it's crucial that Bush gets rid of him ASAP.
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: sinus on August 01, 2007, 06:53:56 PM

[...] Understandably Bobby had done such a things many times before for fun (a tingling sensation results).


Roberta had not done herself that sort of thing before -- she had put powder cocaine in her female private part (with lubricant so that it'd stick); she never injected herself with coke dissolved in water.


Roberta is partly to blame -- she should have not left Lowell "Edwin" Amos to come back in her life! The movie makes it clear that she gave him another chance when she shouldn't have.
Title: Roberts v. Epilepsy
Post by: harbinger on August 01, 2007, 07:57:27 PM

[...] Another expert believes it's too soon to say that Roberts has epilepsy. "There are a lot of different causes that can be responsible for a seizure other than epilepsy, and some of those are very hard to detect with a regular MRI. They require more sophisticated tests," said Dr. Isabelle Germano, a professor of neurosurgery at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City. Germano agreed that two seizures are, by definition, epilepsy. "But, usually in the adult population, we don't see a 14-year interval between seizures," she said. "The delayed interval might make it something else."

[...]


He suffers a generalized tonic-clonic drop seizure and they're saying he may not have epilepsy?! St. George Ambulance responded because he had fallen 5-10 ft. and landed on a dock, hitting the back of his head. He was ashen and was foaming at the mouth. The Supreme Court spokeswoman says Roberts was conscious the entire time, but she did not returned a telephone call to the MaineCostNow.
Title: FDA-approved Implanted Microchip for Humans
Post by: Manolita on August 01, 2007, 08:42:19 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MwnJqyT0u8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgcZUIc3oks&mode=related&search=
Title: Re: FDA-approved Implanted Microchip for Humans
Post by: Shall We Dance on August 03, 2007, 06:42:21 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MwnJqyT0u8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgcZUIc3oks&mode=related&search=


;)
Title: Re: Roberts v. Epilepsy
Post by: refurbished sun on August 03, 2007, 08:01:50 PM

[...] Another expert believes it's too soon to say that Roberts has epilepsy. "There are a lot of different causes that can be responsible for a seizure other than epilepsy, and some of those are very hard to detect with a regular MRI. They require more sophisticated tests," said Dr. Isabelle Germano, a professor of neurosurgery at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City. Germano agreed that two seizures are, by definition, epilepsy. "But, usually in the adult population, we don't see a 14-year interval between seizures," she said. "The delayed interval might make it something else."

[...]


He suffers a generalized tonic-clonic drop seizure and they're saying he may not have epilepsy?! St. George Ambulance responded because he had fallen 5-10 ft. and landed on a dock, hitting the back of his head. He was ashen and was foaming at the mouth. The Supreme Court spokeswoman says Roberts was conscious the entire time, but she did not returned a telephone call to the MaineCostNow.


He may also be a case of psychogenic non-epileptic seizures, or in other words, hystero-epilepsy. Dostoevsky, for example, called himself an epileptic, and was regarded as such by other people, but this so-called epilepsy was only a symptom of his neurosis, better classified as hystero-epilepsy. Dostoevsky's attacks did not assume epileptic form until after his eighteenth year, when his father was murdered.

These seizures take many forms and particularly mimic epileptic seizures; they are distinguished from epilepsy only in that they are not associated with abnormal, rhythmic discharges of cortical neurons. The condition is not benign; people have broken bones, crashed automobiles, bitten off parts of their tongue, and even died from injuries sustained during non-epileptic seizures. An older term for these, pseudoseizures, should not be used. While it is correct that a non-epileptic seizure may resemble an epileptic seizure, pseudo can also connote "false, fraudulent, or pretending to be something that it is not." Non-epileptic seizures are not false, fraudulent, or produced under any sort of pretense.
Title: Re: Roberts v. Epilepsy
Post by: etc on August 03, 2007, 08:19:32 PM

TUESDAY, July 31 -- U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts walked out of a Maine hospital Tuesday morning with a clean bill of health, one day after suffering a seizure and falling on a dock near his summer home. But doctors interviewed were divided on whether the seizure -- the second one the 52-year-old jurist has suffered in 14 years -- is a sign that Roberts has epilepsy, a neurological condition that could require him to take anti-seizure medication to control the disorder. Roberts left Penobscot Bay Medical Center in Rockport shortly before noon after suffering what doctors described as an unexplained seizure near his vacation home in Port Clyde on Hupper Island. The doctors who examined him found no sign of a tumor, stroke or any other explanation for the episode. He plans to continue his summer vacation, Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg told the Associated Press. Roberts' first reported seizure occurred while playing golf in 1993.

Dr. Steven Pacia, chief of neurology at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City, said that, given this was Roberts' second seizure, it's "likely" that he has epilepsy. "It's the most likely thing based on what we know from what's been released," he said. Pacia noted that seizures can result from an inherited susceptibility that is trigged by such factors as a lack of sleep or stress. "It sounds to me he does have idiopathic generalized epilepsy syndrome, which means that he has susceptibility to seizures under certain circumstances," he said. Dr. Laura Kalayjian, an assistant professor of neurology and co-director of the Epilepsy Center at the University of Southern California, agreed that Roberts probably has epilepsy. "The definition of epilepsy is two unprovoked seizures," Kalayjian said. The likelihood of someone having a second seizure after a first one is about 30 percent, Kalayjian said. "Now Roberts' risk of having another seizure is greater than 50 percent," she said.

Even if Roberts has epilepsy, it shouldn't affect his work, Kalayjian said. "The majority of people with epilepsy you wouldn't know they had epilepsy," she said. "About 70% of people with epilepsy do fine; they hold high level jobs, they drive. It's only 30% of people that have uncontrolled seizures that need specialized epilepsy centers to get their seizures under control." Another expert believes it's too soon to say that Roberts has epilepsy. "There are a lot of different causes that can be responsible for a seizure other than epilepsy, and some of those are very hard to detect with a regular MRI. They require more sophisticated tests," said Dr. Isabelle Germano, a professor of neurosurgery at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City. Germano agreed that two seizures are, by definition, epilepsy. "But, usually in the adult population, we don't see a 14-year interval between seizures," she said. "The delayed interval might make it something else."

Whether or not he should be taking anti-seizure medication is something Roberts' doctors will have to evaluate, Kalayjian said. "His doctors should be trying to figure out if there were any triggers that caused the seizure," she said. Kalayjian noted that medications do provide some protection by raising the seizure threshold. "It would give him [Roberts] an extra level of protection, especially if he is going to be driving or doing other activities," she said. But, anti-seizure medications aren't without side effects, Kalayjian said, including dizziness and sleepiness. Seizures can last a few seconds to a few minutes. The symptoms can vary -- from convulsions and loss of consciousness to some that are not always recognized as seizures by the person experiencing them or by health care professionals: blank staring, lip smacking, or jerking movements of arms and legs.


It's all evident by now that we're gonna have an ersatz Chief of Justice ... it's crucial that Bush gets rid of him ASAP.


Exactly! If two seizures have occurred close together, there is an up to 80% likelihood that there will be a third, and an almost 100% likelihood that medication will be started. In Roberts' case, a careful look at the EEG, a read-out of his brain wave activity, could help; any abnormalities in the EEG increase the likelihood of another seizure and would argue for starting drug treatment. There are more than 20 anti-seizure medications from which Roberts and his physicians can now chose; some work to corral the hyperactivity in one area of the brain, while others prevent the electrical anomalies from occurring to begin with. All have to be taken daily, but have side effects. Drowsy, dizzy, heavily sedated as he'll be from now on, he just can't continue to be CJ.
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: fervid on August 03, 2007, 08:33:09 PM
I hope elipepsy doesn't kill him, but lays him just low enough to linger until we have a Democratic president take office in '09, THEN he takes his well-deserved dirt nap. Roberts is an evil, corrupt, ruthless tool of corporate America and people like him will stop at nothing to grant their masters all kinds of legal goodies via the Supreme Court at the expense of average working Americans. This bastard is helping to build the new Fascist America that we all are currently living in. Wake up people! I hope they get everything coming to them, and moreso.

Roberts is a joke as a Supreme Court Justice, let alone Chief Justice. Frankly, I'd rather see that fat prick, Scalia, bite the big one, but we're not that lucky. Hey, maybe a bunch of those self-important cretins will die prematurely when the Democratic president takes office in 09. Just saying what everyone's thinking. Remember who the enemy is.
Title: Re: Roberts v. Epilepsy
Post by: usr on August 04, 2007, 03:30:25 PM

These seizures take many forms and particularly mimic epileptic seizures; they are distinguished from epilepsy only in that they are not associated with abnormal, rhythmic discharges of cortical neurons. The condition is not benign; people have broken bones, crashed automobiles, bitten off parts of their tongue, and even died from injuries sustained during non-epileptic seizures. An older term for these, pseudoseizures, should not be used. While it is correct that a non-epileptic seizure may resemble an epileptic seizure, pseudo can also connote "false, fraudulent, or pretending to be something that it is not." Non-epileptic seizures are not false, fraudulent, or produced under any sort of pretense.


So basically his seizures would have no organic cause, occuring only in the presence of others (never at sleep) with him never really hurting himself or having any attacks of urinary incontinence, faking it all the way?
Title: Re: Roberts v. Epilepsy
Post by: g o r g e on August 06, 2007, 12:19:39 AM

It's all evident by now that we're gonna have an ersatz Chief of Justice ... it's crucial that Bush gets rid of him ASAP.


Not really! There have always been people with epilepsy. Ancient people thought epileptic seizures were caused by evil spirits or demons that had invaded a person's body. Priests attempted to cure people with epilepsy by driving the demons out of them with magic and prayers. This superstition was challenged by ancient physicians like Atreya of India and later Hippocrates of Greece, both of whom recognized a seizure as a dysfunction of the brain and not a supernatural event. Nevertheless, the superstitious interpretation of epilepsy persisted for centuries. Attitudes of past societies toward epilepsy have left a legacy of stigma and damaging misconceptions which still persist today, as people with epilepsy continue to face fear, prejudice and discrimination in their everyday lives.

On the other hand, epileptic seizures have a power and symbolism which, historically, have suggested a relationship with creativity or unusual leadership abilities. Scholars have long been fascinated by evidence that prominent prophets and other holy men, political leaders, philosophers, and many who achieved greatness in the arts and sciences, suffered from epilepsy. Aristotle was apparently the first to connect epilepsy and genius. His catalogue of "great epileptics" (which included Socrates) was added to during the Renaissance. Only people from Western culture were included, however. So strong was this tradition that even in the nineteenth century, when new names of "great epileptics" were added, they were rarely chosen from among people in other parts of the world. Working from this biased historical legacy, the famous people with epilepsy that we know about are primarily white males.

Some of the most famous people in history had seizures. People with epilepsy have excelled in every area. What follows is a list of people who are responsible for changing civilization as we know it, all of whom are strongly suspected or known to have had epilepsy. It's an impressive group.

The list of famous authors and playwrights whom historians believe had epilepsy is overwhelming. It includes: Dante, the author of The Divine Comedy, who is not only Italy's pre-eminent poet but one of the towering figures of Western literature; Moliere, the master comic dramatist of the eighteenth century whose plays Tartuffe, The Imaginary Invalid and The Misanthrope are still being regularly performed today; Sir Walter Scott, one of the foremost literary figures of the romantic period whose books like Ivanhoe and Waverley remain widely read classics; the 18th century English satirist Jonathan Swift, author of Gulliver's Travels; the nineteenth century American author Edgar Allan Poe; as well as three of the greatest English Romantic poets, Lord Byron, Percy Bysshe Shelley, and Alfred Lord Tennyson.

Tennyson's "waking trances" began in adolescence, and as a young man he was diagnosed with epilepsy, which ran in the Tennyson family. British doctors of that era were reluctant to report epilepsy in respected families because they thought seizures arose from the genitals and masturbation was the cause of epilepsy! In fact, up until the nineteenth century, one of the extreme approaches to epilepsy was castration for men or clitoridectomy for women, which were thought to work by ending masturbation. Tennyson's doctor recommended European spas where the poet's epilepsy 'treatment' consisted of drinking large amounts of water, walking long distances in bad weather, and being submersed, wrapped in sheets, into cold baths.

Charles Dickens, the Victorian author of such classic books as A Christmas Carol and Oliver Twist had epilepsy, as did several of the characters in his books. The medical accuracy of Dickens's descriptions of epilepsy has amazed the doctors who read him today. Lewis Carroll, in his famous stories Alice's Adventures in Wonderland and Through the Looking-Glass, was probably writing about his own temporal lobe seizures. The very sensation initiating Alice' adventures -- that of falling down a hole -- is a familiar one to many people with seizures. Alice often feels that her own body (or the objects around her) is shrinking or growing before her eyes, another seizure symptom. Carroll recorded his seizures, which were followed by prolonged headaches and feeling not his usual self, in his journal.

From his writings we know a lot about the epilepsy of the great Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky, author of such classics as Crime and Punishment and The Brothers Karamazov, who is considered by many to have brought the Western novel to the peak of its possibilities. Dostoevsky had his first seizure at age nine. After a remission which lasted up to age 25, he had seizures every few days or months, fluctuating between good and bad periods. His ecstatic auras occurring seconds before his bigger seizures were moments of transcendent happiness, which then changed to an anguished feeling of dread. He saw a blinding flash of light, then would cry out and lose consciousness for a second or two. Sometimes the epileptic discharge generalized across his brain, producing a secondary tonic-clonic (grand mal) seizure. Afterward he could not recall events and conversations that had occurred during the seizure, and he often felt depressed, guilty and irritable for days. Epilepsy is a central source of themes, personalities, and events in his books; he gave epilepsy to about 30 of his characters.

The other great nineteenth century Russian author, Count Leo Tolstoy, author of Anna Karenina and War and Peace, also had epilepsy. Modern doctors have diagnosed Gustave Flaubert, the nineteenth century French literary genius who wrote such masterpieces as Madame Bovary and A Sentimental Education, with "complex partial epilepsy of occipital-temporal origin, secondary to lesion of the left posterior hemisphere with occasional secondary generalization of seizures." Flaubert's typical seizure began with a feeling of impending doom, after which he felt his sense of self grow insecure, as if he had been transported into another dimension. He wrote that his seizures arrived as "a whirlpool of ideas and images in my poor brain, during which it seemed that my consciousness, that my me sank like a vessel in a storm." He moaned, had a rush of memories, saw fiery hallucinations, foamed at the mouth, moved his right arm automatically, fell into a trance of about ten minutes, and vomited. His father, a doctor, ordered him to take regular bleedings with leeches. Flaubert abandoned these useless treatments and resigned himself to live with his epilepsy. Flaubert gave features of these seizures (none described as epilepsy) to various characters, including the heroine of Madame Bovary, who falls into a stupor while crossing a field, and the title character in his book The Temptation of St. Anthony.
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: g o r g e on August 06, 2007, 12:21:02 AM
Alexander the Great, King of Macedonia about 2,300 years ago and one of the greatest generals in history, had epilepsy. At the time epilepsy was known as "the sacred disease" because of the belief that those who had seizures were possessed by evil spirits or touched by the gods and should be treated by invoking mystical powers. Julius Caesar, another brilliant general and formidable politician, had seizures in the last two years of his life, possibly caused by a brain tumour. Caesar was known to have fallen convulsing into the River Tiber. By this time, epilepsy had become known as "the falling sickness" because the kind of seizures that made a person lose consciousness and fall down were the only kind then recognized as epilepsy. (Complex partial seizures were not recognized until the middle of the nineteenth century.) Human blood was widely regarded by the Romans as having curative powers, and people with epilepsy in Caesar's time were commonly seen sucking blood from fallen gladiators. Napoleon Bonaparte was probably the most brilliant military figure in history. He too is known to have had epilepsy. Another extraordinary leader of a very different time and place was Harriet Tubman, the black woman with epilepsy who led hundreds of her fellow slaves from the American South to freedom in Canada on the Underground Railroad. Tubman developed her seizure disorder through sustaining a head injury: her slave master hit her in the head with a rock.

Joan of Arc was an uneducated farmer's daughter in a remote village of medieval France who altered the course of history through her amazing military victories. From age thirteen Joan reported ecstatic moments in which she saw flashes of light coming from the side, heard voices of saints and saw visions of angels. In the opinion of the neurologist Dr. Lydia Bayne, Joan's blissful experiences "in which she felt that the secrets of the universe were about to be revealed to her" -- were seizures, and they were triggered by the ringing of church bells. Joan displayed symptoms of a temporal lobe focus epilepsy: specifically, a musicogenic form of reflex epilepsy with an ecstatic aura. Musicogenic epilepsy is generally triggered by particular music which has an emotional significance to the individual. Joan's voices and visions propelled her to become an heroic soldier in the effort to save France from English domination and led to her martyrdom in 1431, burned at the stake as a heretic when she was 19 years old. Soren Kierkegaard, the brilliant Danish philosopher and religious thinker considered to be the father of existentialism, worked hard at keeping his epilepsy secret.

In the fine arts, Vincent van Gogh is today probably the most widely known and appreciated artist with epilepsy. "The storm within" was how van Gogh described his typical seizure, which consisted of hallucinations, unprovoked feelings of anger, confusion and fear, and floods of early memories that disturbed him because they were outside his control. Van Gogh also had convulsive seizures; a hospital worker witnessed Vincent having one while painting outside. He was prescribed potassium bromide as an anticonvulsant and ordered to spend countless hours bathing in tubs at the asylum in Saint-Remy. His most troubling seizures peaked with his greatest art in the south of France, where he painted A Starry Night, the extraordinary Self-Portrait, and the famous Crows in the Wheatfields. There have been a number of prominent composers and musicians with epilepsy. George Frederick Handel, the famous baroque composer of the Messiah, is one. Niccolo Paganini is another. Paganini was an Italian violinist and composer considered by many to be the greatest violinist of all time. The eminent Russian composer of the ballets Sleeping Beauty and The Nutcracker, Peter Tchaikovsky, is believed to have had epilepsy. Ludwig van Beethoven, one of the greatest masters of music, may have had epilepsy as well.
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: aflciu on August 07, 2007, 04:06:28 PM

[...]Napoleon Bonaparte was probably the most brilliant military figure in history. He too is known to have had epilepsy. [...]


Napoleon Bonoparte does not really qualify as a "genius" -- while known to have had an IQ of 145, his adjusted IQ with Flynn Effect is only 123.
Title: Re: Roberts v. Epilepsy
Post by: Elaine Cho on August 07, 2007, 06:59:24 PM

[...]

From his writings we know a lot about the epilepsy of the great Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky, author of such classics as Crime and Punishment and The Brothers Karamazov, who is considered by many to have brought the Western novel to the peak of its possibilities. Dostoevsky had his first seizure at age 9. After a remission which lasted up to age 25, he had seizures every few days or months, fluctuating between good and bad periods. His ecstatic auras occurring seconds before his bigger seizures were moments of transcendent happiness, which then changed to an anguished feeling of dread. He saw a blinding flash of light, then would cry out and lose consciousness for a second or two. Sometimes the epileptic discharge generalized across his brain, producing a secondary tonic-clonic (grand mal) seizure. [...]


So basically his remission lasted 16 years, just like Roberts' ?
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: Ibrow on August 09, 2007, 03:32:36 AM
1. Despite being handsome, brilliant, rich, and nice -- in other words, prime marriage material -- Judge Roberts didn't get married until the relatively late age of 41.

2. With all due respect to the perfectly attractive Mrs. Jane Sullivan Roberts, some readers have commented that the #5 Superhottie of the Federal Judiciary could have "married someone hotter." According to a correspondent who used to work at Hogan & Hartson, Judge Roberts's former law firm, "many of the older [Hogan] attys are married to good-looking 20-somethings after having dumped their first wives."

3. Judge and Mrs. Roberts have adopted rather than biological children. (The "theory" behind this fact, it seems, is that we therefore have no "proof" of the consummation of the Roberts' marriage.)

4. Judge Roberts has associated with gay people in the past:

(a) As everyone knows by now, he did pro bono work on behalf of gay rights activists, helping out colleagues in their preparation of court filings and oral argument in Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996).

(b) While Judge Roberts was at Harvard, his pre-law advisor was William LaPiana, a law professor at New York Law School and an openly gay man.

(c) One reader commented that "Roberts has had at least one gay (male) clerk while sitting on the D.C. Cir. I suspect at least one other clerk as well." It appears that Judge Roberts may have had one gay clerk.

5. Finally, in terms of evidence of gayness, let's not leave out the notorious plaid pants.

So there's certainly some grist for the "Judge Roberts is gay" rumor mill in his past. New York Times threw more fuel on the fire, in the form of a rather interesting article about Judge Roberts's time at Harvard and what it was like to be a campus conservative there during the 1970's. There are two noteworthy aspects of this article from the "John Roberts Is Gay" point of view. First, check out the provocative third paragraph -- surprisingly high placement, essentially part of the lede -- of Janny Scott's piece:

Quote

"Conservatives were like the queers on campus," said Eric Rofes, a classmate of Judge Roberts who later became an organizer on gay issues. "People made fun of them. They mocked them and saw them as jokers or losers. I don't think in the moment many people realized this was the start of an ascending movement. People felt it was like the last cry of the 1950's."


Second, directly to the left of the foregoing paragraph in the online version of the article is a photograph (courtesy Don Scherer) showing Judge Roberts hanging out on Martha's Vineyard with two handsome male friends, Don Scherer and Richard Lazarus. Call Article Three Groupie crazy -- you wouldn't be the first -- but the picture strikes her as pretty "gay-looking."

(http://underneaththeirrobes.blogs.com/main/images/roberts_scherer_lazarus_1.jpg)
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: K a r i on August 10, 2007, 02:36:24 AM

These seizures take many forms and particularly mimic epileptic seizures; they are distinguished from epilepsy only in that they are not associated with abnormal, rhythmic discharges of cortical neurons. The condition is not benign; people have broken bones, crashed automobiles, bitten off parts of their tongue, and even died from injuries sustained during non-epileptic seizures. An older term for these, pseudoseizures, should not be used. While it is correct that a non-epileptic seizure may resemble an epileptic seizure, pseudo can also connote "false, fraudulent, or pretending to be something that it is not." Non-epileptic seizures are not false, fraudulent, or produced under any sort of pretense.


So basically his seizures would have no organic cause, occuring only in the presence of others (never at sleep) with him never really hurting himself or having any attacks of urinary incontinence, faking it all the way?


That's not the poster you quoted suggested. You have genuine epileptics, hystero-epileptics, and epileptic fakers.
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: aver on August 10, 2007, 10:15:37 PM

1. Despite being handsome, brilliant, rich, and nice -- in other words, prime marriage material -- Judge Roberts didn't get married until the relatively late age of 41.

2. With all due respect to the perfectly attractive Mrs. Jane Sullivan Roberts, some readers have commented that the #5 Superhottie of the Federal Judiciary could have "married someone hotter." According to a correspondent who used to work at Hogan & Hartson, Judge Roberts's former law firm, "many of the older [Hogan] attys are married to good-looking 20-somethings after having dumped their first wives."

3. Judge and Mrs. Roberts have adopted rather than biological children. (The "theory" behind this fact, it seems, is that we therefore have no "proof" of the consummation of the Roberts' marriage.)

4. Judge Roberts has associated with gay people in the past:

(a) As everyone knows by now, he did pro bono work on behalf of gay rights activists, helping out colleagues in their preparation of court filings and oral argument in Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620 (1996).

(b) While Judge Roberts was at Harvard, his pre-law advisor was William LaPiana, a law professor at New York Law School and an openly gay man.

(c) One reader commented that "Roberts has had at least one gay (male) clerk while sitting on the D.C. Cir. I suspect at least one other clerk as well." It appears that Judge Roberts may have had one gay clerk.

5. Finally, in terms of evidence of gayness, let's not leave out the notorious plaid pants.

So there's certainly some grist for the "Judge Roberts is gay" rumor mill in his past. New York Times threw more fuel on the fire, in the form of a rather interesting article about Judge Roberts's time at Harvard and what it was like to be a campus conservative there during the 1970's. There are two noteworthy aspects of this article from the "John Roberts Is Gay" point of view. First, check out the provocative third paragraph -- surprisingly high placement, essentially part of the lede -- of Janny Scott's piece:

Quote

"Conservatives were like the queers on campus," said Eric Rofes, a classmate of Judge Roberts who later became an organizer on gay issues. "People made fun of them. They mocked them and saw them as jokers or losers. I don't think in the moment many people realized this was the start of an ascending movement. People felt it was like the last cry of the 1950's."


Second, directly to the left of the foregoing paragraph in the online version of the article is a photograph (courtesy Don Scherer) showing Judge Roberts hanging out on Martha's Vineyard with two handsome male friends, Don Scherer and Richard Lazarus. Call Article Three Groupie crazy -- you wouldn't be the first -- but the picture strikes her as pretty "gay-looking."

(http://underneaththeirrobes.blogs.com/main/images/roberts_scherer_lazarus_1.jpg)


Intriguing argument!
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: imbroglio on August 13, 2007, 06:13:47 AM

3. Judge and Mrs. Roberts have adopted rather than biological children.


Maybe he's just sterile! Or she's infertile!
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: tytyty on August 14, 2007, 06:42:15 AM

A woman told her physician that her husband had developed a penchant for anal sex, and she wasn't sure that it was a good idea.
The doctor asked: "Do you enjoy it?"
She said that she loves it.
He asked: "Does it hurt?"
She said that it feels wonderful.
The doctor then told her: "Well, then there's no reason that you shouldn't have anal sex, just take care not to get pregnant."
The surprised woman asked: "You can get pregnant from anal sex?"
The doctor replied: "Sure. Where do you think lawyers come from."


One day a young lawyer and his wife were in their bedroom making love. All of a sudden a bumble bee entered the bedroom window. As the young lady parted her legs the bee entered her vagina. The woman started screaming "Oh my god, help me, there's a bee in my vagina!" The lawyer immediately took her to the local doctor and explained the situation.

The doctor thought for a moment and said "Hmm, tricky situation. But I have a solution to the problem if young sir would permit." The husband being very concerned agreed that the doctor could use whatever method to get the bee out of his wife's vagina. The doctor said "OK, what I'm gonna do is rub some honey over the top of my penis and insert it into your wife's vagina. When I feel the bee getting closer to the tip of my penis I shall withdraw it and the bee should hopefully follow my penis out of your wife's vagina. The husband nodded and gave his approval. The young lady said "Yes, Yes, whatever, just get on with it."

So the doctor, after covering the tip of his penis with honey, inserted it into the young lady's vagina. After a few gentle strokes, the doctor said, "I don't think the bee has noticed the honey yet. Perhaps I should go a bit deeper." So the doctor went deeper and deeper. After a while the doctor began shafting the young lady very hard indeed.

The young lady began to quiver with excitement. She began to moan and groan aloud. The doctor, concentrating very hard, looked like he was enjoying himself, he then put his hands on the young lady's breasts and started making loud noises. The lawyer at this point suddenly became very annoyed and shouted, "Now wait a minute! What the Hell do you think you're doing?" The doctor, still concentrating, replied, "Change of plan. I'm gonna drown the bastard!"
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: deja vu on August 15, 2007, 06:04:18 PM

(http://underneaththeirrobes.blogs.com/main/images/roberts_scherer_lazarus_1.jpg)


I can not believe that a rather good-looking guy like Roberts is a conservative!
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: affable on August 16, 2007, 06:06:50 AM
Uh, there's nothing strange about it, deja vu, you've so many good-looking lawyers out there whom you'd want to send them to Cuba for being incorrigible racist, sexist pricks!
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: brindled on August 16, 2007, 08:23:58 AM

The modern lawyer is haunted not by guilt but by anxiety. He seeks not to inflict his own certainties on others but to find a meaning in life. Liberated from the superstitions of the past, he doubts even the reality of his own existence ... His sexual attitudes are permissive rather than puritanical, even though his emancipation from ancient taboos brings him no sexual peace.

Fiercely competitive in his demand for approval and acclaim, he distrusts competition because he associates it unconsciously with an unbridled urge to destroy ... He (harbours) deeply antisocial impulses. He praises respect for rules and regulations in the secret belief that they do not apply to himself. Acquisitive in the sense that his cravings have no limits, he ... demands immediate gratification and lives in a state of restless, perpetually unsatisfied desire.

The lawyers' pronounced lack of empathy, off-handed exploitativeness, grandiose fantasies and uncompromising sense of entitlement make him treat all people as though they were objects (he "objectifies" people). He regards others as either useful conduits for and sources of narcissistic supply (attention, adulation, etc.) -- or as extensions of himself. Similarly, serial killers often mutilate their victims and abscond with trophies -- usually, body parts. Some of them have been known to eat the organs they have ripped -- an act of merging with the dead and assimilating them through digestion. They treat their victims as some children do their rag dolls.

Killing the victim -- often capturing him or her on film before the murder -- is a form of exerting unmitigated, absolute, and irreversible control over it. The serial killer aspires to "freeze time" in the still perfection that he has choreographed. The victim is motionless and defenseless. The killer attains long sought "object permanence". The victim is unlikely to run on the serial assassin, or vanish as earlier objects in the killer's life (e.g., his parents) have done.


So basically need to control is the keyword here ??
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: abstemious on August 17, 2007, 06:15:16 AM
Apparently!
Title: Re: Experts Split on Whether Chief Justice Roberts Has Epilepsy
Post by: cynosure on August 19, 2007, 12:21:59 AM

"There are a lot of different causes that can be responsible for a seizure other than epilepsy, and some of those are very hard to detect with a regular MRI. They require more sophisticated tests," said Dr. Isabelle Germano, a professor of neurosurgery at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City. Germano agreed that two seizures are, by definition, epilepsy. "But, usually in the adult population, we don't see a 14-year interval between seizures," she said. "The delayed interval might make it something else."


That's something to look into.
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: defile on August 19, 2007, 12:51:28 AM

The modern lawyer is haunted not by guilt but by anxiety. He seeks not to inflict his own certainties on others but to find a meaning in life. Liberated from the superstitions of the past, he doubts even the reality of his own existence ... His sexual attitudes are permissive rather than puritanical, even though his emancipation from ancient taboos brings him no sexual peace.

Fiercely competitive in his demand for approval and acclaim, he distrusts competition because he associates it unconsciously with an unbridled urge to destroy ... He (harbours) deeply antisocial impulses. He praises respect for rules and regulations in the secret belief that they do not apply to himself. Acquisitive in the sense that his cravings have no limits, he ... demands immediate gratification and lives in a state of restless, perpetually unsatisfied desire.

The lawyers' pronounced lack of empathy, off-handed exploitativeness, grandiose fantasies and uncompromising sense of entitlement make him treat all people as though they were objects (he "objectifies" people). He regards others as either useful conduits for and sources of narcissistic supply (attention, adulation, etc.) -- or as extensions of himself. Similarly, serial killers often mutilate their victims and abscond with trophies -- usually, body parts. Some of them have been known to eat the organs they have ripped -- an act of merging with the dead and assimilating them through digestion. They treat their victims as some children do their rag dolls.

Killing the victim -- often capturing him or her on film before the murder -- is a form of exerting unmitigated, absolute, and irreversible control over it. The serial killer aspires to "freeze time" in the still perfection that he has choreographed. The victim is motionless and defenseless. The killer attains long sought "object permanence". The victim is unlikely to run on the serial assassin, or vanish as earlier objects in the killer's life (e.g., his parents) have done.


This sounds more appropriate for serial killers than lawyers.. Are you sure it's lawyers you're talking about?
Title: Re: Experts Split on Whether Chief Justice Roberts Has Epilepsy
Post by: asperity on August 19, 2007, 06:27:34 PM

"There are a lot of different causes that can be responsible for a seizure other than epilepsy, and some of those are very hard to detect with a regular MRI. They require more sophisticated tests," said Dr. Isabelle Germano, a professor of neurosurgery at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City. Germano agreed that two seizures are, by definition, epilepsy. "But, usually in the adult population, we don't see a 14-year interval between seizures," she said. "The delayed interval might make it something else."


That's something to look into.


You mean the 14-yr interval ?
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: garnish on August 21, 2007, 05:02:23 AM
Of course, asperity, what else?!
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: dissipate on August 21, 2007, 07:21:14 PM

I hope elipepsy doesn't kill him, but lays him just low enough to linger until we have a Democratic president take office in '09, THEN he takes his well-deserved dirt nap. Roberts is an evil, corrupt, ruthless tool of corporate America and people like him will stop at nothing to grant their masters all kinds of legal goodies via the Supreme Court at the expense of average working Americans. This bastard is helping to build the new Fascist America that we all are currently living in. Wake up people! I hope they get everything coming to them, and moreso.

Roberts is a joke as a Supreme Court Justice, let alone Chief Justice. Frankly, I'd rather see that fat prick, Scalia, bite the big one, but we're not that lucky. Hey, maybe a bunch of those self-important cretins will die prematurely when the Democratic president takes office in 09. Just saying what everyone's thinking. Remember who the enemy is.


If only the solution could be a Democratic president!
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: moelaw on August 26, 2007, 08:17:48 PM

Synchronicity is the experience of two or more events which occur in a meaningful manner, but which are causally inexplicable to the person or persons experiencing them. The events would also have to suggest some underlying pattern in order to satisfy the definition of synchronicity as originally developed by Jung who coined the word to describe what he called "temporally coincident occurrences of acausal events." Jung variously described synchronicity as an "acausal connecting principle" (i.e. a pattern of connection that cannot be explained by direct causality), "meaningful coincidence" and "acausal parallelism".

It differs from mere coincidence in that synchronicity implies not just a happenstance, but an underlying pattern or dynamic expressed through meaningful relationships or events. Jung believed that many experiences perceived as coincidence were due not merely to chance, but instead, suggested the manifestation of parallel events or circumstances reflecting this governing dynamic.


(http://img361.imageshack.us/img361/4684/movgearslargewa2.gif)
The Law of Attraction and Manifestation

Synchronicities are patterns that repeat in time. The word synchronicity references the gears or wheels of time, though the actual concept of synchronicity cannot be scientifically proven. One can only record synchronicities as they occur and watch the patterns of behavior that create them. The concept of synchronicity is currently linked more to metaphysics, yet physics (quantum physics) and metaphysics are merging, thus showing their interconnection and how we manifest synchronicities in our lives. We have all heard the expression, "There are no accidents." This is true. All that we experience is by design, and what we attract to our physical world. There are no accidents just synchronicity wheels, the wheels of time or karma, wheels within wheels, sacred geometry, the evolution of consciousness in the alchemy of time.

Jung maintained that synchronicities are meaningful coincidences. Temporally coincident occurrences of acausal events. It was a principle that he felt compassed his concept of the collective unconscious, in that it was descriptive of a governing dynamic that underlay the whole of human experience and history, social, emotional, psychological, and spiritual. Jung believed that many experiences perceived as coincidence were due not merely to chance, but instead potentially reflected the manifestation of coincident events or circumstances consequent to this governing dynamic. Jung spoke of synchronicity as being an "acausal connecting principle" (ie. a pattern of connection that is not explained by causality). Jung believed the traditional notions of causality were incapable of explaining some of the more improbable forms of coincidence. Where it is plain, felt Jung, that no causal connection can be demonstrated between two events, but where a meaningful relationship nevertheless exists between them, a wholly different type of principle is likely to be operating. Jung called this principle "synchronicity."

In The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche, Jung describes how, during his research into the phenomenon of the collective unconscious, he began to observe coincidences that were connected in such a meaningful way that their occurrence seemed to defy the calculations of probability. He provided numerous examples from his own psychiatric case-studies, many now legendary.

Quote
"A young woman I was treating had, at a critical moment, a dream in which she was given a golden scarab. While she was telling me her dream, I sat with my back to the closed window. Suddenly I heard a noise behind me, like a gentle tapping. I turned round and saw a flying insect knocking against the window-pane from outside. I opened the window and caught the creature in the air as it flew in. It was the nearest analogy to the golden scarab that one finds in our latitudes, a scarabaeid beetle, the common rose-chafer (Cetoaia urata) which contrary to its usual habits had evidently felt an urge to get into a dark room at this particular moment. I must admit that nothing like it ever happened to me before or since, and that the dream of the patient has remained unique in my experience." The Scarab represented Self-Generation, Resurrection and Renewal.

Who then, might we say, was responsible for the synchronous arrival of the beetle, Jung or the patient? While on the surface reasonable, such a question presupposes a chain of causality Jung claimed was absent from such experience. As psychoanalyst Nandor Fodor has observed, the scarab, by Jung's view, had no determinable cause, but instead complemented the "impossibility" of the analysis. The disturbance also (as synchronicities often do) prefigured a profound transformation. For, as Fodor observes, Jung's patient had--until the appearance of the beetle -- shown excessive rationality, remaining psychologically inaccessible. Once presented with the scarab, however, she improved. Because Jung believed the phenomenon of synchronicity was primarily connected with psychic conditions, he felt that such couplings of inner (subjective) and outer (objective) reality evolved through the influence of the archetypes, patterns inherent in the human psyche and shared by all of mankind. These patterns, or "primordial images," as Jung sometimes refers to them, comprise man's collective unconscious, representing the dynamic source of all human confrontation with death, conflict, love, sex, rebirth and mystical experience. When an archetype is activated by an emotionally charged event (such as a tragedy), says Jung, other related events tend to draw near. In this way the archetypes become a doorway that provide us access to the experience of meaningful (and often insightful) coincidence.

Implicit in Jung's concept of synchronicity is the belief in the ultimate "oneness" of the universe. As Jung expressed it, such phenomenon betrays a "peculiar interdependence of objective elements among themselves as well as with the subjective (psychic) states of the observer or observers." Jung claimed to have found evidence of this interdependence, not only in his psychiatric studies, but in his research of esoteric practices as well. Of the I Ching, a Chinese method of divination which Jung regarded as the clearest expression of the synchronicity principle, he wrote:

Quote
"The Chinese mind, as I see it at work in the I Ching, seems to be exclusively preoccupied with the chance aspect of events. What we call coincidence seems to be the chief concern of this peculiar mind, and what we worship as causality passes almost unnoticed...While the Western mind carefully sifts, weighs, selects, classifies, isolates, the Chinese picture of the moment encompasses everything down to the minutes nonsensical detail, because all of the ingredients make up the observed moment."

Jung discovered the synchronicity within the I Ching also extended to astrology. In a letter to Freud dated June 12, 1911, he wrote:

Quote
"My evenings are taken up largely with astrology. I make horoscopic calculations in order to find a clue to the core of psychological truth. Some remarkable things have turned up which will certainly appear incredible to you...I dare say that we shall one day discover in astrology a good deal of knowledge that has been intuitively projected into the heavens."

In formulating his synchronicity principle, Jung was influenced to a profound degree by the "new" physics of the twentieth century, which had begun to explore the possible role of consciousness in the physical world. In 1945 Jung wrote

Quote
Physics has demonstrated that in the realm of atomic magnitudes objective reality presupposes an observer, and that only on this condition is a satisfactory scheme of explanation possible. This means, that a subjective element attaches to the physicist's world picture, and secondly that a connection necessarily exists between the psyche to be explained and the objective space-time continuum. These discoveries not only help loosen physics from the iron grip of its materialistic world, but confirmed what I recognized intuitively that matter and consciousness, far from operating independently of each other are, in fact, interconnected in an essential way, functioning as complementary aspects of a unified reality.

The belief suggested by quantum theory and by reports of synchronous events that matter and consciousness interact, is far from new. Synchronicity reveals the meaningful connections between the subjective and objective world. Synchronistic events provide an immediate religious experience as a direct encounter with the compensatory patterning of events in nature as a whole, both inwardly and outwardly.
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: moelaw on August 26, 2007, 08:18:57 PM
Jung's Model

All synchronistic phenomena can be grouped under three categories:

1. The coincidence of a psychic state in the observer with a simultaneous objective, external event that corresponds to the psychic state or content, (e.g. the scarab), where there is no evidence of a causal connection between the psychic state and the external event, and where, considering the psychic relativity of space and time, such a connection is not even conceivable.

2. The coincidence of a psychic state with a corresponding (more or less simultaneous) external even taking place outside the observer's field of perception, i.e. at a distance, and only verifiable afterward.

3. The coincidence of a psychic state with a corresponding, not yet existent future event that is distant in time and can likewise only be verified afterward.

Two Fundamental Types of Synchronicity

1. One in which the compensatory activity of the archetype is experienced both inwardly and outwardly. [the event seems to emerge from the subconscious with access to absolute knowledge, which cannot be consciously known]

2. One in which the compensatory activity of the archetype is experienced outwardly only. [these convey to the ego a much-needed wholeness of the self's perspective, they show one a new perspective]


Essential Characteristics of the Synchronistic Event

1. The specific intrapsychic state of the subject defined as one of the following:

a) The unconscious content which, in accordance with the compensatory needs of the conscious orientation, enters consciousness [something is in our conscious]
b) The conscious orientation of the subject around which the compensatory synchronistic activity centers [something happens concerning what is in our mind]

2. An objective event corresponds with this intrapsychic state [may be literal or figurative correspondence]

a) The objective event as a compensatory equivalent to the unconscious compensatory content
b) The objective event as the sole compensatory of the ego-consciousness

3. Even though the intrapsychic state and the objective event may be synchronous according to clock time and spatially near to each other, the objective event may, contrary to this, be distant in time and/or space in relation to the intrapsychic state [as in telepathy, clairvoyance, etc.]

4. The intrapsychic state and the objective event are not causally related to each other [acausality]

5. The synchronistic event is meaningful [excludes some coincidence, but does not require the meaning to be understood]

a) The intrapsychic state and the objective event as meaningful parallels.

b) The numinous charge associated with the synchronistic experience [feeling of spiritual experience]

c) Import of the subjective-level interpretation [the content must reflect back on the issues of the individual]

d) The archetypal level of meaning [transcends the individual and implies absolute knowledge].
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: one hot summer night on August 27, 2007, 01:11:57 AM

[...] All that we experience is by design, and what we attract to our physical world. There are no accidents just synchronicity wheels, the wheels of time or karma, wheels within wheels, sacred geometry, the evolution of consciousness in the alchemy of time.


For Jung, alchemy was not the search for a way to transform lead into gold, but the transformation of the soul on its path to perfection. Jung's dreams in 1926 frequently found him in ancient places surrounded by alchemical codices of great beauty and mystery. Jung amassed a library on the great art which represents one of the finest private collections in this field. In 1944 Jung published "Psychology and Alchemy" in which he argues for a reevaluation of the symbolism of Alchemy as being intimately related to the psychoanalytical process. Using a cycle of dreams of one of his patients he shows how the symbols used by the alchemists occur in the psyche as part of the reservoir of mythological images drawn upon by the individual in their dream states. Jung draws an analogy between the Great Work of the Alchemists and the process of reintegration and individuation of the psyche in the modern psychiatric patient.

Jung believed that the cosmos contained the divine light or life, but this essence was enmeshed in a mathematical trap, presided over by a demiurge, Lucifer, the Bringer of Light. Lucifer contained the light inside this reality, until a time when it would be set free. The first operation of alchemy therefore addressed itself to the dismemberment of this confining structure, reducing it to the condition of creative chaos. From this, in the process of transformation, the true, creative binaries emerge and begin their interaction designed to bring the alchemical union. In this ultimate union, says Jung, the previously confined light is redeemed and brought to the point of its ultimate and redemptive fulfillment. Jung made it clear that his theory was not new. It is similar to the Catharism and he stated that he was restating the Hermetic Gnosis and explaining the misunderstood central quest of alchemy. Jung believed that alchemy stood in a compensatory relationship to mainstream Christianity, rather like a dream does to the conscious attitudes of the dreamer. It has been has been hidden underground, part of a secret tradition that ran throughout Christianity, but always subconsciousness -- visible by its shadows and the traces it leaves. He also felt that this process allowed for better understanding of male-female relationships, and the concept of love. In the Psychology of Transference Jung stated that in love, as in psychological growth, the key to success is the ability to endure the tension of opposites without abandoning the process, even if its results appear to have been brought to naught. In essence, it is the stress that allows one to grow and transform.

The union of opposites, the focus of the alchemist, was for Jung also the focus of Gnostics, whom he felt had been incorrectly labeled as radical dualists, i.e. believing in the battle between good and evil without any apparent union possible between the two. For Jung, dualism and monism were not mutually contradictory and exclusive, but complimentary aspects of reality. As such, there was no right and wrong, no order or chaos, just two opposites, duality, polarities, that created a means to reconciliation and balance into enlightenment. In a maner of speaking one could call Carl Jung the Father if the New Age of Consciousness, giving a theoretical framework for channeling and other New Age practices that allow consciousness to expand outside the box of antiquated thinking. In the end, Carl Jung stated that such opposites must be integrated. Zoroaster calls this Zero Point.
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: sislaw on August 27, 2007, 04:57:09 AM

[...] Because Jung believed the phenomenon of synchronicity was primarily connected with psychic conditions, he felt that such couplings of inner (subjective) and outer (objective) reality evolved through the influence of the archetypes, patterns inherent in the human psyche and shared by all of mankind. These patterns, or "primordial images," as Jung sometimes refers to them, comprise man's collective unconscious, representing the dynamic source of all human confrontation with death, conflict, love, sex, rebirth and mystical experience. When an archetype is activated by an emotionally charged event (such as a tragedy), says Jung, other related events tend to draw near. In this way the archetypes become a doorway that provide us access to the experience of meaningful (and often insightful) coincidence. [...]

Archetypes are visual symbols or energetic imprints that exist in our psyches. Some are readily understood while others bring subliminal messages that are there to help you trigger your memory of why you are here and the truth behind the illusion of reality. Archetypes can often convey messages that verbal and written information cannot. Archetypes are found everywhere, as their symbols are a language of the mind, taken to different frequencies of thought and connected to each other by the collective unconsciousness. There are individual and universal archetypes. You become aware of them in meditation, dreamtime, remote viewing or other out-of-body experiences, when you doodle on a pad, crop circles or landscape art, other art forms, jewelry, hieroglyphs, a logo, on a billboard, anywhere at all. Archetypes can also be auditory, a tone, a series of notes, a harmonic. Reality is a series of metaphors set into motion by the synchronicity of archetypes we experience.

The term Archetype began with Jung. In Jung's terms, 'Archetype' is defined as the first original model of which all other similar persons, objects, or concepts are merely derivative, copied, patterned, or emulated. These patterns derive from a universal collective unconscious which in metaphysics is called the Grids, Akashic Records, Sea of Consciousness, that which creates our reality. In this context, archetypes are innate prototypes for ideas, which may subsequently become involved in the interpretation of observed phenomena. Master or Universal archetypes are created by the patterns of Sacred Geometry. The remainder are derivatives of these patterns.
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: wont on September 02, 2007, 11:02:59 PM
Well, George, life would be impossible without lies and myths and fairy tales! :)
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: germania on September 24, 2007, 01:26:03 AM

[...] In the "Psychology of Transference" Jung stated that in love, as in psychological growth, the key to success is the ability to endure the tension of opposites without abandoning the process, even if its results appear to have been brought to naught. In essence, it is the stress that allows one to grow and transform.


By 1913 Jung had extended Freud's definition, saying transference was also the basis for normal human relatedness. After breaking with Freud, he analyzed his own projections, resolved them to achieve emotional, intellectual, and spiritual/moral autonomy, and concurrently set forth the elements of his opus. A survey of early work shows recognition of counter-transference, the reciprocal arousal of unconscious content in the analyst in response to patient projections. In 1929 he stated his view that the personality of the analyst contributes to analytic process, and that transformation is mutual. He also observed instances of unconscious identity between doctor and patient, giving it the anthropological term participation mystique; later it was recognized by psychoanalysts and called projective identification. So convinced was Jung that this unconscious reciprocal influence distorted all analytic discourse that he drew upon another projective system, alchemy, in "Psychology of the Transference" (1946) to demonstrate the ubiquity of transference and to identify stages in its evolution and resolution.

For some students this represents an incomprehensible departure from rational scientific method. To appreciate its logic one must first accept the role of metaphor in psychological theory building and, second, understand Jung's theory of archetypes and his model of the psyche, which includes a personal and a collective unconscious. Although the concept of archetype has not been accepted by psychoanalysts, the idea has arisen independently in the fields of anthropology, linguistics, behavioral biology, and evolutional psychiatry. Briefly, the capacity to perceive certain forms and processes is inherent, and these ancient, typical potentials are released, to acquire specific psychological content when, in the course of development, the individual encounters external reality. The collective unconscious contains all realizable human potential.

The analytic process itself is unconsciously directed by the archetype of individuation, the impulse to grow in psychological depth and complexity, and is an inherent property of the self, the archetype that embraces and comprises all other archetypes. Transference thereby acquires a teleological dimension, the symbolic intent and meaning of which is revealed and experienced as analysis unfolds; this is its prospective aspect, in contrast to the regressive projection of unconscious material from infantile or other past experience. Jung recognized two universal, diametric archetypal urges in the individual psyche: to be separate, complete, and autonomous; and to be intimately bonded to the other, both coupled and enfolded in a group. These longings are primary motivating forces at the root of transference and resistance, constituting a fundamental paradox to be apprehended and resolved in individuation and analysis. Having this profound insight, he sought a metaphor to convey its universal, timeless, and impersonal meaning, to point analysands away from the average dependent/omnipotent transference fantasy. The mythology of medieval alchemy provided an unconscious projective system congenial enough to Western mentality to be accessible, but distant enough to reflect projections made in an analytic process that structures imaginative associations for the purpose of self examination. He chose a sixteenth-century treatise, the Rosarium Philosophorum, to reflect evolving transference/counter-transference fantasies in the analytic process.

All analytical psychologists view transference as a multileveled web of transecting relationships, interpersonal and intrapsychic, conscious and unconscious, occurring simultaneously within and between analyst and patient. Since the spiritual urge was regarded by Jung as an archetypal force equal to sexuality, his concept of transference extends into transpersonal realms. For some analytical psychologists this is the major thrust of Jungian theory, whereas others seek to correct theoretical and methodological gaps, (for example, in the areas of child development and transference) through links to the work of psychoanalysts whose constructions are compatible with Jung's basic concepts. Modern psychoanalytic theories of self, projective identification, mutuality, and intersubjectivity all have antecedents in work Jung completed before 1946.
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: V e r a on December 05, 2007, 02:43:39 PM

[...] Understandably Bobby had done such a things many times before for fun (a tingling sensation results).


It was a very funny scene when the prosecutor asked Amos to cover his finger in lubricant to demonstrate how little coke would Roberta be able to introduce into her female private part had she done what Amos said she did!
Title: Re: The more things change the more they are the same
Post by: aparka on February 27, 2008, 12:14:09 PM


-- Visionary

Contrary to popular opinion, serial killers are rarely insane or motivated by hallucinations and/or voices in their heads. Many claim to be, usually as a way of trying to get acquitted by reason of insanity [...]


Sorry, but visionary serial killers murder in response to voices, or visions urging them to kill. This type of killer is most usually classified as psychotic.

Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: bon gre mal gre on March 05, 2008, 09:31:31 AM
Awesome prime germania!
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: club foot on March 05, 2008, 12:20:47 PM

Napoleon Bonoparte does not really qualify as a "genius" -- while known to have had an IQ of 145, his adjusted IQ with Flynn Effect is only 123.


aflciu, what exactly is this "Flynn Effect"?
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: club foot on March 05, 2008, 12:42:11 PM
aflciu, what exactly is this Flynn Effect?
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: l o l a on March 06, 2008, 09:04:33 AM

aflciu, what exactly is this Flynn Effect?


Interesting username, clubfoot - it reminded me of Josef Goebbels, the notorious Nazi propaganda minister - he had a right club foot (possibly incurred after birth as a complication of osteomyelitis), a fact hidden from the German public by censorship. Because of this malformation, Goebbels needed to wear a leg brace. That, plus his short stature, led to his rejection for military service in World War I.
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: jensa on March 06, 2008, 12:41:28 PM

aflciu, what exactly is this Flynn Effect?


Interesting username, clubfoot - it reminded me of Josef Goebbels, the notorious Nazi propaganda minister - he had a right club foot (possibly incurred after birth as a complication of osteomyelitis), a fact hidden from the German public by censorship. Because of this malformation, Goebbels needed to wear a leg brace. That, plus his short stature, led to his rejection for military service in World War I.


A friend of mine gave birth to a clubfooted child -- they treated him immediately upon birth, within the first week of life (they manipulate to correct the condition and then cast to maintain the correction; casting begun at a later age may be more difficult due to the worsening ligamentous contracture and joint deformity). Long-leg plaster casts are used to maintain the corrections obtained through manipulations. Casts are changed at weekly intervals, and most deformities are corrected in 2-3 months. Before applying the last plaster cast, which is to be worn for 3 weeks, the Achilles tendon is often cut in an office procedure to complete the correction of the foot. By the time the cast is removed the tendon has regenerated to a proper length. After the last cast is removed, the foot should appear overcorrected.

(http://img225.imageshack.us/img225/7500/a00296f05ii1.jpg)

Despite successful initial treatment, clubfeet have a natural tendency to recur. Bracing is necessary for several years to prevent relapses. There are several different braces that are commonly prescribed. All braces consist of a bar (the length of which is the distance between the child's shoulders) with either shoes, sandals, or custom-made orthoses attached at the ends of the bar in about 70 degrees of external rotation. The bar can be either solid (both legs move together) or dynamic (each leg can move independently). The brace is worn 23 hours a day for 3 months and then at nighttime for 3-4 years. 
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: zan on March 07, 2008, 01:21:49 PM
jensa, when parents are faced with this disaster of seeing a baby born with clubfeet, they get to be very depressed.When they go to the doctor and are told that their baby must have surgery, they are sad. But when they can see that this deformity is nothing, that is a very easy thing to correct and the child is normal, they have hope. Extensive surgery does not "cure" clubfoot. It improves the appearance of the foot but diminishes the strength of the muscles in the foot and leg and causes stiffness in the second and third decade of life (if not earlier). This limits the motions of the foot joints, and the foot becomes often painful at midlife. Extensive surgery does not prevent the recurrence of the deformity in a number of cases. No followup studies of operated patients older than 16 years of age have been published to date; therefore, orthopaedic surgeons are ignorant of the results of their surgeries.
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: castrot on March 09, 2008, 03:49:16 PM

jensa, when parents are faced with this disaster of seeing a baby born with clubfeet, they get to be very depressed.When they go to the doctor and are told that their baby must have surgery, they are sad. But when they can see that this deformity is nothing, that is a very easy thing to correct and the child is normal, they have hope. Extensive surgery does not "cure" clubfoot. It improves the appearance of the foot but diminishes the strength of the muscles in the foot and leg and causes stiffness in the second and third decade of life (if not earlier). This limits the motions of the foot joints, and the foot becomes often painful at midlife. Extensive surgery does not prevent the recurrence of the deformity in a number of cases. No followup studies of operated patients older than 16 years of age have been published to date; therefore, orthopaedic surgeons are ignorant of the results of their surgeries.


Amen zan! An acquaintance of mine was unfortunate enough to contact a complete moron surgeon who was not aware of the wiring techniques for the lower cervical spine (Roger's technique, the Bohlman triple wire technique, Dewar technique, Robinson and Southwick facet wiring, and the oblique facet wiring). She was simply told, "Wiring won't work!" The only thing he knew in relation to the subject was the atlantoaxial arthrodesis performed for translational instability due to traumatic ligamentous disruption or fracture, inflammatory arthropathy, congenital abnormalities, etc (dorsal fusion can be accomplished by means of C1-2 wiring, transarticular screw fixation or interlaminar Halifax clamp technique. The Gallie and Brooks techniques have also been used for C1-2 wiring and fusion).

(http://aycu36.webshots.com/image/47515/2003076029957731895_fs.jpg)
Roger's technique

Well, another orthopaedic surgeon she contacted said dorsal cervical wiring is used in the subaxial cervical spine to stimulate the function of the dorsal ligaments by providing a tension band effect and by fixating bone graft or rods. The most common indication for these procedures is the treatment of distractive flexion injuries resulting in unilateral or bilateral facet disruption and dislocation. Biomechanical studies had suggested that dorsal fixation and fusion techniques were superior to ventral cervical plating. Most wiring techniques have evolved from the technique reported by Rogers. Roger's technique is a simple interspinous process wiring technique wherein the wire is passed around and through the bases of adjacent spinous processes with corticocancellous bone grafts laid under the wires bridging the interspace.

Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: scander on March 11, 2008, 04:36:35 PM
Don't get me started with surgeons! My brother-in-law visiting his parents here was trying to break a fall by putting his hand out in front of him -- the force of the fall traveled up his lower forearm bones and dislocated his elbow (it also broke his smaller bone in the forearm (radius) near the elbow at the radial "head"). Radial head fractures are common injuries, occurring in about 20% of all acute elbow injuries, with approximately 10% of all elbow dislocations involving a fracture of the radial head as well. As the humerus and ulna return to their normal alignment, a piece of the radial head bone could be chipped off (fractured). Now the problem with radius head fractures in case of improper treatment is, especially in children, that you have extreme difficulty in turning the forearm palm up to palm down or vice versa - pronation/supination. The stupid m u t h a @ # ! * i n g orthopedist removed his entire radial head, supposedly because it could not be fixed with pins/screws as it was broken in multiple pieces, when the radiologist had told him just minutes before that it was a Type II Fracture of the Radial Head (slightly displaced, involving a larger piece of bone).

When confronted by him this "doctor" said they do not remove the radial head no matter what only in children. Well, that was bull, since they are  in children -- fractures of radial head occur in adults, whereas in children it is the radial neck fractures that happen frequently. The radial neck is the area close to where one tendon of the biceps brachii muscle is inserted (on the posterior portion of the radial tuberosity).

(http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/2999/tuberositasradiiyo4.png)
Title: Re: The Secret Cube
Post by: satangrader on March 13, 2008, 05:33:17 PM
Play it here,

(http://sviweb.sccd.ctc.edu/dennisk/images_link/a41.jpg)

http://personal.ansir.com/cube.htm


Great site, sembrano, thanx!
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: Dundee on March 18, 2008, 10:35:55 AM
Awesome I'd say!
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: vignette on March 31, 2008, 04:21:49 PM

- Visionary

Contrary to popular opinion, serial killers are rarely insane or motivated by hallucinations and/or voices in their heads. Many claim to be, usually as a way of trying to get acquitted by reason of insanity. There are, however, a few genuine cases of serial killers who were compelled by such delusions. Herbert Mullin slaughtered 13 people after voices told him that murder was necessary to prevent California from suffering an earthquake. (Mullin went to great pains to point out that California did indeed avoid an earthquake during his murder spree.) Ed Gein claimed that by eating the corpses of women who looked like his deceased mother, he could preserve his mother's soul inside his body. He killed two women who bore passing resemblances to his mother, eating one and being apprehended while in the process of preparing the second woman's body for consumption. He also used the flesh of exhumed corpses to fashion a "woman suit" for himself so that he could "become" his mother, and carried on conversations with himself in a falsetto voice. After his arrest he was placed in a mental facility for the remainder of his life.

- Missionary

So-called missionary killers believe that their acts are justified on the basis that they are getting rid of a certain type of person (often prostitutes or members of a certain ethnic group), and thus doing society a favor. Gary Ridgway and Aileen Wuornos are often described as missionary killers. In Wuornos' case, the victims were not prostitutes, but their patrons. Missionary killers differ from other types of serial killer in that their motive is generally non-sexual. Arguably, Jack the Ripper also fits this role.

- Hedonistic

This type kills for the sheer pleasure of it, although what aspect they enjoy varies. Yang Xinhai's post capture statement is typical of such killers' attitudes: "When I killed people I had a desire [to kill more]. This inspired me to kill more. I don't care whether they deserve to live or not. It is none of my concern." Some killers may enjoy the actual "chase" of hunting down a victim more than anything, while others may be primarily motivated by the act of torturing and abusing the victim while they are alive. Yet others, like Jeffrey Dahmer, may kill the victim quickly, almost as if it were a chore, and then indulge in necrophilia or cannibalism with the body. Usually there is a strong sexual aspect to the crimes, even if it may not be immediately obvious, but some killers obtain a surge of excitement that is not necessarily sexual, such as Berkowitz, who got a thrill out of shooting young couples in cars at random and then running away without ever physically touching the victims.

- Gain motivated

Most criminals who commit multiple murders for material ends (such as mob hit men) are not classed as serial killers, because they are motivated by economic gain rather than psychopathological compulsion. There is a fine line separating such killers, however. For example, Marcel Petiot, who operated in Nazi-occupied France, could be classified as a serial killer. He posed as a member of the French Resistance and lured wealthy Jewish people to his home, claiming he could smuggle them out of the country. Instead he murdered them and stole their belongings, killing 63 people before he was finally caught. Although Petiot's primary motivation was materialistic, few would deny that a man willing to slaughter so many people simply to acquire a few dozen suitcases of clothes and jewelry was a compulsive killer and psychopath. However, it is impossible to understand the true motivation in such cases.

- Power/control

This is the most common serial killer. Their main objective for killing is to gain and exert power over their victim. Such killers are sometimes abused as children, which means they feel incredibly powerless and inadequate, and often they indulge in rituals that are linked, often very specifically, to forms of abuse they suffered themselves. One killer, for example, forced young girls to perform oral sex on him, after which he would spank the girl before finally strangling her. After capture, the killer claimed that when he was a child his older sister would force him to perform oral sex on her, then she would spank him in order to terrify him into not telling their parents. The ritual he performed with his victims would negate the humiliation he felt from his abuse as a child, although such relief would only be temporary, and like other such killers, he would soon feel compelled to repeat his actions until eventual capture. (The vast majority of child abuse victims do not become serial killers, of course, meaning that such abuse is not regarded as the sole trigger of such crimes in these cases.) Many power/control-motivated killers sexually abuse their victims, but they differ from hedonistic killers in that rape is not motivated by lust but as simply another form of dominating the victim.

Some serial killers may seem to have characteristics of more than one type. For example, British killer Peter Sutcliffe appeared to be both a visionary and a mission-oriented killer in that he claimed voices told him to clean up the streets of prostitutes. Alternatively, another school of thought classifies motive as being one of three types: need, greed, or power.


Actually most serial killers are opportunists, they seek out conditions that will allow them to kill repeatedly without detection or apprehension.
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: CK on March 31, 2008, 04:45:44 PM

Actually most serial killers are opportunists, they seek out conditions that will allow them to kill repeatedly without detection or apprehension.


I agree, vignette, they are, but that does not mean they are not motivated by what the other poster listed. Take, for instance, Donald Harvey -- after he was dismissed from the military and the mental ward he spent the next few months trying to get his life back in order and eventually found work as a part-time nurses' aide at Cardinal Hill Hospital in Lexington. In June 1973, he started a second nursing job at Lexington's Good Samaritan Hospital. Harvey kept both jobs until August 1974, when he took up a job as a telephone operator, and then secured a clerical job at St. Luke's Hospital in Fort Thomas, Kentucky. He may have been able to control his urge to kill during this time, but the more feasible explanation would be that he did not have the same access to the patients as he did at Marymount Hospital, which could also explain why he shifted from job to job during this time.

He had not yet evolved enough to take his urges outside of the place he felt safe in committing his crimes -- the dimly lit patient rooms -- his killing sanctuaries. Harvey was a different kind of hunter and in order for him to get hold of his prey, he had to first find the right environment. In September 1975, Harvey moved back to Cincinnati, Ohio. Within weeks he got a job working night shift at the Cincinnati V.A. Medical Hospital. His duties varied and he performed several different tasks, depending on where he was needed at the time. He worked as a nursing assistant, housekeeping aide, cardiac-catheterization technician and autopsy assistant. Harvey had found his niche and wasted little time in starting where he had left off. Since he worked at night, he had very little supervision and unlimited access to virtually all areas of the hospital. Over the next 10 years, Harvey murdered at least 15 patients while working at the hospital.

Now when it comes to his motive, "Why did he kill?" he responded, "Well, people controlled me for 18 years, and then I controlled my own destiny. I controlled other people's lives, whether they lived or died. I had that power to control." And in response to the qeustion, "What right did you have to decide that?" he said, "After I didn't get caught for the first 15, I thought it was my right. I appointed myself judge, prosecutor and jury. So I played God."
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: ismile on April 05, 2008, 02:43:22 PM

Synchronicity is the experience of two or more events which occur in a meaningful manner, but which are causally inexplicable to the person or persons experiencing them. The events would also have to suggest some underlying pattern in order to satisfy the definition of synchronicity as originally developed by Jung who coined the word to describe what he called "temporally coincident occurrences of acausal events." Jung variously described synchronicity as an "acausal connecting principle" (i.e. a pattern of connection that cannot be explained by direct causality), "meaningful coincidence" and "acausal parallelism".

It differs from mere coincidence in that synchronicity implies not just a happenstance, but an underlying pattern or dynamic expressed through meaningful relationships or events. Jung believed that many experiences perceived as coincidence were due not merely to chance, but instead, suggested the manifestation of parallel events or circumstances reflecting this governing dynamic.


Synchronicity happens when events in your life are all linked together, and these linked events all have the same meaning and they are occurring simultaneously. I've been noticing these synchronicities a lot after reading about them, and I noticed that it normally takes about 3-4 things with the same meaning to tie them all together and pinpoint its actual meaning. I was thinking lately that if we could learn to recognize these events earlier this could be a way of seeing into the future, or at least a way of gaining the meaning behind what is going to happen. Jung maintained that it elucidates meaningful arrangements and coincidence which somehow go beyond the calculations of probability. Pre-cognition, clairvoyance, telepathy, etc. are phenomena which are inexplicable through chance, but become empirically intelligible through the employment of the principle of synchronicity, which suggests a kind of harmony at work in the interrelation of both psychic and physical events.
Title: Re: The Secret Cube
Post by: slightlybehind on April 17, 2008, 09:21:14 AM

(http://sviweb.sccd.ctc.edu/dennisk/images_link/a41.jpg)


Great site, indeed!
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: ex nihilo on April 21, 2008, 01:04:01 PM

Synchronicity is the experience of two or more events which occur in a meaningful manner, but which are causally inexplicable to the person or persons experiencing them. The events would also have to suggest some underlying pattern in order to satisfy the definition of synchronicity as originally developed by Jung who coined the word to describe what he called "temporally coincident occurrences of acausal events." Jung variously described synchronicity as an "acausal connecting principle" (i.e. a pattern of connection that cannot be explained by direct causality), "meaningful coincidence" and "acausal parallelism".

It differs from mere coincidence in that synchronicity implies not just a happenstance, but an underlying pattern or dynamic expressed through meaningful relationships or events. Jung believed that many experiences perceived as coincidence were due not merely to chance, but instead, suggested the manifestation of parallel events or circumstances reflecting this governing dynamic.


Synchronicity happens when events in your life are all linked together, and these linked events all have the same meaning and they are occurring simultaneously. I've been noticing these synchronicities a lot after reading about them, and I noticed that it normally takes about 3-4 things with the same meaning to tie them all together and pinpoint its actual meaning. I was thinking lately that if we could learn to recognize these events earlier this could be a way of seeing into the future, or at least a way of gaining the meaning behind what is going to happen. Jung maintained that it elucidates meaningful arrangements and coincidence which somehow go beyond the calculations of probability. Pre-cognition, clairvoyance, telepathy, etc. are phenomena which are inexplicable through chance, but become empirically intelligible through the employment of the principle of synchronicity, which suggests a kind of harmony at work in the interrelation of both psychic and physical events.


Could you expand a bit papa?
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: brace on April 29, 2008, 11:14:16 AM

(http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/2999/tuberositasradiiyo4.png)


Interesting illustration -- did you find it on Wiki?
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: tbreckenridge on May 08, 2008, 12:40:54 PM

[...]

When confronted by him this "doctor" said they do not remove the radial head, no matter what, in children only. Well, that was bull, since they are  in children -- fractures of radial head occur in adults, whereas in children it is the radial neck fractures that happen frequently. The radial neck is the area close to where one tendon of the biceps brachii muscle is inserted (on the posterior portion of the radial tuberosity).


You meant, "Well, that was bull, since fractures of radial head occur in adults, whereas in children it is the radial neck fractures that happen frequently"?
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: hi gene on May 30, 2008, 03:31:11 PM

Amen zan! An acquaintance of mine was unfortunate enough to contact a complete moron surgeon who was not aware of the wiring techniques for the lower cervical spine (Roger's technique, the Bohlman triple wire technique, Dewar technique, Robinson and Southwick facet wiring, and the oblique facet wiring). She was simply told, "Wiring won't work!"


What an ass!
Title: The Shadow Dance —
Post by: T a s h on June 02, 2008, 02:40:01 PM

[...] Because Jung believed the phenomenon of synchronicity was primarily connected with psychic conditions, he felt that such couplings of inner (subjective) and outer (objective) reality evolved through the influence of the archetypes, patterns inherent in the human psyche and shared by all of mankind. These patterns, or "primordial images," as Jung sometimes refers to them, comprise man's collective unconscious, representing the dynamic source of all human confrontation with death, conflict, love, sex, rebirth and mystical experience. When an archetype is activated by an emotionally charged event (such as a tragedy), says Jung, other related events tend to draw near. In this way the archetypes become a doorway that provide us access to the experience of meaningful (and often insightful) coincidence. [...]

Archetypes are visual symbols or energetic imprints that exist in our psyches. Some are readily understood while others bring subliminal messages that are there to help you trigger your memory of why you are here and the truth behind the illusion of reality. Archetypes can often convey messages that verbal and written information cannot. Archetypes are found everywhere, as their symbols are a language of the mind, taken to different frequencies of thought and connected to each other by the collective unconsciousness. There are individual and universal archetypes. You become aware of them in meditation, dreamtime, remote viewing or other out-of-body experiences, when you doodle on a pad, crop circles or landscape art, other art forms, jewelry, hieroglyphs, a logo, on a billboard, anywhere at all. Archetypes can also be auditory, a tone, a series of notes, a harmonic. Reality is a series of metaphors set into motion by the synchronicity of archetypes we experience.

The term Archetype began with Jung. In Jung's terms, 'Archetype' is defined as the first original model of which all other similar persons, objects, or concepts are merely derivative, copied, patterned, or emulated. These patterns derive from a universal collective unconscious which in metaphysics is called the Grids, Akashic Records, Sea of Consciousness, that which creates our reality. In this context, archetypes are innate prototypes for ideas, which may subsequently become involved in the interpretation of observed phenomena. Master or Universal archetypes are created by the patterns of Sacred Geometry. The remainder are derivatives of these patterns.


The psychological rule says that when an inner situation is not made conscious, it happens outside as fate. That is to say, when the individual remains undivided and does not become conscious of his inner opposite, the world must perforce act out the conflict and be torn into opposing halves.
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: wrhssaxensemble on June 03, 2008, 06:22:59 AM
So, I'm wondering what the draw is for you current students.  Besides high salaries, what about working as a lawyer attracts you to the career despite the negatives?  A ton of people go to law school, so there must be some good things I haven't thought of yet.

The high salaries are usually an overestimation too.... average starting pay is usually somewhere between $50-$70,000 for most starting lawyers... not awful but hardly much of an improvement

so to answer your question:

Q: "What's so good about being an attorney?"

A: nothing really... at least the material is interesting for the most part

Thankyou for playing, care of the ABA... feel free to waste more money on school and the bar
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: y s a on June 13, 2008, 11:12:44 AM
This user was placed on 7 day ban for harassment.

Thanks,

The Mods


Title: Re: The Secret Cube
Post by: premiermaw on June 14, 2008, 02:05:27 PM

(http://sviweb.sccd.ctc.edu/dennisk/images_link/a41.jpg)


Great site, indeed!


Truly an awesome site!
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: hairyassment on June 25, 2008, 05:00:04 PM
This user was placed on 7 day ban for harassment.

Thanks,

The Mods




Good!
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: totallypartial on July 14, 2008, 07:51:17 PM

jensa, when parents are faced with this disaster of seeing a baby born with clubfeet, they get to be very depressed.When they go to the doctor and are told that their baby must have surgery, they are sad. But when they can see that this deformity is nothing, that is a very easy thing to correct and the child is normal, they have hope. Extensive surgery does not "cure" clubfoot. It improves the appearance of the foot but diminishes the strength of the muscles in the foot and leg and causes stiffness in the second and third decade of life (if not earlier). This limits the motions of the foot joints, and the foot becomes often painful at midlife. Extensive surgery does not prevent the recurrence of the deformity in a number of cases. No followup studies of operated patients older than 16 years of age have been published to date; therefore, orthopaedic surgeons are ignorant of the results of their surgeries.


Amen zan! An acquaintance of mine was unfortunate enough to contact a complete moron surgeon who was not aware of the wiring techniques for the lower cervical spine (Roger's technique, the Bohlman triple wire technique, Dewar technique, Robinson and Southwick facet wiring, and the oblique facet wiring). She was simply told, "Wiring won't work!" The only thing he knew in relation to the subject was the atlantoaxial arthrodesis performed for translational instability due to traumatic ligamentous disruption or fracture, inflammatory arthropathy, congenital abnormalities, etc (dorsal fusion can be accomplished by means of C1-2 wiring, transarticular screw fixation or interlaminar Halifax clamp technique. The Gallie and Brooks techniques have also been used for C1-2 wiring and fusion).

(http://aycu36.webshots.com/image/47515/2003076029957731895_fs.jpg)
Roger's technique

Well, another orthopaedic surgeon she contacted said dorsal cervical wiring is used in the subaxial cervical spine to stimulate the function of the dorsal ligaments by providing a tension band effect and by fixating bone graft or rods. The most common indication for these procedures is the treatment of distractive flexion injuries resulting in unilateral or bilateral facet disruption and dislocation. Biomechanical studies had suggested that dorsal fixation and fusion techniques were superior to ventral cervical plating. Most wiring techniques have evolved from the technique reported by Rogers. Roger's technique is a simple interspinous process wiring technique wherein the wire is passed around and through the bases of adjacent spinous processes with corticocancellous bone grafts laid under the wires bridging the interspace.


I've heard C2 fractures are really problematic.
Title: Re: The Shadow Dance —
Post by: copula on July 16, 2008, 08:50:03 AM

[...] Because Jung believed the phenomenon of synchronicity was primarily connected with psychic conditions, he felt that such couplings of inner (subjective) and outer (objective) reality evolved through the influence of the archetypes, patterns inherent in the human psyche and shared by all of mankind. These patterns, or "primordial images," as Jung sometimes refers to them, comprise man's collective unconscious, representing the dynamic source of all human confrontation with death, conflict, love, sex, rebirth and mystical experience. When an archetype is activated by an emotionally charged event (such as a tragedy), says Jung, other related events tend to draw near. In this way the archetypes become a doorway that provide us access to the experience of meaningful (and often insightful) coincidence. [...]

Archetypes are visual symbols or energetic imprints that exist in our psyches. Some are readily understood while others bring subliminal messages that are there to help you trigger your memory of why you are here and the truth behind the illusion of reality. Archetypes can often convey messages that verbal and written information cannot. Archetypes are found everywhere, as their symbols are a language of the mind, taken to different frequencies of thought and connected to each other by the collective unconsciousness. There are individual and universal archetypes. You become aware of them in meditation, dreamtime, remote viewing or other out-of-body experiences, when you doodle on a pad, crop circles or landscape art, other art forms, jewelry, hieroglyphs, a logo, on a billboard, anywhere at all. Archetypes can also be auditory, a tone, a series of notes, a harmonic. Reality is a series of metaphors set into motion by the synchronicity of archetypes we experience.

The term Archetype began with Jung. In Jung's terms, 'Archetype' is defined as the first original model of which all other similar persons, objects, or concepts are merely derivative, copied, patterned, or emulated. These patterns derive from a universal collective unconscious which in metaphysics is called the Grids, Akashic Records, Sea of Consciousness, that which creates our reality. In this context, archetypes are innate prototypes for ideas, which may subsequently become involved in the interpretation of observed phenomena. Master or Universal archetypes are created by the patterns of Sacred Geometry. The remainder are derivatives of these patterns.


The psychological rule says that when an inner situation is not made conscious, it happens outside as fate. That is to say, when the individual remains undivided and does not become conscious of his inner opposite, the world must perforce act out the conflict and be torn into opposing halves.


Can you expand a bit?
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: Procedure on July 18, 2008, 04:04:57 AM
I'm sorry.  i had somethign to say but was sidetracked by the medical references.  waht givs?
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: QIR on July 19, 2008, 03:58:32 PM
This user was placed on 7 day ban for harassment.

Thanks,

The Mods




Amen! This poster's avatar is provocative as well!
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: miXin on August 13, 2008, 07:46:18 PM
Jung's Model

All synchronistic phenomena can be grouped under three categories:

1. The coincidence of a psychic state in the observer with a simultaneous objective, external event that corresponds to the psychic state or content, (e.g. the scarab), where there is no evidence of a causal connection between the psychic state and the external event, and where, considering the psychic relativity of space and time, such a connection is not even conceivable.

2. The coincidence of a psychic state with a corresponding (more or less simultaneous) external even taking place outside the observer's field of perception, i.e. at a distance, and only verifiable afterward.

3. The coincidence of a psychic state with a corresponding, not yet existent future event that is distant in time and can likewise only be verified afterward.

Two Fundamental Types of Synchronicity

1. One in which the compensatory activity of the archetype is experienced both inwardly and outwardly. [the event seems to emerge from the subconscious with access to absolute knowledge, which cannot be consciously known]

2. One in which the compensatory activity of the archetype is experienced outwardly only. [these convey to the ego a much-needed wholeness of the self's perspective, they show one a new perspective]


Essential Characteristics of the Synchronistic Event

1. The specific intrapsychic state of the subject defined as one of the following:

a) The unconscious content which, in accordance with the compensatory needs of the conscious orientation, enters consciousness [something is in our conscious]
b) The conscious orientation of the subject around which the compensatory synchronistic activity centers [something happens concerning what is in our mind]

2. An objective event corresponds with this intrapsychic state [may be literal or figurative correspondence]

a) The objective event as a compensatory equivalent to the unconscious compensatory content
b) The objective event as the sole compensatory of the ego-consciousness

3. Even though the intrapsychic state and the objective event may be synchronous according to clock time and spatially near to each other, the objective event may, contrary to this, be distant in time and/or space in relation to the intrapsychic state [as in telepathy, clairvoyance, etc.]

4. The intrapsychic state and the objective event are not causally related to each other [acausality]

5. The synchronistic event is meaningful [excludes some coincidence, but does not require the meaning to be understood]

a) The intrapsychic state and the objective event as meaningful parallels.

b) The numinous charge associated with the synchronistic experience [feeling of spiritual experience]

c) Import of the subjective-level interpretation [the content must reflect back on the issues of the individual]

d) The archetypal level of meaning [transcends the individual and implies absolute knowledge].


The contradictory tenants of Quantum Physics desecrated the Newtonian Determinism that had dominated modern thought for some two hundred years: the electron 'cloud of possibility' and the photon wave/particle paradox shattered the comfortable, mechanistic notion of causality (cause and effect), relegating it to historical curiosity. In effect: these rigid clockwork rules, when viewed at the smallest sphere, suddenly turn elastic, "reality" dictated by the will of the observer and/or the constraint of the causal experiment: clockwork causality began to stretch like salt-water taffy before the conscious participant, giving Dali's soft-clock surrealism an eerily prescient scope. For empiricists and hardwired logicians, Quantum-theory was as dangerous and reality-threatening as anything Darwin pulled on the Secular Fundamentalists, and resistance to its baffling, frustratingly unfussy relativity continues to this day - some would rather reject it out of hand, rather than deal with the consequences.

Others, on the other hand, probed the quandary, and found therein substantive material for the more questionable aspects of this existence. Psychoanalyst Carl Jung latched onto the discoveries of his friends Einstein, Planck, Bohr (etc.), saw the correlation with Eastern philosophy and his own studies into the paranormal, and in 1952 published "Sychronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle," an attempt to condense and conceptualize some very difficult peculiarities/inconsistencies that statistical science neglected to take into account - specifically 'meaningful coincidences', the inexplicable that occurred far too often to be products of chance. Or, as Jung put it:

Quote
"Sychronicity... means the simultaneous occurrence of a certain psychic state with one or more external events which appear as meaningful parallels to the momentary objective state...(pg. 25)."


In other words, the chaotic, malleable elements of the extreme microverse have a representative affect on our causal-ruled macroverse - although the manifestation of it cannot be adequately measured, due to its unpredictable nature - and to Jung's views, this was as a serious venture to be studied rather than outright dismissed. Essential to this argument is the concept of a 'soul,' or soul-network: 'something' beyond the physical perception, and beyond the spatial limitations of energy, working in accordance to its own plan. Jung envisioned, beyond the mechanistic aspect of the 'normal' world, a broader framework of existence, in which all things are connected via an indefinable ether-verse, encompassing such derided/quizzical concepts as "meaningful coincidences," foreknowledge/precognition/intuition, ESP, telepathy, telekinesis, and so forth. As a human came to channel the Quantum theory,

Quote
"...we must regard them as creative acts, as the continuous creation of a pattern that exists from all eternity, repeats itself sporadically, and is not derivable from any known antecedents (pg 102)."

Heady stuff! It's interesting to note Jung tip-toe around the 'G' word (the thesis would have been outright rejected then and there by self-respecting scientists), instead incorporating the Tao, Schopenhauer's Will & various other cultural representations of an all-pervading force that, as the Chinese sages knew three thousand years before, could not be comprehended consciously, but through meditative "non-being" ... or the "unconscious state," Jung is quick to clarify. Integral to this discussion are archetypes, the common models upon which cultural icons/identities are patterned. Jung does not go into specifics here (for he mined archetypes throughout his career) but does pose several interesting notes - the theory of whether numbers actually existed, as archetypes, before human conception (and human existence?) was certainly something to ponder upon.

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51NTNPX7K1L._SS500_.jpg)

"Sychronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle" is divided into four sections, being 1) the establishment of the theory, 2) an experiment of statistical randomness to 'prove' Sychronicity by way of astrology, 3) a list of examples of similar concepts throughout the ages (the Tao etc. mentioned above), and 4) a lecture in 1951 wherein the genesis of this book was formulated. As a student of Eastern philosophy, nothing Jung stated here was exactly new or revelatory to my mindset; but when the dominant Western attitude of that period is taken into perspective, it is easy to see why this work would be deemed controversial and, a favored expression of shallow dismissal, "junk science." Still, some reservations should be made here. Synchronicity shouldn't be considered science, rather a metaphysical theory; and Jung falls into the all-to-common trap of claiming his hypothesis as irrefutable, using the higher-than-probable results of his tests and a number of "meaningful" coincidental stories to make his case. I suggest that anyone seriously investigating these theories make the effort to view both sides of the coin - those who support and those who refute the concept of Synchronicity and the innumerable derivations of Quantum possibility, for the following reason: this thesis can be seen as an origin point for the current market of the New Age: hokum and free-wheelin' misinterpretation take voluminous cues from that established by Einstein et al. Although there are practical alternatives - self-help agencies such as PSI and similar motivational speakers a la Tony Robbins utilize these concept as the base platform of success: "To Think is to Create" - despite this, the more intricate (and exciting) aspects of Quantum Physics are often diluted by some into mass-consciousness vehicles for easy enlightenment - think of Redfield's bestselling poppycock-omnibus "The Celestine Prophecy," or any number of Quantum-cannibalizing frauds designed exclusively for the bohemian soccer-mom set - and the increasingly nebulous 'pseudo' aspect of it subsequently strengthens resistance from traditionalists and skeptics. This book is an excellent attempt to map the unknown, the indefinable "Something" so intrinsic with the ongoing process of life. A brave, massively influential analysis of all that 'beyond chance'.
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: tidbit on August 25, 2008, 03:26:54 PM

Here it is a great test for you fellas interested in this sorta thing

(http://sviweb.sccd.ctc.edu/dennisk/images_link/a41.jpg)

http://personal.ansir.com/


My type was ENFJ

moderately expressed extrovert

distinctively expressed intuitive personality

slightly expressed feeling personality

slightly expressed judging personality


My type appears to be ENTJ

Enneagram type: 3, variant: sexual (sx/so/sp)


Different profiles each time you take it?
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: u03B4 on August 26, 2008, 08:34:55 PM
It's not the same test, tidbit. The 3 Sides of You is developed by ANSIR, while the poster has taken another test, namely, the MBTI.
Title: The laws of freak chance
Post by: rememberme? on August 28, 2008, 05:51:18 PM

The contradictory tenants of Quantum Physics desecrated the Newtonian Determinism that had dominated modern thought for some two hundred years: the electron 'cloud of possibility' and the photon wave/particle paradox shattered the comfortable, mechanistic notion of causality (cause and effect), relegating it to historical curiosity. In effect: these rigid clockwork rules, when viewed at the smallest sphere, suddenly turn elastic, "reality" dictated by the will of the observer and/or the constraint of the causal experiment: clockwork causality began to stretch like salt-water taffy before the conscious participant, giving Dali's soft-clock surrealism an eerily prescient scope. For empiricists and hardwired logicians, Quantum-theory was as dangerous and reality-threatening as anything Darwin pulled on the Secular Fundamentalists, and resistance to its baffling, frustratingly unfussy relativity continues to this day - some would rather reject it out of hand, rather than deal with the consequences.

Others, on the other hand, probed the quandary, and found therein substantive material for the more questionable aspects of this existence. Psychoanalyst Carl Jung latched onto the discoveries of his friends Einstein, Planck, Bohr (etc.), saw the correlation with Eastern philosophy and his own studies into the paranormal, and in 1952 published "Sychronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle," an attempt to condense and conceptualize some very difficult peculiarities/inconsistencies that statistical science neglected to take into account - specifically 'meaningful coincidences', the inexplicable that occurred far too often to be products of chance. Or, as Jung put it:

Quote
"Sychronicity... means the simultaneous occurrence of a certain psychic state with one or more external events which appear as meaningful parallels to the momentary objective state...(pg. 25)."


In other words, the chaotic, malleable elements of the extreme microverse have a representative affect on our causal-ruled macroverse - although the manifestation of it cannot be adequately measured, due to its unpredictable nature - and to Jung's views, this was as a serious venture to be studied rather than outright dismissed. Essential to this argument is the concept of a 'soul,' or soul-network: 'something' beyond the physical perception, and beyond the spatial limitations of energy, working in accordance to its own plan. Jung envisioned, beyond the mechanistic aspect of the 'normal' world, a broader framework of existence, in which all things are connected via an indefinable ether-verse, encompassing such derided/quizzical concepts as "meaningful coincidences," foreknowledge/precognition/intuition, ESP, telepathy, telekinesis, and so forth. As a human came to channel the Quantum theory,

Quote
"...we must regard them as creative acts, as the continuous creation of a pattern that exists from all eternity, repeats itself sporadically, and is not derivable from any known antecedents (pg 102)."

Heady stuff! It's interesting to note Jung tip-toe around the 'G' word (the thesis would have been outright rejected then and there by self-respecting scientists), instead incorporating the Tao, Schopenhauer's Will & various other cultural representations of an all-pervading force that, as the Chinese sages knew three thousand years before, could not be comprehended consciously, but through meditative "non-being" ... or the "unconscious state," Jung is quick to clarify. Integral to this discussion are archetypes, the common models upon which cultural icons/identities are patterned. Jung does not go into specifics here (for he mined archetypes throughout his career) but does pose several interesting notes - the theory of whether numbers actually existed, as archetypes, before human conception (and human existence?) was certainly something to ponder upon.

(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51NTNPX7K1L._SS500_.jpg)

"Sychronicity: An Acausal Connecting Principle" is divided into four sections, being 1) the establishment of the theory, 2) an experiment of statistical randomness to 'prove' Sychronicity by way of astrology, 3) a list of examples of similar concepts throughout the ages (the Tao etc. mentioned above), and 4) a lecture in 1951 wherein the genesis of this book was formulated. As a student of Eastern philosophy, nothing Jung stated here was exactly new or revelatory to my mindset; but when the dominant Western attitude of that period is taken into perspective, it is easy to see why this work would be deemed controversial and, a favored expression of shallow dismissal, "junk science." Still, some reservations should be made here. Synchronicity shouldn't be considered science, rather a metaphysical theory; and Jung falls into the all-to-common trap of claiming his hypothesis as irrefutable, using the higher-than-probable results of his tests and a number of "meaningful" coincidental stories to make his case. I suggest that anyone seriously investigating these theories make the effort to view both sides of the coin - those who support and those who refute the concept of Synchronicity and the innumerable derivations of Quantum possibility, for the following reason: this thesis can be seen as an origin point for the current market of the New Age: hokum and free-wheelin' misinterpretation take voluminous cues from that established by Einstein et al. Although there are practical alternatives - self-help agencies such as PSI and similar motivational speakers a la Tony Robbins utilize these concept as the base platform of success: "To Think is to Create" - despite this, the more intricate (and exciting) aspects of Quantum Physics are often diluted by some into mass-consciousness vehicles for easy enlightenment - think of Redfield's bestselling poppycock-omnibus "The Celestine Prophecy," or any number of Quantum-cannibalizing frauds designed exclusively for the bohemian soccer-mom set - and the increasingly nebulous 'pseudo' aspect of it subsequently strengthens resistance from traditionalists and skeptics. This book is an excellent attempt to map the unknown, the indefinable "Something" so intrinsic with the ongoing process of life. A brave, massively influential analysis of all that 'beyond chance'.


Do luck and coincidence truly exist,or can everything be explained scientifically buy the laws of probability? Meeting a lost friend on a train could be just a case of mathematics,not fate.

When Sue Hamilton was working alone in her office in July 1992 when the fax machine broke down. Unable to fix it, she decided to call her colleague Jason Pegler, who had set off home a little earlier. Finding his home number pinned up on a notice board, she called him and began to explain the problem. But Jason quickly stopped her: "I'm not at home", he explained. "I just happened to be walking past this phone box when it rang, and I answered it!" The number Sue found on the notice board was not Jason's home number at all. It was his employee number - which was the same as the number of the phone box he was walking past when she called. It was a bizarre coincidence, one of those that fascinate and perplex us. From a chance meeting with a long lost friend to weird parallels between world events, coincidences hint at "spooky" laws in our universe. Last year an amazing set of coincidences put Paula Dixon in the headlines - and saved her life. On a flight from Hong Kong to London, she began to feel ill. A call went out to any doctors on board the plane, and two - Professor Angus Wallace and Dr Tom Wong - duly emerged.

(http://img337.imageshack.us/img337/9215/adsv6.jpg)

The presence of two doctors was not so surprising. But Paula had a "potentially fatal collapsed lung-and Professor Wallace was not only an expert in aecident surgery, but had just finished a course dealing with precisely this type of crisis. DrWong turned out to have with him the one textbook needed to help them carry out the surgery. They saved Paula's life - and won world-wide acclaim. But scientists claim coincidences are simply the result of remembering a few "amazing" concluences of events, but forgetting all the times when nothing amazing happens A classic example is the "small world" effect, where two strangers at a party discover they have a friend in common. People at parties tend to be from the same social class, level of education, income bracket and the same area. So the likelihood of meeting someone with whom you share a trait is higher than it might seem. Sociologists have found that individuals typically have around 150 people whom they regard as "close". Therefore each of us typically has an entourage of around 23,000 "friends of a friend". Say we have about five acquaintances for each close friend, the number swells to 600,000.

Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: marshallah on September 03, 2008, 05:12:27 PM

My type appears to be ENTJ

Enneagram type: 3, variant: sexual (sx/so/sp)


ENTJs are pretty despicable -- with their "larger than life" attitude in describing their projects or proposals, for instance... with this ability being expressed as salesmanship... story-telling facility... or stand-up comedy, for that matter... not to mention their natural propensity for filibuster -- our hero can make it indeed very difficult for the customer to decline.

"I'm really sorry you have to die" -- this may be an overstatement; however, most Fs and other gentle souls usually chuckle knowingly at this description of ENTJs.
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: saysesame on September 04, 2008, 08:56:38 PM

ENTJs are pretty despicable -- with their "larger than life" attitude in describing their projects or proposals, for instance... with this ability being expressed as salesmanship... story-telling facility... or stand-up comedy, for that matter... not to mention their natural propensity for filibuster -- our hero can make it indeed very difficult for the customer to decline.

"I'm really sorry you have to die" -- this may be an overstatement; however, most Fs and other gentle souls usually chuckle knowingly at this description of ENTJs.


mashallah, don't be so hard  on ENTJs -- ENTJ personality types tend to be strong leaders and feel the need to take command of a situation. The Myers-Briggs description of an ENTJ says that "although ENTJs are tolerant of established procedures, they can abandon any procedure when it can be shown to be indifferent to the goal it seemingly serves ... They are tireless in the devotion to their jobs and can easily block out other areas of life for the sake of work. The ENTJ female may find it difficult to select a mate who is not overwhelmed by her strong personality and will."
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: le mains sales on September 05, 2008, 08:04:08 PM

My type appears to be ENTJ

Enneagram type: 3, variant: sexual (sx/so/sp)


ENTJs are pretty despicable -- with their "larger than life" attitude in describing their projects or proposals, for instance... with this ability being expressed as salesmanship... story-telling facility... or stand-up comedy, for that matter... not to mention their natural propensity for filibuster -- our hero can make it indeed very difficult for the customer to decline.

"I'm really sorry you have to die" -- this may be an overstatement; however, most Fs and other gentle souls usually chuckle knowingly at this description of ENTJs.


I'm under the impression that many T's turn F's when in love. E.g., there is a big difference between ENTJs at work (arrogants, shark mentality, bossy, ambitious) and their being melancholic, romantic, lovey-dovey in relationships with their love ones. Some researches, however, say that it's not because your ENTJ is in love that he has turned into an "ENFJ" in the relationship. Having a preference for "Thinking" does not mean that you are devoid of feelings. It simply means that you prefer to make decisions a certain way. Besides, people who tend to repress their feelings may have a harder time managing the ones that are too strong to "bury" psychologically, such as love, because they may not have developed the necessary emotional coping skills.

It's not because he's supposed to be the bossy leader type that he functions in a drastically different way than other people and will stay level headed and rational throughout the relationship. When the chemicals of infatuation start being released, he is under the influence of substances that have strong effects on thoughts, feelings and behavior. You'd be surprised at the number of leader/alpha male types that have little emotional competency and crumble psychologically when in love with a woman. They may be even subconsciously seeking a place where they can show their weakness in security and have someone take care of them for a change. It is not rare that a need to control the external environment stems from an inability to control one's internal environment. Some of the most dominating people can be full of insecurities and fears that they attempt to cover up by controlling the environment instead of themselves. They may then turn to somebody else in hopes that the person will provide the specific control that they lack. For example, I know several stereotypical alpha males who are completely subdued to the whims of their wives, for they cater for a part of themselves that they cannot take care of.
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: LittleRussianPrincess, Esq. on September 08, 2008, 05:17:12 AM
I thought this thread was going to be about being a lawyer. Then I read something about physics and immediately tuned out.

So, therein lies the answer: Being a lawyer is great because I don't have to know, read or understand anything about physics!  ;D
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: American Ale on October 14, 2008, 06:13:13 PM

Actually most serial killers are opportunists, they seek out conditions that will allow them to kill repeatedly without detection or apprehension.


I agree, vignette, they are, but that does not mean they are not motivated by what the other poster listed. Take, for instance, Donald Harvey -- after he was dismissed from the military and the mental ward he spent the next few months trying to get his life back in order and eventually found work as a part-time nurses' aide at Cardinal Hill Hospital in Lexington. In June 1973, he started a second nursing job at Lexington's Good Samaritan Hospital. Harvey kept both jobs until August 1974, when he took up a job as a telephone operator, and then secured a clerical job at St. Luke's Hospital in Fort Thomas, Kentucky. He may have been able to control his urge to kill during this time, but the more feasible explanation would be that he did not have the same access to the patients as he did at Marymount Hospital, which could also explain why he shifted from job to job during this time.

He had not yet evolved enough to take his urges outside of the place he felt safe in committing his crimes -- the dimly lit patient rooms -- his killing sanctuaries. Harvey was a different kind of hunter and in order for him to get hold of his prey, he had to first find the right environment. In September 1975, Harvey moved back to Cincinnati, Ohio. Within weeks he got a job working night shift at the Cincinnati V.A. Medical Hospital. His duties varied and he performed several different tasks, depending on where he was needed at the time. He worked as a nursing assistant, housekeeping aide, cardiac-catheterization technician and autopsy assistant. Harvey had found his niche and wasted little time in starting where he had left off. Since he worked at night, he had very little supervision and unlimited access to virtually all areas of the hospital. Over the next 10 years, Harvey murdered at least 15 patients while working at the hospital.

Now when it comes to his motive, "Why did he kill?" he responded, "Well, people controlled me for 18 years, and then I controlled my own destiny. I controlled other people's lives, whether they lived or died. I had that power to control." And in response to the qeustion, "What right did you have to decide that?" he said, "After I didn't get caught for the first 15, I thought it was my right. I appointed myself judge, prosecutor and jury. So I played God."


87 in all I believe?
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: a g a p e on October 24, 2008, 08:32:59 PM

[...] Because Jung believed the phenomenon of synchronicity was primarily connected with psychic conditions, he felt that such couplings of inner (subjective) and outer (objective) reality evolved through the influence of the archetypes, patterns inherent in the human psyche and shared by all of mankind. These patterns, or "primordial images," as Jung sometimes refers to them, comprise man's collective unconscious, representing the dynamic source of all human confrontation with death, conflict, love, sex, rebirth and mystical experience. When an archetype is activated by an emotionally charged event (such as a tragedy), says Jung, other related events tend to draw near. In this way the archetypes become a doorway that provide us access to the experience of meaningful (and often insightful) coincidence. [...]

Archetypes are visual symbols or energetic imprints that exist in our psyches. Some are readily understood while others bring subliminal messages that are there to help you trigger your memory of why you are here and the truth behind the illusion of reality. Archetypes can often convey messages that verbal and written information cannot. Archetypes are found everywhere, as their symbols are a language of the mind, taken to different frequencies of thought and connected to each other by the collective unconsciousness. There are individual and universal archetypes. You become aware of them in meditation, dreamtime, remote viewing or other out-of-body experiences, when you doodle on a pad, crop circles or landscape art, other art forms, jewelry, hieroglyphs, a logo, on a billboard, anywhere at all. Archetypes can also be auditory, a tone, a series of notes, a harmonic. Reality is a series of metaphors set into motion by the synchronicity of archetypes we experience.

The term Archetype began with Jung. In Jung's terms, 'Archetype' is defined as the first original model of which all other similar persons, objects, or concepts are merely derivative, copied, patterned, or emulated. These patterns derive from a universal collective unconscious which in metaphysics is called the Grids, Akashic Records, Sea of Consciousness, that which creates our reality. In this context, archetypes are innate prototypes for ideas, which may subsequently become involved in the interpretation of observed phenomena. Master or Universal archetypes are created by the patterns of Sacred Geometry. The remainder are derivatives of these patterns.


Can you direct us to some site where this is explained in a bit of more detail?
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: powderh2o on November 22, 2008, 02:19:52 PM


Weil, Gotshal & Manges (New York)
1st year: $125,000
2d year: $135,000
3d year: $150,000
4th year: $165,000
5th year: $190,000
6th year: $205,000
7th year: $215,000
Bonuses in all classes


Just checked Covington and Jenner, both are also at $160k to start. 


There  was a dip in cocaine prices in the 90s, but they're back up now. I was going to make a joke about that and the firms' salary raises, but you can just imagine it instead ... Oh, BTW, keep in mind that cocaine costs a lot less when you buy it by the kilogram as opposed to by the gram. It's like Sam's Club, only for coke.


Oopslaw, they do adjust the salaries every time the cocaine price goes up.
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: attractive_nuisance on November 23, 2008, 06:01:05 PM

[...] Because Jung believed the phenomenon of synchronicity was primarily connected with psychic conditions, he felt that such couplings of inner (subjective) and outer (objective) reality evolved through the influence of the archetypes, patterns inherent in the human psyche and shared by all of mankind. These patterns, or "primordial images," as Jung sometimes refers to them, comprise man's collective unconscious, representing the dynamic source of all human confrontation with death, conflict, love, sex, rebirth and mystical experience. When an archetype is activated by an emotionally charged event (such as a tragedy), says Jung, other related events tend to draw near. In this way the archetypes become a doorway that provide us access to the experience of meaningful (and often insightful) coincidence. [...]

Archetypes are visual symbols or energetic imprints that exist in our psyches. Some are readily understood while others bring subliminal messages that are there to help you trigger your memory of why you are here and the truth behind the illusion of reality. Archetypes can often convey messages that verbal and written information cannot. Archetypes are found everywhere, as their symbols are a language of the mind, taken to different frequencies of thought and connected to each other by the collective unconsciousness. There are individual and universal archetypes. You become aware of them in meditation, dreamtime, remote viewing or other out-of-body experiences, when you doodle on a pad, crop circles or landscape art, other art forms, jewelry, hieroglyphs, a logo, on a billboard, anywhere at all. Archetypes can also be auditory, a tone, a series of notes, a harmonic. Reality is a series of metaphors set into motion by the synchronicity of archetypes we experience.

The term Archetype began with Jung. In Jung's terms, 'Archetype' is defined as the first original model of which all other similar persons, objects, or concepts are merely derivative, copied, patterned, or emulated. These patterns derive from a universal collective unconscious which in metaphysics is called the Grids, Akashic Records, Sea of Consciousness, that which creates our reality. In this context, archetypes are innate prototypes for ideas, which may subsequently become involved in the interpretation of observed phenomena. Master or Universal archetypes are created by the patterns of Sacred Geometry. The remainder are derivatives of these patterns.


Can you direct us to some site where this is explained in a bit of more detail?


Archetypes are neither good nor bad. They simply are. Archetypes are not susceptible to being sugarcoated or tamed by civilization; they live an autonomous existence at the root of our psyches in their original raw and primitive states. To most humans, with our limited awareness of the natural cycles of life and our fear of suffering, certain archetypal qualities seem good and others seem bad. We are attracted to the "positive," creating, nurturing aspects of Mother, for example, but terrified of her "negative" qualities such as her terrible fierce possessiveness, or her power of life and death over us.

An archetype might be best compared to mathematical components, such as pi or the x of an equation. An archetype is like pi in the sense that it has a fixed value, but its applications are just about endless. It is like the x of an equation in the way that it is the solution to a given problem – if that problem is significant enough. Archetypes carry meanings for the human mind to decipher and utilize. Jung also associates to formula:

Quote
The archetype is a symbolic formula which always begins to function when there are no conscious ideas present, or when conscious ideas are inhibited for internal or external reasons.

The role of the Hero is familiar to us all. The word means, "to protect and to serve." Someone willing to sacrifice his own needs on behalf of others. The story, the Hero's Quest is "the search for identity and wholeness." Above and beyond the physical challenges the Hero faces, he must also come to terms with himself, he must change and grow. The audience identifies with the Hero though this process. He's responsible for most of the action in a story, he takes the risks and reaps the rewards (which he probably shares with others).

The Mentor figure is also familiar. Sometimes called, "The Wise Old Man/Woman," or the "Shaman." This is a positive figure who aids or trains the hero. The Mentor gives advice, gifts that will help the Hero on his journey, motivates, and sometimes acts as the Hero's conscience.

There are also Threshold Guardians. Characters whose function is to provide obstacles the Hero must overcome as he struggles to defeat them and strengthen himself for the ultimate battle with the "Shadow" or main villain. Threshold Guardians are stepping stones. As the Hero battles and defeats each of them (or recruits them as allies, as sometimes happens), the Hero becomes stronger, moves toward the end of his Quest.

The Shadow is the threat - the primary obstacle to the Hero's successful completion of his Quest, and should be strong enough to provide a worthy opponent. The Shadow can be the darker side of the Hero that he is trying to suppress. (An obvious example would be the "Evil Duncan" that emerges when MacLeod takes the Dark Quickening in Highlander. The best Heroes, and the best Quests incorporate both internal and external Shadows.) Something to remember when creating your Shadow is that, to the villain, he is the Hero and it is the Hero who is the enemy/Shadow. We are all the Heroes of our own stories and history is written by the winners. Keeping this in mind will help you create more rounded, more challenging villains.

A necessary archetype is the Herald -- the harbinger of change who delivers the "Call to Action" or challenge to the Hero. The Herald can be a minor character, a significant ally of the Hero's, or even an agent of the Shadow. The Call can be an event instead of a message delivered by a person. The way the Call is delivered, and the Hero's reaction to it, can tell the reader a great deal about the story and about the Hero. (Typically, the Hero refuses the Call in some manner characteristic of his internal weakness or doubts before he is persuaded to accept it, thus setting the scene for his struggles with his own nature later.)

The Trickster embodies the energy of mischief and the desire for change. Tricksters cut big egos down to size and, most importantly, provide comic relief that eases tension and brings the Hero (and the audience) down to earth. They also work to make fun of/highlight hypocrisy. Still, the Trickster's loyalty and motives can be in doubt. Is the Trickster an ally? An agent of the Shadow? Or an independent agent working to some private agenda? This character is so dedicated to laughing at the "status quo" and mocking everything around him that his true motives can remain in doubt.

The Shapeshifter can be "fickle, two-faced, or bewilderingly changeable" and functions to bring doubt and suspense to a story. If you find yourself wondering if a character is going to betray the Hero, if the character is an ally or an enemy, that character is probably a Shapeshifter. (The Shapeshifter-Trickster is a common combination.) Think of the femme fatale of famous noir films. Those characters were almost always Shapeshifters. (In mythology, think of Zeus changing into a beam or light or some other animate or inanimate object to pursue a maiden. In those contexts, Zeus is acting as a Shapeshifter.) Shapeshifting can be signaled by a character changing appearance, behavior, or by lying.

Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: connotation on November 24, 2008, 12:27:48 PM

The Trickster embodies the energy of mischief and the desire for change. Tricksters cut big egos down to size and, most importantly, provide comic relief that eases tension and brings the Hero (and the audience) down to earth. They also work to make fun of/highlight hypocrisy. Still, the Trickster's loyalty and motives can be in doubt. Is the Trickster an ally? An agent of the Shadow? Or an independent agent working to some private agenda? This character is so dedicated to laughing at the "status quo" and mocking everything around him that his true motives can remain in doubt.


Interesting description of the Trickster - here it is a somewhat different explanation -

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/students/index.php/topic,3002385.msg5157815.html

Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: Master of Ceremonies on December 07, 2008, 04:21:07 PM

mashallah, don't be so hard  on ENTJs -- ENTJ personality types tend to be strong leaders and feel the need to take command of a situation. The Myers-Briggs description of an ENTJ says that "although ENTJs are tolerant of established procedures, they can abandon any procedure when it can be shown to be indifferent to the goal it seemingly serves ... They are tireless in the devotion to their jobs and can easily block out other areas of life for the sake of work. The ENTJ female may find it difficult to select a mate who is not overwhelmed by her strong personality and will."


France is ENTJ. For intuitive types, thoughts are expressed just for the sake of ideas. The French 'rationale' relates to the thinking facets of reason and logic. France's freethinking, armchair intellectuals wander from one topic to the next in an exchange of ideas. As ENTJs they expect everyone in social and work situations to have a thought-out argument, critical feedback or to keep quiet.

Unlike sensing Americans, for the French, ideas don't have to have a practical application. Their propensity for intellectual debate makes their intuition obvious and their stubborn confidence shows their extroverted thinking side. The relationship between the French and Americans sometimes is opinionated, arrogant, extraverted thinking types, each one thinking they are right.
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: persirit on February 24, 2009, 12:02:36 PM

Archetypes are neither good nor bad. They simply are. Archetypes are not susceptible to being sugarcoated or tamed by civilization; they live an autonomous existence at the root of our psyches in their original raw and primitive states. To most humans, with our limited awareness of the natural cycles of life and our fear of suffering, certain archetypal qualities seem good and others seem bad. We are attracted to the "positive," creating, nurturing aspects of Mother, for example, but terrified of her "negative" qualities such as her terrible fierce possessiveness, or her power of life and death over us.

An archetype might be best compared to mathematical components, such as pi or the x of an equation. An archetype is like pi in the sense that it has a fixed value, but its applications are just about endless. It is like the x of an equation in the way that it is the solution to a given problem – if that problem is significant enough. Archetypes carry meanings for the human mind to decipher and utilize. Jung also associates to formula:

Quote
The archetype is a symbolic formula which always begins to function when there are no conscious ideas present, or when conscious ideas are inhibited for internal or external reasons.

The role of the Hero is familiar to us all. The word means, "to protect and to serve." Someone willing to sacrifice his own needs on behalf of others. The story, the Hero's Quest is "the search for identity and wholeness." Above and beyond the physical challenges the Hero faces, he must also come to terms with himself, he must change and grow. The audience identifies with the Hero though this process. He's responsible for most of the action in a story, he takes the risks and reaps the rewards (which he probably shares with others).

The Mentor figure is also familiar. Sometimes called, "The Wise Old Man/Woman," or the "Shaman." This is a positive figure who aids or trains the hero. The Mentor gives advice, gifts that will help the Hero on his journey, motivates, and sometimes acts as the Hero's conscience.

There are also Threshold Guardians. Characters whose function is to provide obstacles the Hero must overcome as he struggles to defeat them and strengthen himself for the ultimate battle with the "Shadow" or main villain. Threshold Guardians are stepping stones. As the Hero battles and defeats each of them (or recruits them as allies, as sometimes happens), the Hero becomes stronger, moves toward the end of his Quest.

The Shadow is the threat - the primary obstacle to the Hero's successful completion of his Quest, and should be strong enough to provide a worthy opponent. The Shadow can be the darker side of the Hero that he is trying to suppress. (An obvious example would be the "Evil Duncan" that emerges when MacLeod takes the Dark Quickening in Highlander. The best Heroes, and the best Quests incorporate both internal and external Shadows.) Something to remember when creating your Shadow is that, to the villain, he is the Hero and it is the Hero who is the enemy/Shadow. We are all the Heroes of our own stories and history is written by the winners. Keeping this in mind will help you create more rounded, more challenging villains.

A necessary archetype is the Herald -- the harbinger of change who delivers the "Call to Action" or challenge to the Hero. The Herald can be a minor character, a significant ally of the Hero's, or even an agent of the Shadow. The Call can be an event instead of a message delivered by a person. The way the Call is delivered, and the Hero's reaction to it, can tell the reader a great deal about the story and about the Hero. (Typically, the Hero refuses the Call in some manner characteristic of his internal weakness or doubts before he is persuaded to accept it, thus setting the scene for his struggles with his own nature later.)

The Trickster embodies the energy of mischief and the desire for change. Tricksters cut big egos down to size and, most importantly, provide comic relief that eases tension and brings the Hero (and the audience) down to earth. They also work to make fun of/highlight hypocrisy. Still, the Trickster's loyalty and motives can be in doubt. Is the Trickster an ally? An agent of the Shadow? Or an independent agent working to some private agenda? This character is so dedicated to laughing at the "status quo" and mocking everything around him that his true motives can remain in doubt.

The Shapeshifter can be "fickle, two-faced, or bewilderingly changeable" and functions to bring doubt and suspense to a story. If you find yourself wondering if a character is going to betray the Hero, if the character is an ally or an enemy, that character is probably a Shapeshifter. (The Shapeshifter-Trickster is a common combination.) Think of the femme fatale of famous noir films. Those characters were almost always Shapeshifters. (In mythology, think of Zeus changing into a beam or light or some other animate or inanimate object to pursue a maiden. In those contexts, Zeus is acting as a Shapeshifter.) Shapeshifting can be signaled by a character changing appearance, behavior, or by lying.


attractive, what about the archetype of the Self, Anima, Animus that are crucial to enumerate when mentioning Jung?
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: Netopalis on February 24, 2009, 12:25:34 PM
Best thing about being an attorney: Having a HUGE desk that you can dodge some serious questions from behind.   ;)
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: in_plain_english on March 17, 2009, 04:43:52 PM

The issue of "illusion" is another very important part of Freud's critique of religion. At all times we must keep in mind that he drew a sharp distinction between "illusion" and "delusion," using only the former to describe religious beliefs. Illusions, including those of religion, are such not because of their content but by their sources. Calling religious beliefs illusions does not automatically deny them any sort of validity -- they may, after all, even come true. Their problem lies in their source: undisciplined and uncritical human wishes. It should be pointed out of course, that in Freud's theories just about all thinking, including scientific thinking, can have nonrational sources and be indicative of wishful thinking. With both religion and science, it is not that the source determines the value of an idea -- a great idea can have a nonrational source, and a poor idea can have a rational source. What is key is just how much influence that source continues to hold over the idea in question. [...]


Hmmm, a very interesting distinction between "illusion" and "delusion" made here! Thanks Adel, for posting it!
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: Jake_MONDATTA on March 17, 2009, 04:57:16 PM
On being a happy, healthy, and ethical member of an unhappy, unhealthy, and unethical profession

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fseoulover.blogs.com%2Fwestlaw%2Ffiles%2Fbeing_a_happy_lawyer.pdf&ei=TCrASbbADpe3twe32ORa&usg=AFQjCNGnHeKUzb46bXTdXGOTGvFlSjb9xw&sig2=sp-oqQGZTdmemsYrHdSF5A
Title: Re: Roberts v. Epilepsy
Post by: end in itself on February 12, 2011, 10:23:55 PM

[...] similar to epileptic seizures? Does foam come out of the mouth as the case is in grand mal?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j957yP2E5j8&mode=related&search=


TUESDAY, July 31 -- U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts walked out of a Maine hospital Tuesday morning with a clean bill of health, one day after suffering a seizure and falling on a dock near his summer home. But doctors interviewed were divided on whether the seizure -- the second one the 52-year-old jurist has suffered in 14 years -- is a sign that Roberts has epilepsy, a neurological condition that could require him to take anti-seizure medication to control the disorder. Roberts left Penobscot Bay Medical Center in Rockport shortly before noon after suffering what doctors described as an unexplained seizure near his vacation home in Port Clyde on Hupper Island. The doctors who examined him found no sign of a tumor, stroke or any other explanation for the episode. He plans to continue his summer vacation, Supreme Court spokeswoman Kathy Arberg told the Associated Press. Roberts' first reported seizure occurred while playing golf in 1993.

Dr. Steven Pacia, chief of neurology at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City, said that, given this was Roberts' second seizure, it's "likely" that he has epilepsy. "It's the most likely thing based on what we know from what's been released," he said. Pacia noted that seizures can result from an inherited susceptibility that is trigged by such factors as a lack of sleep or stress. "It sounds to me he does have idiopathic generalized epilepsy syndrome, which means that he has susceptibility to seizures under certain circumstances," he said. Dr. Laura Kalayjian, an assistant professor of neurology and co-director of the Epilepsy Center at the University of Southern California, agreed that Roberts probably has epilepsy. "The definition of epilepsy is two unprovoked seizures," Kalayjian said. The likelihood of someone having a second seizure after a first one is about 30 percent, Kalayjian said. "Now Roberts' risk of having another seizure is greater than 50 percent," she said.

Even if Roberts has epilepsy, it shouldn't affect his work, Kalayjian said. "The majority of people with epilepsy you wouldn't know they had epilepsy," she said. "About 70% of people with epilepsy do fine; they hold high level jobs, they drive. It's only 30% of people that have uncontrolled seizures that need specialized epilepsy centers to get their seizures under control." Another expert believes it's too soon to say that Roberts has epilepsy. "There are a lot of different causes that can be responsible for a seizure other than epilepsy, and some of those are very hard to detect with a regular MRI. They require more sophisticated tests," said Dr. Isabelle Germano, a professor of neurosurgery at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City. Germano agreed that two seizures are, by definition, epilepsy. "But, usually in the adult population, we don't see a 14-year interval between seizures," she said. "The delayed interval might make it something else."

Whether or not he should be taking anti-seizure medication is something Roberts' doctors will have to evaluate, Kalayjian said. "His doctors should be trying to figure out if there were any triggers that caused the seizure," she said. Kalayjian noted that medications do provide some protection by raising the seizure threshold. "It would give him [Roberts] an extra level of protection, especially if he is going to be driving or doing other activities," she said. But, anti-seizure medications aren't without side effects, Kalayjian said, including dizziness and sleepiness. Seizures can last a few seconds to a few minutes. The symptoms can vary -- from convulsions and loss of consciousness to some that are not always recognized as seizures by the person experiencing them or by health care professionals: blank staring, lip smacking, or jerking movements of arms and legs.


It's all evident by now that we're gonna have an ersatz Chief of Justice ... it's crucial that Bush gets rid of him ASAP.


hahaha - you're so funny tg! ;)
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: lawstudent2011 on February 13, 2011, 10:49:38 AM
Well, the only other respected post graduate fields tend to be medical and CPA.

I hate taxes and if I have to get someone's blood on my hands, I'd prefer it be figureative vs actual.  :P

If someone would prefer to quit and become an MBA let'em. Someone has to make my damn coffee in the morning.
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: My Bonnie on February 16, 2011, 08:08:21 PM

Just to be sure I'm getting this right - he used the syringe with no needle to inject Bobby's vagina with the cocaine dissolved in water in such a quantity that it would kill her? But then why did he have to smother her with the pillow, she would die by herself..


There'd be too much noise, she began to convulse pretty bad and it could take some time until she'd expire on her own.


So basically cocaine-induced convulsions are similar to epileptic seizures? Does foam come out of the mouth as the case is in grand mal?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j957yP2E5j8&mode=related&search=


I am not sure about foam out of the mouth, but cocaine seizures can be pretty scary, just like the epileptic ones.
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: L.B. on November 15, 2011, 06:34:17 PM

One day a young lawyer and his wife were in their bedroom making love. All of a sudden a bumble bee entered the bedroom window. As the young lady parted her legs the bee entered her vagina. The woman started screaming "Oh my god, help me, there's a bee in my vagina!" The lawyer immediately took her to the local doctor and explained the situation.

The doctor thought for a moment and said "Hmm, tricky situation. But I have a solution to the problem if young sir would permit." The husband being very concerned agreed that the doctor could use whatever method to get the bee out of his wife's vagina. The doctor said "OK, what I'm gonna do is rub some honey over the top of my penis and insert it into your wife's vagina. When I feel the bee getting closer to the tip of my penis I shall withdraw it and the bee should hopefully follow my penis out of your wife's vagina. The husband nodded and gave his approval. The young lady said "Yes, Yes, whatever, just get on with it."

So the doctor, after covering the tip of his penis with honey, inserted it into the young lady's vagina. After a few gentle strokes, the doctor said, "I don't think the bee has noticed the honey yet. Perhaps I should go a bit deeper." So the doctor went deeper and deeper. After a while the doctor began shafting the young lady very hard indeed.

The young lady began to quiver with excitement. She began to moan and groan aloud. The doctor, concentrating very hard, looked like he was enjoying himself, he then put his hands on the young lady's breasts and started making loud noises. The lawyer at this point suddenly became very annoyed and shouted, "Now wait a minute! What the Hell do you think you're doing?" The doctor, still concentrating, replied, "Change of plan. I'm gonna drown the bastard!"


I remember having read this joke and the guy who brought his wife to the doctor was not a lawyer - it's a shame that people are trying to demean lawyers in such a way!
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: justanothersucker on November 15, 2011, 06:43:59 PM
Yeah, every time I see a construction worker or janitor or auto worker makes fun of lawyers......I just die a little in side........ :'(


One day a young lawyer and his wife were in their bedroom making love. All of a sudden a bumble bee entered the bedroom window. As the young lady parted her legs the bee entered her vagina. The woman started screaming "Oh my god, help me, there's a bee in my vagina!" The lawyer immediately took her to the local doctor and explained the situation.

The doctor thought for a moment and said "Hmm, tricky situation. But I have a solution to the problem if young sir would permit." The husband being very concerned agreed that the doctor could use whatever method to get the bee out of his wife's vagina. The doctor said "OK, what I'm gonna do is rub some honey over the top of my penis and insert it into your wife's vagina. When I feel the bee getting closer to the tip of my penis I shall withdraw it and the bee should hopefully follow my penis out of your wife's vagina. The husband nodded and gave his approval. The young lady said "Yes, Yes, whatever, just get on with it."

So the doctor, after covering the tip of his penis with honey, inserted it into the young lady's vagina. After a few gentle strokes, the doctor said, "I don't think the bee has noticed the honey yet. Perhaps I should go a bit deeper." So the doctor went deeper and deeper. After a while the doctor began shafting the young lady very hard indeed.

The young lady began to quiver with excitement. She began to moan and groan aloud. The doctor, concentrating very hard, looked like he was enjoying himself, he then put his hands on the young lady's breasts and started making loud noises. The lawyer at this point suddenly became very annoyed and shouted, "Now wait a minute! What the Hell do you think you're doing?" The doctor, still concentrating, replied, "Change of plan. I'm gonna drown the bastard!"


I remember having read this joke and the guy who brought his wife to the doctor was not a lawyer - it's a shame that people are trying to demean lawyers in such a way!
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: appropriate on December 02, 2011, 11:28:44 PM

[...] Well-meaning efforts by liberal psychologists to reform the law in keeping with values such as dignity, privacy, justice, and equality are often misguided because law exists to serve the status quo. Law inhibits the systemic, radical social change necessary for psychological and societal well-being. It does so through coercive power, substantive assumptions about human nature, the ideology of law's legitimacy, a preoccupation with procedure rather than substance, a focus on rational technicality rather than equity, and encouragement for limited, self-defeating legal solutions. [...] Law, in short, is an an opponent rather than an ally of those seeking fundamental change.

1. Heavy Handed Use of Coercive Power

The first way that law presents social change is obvious: Coercion. As Lawrence Friedman put it, "Law has its hidden persuaders -- its moral basis, its legitimacy -- but in the last analysis it has force, too, to back it up. Law carries a powerful stick: the threat of force. This is the fist inside its velvet glove. Law is used directly and indirectly to hinder both legal and illegal social change efforts. Electoral challenges, for example, are deflected by state legislatures, which devise unreasonable deadlines, excessive petition requirements, and other hassles to keep third parties off the ballot. As an old anarchist slogan put it, "If voting could change the system, it would be illegal." [...] Harassment of activists doesn't come just from government. Corporations often file libel and other lawsuits against people who use letters to newspapers, public statements, and similar methods to criticize corporate projects such as toxic waste dumps. [...] Although most of these suits are legally "unsuccessful" in that free speech rights are upheld and the activist pays no damages, the suits serve their purposes of transforming political debates into private disputes and, more significantly, taking up activist's time and resources, bankrupting him, often causing the abandonment of public advocacy on his part [...]

2. Substantive Assumptions About Human Nature

The second way law opposes social change is through its assumptions about human behavior. [...] The myth of humankind's inherent lawlessness, for instance, ignores the fact that the search for rules and rule dependency appears early in human life and is visible across all activity from games to government and language to law. In essence, no community is truly lawless.

3. The Ideology of Law's Legitimacy

The third way law inhibits social change is through the central myth that the law is "legitimate," that obedience to law is appropriate because legal authorities have the right to make demands. This belief prevents anarchy and induces people to obey orders and commands without the use of force. Legitimacy is necessary for the political system to continue in its current form, since in a very real sense, the 'consent of the governed' depends upon such fictions, including the fiction that law is sacred. [...]
 
4. Preoccupation With Procedure Rather Than Substance

The fourth way law opposes social change is in blunting appeals for substantive justice by focusing instead on procedural justice. Seeing legal procedures are seen as satisfying or fair, with government leaders may find it easier to create conditions of 'perceived fairness' than to solve problems or provide needed benefits. The Supreme Court's "let them eat due process" approach.

5. Focus on Rational Technicality Rather Than Equity

The fifth way law stands against social change is the insistence that the "rule of law" is superior to non-law, that the United States is a "government of law, not of men." Related to the lawlessness and legality myths is the assumption that problems should be resolved through law - seen as objective, rational, and hard-nosed - rather than through non-legal means - seen as subjective, ruthless, and unpredictable. Law is better, it is said, even if the application of general principle to a particular case brings an unfair result, because the only alternative to law is chaos. The opposite of legal technicality, however, is not chaos, but equity. Under equity principles, legal technicalities can be set aside to prevent injustice. [...]

6. The Self-Defeating Character of Legal Solutions

The final way law opposes social change has to do with the self-defeating character of legal solutions, despite their seductive appeal. Reform is seductive because it assumes that law can be transformed so significantly that it will operate at a "higher principled level.' This is doubtful, though, because the reasons for which law exists conflict with principled levels of reasoning and ethics. Law exists to maintain rather than change the status quo, to protect some at the expense of others, to control rather than liberate. [...] The very success of legal solutions makes things worse, because legal solutions reduce people's ability and motivation to work together with others on community solutions to social problems. Legal reforms may work, but only by forcing complex human interactions into an artificial framework, creating dependency on legal authorities. [...] Right and wrong become a specialty of professionals such as lawyers, police, and judges. [...] Law teaches us that we are not capable of being good unless we are forced to be good.


Awesome summary!
Title: Re: What's good about being an attorney?
Post by: entitatitivity on February 14, 2012, 05:33:56 PM

[...]

Beyond a simple condemnation of authoritarian value systems, Fromm used the story of Adam and Eve as an allegorical explanation for human biological evolution and existential angst, asserting that when Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, they became aware of themselves as being separate from nature while still being part of it. This is why they felt "naked" and "ashamed": they had evolved into human beings, conscious of themselves, their own mortality, and their powerlessness before the forces of nature and society, and no longer united with the universe as they were in their instinctive, pre-human existence as animals. According to Fromm, the awareness of a disunited human existence is a source of guilt and shame, and the solution to this existential dichotomy is found in the development of one's uniquely human powers of love and reason.


They say LSD induces an experience that will make you appreciate exactly what Fromm talks about here - being one with the nature, the Whole.


LSD "opens people up" - Timothy Leary used to say that LSD was the most powerful aphrodisiac ever discovered - compared with sex under LSD, the way you have been making love -- no matter how ecstatic the pleasure you think you get from it – is like making love to a department-store-window dummy.

The three inevitable goals of the LSD session are to discover and make love with God, to discover and make love with yourself, and to discover and make love with another person.