Law School Discussion

Deciding Where to Go => Choosing the Right Law School => Topic started by: kennedyposter on December 16, 2008, 09:52:56 AM

Title: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: kennedyposter on December 16, 2008, 09:52:56 AM
Apparently not going T14=no job for you. Just wanted to let you all know before you make an investment in any school ranked 15-100. Where does American get their employment statistics? Maybe they are allowed to factor in working at Ruby Tuesday or Old Navy...
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Matthies on December 16, 2008, 10:08:35 AM
Apparently not going T14=no job for you. Just wanted to let you all know before you make an investment in any school ranked 15-100. Where does American get their employment statistics? Maybe they are allowed to factor in working at Ruby Tuesday or Old Navy...

OMG why didn't someone tell me this four years ago?? I'm DOOMED  ::)Do you think the firms I have worked for will go back in time and retroactively fire me in order to prevent some future cosmic apocalypse that will inevitably befall them from them having had me and my t2 school on their staff? 
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: kennedyposter on December 16, 2008, 10:12:02 AM
Apparently not going T14=no job for you. Just wanted to let you all know before you make an investment in any school ranked 15-100. Where does American get their employment statistics? Maybe they are allowed to factor in working at Ruby Tuesday or Old Navy...

OMG why didn't someone tell me this four years ago?? I'm DOOMED  ::)Do you think the firms I have worked for will go back in time and retroactively fire me in order to prevent some future cosmic apocalypse that will inevitably befall them from them having had me and my t2 school on their staff? 

God I hope not. Good luck friend. Good luck.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Matthies on December 16, 2008, 10:17:31 AM
Apparently not going T14=no job for you. Just wanted to let you all know before you make an investment in any school ranked 15-100. Where does American get their employment statistics? Maybe they are allowed to factor in working at Ruby Tuesday or Old Navy...

OMG why didn't someone tell me this four years ago?? I'm DOOMED  ::)Do you think the firms I have worked for will go back in time and retroactively fire me in order to prevent some future cosmic apocalypse that will inevitably befall them from them having had me and my t2 school on their staff? 

God I hope not. Good luck friend. Good luck.

OMG what if they send back a terminator to make sure I never went to law school in the first place? I need to figure out a way to get to the future and kill the guy who events the time machine before the evil T14 lawyers can hatch their ungodly plan to destroy my life.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: mathlete on December 16, 2008, 10:33:30 AM
Apparently not going T14=no job for you. Just wanted to let you all know before you make an investment in any school ranked 15-100. Where does American get their employment statistics? Maybe they are allowed to factor in working at Ruby Tuesday or Old Navy...

OMG why didn't someone tell me this four years ago?? I'm DOOMED  ::)Do you think the firms I have worked for will go back in time and retroactively fire me in order to prevent some future cosmic apocalypse that will inevitably befall them from them having had me and my t2 school on their staff? 

I KNOW!!! I'm going to a T4, after all Judge Judy makes $10m/year so that means any NYLS grad can make $10m if they want to! There's no difference at all between Harvard and NYLS!

I guess your F in Statistics is why you're going to a T2
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Matthies on December 16, 2008, 10:41:21 AM
Apparently not going T14=no job for you. Just wanted to let you all know before you make an investment in any school ranked 15-100. Where does American get their employment statistics? Maybe they are allowed to factor in working at Ruby Tuesday or Old Navy...

OMG why didn't someone tell me this four years ago?? I'm DOOMED  ::)Do you think the firms I have worked for will go back in time and retroactively fire me in order to prevent some future cosmic apocalypse that will inevitably befall them from them having had me and my t2 school on their staff? 

I KNOW!!! I'm going to a T4, after all Judge Judy makes $10m/year so that means any NYLS grad can make $10m if they want to! There's no difference at all between Harvard and NYLS!

I guess your F in Statistics is why you're going to a T2

Actually Iím going to law school because it involved little to no math, so I never took statistics. Am I doomed?

Whatís the best way to kill a terminator anyway, I mean they are not like zombies, they got armor and stuff. They donít teach us that stuff down here at T2 schools.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Matthies on December 16, 2008, 10:55:57 AM
Apparently not going T14=no job for you. Just wanted to let you all know before you make an investment in any school ranked 15-100. Where does American get their employment statistics? Maybe they are allowed to factor in working at Ruby Tuesday or Old Navy...

OMG why didn't someone tell me this four years ago?? I'm DOOMED  ::)Do you think the firms I have worked for will go back in time and retroactively fire me in order to prevent some future cosmic apocalypse that will inevitably befall them from them having had me and my t2 school on their staff? 

I KNOW!!! I'm going to a T4, after all Judge Judy makes $10m/year so that means any NYLS grad can make $10m if they want to! There's no difference at all between Harvard and NYLS!

I guess your F in Statistics is why you're going to a T2

Actually Iím going to law school because it involved little to no math, so I never took statistics. Am I doomed?

Whatís the best way to kill a terminator anyway, I mean they are not like zombies, they got armor and stuff. They donít teach us that stuff down here at T2 schools.



you have to crush them in industrial machinery or melt them somehow.*


*we get more of them here at my T3

Do you think they will make them look like Toby Stock if just for the irony factor when he rings your doorbell to terminate you?
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Matthies on December 16, 2008, 10:58:00 AM
Apparently not going T14=no job for you. Just wanted to let you all know before you make an investment in any school ranked 15-100. Where does American get their employment statistics? Maybe they are allowed to factor in working at Ruby Tuesday or Old Navy...

OMG why didn't someone tell me this four years ago?? I'm DOOMED  ::)Do you think the firms I have worked for will go back in time and retroactively fire me in order to prevent some future cosmic apocalypse that will inevitably befall them from them having had me and my t2 school on their staff? 

I KNOW!!! I'm going to a T4, after all Judge Judy makes $10m/year so that means any NYLS grad can make $10m if they want to! There's no difference at all between Harvard and NYLS!

I guess your F in Statistics is why you're going to a T2

Actually Iím going to law school because it involved little to no math, so I never took statistics. Am I doomed?

Whatís the best way to kill a terminator anyway, I mean they are not like zombies, they got armor and stuff. They donít teach us that stuff down here at T2 schools.


Guns? No, that didn't work so well.
Pipe bomb? Slowed it down but didn't do the job.
Liquid nitrogen? Worked for a while.
Molten steel? Yeah, that worked a couple times.
Extremely strong magnetic field? That definitely did the trick.

Think this will work or should I get more?
(http://magnetnerd.com/Neodymium%20Magnets/Refrigerator%20Magnets.jpg)
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Matthies on December 16, 2008, 11:15:21 AM
I know how to stop t14 zombies, you just wave a closed book exam with real legal questions rather than policy issue that is graded on something more than pass/fail. Stops them cold every time. Wait, is that t14 zombies or t14 vampires you kill that way? I canít remember I better look that up in the FRCP.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: JayCLS on December 16, 2008, 12:04:03 PM
I know how to stop t14 zombies, you just wave a closed book exam with real legal questions rather than policy issue that is graded on something more than pass/fail. Stops them cold every time. Wait, is that t14 zombies or t14 vampires you kill that way? I canít remember I better look that up in the FRCP.

Ohh yeah you are way smarter than us. We don't know anything about the law. What's a 12b6 motion again? I can't remember. I'll need to ask someone who isn't a zombie. Thankfully my firm hired all those people from that Tier 4 law school so I can ask them. They know everything.

If only I knew where the contract attorneys sit nowadays.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Matthies on December 16, 2008, 12:24:41 PM
I know how to stop t14 zombies, you just wave a closed book exam with real legal questions rather than policy issue that is graded on something more than pass/fail. Stops them cold every time. Wait, is that t14 zombies or t14 vampires you kill that way? I canít remember I better look that up in the FRCP.

Ohh yeah you are way smarter than us. We don't know anything about the law. What's a 12b6 motion again? I can't remember. I'll need to ask someone who isn't a zombie. Thankfully my firm hired all those people from that T4 law school so I can ask them. They know everything.

If only I knew where the contract attorneys sit nowadays.

They are doing doc review on the time machine to send the terminators back to stop us from going to schools outside the t14. And civil procedure is over rated, I just use LOLCat motions: ďI can haz suumery judgments? Kthxbi?Ē

PROTIP: Don't take yourself, or this thread, so seriously
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: JayCLS on December 16, 2008, 12:38:10 PM
Thanks for the "PROTIP".  Again I defer to your infinite wisdom, much higher level of success, and obviously superior reading skills.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Matthies on December 16, 2008, 12:47:05 PM
Thanks for the "PROTIP".  Again I defer to your infinite wisdom, much higher level of success, and obviously superior reading skills.

Thanks! Donít take it so personal, I have disdain for the majority of people, youíre not special. Now if you want to stay in this thread, thatís fine, but say something funny or least come up with a decent comeback.  Are you still in exams? Iím done so my sense of humor has returned.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: JayCLS on December 16, 2008, 12:57:54 PM
Thanks for the "PROTIP".  Again I defer to your infinite wisdom, much higher level of success, and obviously superior reading skills.

Thanks! Donít take it so personal, I have disdain for the majority of people, youíre not special. Now if you want to stay in this thread, thatís fine, but say something funny or least come up with a decent comeback.  Are you still in exams? Iím done so my sense of humor has returned.

Ohh yeah your comments about the Terminator and zombies are hilarious. Thank you for sharing your witty prose with us all!
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Matthies on December 16, 2008, 01:02:52 PM
Thanks for the "PROTIP".  Again I defer to your infinite wisdom, much higher level of success, and obviously superior reading skills.

Thanks! Donít take it so personal, I have disdain for the majority of people, youíre not special. Now if you want to stay in this thread, thatís fine, but say something funny or least come up with a decent comeback.  Are you still in exams? Iím done so my sense of humor has returned.

Ohh yeah your comments about the Terminator and zombies are hilarious. Thank you for sharing your witty prose with us all!

Your welcome, gald you like it, I'm here all week! I bet you could be funny if you tried, Iím sure itís in there someplace. Go to your happy spot and try.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: nealric on December 16, 2008, 01:05:32 PM
Quote
I know how to stop t14 zombies, you just wave a closed book exam with real legal questions rather than policy issue that is graded on something more than pass/fail. Stops them cold every time.

But Matthies, what will you poor non-t14 types do when your client demands an exposition on how Kantian Ethics should shape the imposition of tort liability?
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Matthies on December 16, 2008, 01:15:28 PM
I know how to stop t14 zombies, you just wave a closed book exam with real legal questions rather than policy issue that is graded on something more than pass/fail. Stops them cold every time. Wait, is that t14 zombies or t14 vampires you kill that way? I canít remember I better look that up in the FRCP.

Ohh yeah you are way smarter than us. We don't know anything about the law. What's a 12b6 motion again? I can't remember. I'll need to ask someone who isn't a zombie. Thankfully my firm hired all those people from that Tier 4 law school so I can ask them. They know everything.

If only I knew where the contract attorneys sit nowadays.

@#!*. I know what a 12b6 motion is and I'm not even in law school. Certainly you could've come up with something more obscure. ::)

Please read my post again. When you understand the point I was making please feel free to come back. Thanks. 

Umm I think thatís the point the rest of us are seeing that youíre not. We are making fun of some of the truly stupid things that they post on JD Underground but taking it to the extreme. Its satire. You obviously keyed into only one comment, for some reason you took particular offense to that. It was not intended as you took it, Iím sorry if it offended you that was not my purpose. Perhaps your not familiar with JD Underground of some of the truly bizarre things that get posted on there. Perhaps you failed to see the humor in this thread. Perhaps you can only see things as funny if they poke fun at people going to a school ranked lower than yours, well this thread is meant to do the opposite of that, that is the point. Perhaps you thought we were aiming directly at you. We were not. I think the other posters in this thread get that, and maybe as I said youíre taking this whole thing more seriously, and personally, than you should or was intended.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Matthies on December 16, 2008, 01:16:25 PM
Quote
I know how to stop t14 zombies, you just wave a closed book exam with real legal questions rather than policy issue that is graded on something more than pass/fail. Stops them cold every time.

But Matthies, what will you poor non-t14 types do when your client demands an exposition on how Kantian Ethics should shape the imposition of tort liability?

Umm, refer him to you and get a fee split?
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Matthies on December 16, 2008, 01:18:27 PM
I know how to stop t14 zombies, you just wave a closed book exam with real legal questions rather than policy issue that is graded on something more than pass/fail.

you mean like the bar exam?

well it is bascilly pass/fail
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: JayCLS on December 16, 2008, 01:22:26 PM
Umm I think thatís the point the rest of us are seeing that youíre not. We are making fun of some of the truly stupid things that they post on JD Underground but taking it to the extreme. Its satire. You obviously keyed into only one comment, for some reason you took particular offense to that.

to be fair, you do pretty consistently bash the top schools.  remember when you told cady that her texts were all coloring books?

Nothing like combining a massive inferiority complex with enough time to spend over two months of your life posting on Law School Discussion.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: nealric on December 16, 2008, 01:36:20 PM
Quote
Umm, refer him to you and get a fee split?

Sweet, I'm going to hold you to that. Let your client know that my billing rate is $1200/hr and my response will take a minimum of 100 billable hours.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Matthies on December 16, 2008, 01:39:55 PM
Umm I think thatís the point the rest of us are seeing that youíre not. We are making fun of some of the truly stupid things that they post on JD Underground but taking it to the extreme. Its satire. You obviously keyed into only one comment, for some reason you took particular offense to that.

to be fair, you do pretty consistently bash the top schools.  remember when you told cady that her texts were all coloring books?

Actually I donít remember that, but I could see myself saying that. And I am pretty much the sole dissenter and voice for the common man on this board. You people (god I love that term) out number me and someone must counter some run amuck egos Ė and I do that through satire. I certainly donít see myself as ďbashingĒ the T14 to any degree that the non t14 get bashed one here. I certainly donít involve myself in the personal attacks or flagrant disrespect that some of the people on here do, you have never nor will you ever see me denigrate someoneís self worth based on the school they go to, t14 or Cooley. I will poke fun at it, I will poke fun at what I think is some people taking themselves or thier schools a bit too seriously. I donít take it personally when every other thread bash people for going to school X, but if I reverse that, then some people on here get all bent out of shape about really quickly. Often the same people who enjoy or donít protest at other schools being the subject of jokes. There is a double standard and I think even you can see that.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: JayCLS on December 16, 2008, 01:40:01 PM
but you do have to admit that jaycls comes off as kind of a humorless feminine hygiene product.  he does appear to try to give good advice in some of the other threads he has posted in, but should probably stay away from snarky off-topics though.

um, this is not off-topic.  or did you mean off-topic posters?

i see him as just a little offended that the response to "T14 or die" is "T14 students are dumb".  perfectly valid.

also, this thread just got me in trouble.  great.  >:(

Yeah that's a pretty accurate portrayal of the situation.  
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: JayCLS on December 16, 2008, 01:46:59 PM
Actually I donít remember that, but I could see myself saying that. And I am pretty much the sole dissenter and voice for the common man on this board. You people (god I love that term) out number me and someone must counter some run amuck egos Ė and I do that through satire. I certainly donít see myself as ďbashingĒ the T14 to any degree that the non t14 get bashed one here. I certainly donít involve myself in the personal attacks or flagrant disrespect that some of the people on here do, you have never nor will you ever see me denigrate someoneís self worth based on the school they go to, t14 or Cooley. I will poke fun at it, I will poke fun at what I think is some people taking themselves or thier schools a bit too seriously. I donít take it personally when every other thread bash people for going to school X, but if I reverse that, then some people on here get all bent out of shape about really quickly. Often the same people who enjoy or donít protest at other schools being the subject of jokes. There is a double standard and I think even you can see that.

one man's satire is another man's insult.

if someone says people who don't go to T14* schools suck as a joke and someone who doesn't go to a T14* school gets offended, that seems about right.

if someone says people who go to T14* schools suck as a joke and someone who goes to a T14* school gets offended, that also seems about right.

so what's the problem?

*T14 is a fake category as far as i'm concerned.

Agreed re: T14. Actually as relates to the original topic of the thread -- I think it is sad that there are so many for-profit Tier 4 law schools that take advantage of people's hopes and dreams. You don't see Medical Schools like that in the United States.  If you want to go to a Tier 4 school then more power to you. You'll probably still pass the bar and make a fine lawyer, but in this economy you should know what you are getting yourself into before you take on all that debt. 
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Jamie Stringer on December 16, 2008, 01:50:32 PM

Agreed re: T14. Actually as relates to the original topic of the thread -- I think it is sad that there are so many for-profit Tier 4 law schools that take advantage of people's hopes and dreams. You don't see Medical Schools like that in the United States.  If you want to go to a Tier 4 school then more power to you. You'll probably still pass the bar and make a fine lawyer, but in this economy IN THIS ECONOMY (!!!!!!) you should know what you are getting yourself into before you take on all that debt. 


Fixed :)
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Matthies on December 16, 2008, 02:03:47 PM
but you do have to admit that jaycls comes off as kind of a humorless feminine hygiene product.  he does appear to try to give good advice in some of the other threads he has posted in, but should probably stay away from snarky off-topics though.

um, this is not off-topic.  or did you mean off-topic posters?

i see him as just a little offended that the response to "T14 or die" is "T14 students are dumb".  perfectly valid.

Why? Why is one more accpeted than the other? Is that not a double standard? Or is it ok to dish out but not take? Seriously, explain this to me because Iím not getting it. Itís acceptable and done on a daily basis to say t14 or die, to trash any school lower ranked than the one you happen to attend and no one, but me and few others, step in to say much is defense, but its not OK to say in response t14 are dumb in a handful of posts as thatís unacceptable because someone might get their feelings hurt?

Unless you are telling me that you donít personally like it because it offends you, that I am fine with. But you seem to me, at least as I am understanding it, to be saying the only feelings that matter are those of the T14 kids Ėeverything else is cool because thatís the status quo. I guess I just canít think of a time you have stepped in to a conversation trashing lower ranked schools, but you seem to get riled up when I do it to the T14. Again, if this is because it offends you personally that is a completely reasonable response, and one I can accept, but that does not seem to be the argument your making. I canít help but see a double standard here, maybe Iím too dumb to understand it and hence why I got to a T2 school (see I can make fun  of myself).   

Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: JayCLS on December 16, 2008, 02:11:35 PM
but you do have to admit that jaycls comes off as kind of a humorless feminine hygiene product.  he does appear to try to give good advice in some of the other threads he has posted in, but should probably stay away from snarky off-topics though.

um, this is not off-topic.  or did you mean off-topic posters?

i see him as just a little offended that the response to "T14 or die" is "T14 students are dumb".  perfectly valid.

Why? Why is one more accpeted than the other? Is that not a double standard? Or is it ok to dish out but not take? Seriously, explain this to me because Iím not getting it. Itís acceptable and done on a daily basis to say t14 or die, to trash any school lower ranked than the one you happen to attend and no one, but me and few others, step in to say much is defense, but its not OK to say in response t14 are dumb in a handful of posts as thatís unacceptable because someone might get their feelings hurt?

Unless you are telling me that you donít personally like it because it offends you, that I am fine with. But you seem to me, at least as I am understanding it, to be saying the only feelings that matter are those of the T14 kids Ėeverything else is cool because thatís the status quo. I guess I just canít think of a time you have stepped in to a conversation trashing lower ranked schools, but you seem to get riled up when I do it to the T14. Again, if this is because it offends you personally that is a completely reasonable response, and one I can accept, but that does not seem to be the argument your making. I canít help but see a double standard here, maybe Iím too dumb to understand it and hence why I got to a T2 school (see I can make fun  of myself).   



Actually, except in response to your silly stereotyping, I've never bashed a non-T14 school. Law schools are not academic prizes the way some people would like to characterize them. They are professional schools. They are a means to an end. If you can reasonably reach your goals from a T2 school then great. Why should you pay for/worry about going to a T14 school. I still think you should be reasonably informed as to what you'll statistically have a shot of being able to do with a degree from x school. For example: If your whole life you have been thinking of being a Supreme Court clerk then I'd suggest you try to shoot for a T14 school to increase your odds. If you want to go into private practice at your family firm, that's a great goal too...you probably won't need Harvard Law to do that. I just think people should be realistically informed.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Matthies on December 16, 2008, 02:21:03 PM
Why? Why is one more accpeted than the other? Is that not a double standard? Or is it ok to dish out but not take? Seriously, explain this to me because Iím not getting it. Itís acceptable and done on a daily basis to say t14 or die, to trash any school lower ranked than the one you happen to attend and no one, but me and few others, step in to say much is defense, but its not OK to say in response t14 are dumb in a handful of posts as thatís unacceptable because someone might get their feelings hurt?

Unless you are telling me that you donít personally like it because it offends you, that I am fine with. But you seem to me, at least as I am understanding it, to be saying the only feelings that matter are those of the T14 kids Ėeverything else is cool because thatís the status quo. I guess I just canít think of a time you have stepped in to a conversation trashing lower ranked schools, but you seem to get riled up when I do it to the T14. Again, if this is because it offends you personally that is a completely reasonable response, and one I can accept, but that does not seem to be the argument your making. I canít help but see a double standard here, maybe Iím too dumb to understand it and hence why I got to a T2 school (see I can make fun  of myself).   

um, where did i say that one is more okay than the other?  i said that when somebody's trashing you, it's valid to feel offended regardless.

here is what i said:

if someone says people who don't go to T14* schools suck as a joke and someone who doesn't go to a T14* school gets offended, that seems about right.

if someone says people who go to T14* schools suck as a joke and someone who goes to a T14* school gets offended, that also seems about right.

Your silence on one and vocal opposition to another. Who else have you called out? When do you call out?
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Matthies on December 16, 2008, 02:53:02 PM
but you do have to admit that jaycls comes off as kind of a humorless feminine hygiene product.  he does appear to try to give good advice in some of the other threads he has posted in, but should probably stay away from snarky off-topics though.

um, this is not off-topic.  or did you mean off-topic posters?

i see him as just a little offended that the response to "T14 or die" is "T14 students are dumb".  perfectly valid.

Why? Why is one more accpeted than the other? Is that not a double standard? Or is it ok to dish out but not take? Seriously, explain this to me because Iím not getting it. Itís acceptable and done on a daily basis to say t14 or die, to trash any school lower ranked than the one you happen to attend and no one, but me and few others, step in to say much is defense, but its not OK to say in response t14 are dumb in a handful of posts as thatís unacceptable because someone might get their feelings hurt?

Unless you are telling me that you donít personally like it because it offends you, that I am fine with. But you seem to me, at least as I am understanding it, to be saying the only feelings that matter are those of the T14 kids Ėeverything else is cool because thatís the status quo. I guess I just canít think of a time you have stepped in to a conversation trashing lower ranked schools, but you seem to get riled up when I do it to the T14. Again, if this is because it offends you personally that is a completely reasonable response, and one I can accept, but that does not seem to be the argument your making. I canít help but see a double standard here, maybe Iím too dumb to understand it and hence why I got to a T2 school (see I can make fun  of myself).   



Actually, except in response to your silly stereotyping, I've never bashed a non-T14 school. Law schools are not academic prizes the way some people would like to characterize them. They are professional schools. They are a means to an end. If you can reasonably reach your goals from a T2 school then great. Why should you pay for/worry about going to a T14 school. I still think you should be reasonably informed as to what you'll statistically have a shot of being able to do with a degree from x school. For example: If your whole life you have been thinking of being a Supreme Court clerk then I'd suggest you try to shoot for a T14 school to increase your odds. If you want to go into private practice at your family firm, that's a great goal too...you probably won't need Harvard Law to do that. I just think people should be realistically informed.

I actually donít disagree with this at all. I think your completely correct. I do however differ with you on if should T4 schools exists, I think they should, so long as the students attending them understand what they are getting into. I also see this as the responsibility of the individual, rather than the schools some how tricking them into thinking they have a shot at something they donít. I tend to think its better for legal representation when people have a choice among lawyers, so Iím not support of closing any schools down.

Where I do disagree with you is that I think people, primarily those at T14s on this board because they happen to be over represented (compared to the number on non t14 law students) talk about the ramifications of going to a lower ranked school like they know what those are. Iím not a T14 student, you wonít see me giving advice on where to apply to get that big law job in NYC. I would have no idea what Iím talking about. But there are many on this board who will tell you what MY job prospects are, from MY school, in MY market who have never even been here. There are a few of us who regularly post from lower ranked schools on here, and universally I think if you took a poll they would all say how people describe it is not how it really is.

I know my market. I know what jobs Iíve had, what jobs Iíve been offered and where many of my classmates are working. Several in big law, several in federal clerkships, in fact I donít know anyone of my friends or classmates who donít have jobs. But you would not know that from reading the posts here by people who donít go to my school or live in my market but will tell you what my job prospects are like they are experts.
Thatís the big problem I have with LSD. There is some great info out there, and some experts in their schools and markets, and people should listen to them. But there are others who think just because thatís the way it works around them it works like that everywhere. Or think that just because thatís what its like at their school its like that everywhere. Look at JD Underground, look at TLS, look who the people are and where they go to school, its more T14 than not, and many times the advice they give to non T14 kids is just wrong or bad (not necessarily because they do it on purpose, but that they buy in to the hype when they really donít know any better).

I spend a lot of my time on this board shooting down misinformation posted, by probably well meaning folks, who just really donít know what they are talking about. There are generalities, sure, but things are very different in NYC than they are here, I would never try to give advice to someone looking for a job there. But its also very different than the doom and gloom that some people in NYC market think lawyers from other law schools are experiencing. Its not near as bad here as people from far off cites and law schools like to tell me it is.

Someone has to counter that, I wish more people would, but when youíre faced with thread after thread of people bashing your schools, or ever time you try and give a reasoned response the retort is always ďthatísí why you go to X schoolĒ would you want to come here and put up with that just to help people out? No, most would not. Like to admit it or not this board is elitist, it part because the lower school bashing is tolerated and drives those people away so thatís all that is left is mostly T14 kids. People donít necessarily do it on purpose, (some do) but they donít counter it either.  In my view is a detriment to the majority of law students out there who could use some advice that actually pertains to them, but instead get trash talked and stop posting. Hence I, from time to time, through it back in peoples faces. But it never ceases to amaze me how upset some people, often times the same people who trash other schools get when it gets turned around on them (and Iím not saying you have ever done this, this is my first encounter with you, and you seem to not be that type other than the completely logical response you had to me trashing your school).

 People will turn a blind eye to people trashing any school lower ranked then theirs, but boy do they get all riled up if you do it to them. They forget that they are doing it, either purposefully or by their silence to other people every day. It seems hypocritical to me, and sometimes I try to point that out by throwing some of it back at them. As Tasha said, I caught one, you just got mixed up into something bigger than you realized at the time.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Matthies on December 16, 2008, 02:56:08 PM
Your silence on one and vocal opposition to another. Who else have you called out? When do you call out?

i'm actually not vocal opposition one way or the other.  for example when you brought up that coloring book thing, i just played along because i know that you're kidding around.

See my post above, you donít have to be vocal to have an effect, but when and where you chose to be vocal sends a message that maybe you donít see being sent.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: dashrashi on December 16, 2008, 03:09:09 PM
Matthies? Didn't this just happen last week in SFLSD? And it was pointed out to you that while you feel like the Lone Ranger, the people whose schools you denigrate are not the posters who make asinine comments a la wiimote? So maybe the shotgun approach, wherein you spray everyone who goes to schools that the prestige-whores like with your joking/whatever vitriol, isn't necessarily hitting the right targets, in that it's hitting all the students at those schools, including the ones who aren't fucktard douchebags like wiimote et al?

I say this with love, because I know that you/your school/your choices get a lot of *&^% on the board/internet/etc as a whole. But...it's not me, or Cady, or tm, etc, who are dishing out the *&^%... And I don't think we particularly turn a blind eye to it, either. Maybe you disagree. Entirely possible. I don't know.

I suppose it may be relevant that I do not know the law and am screwed for the Bar, on account of all my exams talk about how to rewrite the 4th Amendment and/or what System Justification Theory has to do with tort law, inasmuch as truth is a defense to the "defeat w/ actual legal questions" accusation. But no matter.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: JayCLS on December 16, 2008, 03:09:52 PM

I actually donít disagree with this at all. I think your completely correct. I do however differ with you on if should T4 schools exists, I think they should, so long as the students attending them understand what they are getting into. I also see this as the responsibility of the individual, rather than the schools some how tricking them into thinking they have a shot at something they donít. I tend to think its better for legal representation when people have a choice among lawyers, so Iím not support of closing any schools down.

Where I do disagree with you is that I think people, primarily those at T14s on this board because they happen to be over represented (compared to the number on non t14 law students) talk about the ramifications of going to a lower ranked school like they know what those are. Iím not a T14 student, you wonít see me giving advice on where to apply to get that big law job in NYC. I would have no idea what Iím talking about. But there are many on this board who will tell you what MY job prospects are, from MY school, in MY market who have never even been here. There are a few of us who regularly post from lower ranked schools on here, and universally I think if you took a poll they would all say how people describe it is not how it really is.

I know my market. I know what jobs Iíve had, what jobs Iíve been offered and where many of my classmates are working. Several in big law, several in federal clerkships, in fact I donít know anyone of my friends or classmates who donít have jobs. But you would not know that from reading the posts here by people who donít go to my school or live in my market but will tell you what my job prospects are like they are experts.
Thatís the big problem I have with LSD. There is some great info out there, and some experts in their schools and markets, and people should listen to them. But there are others who think just because thatís the way it works around them it works like that everywhere. Or think that just because thatís what its like at their school its like that everywhere. Look at JD Underground, look at TLS, look who the people are and where they go to school, its more T14 than not, and many times the advice they give to non T14 kids is just wrong or bad (not necessarily because they do it on purpose, but that they buy in to the hype when they really donít know any better).

I spend a lot of my time on this board shooting down misinformation posted, by probably well meaning folks, who just really donít know what they are talking about. There are generalities, sure, but things are very different in NYC than they are here, I would never try to give advice to someone looking for a job there. But its also very different than the doom and gloom that some people in NYC market think lawyers from other law schools are experiencing. Its not near as bad here as people from far off cites and law schools like to tell me it is.

Someone has to counter that, I wish more people would, but when youíre faced with thread after thread of people bashing your schools, or ever time you try and give a reasoned response the retort is always ďthatísí why you go to X schoolĒ would you want to come here and put up with that just to help people out? No, most would not. Like to admit it or not this board is elitist, it part because the lower school bashing is tolerated and drives those people away so thatís all that is left is mostly T14 kids. People donít necessarily do it on purpose, (some do) but they donít counter it either.  In my view is a detriment to the majority of law students out there who could use some advice that actually pertains to them, but instead get trash talked and stop posting. Hence I, from time to time, through it back in peoples faces. But it never ceases to amaze me how upset some people, often times the same people who trash other schools get when it gets turned around on them (and Iím not saying you have ever done this, this is my first encounter with you, and you seem to not be that type other than the completely logical response you had to me trashing your school).

 People will turn a blind eye to people trashing any school lower ranked then theirs, but boy do they get all riled up if you do it to them. They forget that they are doing it, either purposefully or by their silence to other people every day. It seems hypocritical to me, and sometimes I try to point that out by throwing some of it back at them. As Tasha said, I caught one, you just got mixed up into something bigger than you realized at the time.


Actually, I think that T4 schools should exist. I never said they shouldn't. I said that I think the for-profit ones take advantage of people...which many of them do. There are unaccredited schools that you can't even take the bar out of (maybe I mean lower than T4 even). That really bothers me.

Second, I'm not saying that you don't know what YOU are capable of. Just because you did something or the top 5% of your class did something (or you know a few people who did something), does not mean that someone should expect to be able to go to a T2 school and have a very good chance of being able to accomplish that as well.  What bothers me is that someone would invest 130-180K on a law school education not knowing that realistically they aren't going to have a great chance at getting a 160K a year job out of x school. They might think that their chances are better based on the few success stories (such as yourself) on this board who tell them that they don't need to go to x and x school to get a certain kind of job.  Sure they don't NEED to go to a T14 school...or even a T30, but good luck being in the top 5 people in your class and absolutely nailing one of the 3 interviews you get with BigLaw firms.

If you want to work in BigLaw the facts about hiring are what they are. It has nothing to do with your perspective. Or my perspective. Go look on any firm website and run a search...it is simple statistics based on firm hiring quotas. We can argue about whether or not the fact that a firm will have a quota to hire 30 Harvard kids and 1 kid from Suffolk Law is fair, or right, or whatever, but that is another conversation.

Now I'm not saying people who go to T2 schools aren't deserving. I have a friend who had near a 4.0 in college who goes to a "T2" school out west and can't get a job that pays him over 75K a year base. Do I think he deserves a 160K job? Sure, absolutely. I think he is very smart. Do I think he'll get it? No. Did he think he'd get one when he entered law school. Yes. That's the problem I have with the system the way it is right now.

At the end of the day, you can blame me and run around saying that students at T14 schools are so stupid and undeserving, but that won't change reality. It won't make law firms more likely to hire based on a pattern that isn't centered around a silly magazine article. I agree that the system may be off, but we should at least be able to recognize the game as it exists.

EDIT: One thing to add. I recognize that everyone may not care about or want a 160K job. They may have other ways of paying off their loans, they might not care, they might get a free ride from some school. That's great. If I could pay my bills and work at a non-profit, I totally would. In fact as soon as I pay off my loans I intend to do that (and actually many non-profit jobs are often harder to get than firm jobs). I am simply talking about being able to match your goals with your school choice and being realistic about it.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Matthies on December 16, 2008, 04:28:33 PM
Matthies? Didn't this just happen last week in SFLSD? And it was pointed out to you that while you feel like the Lone Ranger, the people whose schools you denigrate are not the posters who make asinine comments a la wiimote? So maybe the shotgun approach, wherein you spray everyone who goes to schools that the prestige-whores like with your joking/whatever vitriol, isn't necessarily hitting the right targets, in that it's hitting all the students at those schools, including the ones who aren't fucktard douchebags like wiimote et al?

I say this with love, because I know that you/your school/your choices get a lot of poo on the board/internet/etc as a whole. But...it's not me, or Cady, or tm, etc, who are dishing out the poo... And I don't think we particularly turn a blind eye to it, either. Maybe you disagree. Entirely possible. I don't know.

I suppose it may be relevant that I do not know the law and am screwed for the Bar, on account of all my exams talk about how to rewrite the 4th Amendment and/or what System Justification Theory has to do with tort law, inasmuch as truth is a defense to the "defeat w/ actual legal questions" accusation. But no matter.

Dash,

I agree with you that my poking fun at X or Y school is hitting, and I think I see now, hurting, unintended bystanders. But I have never, in any seriousness personally denigrated you, Cady or TM, nor your accomplishments.
Nor have I stood by on the sidelines when any of you have been attacked for any reason. But I canít help but see this thread as indicative of an extremely prevalent trend on this board. That is its OK, either through direct action or silence to make fun of schools, to have as the standard response ďthatís why you got to X, or good luck at YĒ and then turn the tables in the sprit of satire, and have people say its different when I do it.
Call a spade a spade, its sucks when youíre the target of anyoneís jokes. I understand that, I agree with that, I know I am doing that when I do what I do. But I donít do it with mall intent, and maybe my methods go misunderstood by everyone but me. But you canít, I canít, help but see a double standard here. An almost universal acceptance, either by participation or silence, of the status quo. Maybe you donít see it as clearly as I do, maybe I am seeing it more than I should. But look at the regular posters, who still posts here from lower ranked schools? How many posters have been driven off, I get the PMs, thanks for your advice by Iím not going to post on LSD any more because of all the vitriol. Iíve gotten dozens of them over the years.

Like it or not, intentionally or not, LSD is unwelcoming to people who donít fit the mold, and it re-enforces that when people donít make waves. I sometimes make waves, and those waves sometimes hurt people, and for that I am sorry. But I canít help but think we would not be having this conversation if I was trashing TTTs. No one here would be offended, but save me and a few others, its certainly would not have garnered the attention it has, and I doubt you are TM would come in to voice your displeasure. Not, of course, because you condone that behavior, but because as happens every day on here it goes unnoticed by those not targeted. Its seems its only noticed by the magority, when they are the target.

And that I see has part of the problem, and where I see the double standard. No, you donít trash schools, TM does not trash schools, lots of people donít but they donít stay anything about it either. Its goes un noticed because it does not affect them personally, but it does effect a lot of people, people who donít stay on LSD. Not at least until I turn the tables, then its noticeable. Well its noticeable all over this board if you just look for it. Its noticeable, and in my view well tolerated, to the point that its driving [people away who could really use the advice here.

Its not top law schools, its not T14 law schools, its law school discussion, but its not open equally to everyone. There is an unwritten, but re-enforced code, stay within that code and your fine, no one will complain, step out of that code, even if its to try and point out something obvious to you and others in your position see on a daily basis and there is a backlash. No one likes to be the but of the joke, but it sure seems its more OK for some people to be the but of the joke than others here. Sometimes I think you need to put the shoe on the other foot, maybe this thread did that in the wrong way, but it is no different than what 100s of posters see here everyday. Point that out, bring it to the surface and people start getting upset.

Rightfully so I guess. Iím sorry if I personally offended anyone, that was never my intent, I have a pretty fierce self deprecating sense of humor, I forget that not everyone has that, and some people may think I am honestly making fun of them rather than trying to be sarcastic, for that I apologize. I donít mean to belittle anyone accomplishments, the hard work they have done, or do, or the hard work they will have to do.  There is no one on this thread that I think is stupid or undeserving of anything they have earned. Nor do I believe you have it any easier than anyone else. Iím sorry if I upset anyone. I guess I am as guilty as that of what I seek to prevent.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Matthies on December 16, 2008, 04:49:59 PM

I actually donít disagree with this at all. I think your completely correct. I do however differ with you on if should T4 schools exists, I think they should, so long as the students attending them understand what they are getting into. I also see this as the responsibility of the individual, rather than the schools some how tricking them into thinking they have a shot at something they donít. I tend to think its better for legal representation when people have a choice among lawyers, so Iím not support of closing any schools down.

Where I do disagree with you is that I think people, primarily those at T14s on this board because they happen to be over represented (compared to the number on non t14 law students) talk about the ramifications of going to a lower ranked school like they know what those are. Iím not a T14 student, you wonít see me giving advice on where to apply to get that big law job in NYC. I would have no idea what Iím talking about. But there are many on this board who will tell you what MY job prospects are, from MY school, in MY market who have never even been here. There are a few of us who regularly post from lower ranked schools on here, and universally I think if you took a poll they would all say how people describe it is not how it really is.

I know my market. I know what jobs Iíve had, what jobs Iíve been offered and where many of my classmates are working. Several in big law, several in federal clerkships, in fact I donít know anyone of my friends or classmates who donít have jobs. But you would not know that from reading the posts here by people who donít go to my school or live in my market but will tell you what my job prospects are like they are experts.
Thatís the big problem I have with LSD. There is some great info out there, and some experts in their schools and markets, and people should listen to them. But there are others who think just because thatís the way it works around them it works like that everywhere. Or think that just because thatís what its like at their school its like that everywhere. Look at JD Underground, look at TLS, look who the people are and where they go to school, its more T14 than not, and many times the advice they give to non T14 kids is just wrong or bad (not necessarily because they do it on purpose, but that they buy in to the hype when they really donít know any better).

I spend a lot of my time on this board shooting down misinformation posted, by probably well meaning folks, who just really donít know what they are talking about. There are generalities, sure, but things are very different in NYC than they are here, I would never try to give advice to someone looking for a job there. But its also very different than the doom and gloom that some people in NYC market think lawyers from other law schools are experiencing. Its not near as bad here as people from far off cites and law schools like to tell me it is.

Someone has to counter that, I wish more people would, but when youíre faced with thread after thread of people bashing your schools, or ever time you try and give a reasoned response the retort is always ďthatísí why you go to X schoolĒ would you want to come here and put up with that just to help people out? No, most would not. Like to admit it or not this board is elitist, it part because the lower school bashing is tolerated and drives those people away so thatís all that is left is mostly T14 kids. People donít necessarily do it on purpose, (some do) but they donít counter it either.  In my view is a detriment to the majority of law students out there who could use some advice that actually pertains to them, but instead get trash talked and stop posting. Hence I, from time to time, through it back in peoples faces. But it never ceases to amaze me how upset some people, often times the same people who trash other schools get when it gets turned around on them (and Iím not saying you have ever done this, this is my first encounter with you, and you seem to not be that type other than the completely logical response you had to me trashing your school).

 People will turn a blind eye to people trashing any school lower ranked then theirs, but boy do they get all riled up if you do it to them. They forget that they are doing it, either purposefully or by their silence to other people every day. It seems hypocritical to me, and sometimes I try to point that out by throwing some of it back at them. As Tasha said, I caught one, you just got mixed up into something bigger than you realized at the time.



Second, I'm not saying that you don't know what YOU are capable of. Just because you did something or the top 5% of your class did something (or you know a few people who did something), does not mean that someone should expect to be able to go to a T2 school and have a very good chance of being able to accomplish that as well.  What bothers me is that someone would invest 130-180K on a law school education not knowing that realistically they aren't going to have a great chance at getting a 160K a year job out of x school. They might think that their chances are better based on the few success stories (such as yourself) on this board who tell them that they don't need to go to x and x school to get a certain kind of job.  Sure they don't NEED to go to a T14 school...or even a T30, but good luck being in the top 5 people in your class and absolutely nailing one of the 3 interviews you get with BigLaw firms.

If you want to work in BigLaw the facts about hiring are what they are. It has nothing to do with your perspective. Or my perspective. Go look on any firm website and run a search...it is simple statistics based on firm hiring quotas. We can argue about whether or not the fact that a firm will have a quota to hire 30 Harvard kids and 1 kid from Suffolk Law is fair, or right, or whatever, but that is another conversation.


See this is what I am talking about. Thatís not how it really is, not at all. Not here, not in my experience. We donít have the need to fill the large law firms with top grads, there are more local grades at the top local firms here than otherwise. Its not just the top 5%, it goes much deeper than that. I know, Iíve been working in this market for four+ years. But people will tell me, and others, that I am wrong with what I see, with the market I know. And they have nothing to base that on but what they see at T14 schools. Have you ever tried to get a job in Denver? But your going to tell me how it works, because thatís how you think you know how it works, but its NOT. Its much more about who you know than where you go. Itís a very small legal market and knowing the right people can get you jobs people would think T2 grads canít. How you find jobs in markets like this is very different from  how you do it in NYC.

We arenít NYC, we donít have the same pressures you have. How hiring works here, and Iím going to project in many mid markets, is not how it does there. And people giving advice thatís wrong (again not intentionally, but because they just donít know any better) is a huge problem. Voices like mine, who can better tell people what its like to actually look for a job are drowned out by people saying this is whatís its like. Iím telling you from first hand personal experience its not, but because you got to CLS someone is going to believe you, and Iím afraid that people on here make bad choices because they try and emulate what works at your school down here, because thatís all they hear.

The vast majority of my classmates donít get jobs from OCI, but thatís how you guys do it. Its bad advice for people from T2s to think that, but thatís what they get told because thatís mostly hat they hear on here. People need to hear that, they need to understand that what works for you guys is actually a BAD plan of attck down here, it will lead to less offers, not more. Its not near as hard as some people think to get a decent job out of a teir 2 SO LONG AS THEY DO IT RIGHT. The biggest problem is most don't becuase they try a copy what works at top schools, puting all thier eegs in the OCI basket, thats just totally the wrong approach to take, but thats how most of the psoetrs on here got jobs so they think thats how they should do it. I'm not some great sucess story, I just figured out what works and what does not, if more people did more people would have better luck finding jobs.


Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Matthies on December 16, 2008, 05:18:10 PM
Your silence on one and vocal opposition to another. Who else have you called out? When do you call out?

i'm actually not vocal opposition one way or the other.  for example when you brought up that coloring book thing, i just played along because i know that you're kidding around.

See my post above, you donít have to be vocal to have an effect, but when and where you chose to be vocal sends a message that maybe you donít see being sent.

this is all fair enough.  we don't always come off the way we intend.

having said that, let's be clear: there's no reason for me to be vocal regarding things with which i have no familiarity.  i do comment on things that i know something about, and that means big firms, top schools.  i could say lots of things along the same lines that you do, but i wouldn't know what i was talking about, so it doesn't make much sense for me to do so, don't you think?  

I try to do the same, but we are in the rare minority of posters on here doing so
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: SavoyTruffleShuffle on December 16, 2008, 05:27:58 PM
Lisa: Dad, you can't judge a place you've never been to.
Bart: Yeah, that's what people do in Russia
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Miss P on December 16, 2008, 07:31:46 PM
[off-topic sanctimony]

If I could pay my bills and work at a non-profit, I totally would. In fact as soon as I pay off my loans I intend to do that (and actually many non-profit jobs are often harder to get than firm jobs).

This isn't personal -- I know nothing about you or your commitment to pro bono work, your other debts, your family obligations, etc. -- but I read this a lot, and I feel the need to comment.

Most lawyers who work at non-profits are paying their bills, and you probably could too.  It's not easy (which is the real problem for most people in your situation) but it's doable, especially if you come from a school with a good LRAP program (and CLS has perhaps the best in the country right now).  The new federal loan forgiveness program will also make a huge difference in the lives of public interest lawyers.

I don't judge people who choose to work at firms.  It's perfectly reasonable to want to make a lot of money or do a certain kind of work, especially if it's what you expected to do when you went to law school in the first place.  Only you can decide what you want out of your career.  To me, it's more important to spend my working hours doing something that I enjoy doing.  To you, it may be more important to live in a nice building in your off hours.  These are not moral issues; they're personal lifestyle choices.  But please don't pretend that your decision to work at a firm is any less of a luxury than my decision to do what I love.  This is not like college where the rich kids spend their summers volunteering in international non-profits while the rest of us toil for minimum wage to make our EFCs.  Almost all of us have ridiculous amounts of debt that we have to pay off.  We've just reached different conclusions about which sacrifices we're willing to make to do so.

[/sanctimony]*

*Yeah, right.   :P
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: goaliechica on December 16, 2008, 07:40:58 PM
JD Underground has us right where they want us.... fighting amongst ourselves so they can conquer us more easily!
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Miss P on December 16, 2008, 07:43:08 PM
JD Underground has us right where they want us.... fighting amongst ourselves so they can conquer us more easily!

I'm not fighting.   ???
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: goaliechica on December 16, 2008, 07:50:44 PM
JD Underground has us right where they want us.... fighting amongst ourselves so they can conquer us more easily!

I'm not fighting.   ???

Sorry, it was a poor attempt at a joke.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Miss P on December 16, 2008, 07:52:56 PM
JD Underground has us right where they want us.... fighting amongst ourselves so they can conquer us more easily!

I'm not fighting.   ???

Sorry, it was a poor attempt at a joke.

No worries!  Sorry I'm too steeped in my paper and, er, not studying for admin to know what's going on or have a sense of humor about anything.  I just wanted to make sure that no one was taking my post the wrong way.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: JayCLS on December 16, 2008, 11:21:20 PM
[off-topic sanctimony]

If I could pay my bills and work at a non-profit, I totally would. In fact as soon as I pay off my loans I intend to do that (and actually many non-profit jobs are often harder to get than firm jobs).

This isn't personal -- I know nothing about you or your commitment to pro bono work, your other debts, your family obligations, etc. -- but I read this a lot, and I feel the need to comment.

Most lawyers who work at non-profits are paying their bills, and you probably could too.  It's not easy (which is the real problem for most people in your situation) but it's doable, especially if you come from a school with a good LRAP program (and CLS has perhaps the best in the country right now).  The new federal loan forgiveness program will also make a huge difference in the lives of public interest lawyers.

I don't judge people who choose to work at firms.  It's perfectly reasonable to want to make a lot of money or do a certain kind of work, especially if it's what you expected to do when you went to law school in the first place.  Only you can decide what you want out of your career.  To me, it's more important to spend my working hours doing something that I enjoy doing.  To you, it may be more important to live in a nice building in your off hours.  These are not moral issues; they're personal lifestyle choices.  But please don't pretend that your decision to work at a firm is any less of a luxury than my decision to do what I love.  This is not like college where the rich kids spend their summers volunteering in international non-profits while the rest of us toil for minimum wage to make our EFCs.  Almost all of us have ridiculous amounts of debt that we have to pay off.  We've just reached different conclusions about which sacrifices we're willing to make to do so.

[/sanctimony]*

*Yeah, right.   :P

Point taken. I'm not really interested in a non-profit, but government work which requires a few years of law firm work before you are qualified. 

In terms of LRAP...you won't find that at most Tier 2 schools which was the context of our conversation...but you make a good point.

P.S. I sort of tacked that edit onto the end. It was poorly thought out. I did mean to say that I think that public interest jobs can be harder to get/are often more sought after than firm jobs. I think it really is a life choice.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Miss P on December 16, 2008, 11:35:07 PM
Point taken. I'm not really interested in a non-profit, but government work which requires a few years of law firm work before you are qualified. 

In terms of LRAP...you won't find that at most Tier 2 schools which was the context of our conversation...but you make a good point.

P.S. I sort of tacked that edit onto the end. It was poorly thought out. I did mean to say that I think that public interest jobs can be harder to get/are often more sought after than firm jobs. I think it really is a life choice.

Cool.  And you're totally right about LRAP at lower-tier schools, and I understand why, in the context of this thread, it might be worthwhile to talk about how difficult it is to pay back loans on a public interest salary.

I also really appreciate the recognition in your P.S.  Too many people around here assume that all do-gooder jobs are bottom-feeding, but it's just not true.  And even for those bottom-feeding positions with low entry qualifications, there is a huge amount of competition from other people with mediocre records. :)
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: JayCLS on December 16, 2008, 11:50:00 PM

See this is what I am talking about. Thatís not how it really is, not at all. Not here, not in my experience. We donít have the need to fill the large law firms with top grads, there are more local grades at the top local firms here than otherwise. Its not just the top 5%, it goes much deeper than that. I know, Iíve been working in this market for four+ years. But people will tell me, and others, that I am wrong with what I see, with the market I know. And they have nothing to base that on but what they see at T14 schools. Have you ever tried to get a job in Denver? But your going to tell me how it works, because thatís how you think you know how it works, but its NOT. Its much more about who you know than where you go. Itís a very small legal market and knowing the right people can get you jobs people would think T2 grads canít. How you find jobs in markets like this is very different from  how you do it in NYC.

We arenít NYC, we donít have the same pressures you have. How hiring works here, and Iím going to project in many mid markets, is not how it does there. And people giving advice thatís wrong (again not intentionally, but because they just donít know any better) is a huge problem. Voices like mine, who can better tell people what its like to actually look for a job are drowned out by people saying this is whatís its like. Iím telling you from first hand personal experience its not, but because you got to CLS someone is going to believe you, and Iím afraid that people on here make bad choices because they try and emulate what works at your school down here, because thatís all they hear.

The vast majority of my classmates donít get jobs from OCI, but thatís how you guys do it. Its bad advice for people from T2s to think that, but thatís what they get told because thatís mostly hat they hear on here. People need to hear that, they need to understand that what works for you guys is actually a BAD plan of attck down here, it will lead to less offers, not more. Its not near as hard as some people think to get a decent job out of a teir 2 SO LONG AS THEY DO IT RIGHT. The biggest problem is most don't becuase they try a copy what works at top schools, puting all thier eegs in the OCI basket, thats just totally the wrong approach to take, but thats how most of the psoetrs on here got jobs so they think thats how they should do it. I'm not some great sucess story, I just figured out what works and what does not, if more people did more people would have better luck finding jobs.



Alright. Where to begin.

#1. I find it interesting that the crux of your argument is that you need to understand individual markets, but then you lump all mid-markets together. The logic doesn't follow.

#2. I qualified my statements when I made my argument. There were two qualifications. The first was that the jobs I was discussing were BigLaw. The second was that they be $160K jobs. Again, I did not say that these were the only desirable jobs, but I said that I think many people who go to lower ranked law schools are deluded into thinking they are going to professional school and will be able to score a job at this salary when they graduate. In order for your counter-point to hold water, Denver needs to have BigLaw firms, associates making 160K salaries, AND these associates need to be coming from Tier 2 schools. So let's look at the Denver market statistically. According to NALP there are 34 firms with Denver offices. Of these, I'd say there are a few that I'd agree qualified as Biglaw. Firms like A&P, Gibson, Hogan & Hartson, Greenberg, Dorsey, Perkins, Patton Boggs. Of those, I am not sure which ones pay 160K in their Denver office, and I am really not going to have the time to look at every one now. So if one firm is more representative for your point and pays 160K then by all means, point it out to me. I looked at A&P and Gibson.  

The majority of associates at Gibson are from top 30 law schools. A&P had 5/12 from T14 schools and 3/5 partners from T14. I'd also note that these summer classes are very small. A&P hires 1 or 2 a year. Gibson was fewer than 10. So I fail to see how your chances from a local school (Colorado has how many per class?) would be that great.  Also, given the sizable numbers of T30 and T14 students going to the Denver offices of these firms, I'd assume that the firms place some weight on your law school's reputation. The fact is that there aren't that many Harvard, Columbia, Yale, Stanford students who search for jobs in Denver, so the market is less competitive between local schools and the T14.  

That being said, the chances of you landing one of these few jobs from any law school in Colorado are still much lower than those from a T14 school. And even if we expand -> How many students from your law school got jobs in the Vault 100? What is the % of students who land such jobs and of those what % are on partnership track/are associates and not staff attorneys.

I'm not trying to brag, or be an ass, but I am saying that when you say the things you say you sound like you are denying facts that are obvious to most people who can do 2 to 3 minutes of research. It makes you sound as though you are bitter. For someone who tries to act like prestige doesn't matter, you spend a lot of time trying to debunk prestige as a factor. If it doesn't matter to you, then why are you constantly putting other schools down?

Another thing that bothers me about T2 schools is that often they'll pump out stats on where their graduates work listing them at top firms all over the country.  What they fail to note is that many of those graduates are staff attorneys/not on the associate/partner track. That is a big distinction.

Again, I'm going to qualify this by saying that I'm not saying that these jobs are the only ones that count. But I am saying that if you want one, it is much better to go to a T1 school than a T2 school and it is silly to argue otherwise. Those are the stats. I'm also not saying that you can't ever get a good job from a T2...absolutely you can. I am sure there are some mid-level/small firms in Denver that are great places to work and everyone loves them. What I am saying is that the odds are much lower coming from a T2 school when trying to land certain kinds of jobs. That's all.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: JayCLS on December 16, 2008, 11:54:47 PM
Point taken. I'm not really interested in a non-profit, but government work which requires a few years of law firm work before you are qualified. 

In terms of LRAP...you won't find that at most Tier 2 schools which was the context of our conversation...but you make a good point.

P.S. I sort of tacked that edit onto the end. It was poorly thought out. I did mean to say that I think that public interest jobs can be harder to get/are often more sought after than firm jobs. I think it really is a life choice.

Cool.  And you're totally right about LRAP at lower-tier schools, and I understand why, in the context of this thread, it might be worthwhile to talk about how difficult it is to pay back loans on a public interest salary.

I also really appreciate the recognition in your P.S.  Too many people around here assume that all do-gooder jobs are bottom-feeding, but it's just not true.  And even for those bottom-feeding positions with low entry qualifications, there is a huge amount of competition from other people with mediocre records. :)

Yeah I mean I totally agree with you/am on the same page. I just was focusing on one type of job here not because I think BigLaw is more prestigious but I am trying to point out the +1 factor that is the reality of law firm rankings. I guess what I mean is from a lower tiered law school you are most likely going to have access primarily to lower ranked/smaller firm jobs. If you go to a higher ranked school you'll have access to BigLaw...then in the top 3-6 really you have a chance at a SCOTUS clerkship or that Wachtell associateship (if you are amazingly brilliant too). With public interest I am sure it tracks similarly. The top jobs (ACLU etc.) go mostly to top tier law school grads and then track down. That was the only point I was trying to make.  If you have your heart set on a SCOTUS clerkship and the only school you get into is Cooley...then maybe you should consider your other options.  Is it impossible to get a SCOTUS clerkship from Cooley? I don't know, maybe, maybe not. If you come up with some new legal theory no one has ever thought of then yeah maybe you could land it, but the odds are stacked against you. Likewise, from a tier 3 school can you get a biglaw job? Yeah sure you can. People do all the time. Is it relatively rare? Absolutely. That's all I am saying. I just think people should have a realistic view of their options when they are shopping law schools/possible careers.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Matthies on December 17, 2008, 06:58:57 AM

See this is what I am talking about. Thatís not how it really is, not at all. Not here, not in my experience. We donít have the need to fill the large law firms with top grads, there are more local grades at the top local firms here than otherwise. Its not just the top 5%, it goes much deeper than that. I know, Iíve been working in this market for four+ years. But people will tell me, and others, that I am wrong with what I see, with the market I know. And they have nothing to base that on but what they see at T14 schools. Have you ever tried to get a job in Denver? But your going to tell me how it works, because thatís how you think you know how it works, but its NOT. Its much more about who you know than where you go. Itís a very small legal market and knowing the right people can get you jobs people would think T2 grads canít. How you find jobs in markets like this is very different from  how you do it in NYC.

We arenít NYC, we donít have the same pressures you have. How hiring works here, and Iím going to project in many mid markets, is not how it does there. And people giving advice thatís wrong (again not intentionally, but because they just donít know any better) is a huge problem. Voices like mine, who can better tell people what its like to actually look for a job are drowned out by people saying this is whatís its like. Iím telling you from first hand personal experience its not, but because you got to CLS someone is going to believe you, and Iím afraid that people on here make bad choices because they try and emulate what works at your school down here, because thatís all they hear.

The vast majority of my classmates donít get jobs from OCI, but thatís how you guys do it. Its bad advice for people from T2s to think that, but thatís what they get told because thatís mostly hat they hear on here. People need to hear that, they need to understand that what works for you guys is actually a BAD plan of attck down here, it will lead to less offers, not more. Its not near as hard as some people think to get a decent job out of a teir 2 SO LONG AS THEY DO IT RIGHT. The biggest problem is most don't becuase they try a copy what works at top schools, puting all thier eegs in the OCI basket, thats just totally the wrong approach to take, but thats how most of the psoetrs on here got jobs so they think thats how they should do it. I'm not some great sucess story, I just figured out what works and what does not, if more people did more people would have better luck finding jobs.



Alright. Where to begin.

#1. I find it interesting that the crux of your argument is that you need to understand individual markets, but then you lump all mid-markets together. The logic doesn't follow.

#2. I qualified my statements when I made my argument. There were two qualifications. The first was that the jobs I was discussing were BigLaw. The second was that they be $160K jobs. Again, I did not say that these were the only desirable jobs, but I said that I think many people who go to lower ranked law schools are deluded into thinking they are going to professional school and will be able to score a job at this salary when they graduate. In order for your counter-point to hold water, Denver needs to have BigLaw firms, associates making 160K salaries, AND these associates need to be coming from Tier 2 schools. So let's look at the Denver market statistically. According to NALP there are 34 firms with Denver offices. Of these, I'd say there are a few that I'd agree qualified as Biglaw. Firms like A&P, Gibson, Hogan & Hartson, Greenberg, Dorsey, Perkins, Patton Boggs. Of those, I am not sure which ones pay 160K in their Denver office, and I am really not going to have the time to look at every one now. So if one firm is more representative for your point and pays 160K then by all means, point it out to me. I looked at A&P and Gibson.  

The majority of associates at Gibson are from top 30 law schools. A&P had 5/12 from T14 schools and 3/5 partners from T14. I'd also note that these summer classes are very small. A&P hires 1 or 2 a year. Gibson was fewer than 10. So I fail to see how your chances from a local school (Colorado has how many per class?) would be that great.  Also, given the sizable numbers of T30 and T14 students going to the Denver offices of these firms, I'd assume that the firms place some weight on your law school's reputation. The fact is that there aren't that many Harvard, Columbia, Yale, Stanford students who search for jobs in Denver, so the market is less competitive between local schools and the T14.  

That being said, the chances of you landing one of these few jobs from any law school in Colorado are still much lower than those from a T14 school. And even if we expand -> How many students from your law school got jobs in the Vault 100? What is the % of students who land such jobs and of those what % are on partnership track/are associates and not staff attorneys.

I'm not trying to brag, or be an ass, but I am saying that when you say the things you say you sound like you are denying facts that are obvious to most people who can do 2 to 3 minutes of research. It makes you sound as though you are bitter. For someone who tries to act like prestige doesn't matter, you spend a lot of time trying to debunk prestige as a factor. If it doesn't matter to you, then why are you constantly putting other schools down?

Another thing that bothers me about T2 schools is that often they'll pump out stats on where their graduates work listing them at top firms all over the country.  What they fail to note is that many of those graduates are staff attorneys/not on the associate/partner track. That is a big distinction.

Again, I'm going to qualify this by saying that I'm not saying that these jobs are the only ones that count. But I am saying that if you want one, it is much better to go to a T1 school than a T2 school and it is silly to argue otherwise. Those are the stats. I'm also not saying that you can't ever get a good job from a T2...absolutely you can. I am sure there are some mid-level/small firms in Denver that are great places to work and everyone loves them. What I am saying is that the odds are much lower coming from a T2 school when trying to land certain kinds of jobs. That's all.

Again, do you not see your making assumptions here that I never amde, that the goal of most T2 studnts is to get these jobs you think they all want. My entire point has been, lost I guess, that this is not the reality for most T2 studnts, and they KNOW this already. Your making an arguemnt that's obviouse Iím not arguing with you that for 160k NYC jobs all of what you sat is true. Where do you see this is any of my posts? You don't, your just assuming that's what I am saying, its not. But I think you assume most students go to school with that in mind so thatís where you set you bar as defining those jobs. That simply not true, most law students will never have these jobs. Let me spell it out for what I think the differences are between what I am saying and what youíre saying, and try to set out from what you want to what I am trying to say. This is good advice for students not going to T14 schools:

1.   Pick you school based on location/where you want to practice
2.   Do not go to any regional school with the intent of leaving that region
3.   Its unwise to go to school in say Colorado if you want to work in NYC
4.   You lose the benefits a lower ranked, but local school has in the market if you tgry to leave
5.   Do not rely on OCI for your primary job search
6.   Make connections in your local legal market
7.   Apply to firms that target you school and alumni

This is not advice and helps no one ďYou canít get a big law job from a T4 making NYC salaryĒ It simply states the facts, but does nothing to help those going to these schools find out what works.

The list goes on about strategies that are specific to lower ranked schools for most mid markets. What you are consistently talking about is students who think they can go to T2 schools and break into top firms at NYC market. I donít disagree with you about that at all. But your advice, that it canít be done (and I agree you should not do it) does not apply to most law students at these schools. A minority of law student may go to law school with that dream from a T2, but most donít. Iím not saying what your saying is wrong, Iím saying it does not apply to most law students at these school, but finding advice that does apply to them is scare.
By the way, only H&H is the only one you listed really considered a local big law. I also know the make up of this past summers class there 5 DU, 4 CU, 1 WY and a Uva student. Its like that every year. Like I said Iím not going to argue with you about kids who think they can got to a T4 in CA and get a NYC biglaw job are living in a fantasy land. But what you keep saying over and over is the goal of most students simply is not. And saying you canít get NYC big law is not advice, and its not helping, its just stating a position.  I udnerstand that this is the ceter of your world, so it what you focus on, what I am trying to say is tep back and see that its not the center of the world for a lot of studnets, they know this, they need advice that applies to them.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Matthies on December 17, 2008, 07:12:30 AM
Point taken. I'm not really interested in a non-profit, but government work which requires a few years of law firm work before you are qualified. 

In terms of LRAP...you won't find that at most Tier 2 schools which was the context of our conversation...but you make a good point.

P.S. I sort of tacked that edit onto the end. It was poorly thought out. I did mean to say that I think that public interest jobs can be harder to get/are often more sought after than firm jobs. I think it really is a life choice.

Cool.  And you're totally right about LRAP at lower-tier schools, and I understand why, in the context of this thread, it might be worthwhile to talk about how difficult it is to pay back loans on a public interest salary.

I also really appreciate the recognition in your P.S.  Too many people around here assume that all do-gooder jobs are bottom-feeding, but it's just not true.  And even for those bottom-feeding positions with low entry qualifications, there is a huge amount of competition from other people with mediocre records. :)

Yeah I mean I totally agree with you/am on the same page. I just was focusing on one type of job here not because I think BigLaw is more prestigious but I am trying to point out the +1 factor that is the reality of law firm rankings. I guess what I mean is from a lower tiered law school you are most likely going to have access primarily to lower ranked/smaller firm jobs. If you go to a higher ranked school you'll have access to BigLaw...then in the top 3-6 really you have a chance at a SCOTUS clerkship or that Wachtell associateship (if you are amazingly brilliant too). With public interest I am sure it tracks similarly. The top jobs (ACLU etc.) go mostly to top tier law school grads and then track down. That was the only point I was trying to make.  If you have your heart set on a SCOTUS clerkship and the only school you get into is Cooley...then maybe you should consider your other options.  Is it impossible to get a SCOTUS clerkship from Cooley? I don't know, maybe, maybe not. If you come up with some new legal theory no one has ever thought of then yeah maybe you could land it, but the odds are stacked against you. Likewise, from a tier 3 school can you get a biglaw job? Yeah sure you can. People do all the time. Is it relatively rare? Absolutely. That's all I am saying. I just think people should have a realistic view of their options when they are shopping law schools/possible careers.

This probably would have been a better post to qoute, becuase I don't disagree with anything here, excpt I think there are far fewwer people at this schools wth those goals than are at your school. Hence why I say what you think may be good advice for them, may not be at all. People have diffrent goals, people need to have realsitic goals too, but people also need to underatnd that thier goals and those around the may not be shared by everyone as unverisally as they think.

I think, we, both us, are surrounded by people of like thinking at our schools, so its natural for us to infer other students think the same way/have the same goals at other schools. I certainly would think other students at other T14 schools have similar goals to you and your classmates, all I am saying is I think people at similar schools to mine probably have similar goals, and if thatís true, then at least at my school I donít know anyone perusing the types of jobs they would if they went to your school.  I think to assume that they are is a false assumption, and the only really point I have been trying to make. Yes there are those with pie in the ski dreams, but those are the minority, and at least in my experience people at my school are striving for jobs they can get, not to be a SCOTUS clerk. And hence people need advice from people in thier shoes, not from people who have a compleatly diffrent reality/goal set. 
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Matthies on December 17, 2008, 07:15:31 AM

See this is what I am talking about. Thatís not how it really is, not at all. Not here, not in my experience. We donít have the need to fill the large law firms with top grads, there are more local grades at the top local firms here than otherwise. Its not just the top 5%, it goes much deeper than that. I know, Iíve been working in this market for four+ years. But people will tell me, and others, that I am wrong with what I see, with the market I know. And they have nothing to base that on but what they see at T14 schools. Have you ever tried to get a job in Denver? But your going to tell me how it works, because thatís how you think you know how it works, but its NOT. Its much more about who you know than where you go. Itís a very small legal market and knowing the right people can get you jobs people would think T2 grads canít. How you find jobs in markets like this is very different from  how you do it in NYC.

We arenít NYC, we donít have the same pressures you have. How hiring works here, and Iím going to project in many mid markets, is not how it does there. And people giving advice thatís wrong (again not intentionally, but because they just donít know any better) is a huge problem. Voices like mine, who can better tell people what its like to actually look for a job are drowned out by people saying this is whatís its like. Iím telling you from first hand personal experience its not, but because you got to CLS someone is going to believe you, and Iím afraid that people on here make bad choices because they try and emulate what works at your school down here, because thatís all they hear.

The vast majority of my classmates donít get jobs from OCI, but thatís how you guys do it. Its bad advice for people from T2s to think that, but thatís what they get told because thatís mostly hat they hear on here. People need to hear that, they need to understand that what works for you guys is actually a BAD plan of attck down here, it will lead to less offers, not more. Its not near as hard as some people think to get a decent job out of a teir 2 SO LONG AS THEY DO IT RIGHT. The biggest problem is most don't becuase they try a copy what works at top schools, puting all thier eegs in the OCI basket, thats just totally the wrong approach to take, but thats how most of the psoetrs on here got jobs so they think thats how they should do it. I'm not some great sucess story, I just figured out what works and what does not, if more people did more people would have better luck finding jobs.



I'm not trying to brag, or be an ass, but I am saying that when you say the things you say you sound like you are denying facts that are obvious to most people who can do 2 to 3 minutes of research. It makes you sound as though you are bitter. For someone who tries to act like prestige doesn't matter, you spend a lot of time trying to debunk prestige as a factor. If it doesn't matter to you, then why are you constantly putting other schools down?


Actually I donít constantly bash schools, in fact its rare that I do unless Iím trying to make the point that people should not take themselves so seriously. If you look back at my posts Iíll put the advice I give against anyone elseís here. I also donít get butt hurt when some makes fun of my school. Maybe its because Iím older, and have other things in my life Iím proud of, but I donít get myself worth from the school I go to. Nor do I hold that above other people (unlike you whose first response was to infer my lower job prospects). Nor do I wish I was at any other school, Iím perfectly content where I am. I do however, and will point out when other people have a double standard about this. Look you should be proud of your school, you should be proud of your accomplishments, but if you get upset when someone pokes fun at you for it, then donít be a hypocrite and do the same thing to them. If you can't laugh at yourself then don't laugh at other people.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: nealric on December 17, 2008, 07:39:53 AM
Quote
By the way, only H&H is the only one you listed really considered a local big law.

I think he was talking about Hogan & Hartson. I assume you are talking about Holland & Hart. Jay CLS seems to be operating on a different assumption of what constitutes biglaw.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Matthies on December 17, 2008, 07:48:05 AM
Quote
By the way, only H&H is the only one you listed really considered a local big law.

I think he was talking about Hogan & Hartson. I assume you are talking about Holland & Hart. Jay CLS seems to be operating on a different assumption of what constitutes biglaw.

Correct, and a good point to make. When I am talking about ďbig lawĒ and what I refer to when talking about big law in Denver are the biggest firms in Denver that pay market rate, not necessarily the biggest firms in the country who have satellite offices here. My classmates perusing that have universally targeted local big law, not national big law, so if that was a point of confusion I apologize. 
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: jobq48 on December 17, 2008, 08:45:12 AM
Man this thread got angry quickly and it started out so fun. I will probably be at a high T2 or low T1 next year and am shocked by the comparably huge amount of T14 people that are online. In my mind I know logically that the number of people outside the T14 is huge but on here we seem like a minority. Heres the Mathhies and Tasha for sticking up for the little guy and giving me hope.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Matthies on December 17, 2008, 08:47:13 AM

See this is what I am talking about. Thatís not how it really is, not at all. Not here, not in my experience. We donít have the need to fill the large law firms with top grads, there are more local grades at the top local firms here than otherwise. Its not just the top 5%, it goes much deeper than that. I know, Iíve been working in this market for four+ years. But people will tell me, and others, that I am wrong with what I see, with the market I know. And they have nothing to base that on but what they see at T14 schools. Have you ever tried to get a job in Denver? But your going to tell me how it works, because thatís how you think you know how it works, but its NOT. Its much more about who you know than where you go. Itís a very small legal market and knowing the right people can get you jobs people would think T2 grads canít. How you find jobs in markets like this is very different from  how you do it in NYC.

We arenít NYC, we donít have the same pressures you have. How hiring works here, and Iím going to project in many mid markets, is not how it does there. And people giving advice thatís wrong (again not intentionally, but because they just donít know any better) is a huge problem. Voices like mine, who can better tell people what its like to actually look for a job are drowned out by people saying this is whatís its like. Iím telling you from first hand personal experience its not, but because you got to CLS someone is going to believe you, and Iím afraid that people on here make bad choices because they try and emulate what works at your school down here, because thatís all they hear.

The vast majority of my classmates donít get jobs from OCI, but thatís how you guys do it. Its bad advice for people from T2s to think that, but thatís what they get told because thatís mostly hat they hear on here. People need to hear that, they need to understand that what works for you guys is actually a BAD plan of attck down here, it will lead to less offers, not more. Its not near as hard as some people think to get a decent job out of a teir 2 SO LONG AS THEY DO IT RIGHT. The biggest problem is most don't becuase they try a copy what works at top schools, puting all thier eegs in the OCI basket, thats just totally the wrong approach to take, but thats how most of the psoetrs on here got jobs so they think thats how they should do it. I'm not some great sucess story, I just figured out what works and what does not, if more people did more people would have better luck finding jobs.



I'm not trying to brag, or be an ass, but I am saying that when you say the things you say you sound like you are denying facts that are obvious to most people who can do 2 to 3 minutes of research. It makes you sound as though you are bitter. For someone who tries to act like prestige doesn't matter, you spend a lot of time trying to debunk prestige as a factor. If it doesn't matter to you, then why are you constantly putting other schools down?


Actually I donít constantly bash schools, in fact its rare that I do unless Iím trying to make the point that people should not take themselves so seriously. If you look back at my posts Iíll put the advice I give against anyone elseís here. I also donít get butt hurt when some makes fun of my school. Maybe its because Iím older, and have other things in my life Iím proud of, but I donít get myself worth from the school I go to. Nor do I hold that above other people (unlike you whose first response was to infer my lower job prospects). Nor do I wish I was at any other school, Iím perfectly content where I am. I do however, and will point out when other people have a double standard about this. Look you should be proud of your school, you should be proud of your accomplishments, but if you get upset when someone pokes fun at you for it, then donít be a hypocrite and do the same thing to them. If you can't laugh at yourself then don't laugh at other people.

This post reminds me of jeffislouis.

He's my alt
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: JayCLS on December 17, 2008, 10:13:44 AM
Quote
By the way, only H&H is the only one you listed really considered a local big law.

I think he was talking about Hogan & Hartson. I assume you are talking about Holland & Hart. Jay CLS seems to be operating on a different assumption of what constitutes biglaw.

Correct, and a good point to make. When I am talking about ďbig lawĒ and what I refer to when talking about big law in Denver are the biggest firms in Denver that pay market rate, not necessarily the biggest firms in the country who have satellite offices here. My classmates perusing that have universally targeted local big law, not national big law, so if that was a point of confusion I apologize. 

#1. You keep saying that I work in NYC. That's 100% wrong. So stop saying that. I don't work in NYC (although I do go to Columbia). The city I work in has only about 10K more people than Denver.

Holland & Hart doesn't pay 160K a year. 160K a year is not "NYC salary", my firm pays that and I don't work in NYC/my firm isn't based in NYC. I work in a mid-sized market. My friends who work in Houston and Dallas Texas make 160K. My friends in DC/LA/San Fran make that and they don't work at NYC based firms. It's top firm salary, not NYC salary. If the firm competes with the top firms in recruiting then they pay that salary. 

I never said you couldn't get a job from a T2 firm. But you are making 30-60K less a year before bonus at one of those firms  (if you can get one of the limited jobs they have...again Holland & Hart hired 7 people last year in a good market). Also these firms don't do certain types of law that many people want to do (Private Equity for instance, international work etc.). If that is what you are fine with, then that's great. All I said was that it is harder to get a 160K a year BigLaw job, but if you don't want one of those then there is no reason you need to go to a T1 law school.

Seems like we are saying the same thing here now. Your argument is that you DON'T want a biglaw 160K job. So great. Then you got what you wanted. You got the firm job you wanted without going to a T14 school. And T2 people can get those jobs. It is just #1. Rare because they are limited. #2. They don't pay as much/usually the firms don't have the breath of practice that the bigger firms have.

P.S. The advice I am giving is to students who are still in college/thinking about law school. They should know their options realistically. Your advice is good for those already in school though. Bravo. We are in the prospective student's forum...so I figured this was more the audience I was talking to. You know. Those who haven't filled out their checks yet  :)
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: nealric on December 17, 2008, 10:29:00 AM
Quote
that's funny: i never got the sense that there was THAT much T14 or die sentiment on this board.  maybe i'm just comparing it to xoxo, ATL comments, and that's why it seems less in comparison.

I agree tm

I think there is a bit of straw man going on RE: T14 or die. There are people warning of the risks of certain decisions to go to lower ranked law schools, but that doesn't always equal t14 snobbery.  On LSD, for every "T14 or die" sentiment there is at least another "OMG Florida Coastal is awesome!" sentiment.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Mulliganstew on December 17, 2008, 10:49:40 AM
It's a sad thing to see a good humor thread die because of the easily offended.  :'(
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Matthies on December 17, 2008, 11:02:29 AM
that's funny: i never got the sense that there was THAT much T14 or die sentiment on this board.  maybe i'm just comparing it to xoxo, ATL comments, and that's why it seems less in comparison.

Again, maybe you don't notice it becuase it does not apply to you, so its easy to disregard it, but you zero in like a hawk when it does (i.e. my comments making fun of T14). This used to be the baord where people could come to get the adive they needed, but its getting just as bad as the others you cite. In part, i argue, becuase people only notice stuff it affects them, and disgread anything else. Anyway I am tried of this discusion and its pointless
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Mulliganstew on December 17, 2008, 11:41:43 AM
Yeah, unless I aced the December LSAT, I'll also be going to a T2 or T3 school, and I'm not ashamed of it. I can't see why a T14 student would be so defensive seeing as they're going to a TOP 14 SCHOOL! The whining that this thread became is really a disappointment. Is there any way to delete the last 7 pages or so and start over?
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: sheltron5000 on December 17, 2008, 11:47:52 AM
Yeah, unless I aced the December LSAT, I'll also be going to a T2 or T3 school, and I'm not ashamed of it. I can't see why a T14 student would be so defensive seeing as they're going to a TOP 14 SCHOOL! The whining that this thread became is really a disappointment. Is there any way to delete the last 7 pages or so and start over?

you could start a new thread, but it would probably go the same way.

I for one believe the best way to kill a terminator is the NINJA CHOP!! I learned in my (future) T14 ;)
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Mulliganstew on December 17, 2008, 11:50:24 AM
Obviously you know how to kill them if you're a T14. You helped make them.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Matthies on December 17, 2008, 11:52:20 AM
Yeah, unless I aced the December LSAT, I'll also be going to a T2 or T3 school, and I'm not ashamed of it. I can't see why a T14 student would be so defensive seeing as they're going to a TOP 14 SCHOOL! The whining that this thread became is really a disappointment. Is there any way to delete the last 7 pages or so and start over?

you could start a new thread, but it would probably go the same way.

Yea, becuase there are rules that only apply to certain people. This place used be fun, its used to be informative and it used to be open. Then people started making rules, I can joke about this, but you canít joke about that, its OK for me, but not for you because your hitting to close to home for me. TTT jokes are tolerated and accepted, if by nothing more than silence, but god forbid you make fun of me. No, its different then. Its sad, but this is the not the board it used to be and its just going to become as bad as OXOX and TLS. Dissenting opinions not wanted unless they are my dissenting opinions. Thatís fine Iím deleting out anyway.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Mulliganstew on December 17, 2008, 11:58:23 AM
Someone should make a forum called TTT so we lower than 1st tiers can make fun of the eggheads without getting called for it. :P
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: dashrashi on December 17, 2008, 12:00:00 PM
Yeah, unless I aced the December LSAT, I'll also be going to a T2 or T3 school, and I'm not ashamed of it. I can't see why a T14 student would be so defensive seeing as they're going to a TOP 14 SCHOOL! The whining that this thread became is really a disappointment. Is there any way to delete the last 7 pages or so and start over?

It's really not that hard: people become defensive when they are insulted. Whether in jest or not; regardless of how much you might think their happy happy life does not warrant ever being upset or defensive or feeling insulted about anything; when people feel insulted, defensiveness is a common phenomenon. Turn it around, Golden Rule style: when you're insulted, do you get defensive? Maybe not in every situation, but as a general matter?

Look, I appreciate Matthies and Tasha. Very much. But I happen not to think that anyone should insult anyone who doesn't deserve it. Even inadvertently, even if it's just a joke. And if it happens anyway, I tend to think the proper response is an apology, not a "What do you care anyway?"

And while there may be inequity, you can only control your own behavior. You can't control what anyone else does or doesn't say, but you can choose how you respond, and that's what's on you--not what anyone else said or didn't say, but how you chose to respond. And if you chose to respond with an insult that hits bystanders--well, for me personally, I wouldn't like what that said about me.

I don't mean to drag this out, but I think people are kind of missing the point again? Or, my point, at least?

(Note: if the insult is deserved, full f-in' throttle. You should know that I of all people would be in favor of that. But we should be targeted in our meanness. Try to limit collateral damage, etc.)

Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Mulliganstew on December 17, 2008, 12:06:31 PM
It's really not that hard: people become defensive when they are insulted. Whether in jest or not; regardless of how much you might think their happy happy life does not warrant ever being upset or defensive or feeling insulted about anything; when people feel insulted, defensiveness is a common phenomenon. Turn it around, Golden Rule style: when you're insulted, do you get defensive? Maybe not in every situation, but as a general matter?

Look, I appreciate Matthies and Tasha. Very much. But I happen not to think that anyone should insult anyone who doesn't deserve it. Even inadvertently, even if it's just a joke. And if it happens anyway, I tend to think the proper response is an apology, not a "What do you care anyway?"

And while there may be inequity, you can only control your own behavior. You can't control what anyone else does or doesn't say, but you can choose how you respond, and that's what's on you--not what anyone else said or didn't say, but how you chose to respond. And if you chose to respond with an insult that hits bystanders--well, for me personally, I wouldn't like what that said about me.

I don't mean to drag this out, but I think people are kind of missing the point again? Or, my point, at least?

(Note: if the insult is deserved, full f-in' throttle. You should know that I of all people would be in favor of that. But we should be targeted in our meanness. Try to limit collateral damage, etc.)


I'm sorry. I didn't know you were a zomb-err... I mean, a living challenged. This post's topic was far from brutal towards T14 students. No personal jibes were thrown. Humor, in my opinion, isn't doing its job unless someone is at least slightly offended by it. When it's obvious humor, like this thread was, it's even more ridiculous to get all huffy about it.

Meanwhile, there's thread after thread using the term TTT in a straight manner. No jokes. That's the difference here.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Mulliganstew on December 17, 2008, 12:16:40 PM
You didn't catch the point of what I was saying. This topic was a JOKE. Anyone that gets that offended over such an obvious joke really has thin skin. :-\
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Mulliganstew on December 17, 2008, 12:20:56 PM

Or really believes the lies being told about them in joke form.
In which case they have much bigger problems.

That said, now I'm starting to think a site catered towards "the rest of us" would actually fill a much needed niche. People in T2/T3/T4 schools need tips on how to make their school experience work too. And, it's a group dreadfully in need of its own forums to get away from this TTT crap.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: dashrashi on December 17, 2008, 12:24:04 PM
Guys, seriously. It's not that hard. It's not polite to call someone who didn't do anything to you brain-dead, especially if it's coupled with multiple assertions about how s/he is, in essence, an intellectual fraud and likely incompetent. Mean jokes don't stop being mean just because they're funny. Something can be funny AND mean, absolutely. But the first doesn't negate the second. And I think grown-ups tend to limit their meanness (either target-wise or generally) or apologize when called on it. That's all I'm saying.

If you're hitting someone who doesn't engage in the conduct you mentioned (e.g. using TTT in a non-ironic manner), then you're not limiting your meanness, and you should apologize if you get called on it. You insulted someone, you act like a grown-up and say you're sorry. It's not a good thing, to insult people who didn't do anything, even if it's funny, even if it's inadvertent, even if you think it's not a big deal.

Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: dashrashi on December 17, 2008, 12:30:12 PM
Or, to take the other tack:

Because it's not polite, and no one should have to be silent in the face of insults lobbed their way for fear of being called lacking in self-confidence? I don't have to shrug off others' bad behavior if I don't want to.

God, those defamation victims. Why don't they just show how self-confident they are and let it roll off their backs? Clearly suing means you're just insecure.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Mulliganstew on December 17, 2008, 12:30:40 PM
I think there's a serious danger of being TOO PC. People who plan on going to T2/3/4 law schools are pretty much immune to all the crap being thrown at them by now. I mean, there's a Cooley joke every two threads at TLS. You have to have tough skin to make it in the professional world. There will be people who will look at you and say you're dumber than a box of rocks and mean it with every inch of their being. You can't crumble and demand they take it back. You prove them wrong. (And make fun of them behind their back to your friends. It's the adult thing to do!)
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: dashrashi on December 17, 2008, 12:33:36 PM
Okay, so clearly you're not actually interested in engaging in a substantive discussion, and you'd rather stick to adolescent boy bull. "I was just kidding!" "God, you take yourself so seriously!" "Whatsamatter, cantcha take a joke?"

I don't think a professional adult would be making the wrong call to tell someone who called them stupid that, in addition to their being incorrect, the statement was also incredibly inappropriate. That sounds pretty professional to me. That doesn't sound like crumbling, either.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Mulliganstew on December 17, 2008, 12:42:35 PM
Okay, so clearly you're not actually interested in engaging in a substantive discussion, and you'd rather stick to adolescent boy bull. "I was just kidding!" "God, you take yourself so seriously!" "Whatsamatter, cantcha take a joke?"

I don't think a professional adult would be making the wrong call to tell someone who called them stupid that, in addition to their being incorrect, the statement was also incredibly inappropriate. That sounds pretty professional to me. That doesn't sound like crumbling, either.

See how long you last in the workplace by telling your superiors that they're wrong without any proof.

Anyway, by your definition, every comedian worth his or her salt is "boy bulling." I come from an entertainment background, and freedom of words is one of the most important things we learn. If I have my way, I plan on defending at least one parody copyright case before I die. So, excuse me if I find the easily offended an atrocious bunch.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: dashrashi on December 17, 2008, 12:44:42 PM
No, see, jesus. I'm mostly talking abstractly. And I'm not even upset. I'm just saying that it's not wrong to be upset if you're insulted, and that people aren't wrong to be insulted by the zombie comments.

I'm a little arguing against the ex post justifications--"just a joke," "don't be so thin-skinned," "what do you care,"--because I don't think it's the best or most adult response to having inadvertently/jokingly insulted someone, but that's a normative argument, and honestly being a grown-up about *&^% like this is something I've only come to fairly recently.

Mostly I just don't like being tagged as an elitist, because it's not the way I feel, and I generally require people to back it up with something fairly substantial, and so I wanted to make it totally clear that I'm not a TTT-user or a wiimote, and that I don't think the T2/3/4 viewpoint you guys provide isn't immensely valuable, and thereby to head off any accusations that might be lobbed my way.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Mulliganstew on December 17, 2008, 12:47:30 PM
No, see, jesus. I'm mostly talking abstractly. And I'm not even upset. I'm just saying that it's not wrong to be upset if you're insulted, and that people aren't wrong to be insulted by the zombie comments.

I'm a little arguing against the ex post justifications--"just a joke," "don't be so thin-skinned," "what do you care,"--because I don't think it's the best or most adult response to having inadvertently/jokingly insulted someone, but that's a normative argument, and honestly being a grown-up about poo like this is something I've only come to fairly recently.

Mostly I just don't like being tagged as an elitist, because it's not the way I feel, and I generally require people to back it up with something fairly substantial, and so I wanted to make it totally clear that I'm not a TTT-user or a wiimote, and that I don't think the T2/3/4 viewpoint you guys provide isn't immensely valuable, and thereby to head off any accusations that might be lobbed my way.

Dash, if you're not elitest then you're not. I believe you. I don't think anyone was going after you personally. If they were, shrug it off. You obviously KNOW you're not. That's what's important.


she said in a huff without even trying to hide the fact that she was deeply offended.

This is the second forum where I've been called a girl. That is so bizarre.

I'm not offended really. But you're right. I did come off really wounded that people get wounded. ;) That's one of my hot button issues where I get frustrated. It's probably why I never WILL sit at a copyright case about parody.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: dashrashi on December 17, 2008, 12:53:14 PM
Okay, so clearly you're not actually interested in engaging in a substantive discussion, and you'd rather stick to adolescent boy bull. "I was just kidding!" "God, you take yourself so seriously!" "Whatsamatter, cantcha take a joke?"

I don't think a professional adult would be making the wrong call to tell someone who called them stupid that, in addition to their being incorrect, the statement was also incredibly inappropriate. That sounds pretty professional to me. That doesn't sound like crumbling, either.

See how long you last in the workplace by telling your superiors that they're wrong without any proof.

Anyway, by your definition, every comedian worth his or her salt is "boy bulling." I come from an entertainment background, and freedom of words is one of the most important things we learn. If I have my way, I plan on defending at least one parody copyright case before I die. So, excuse me if I find the easily offended an atrocious bunch.

I'm sorry, where did you say that an insult from a message board poster is akin to that from a boss? Furthermore, it's not unprofessional, if your boss screams at you that you're stupid, to respond A) that you're not stupid, and B) that it's grossly inappropriate for a supervisor to insult you personally. Bosses don't get to be unprofessional just because they're bosses, and it's not unprofessional to point that out--even or perhaps especially to your boss's boss.

This is different than just generally telling your boss that she's wrong. Are you being obtuse on purpose?

I have no idea what you're talking about with the comedy/free speech bull. This is not about the government suppressing anything. This is about whether a given comment is polite, or not polite, and whether apologizing is the grownup thing to do, or not. Social norms, not government action. Comedy can be funny as hell, and also nasty as hell--at the same time, even. Just because it's offensive doesn't mean it should be suppressed; but equally true is that just because it's funny doesn't mean it's not horribly nasty or offensive, and therefore very much not polite. Many, many things in this world are both legal and impolite. Draw the distinction, here, kid. Honestly, not that hard.

No, see, jesus. I'm mostly talking abstractly. And I'm not even upset. I'm just saying that it's not wrong to be upset if you're insulted, and that people aren't wrong to be insulted by the zombie comments.

I'm a little arguing against the ex post justifications--"just a joke," "don't be so thin-skinned," "what do you care,"--because I don't think it's the best or most adult response to having inadvertently/jokingly insulted someone, but that's a normative argument, and honestly being a grown-up about poo like this is something I've only come to fairly recently.

Mostly I just don't like being tagged as an elitist, because it's not the way I feel, and I generally require people to back it up with something fairly substantial, and so I wanted to make it totally clear that I'm not a TTT-user or a wiimote, and that I don't think the T2/3/4 viewpoint you guys provide isn't immensely valuable, and thereby to head off any accusations that might be lobbed my way.

Dash, if you're not elitest then you're not. I believe you. I don't think anyone was going after you personally. If they were, shrug it off. You obviously KNOW you're not. That's what's important.

No, see. I don't have to shrug off personal insults if I don't want to. I certainly don't have to refrain from pointing out that they're rude.

No, see, jesus. I'm mostly talking abstractly. And I'm not even upset. I'm just saying that it's not wrong to be upset if you're insulted, and that people aren't wrong to be insulted by the zombie comments.

I'm a little arguing against the ex post justifications--"just a joke," "don't be so thin-skinned," "what do you care,"--because I don't think it's the best or most adult response to having inadvertently/jokingly insulted someone, but that's a normative argument, and honestly being a grown-up about *&^% like this is something I've only come to fairly recently.

Mostly I just don't like being tagged as an elitist, because it's not the way I feel, and I generally require people to back it up with something fairly substantial, and so I wanted to make it totally clear that I'm not a TTT-user or a wiimote, and that I don't think the T2/3/4 viewpoint you guys provide isn't immensely valuable, and thereby to head off any accusations that might be lobbed my way.

What is it about the zombie comments that insulted you? If the comments are directed toward elitists, and you don't consider yourself to be elitist, why is there any reaction at all from you? It's not even directed at you, directly or indirectly. By reacting to it, you're making it about you.

Irr, it wasn't a comment that all those prestige-whores wouldn't be able to pass the bar etc whatever, it was that everyone who went to "big fancy" or whatever school fell into that category. That's precisely what I'm talking about with the non-targeted meanness. And I'm not personally offended by it. I just happen to think it's not a very nice comment, and that it's not wrong for me or anyone else to point that out, since it technically is insulting.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Matthies on December 17, 2008, 12:55:29 PM
Guys, seriously. It's not that hard. It's not polite to call someone who didn't do anything to you brain-dead, especially if it's coupled with multiple assertions about how s/he is, in essence, an intellectual fraud and likely incompetent. Mean jokes don't stop being mean just because they're funny. Something can be funny AND mean, absolutely. But the first doesn't negate the second. And I think grown-ups tend to limit their meanness (either target-wise or generally) or apologize when called on it. That's all I'm saying.

If you're hitting someone who doesn't engage in the conduct you mentioned (e.g. using TTT in a non-ironic manner), then you're not limiting your meanness, and you should apologize if you get called on it. You insulted someone, you act like a grown-up and say you're sorry. It's not a good thing, to insult people who didn't do anything, even if it's funny, even if it's inadvertent, even if you think it's not a big deal.



Iím sorry Dash I canít agree. I think there is a bigger point being missed here, and I think its in part because the insults here were taking personally. I have been on here a long time. I have never, ever said you, Cady, TM canít joke about anything you want to (even if I find them sometimes unappealing). I have never said, ever, who can say or what or joke about what. But that is not true in reverse. I am the only one making T14 jokes on this board, and you and TM, and in the past some others have made it plain you donít like it. Fair enough. But donít insult me as a poster or my views to say that is anything other than a double standard. Its OK for you to joke about whatever, but if Matthies hits too close to home or mocks the TTT threads by mocking the T14, thatís not cool. I donít impose my rules on others, yet there seems to be a lot of imposition on me. That is indicative a bigger problem here, where voices of deisention or muted either through inaction or arbitrary rules created on the freedom of posters to post what they want, so long as that stays within the status quo its tolerated, go beyond that and rules, that donít seem to apply to others, are created. I donít think, you TM or anyone does it on purpose, nor do I think you are seeing it from the direction I am. Maybe Iím completely off base, but thatís how I am seeing it. 
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: dashrashi on December 17, 2008, 01:01:53 PM
Iím sorry Dash I canít agree. I think there is a bigger point being missed here, and I think its in part because the insults here were taking personally. I have been on here a long time. I have never, ever said you, Cady, TM canít joke about anything you want to (even if I find them sometimes unappealing). I have never said, ever, who can say or what or joke about what. But that is not true in reverse. I am the only one making T14 jokes on this board, and you and TM, and in the past some others have made it plain you donít like it. Fair enough. But donít insult me as a poster or my views to say that is anything other than a double standard. Its OK for you to joke about whatever, but if Matthies hits too close to home or mocks the TTT threads by mocking the T14, thatís not cool. I donít impose my rules on others, yet there seems to be a lot of imposition on me. That is indicative a bigger problem here, where voices of deisention or muted either through inaction or arbitrary rules created on the freedom of posters to post what they want, so long as that stays within the status quo its tolerated, go beyond that and rules, that donít seem to apply to others, are created. I donít think, you TM or anyone does it on purpose, nor do I think you are seeing it from the direction I am. Maybe Iím completely off base, but thatís how I am seeing it. 

Matthies:
--I'm not saying that you can't make the jokes you make, only that you shouldn't deny that they're insulting, and that it's probably better to apologize rather than to justify it if someone does get offended.
--You're not the only one making T14 jokes; for one thing, Tasha's high-fiving you in this very thread.
--I understand, wholly, that you feel like the Lone Ranger out here, but I don't think that justifies a shotgun approach.
--And it's not okay for me "to joke about whatever" if it's insulting to others. I'd hope that others would call me out if I insulted people who didn't deserve it and then refused to apologize. Regardless of what my justification was.  
--I don't think there needs to be a race to the bottom on civility, that's all. I don't think fighting fire with fire here is the appropriate call, if you're hitting the bystanders, even if you feel like the double standard justifies it. We can disagree on that, but you should realize that's what we're really disagreeing about.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Mulliganstew on December 17, 2008, 01:05:28 PM
Mostly I just don't like being tagged as an elitist, because it's not the way I feel, and I generally require people to back it up with something fairly substantial, and so I wanted to make it totally clear that I'm not a TTT-user or a wiimote, and that I don't think the T2/3/4 viewpoint you guys provide isn't immensely valuable, and thereby to head off any accusations that might be lobbed my way.


Dash, you're taking this way too personally. While it shouldn't matter to you what anyone thinks of you as long as you know what you think of yourself, it's just as important for you to know that broad jokes like the one Matthies was telling are not meant to hurt. It's comedy. It's not meant to grind the heel of the joke-teller in the face of his or her enemies. No one is making accusations; just jokes.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: dashrashi on December 17, 2008, 01:11:18 PM
Okay, seriously, you have convinced me that you are obtuse. Willfully or not, don't care.

It DOES NOT matter, to the question of whether something is rude, whether it was MEANT to be funny. Things can be BOTH FUNNY AND RUDE. One does NOT negate the other. Just because it is a joke does not mean that it is somehow magically not rude anymore.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Mulliganstew on December 17, 2008, 01:17:23 PM

this is no argument at all.  basically all you're saying is, "i think it's okay, therefore there should not be a problem."


It's not so much an argument as a basic tenant of humor. Wide sweeping stereotypes are the basis for a large amount of humor. God forbid you ever watch Avenue Q on Broadway, or, for that matter, any sort of humor that has a target to it. I tried explaining it, but honestly you're not even listening.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Matthies on December 17, 2008, 01:18:20 PM
Dash, you're taking this way too personally. While it shouldn't matter to you what anyone thinks of you as long as you know what you think of yourself, it's just as important for you to know that broad jokes like the one Matthies was telling are not meant to hurt. It's comedy. It's not meant to grind the heel of the joke-teller in the face of his or her enemies. No one is making accusations; just jokes.

this is no argument at all.  basically all you're saying is, "i think it's okay, therefore there should not be a problem."

But its OK to have a baord full of TTT bashing and no one steps up to condone it becuase it does not effect them personally?
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Matthies on December 17, 2008, 01:19:25 PM
Iím sorry Dash I canít agree. I think there is a bigger point being missed here, and I think its in part because the insults here were taking personally. I have been on here a long time. I have never, ever said you, Cady, TM canít joke about anything you want to (even if I find them sometimes unappealing). I have never said, ever, who can say or what or joke about what. But that is not true in reverse. I am the only one making T14 jokes on this board, and you and TM, and in the past some others have made it plain you donít like it. Fair enough. But donít insult me as a poster or my views to say that is anything other than a double standard. Its OK for you to joke about whatever, but if Matthies hits too close to home or mocks the TTT threads by mocking the T14, thatís not cool. I donít impose my rules on others, yet there seems to be a lot of imposition on me. That is indicative a bigger problem here, where voices of deisention or muted either through inaction or arbitrary rules created on the freedom of posters to post what they want, so long as that stays within the status quo its tolerated, go beyond that and rules, that donít seem to apply to others, are created. I donít think, you TM or anyone does it on purpose, nor do I think you are seeing it from the direction I am. Maybe Iím completely off base, but thatís how I am seeing it. 

Matthies:
--I'm not saying that you can't make the jokes you make, only that you shouldn't deny that they're insulting, and that it's probably better to apologize rather than to justify it if someone does get offended.
--You're not the only one making T14 jokes; for one thing, Tasha's high-fiving you in this very thread.
--I understand, wholly, that you feel like the Lone Ranger out here, but I don't think that justifies a shotgun approach.
--And it's not okay for me "to joke about whatever" if it's insulting to others. I'd hope that others would call me out if I insulted people who didn't deserve it and then refused to apologize. Regardless of what my justification was.  
--I don't think there needs to be a race to the bottom on civility, that's all. I don't think fighting fire with fire here is the appropriate call, if you're hitting the bystanders, even if you feel like the double standard justifies it. We can disagree on that, but you should realize that's what we're really disagreeing about.

I think your comments are valid, as valid as I think mine are. I did apologize, and I donít disagree with you that people are getting hit that were not the intended targets. But I also donít think everyone is as guilt free as they would like to be, you donít have to actually participate in calling someone stupid in TTT thread to have the effect of condoning by never mentioning it or protesting it until, this threads throws it up there in the opposite direction.   Like I said before this is not an isolated incident, this board has been going in direction I have not liked for awhile. I put up worth it, because I think there are a few people out there who need good advice. We are all in this together, and like it or not we encourage or stifle posting behavior by speaking up or not. This board has chosen, and this thread is an example that it will tolerate TTT jokes that offend everyone that goes to any school outside of a certain cuttoff, but it will not tolerate the reverse. That people will speak up when their schools are made fun of, but just ignore it if it does not apply to them. Thatís a choice, the board makes its moral decisions by responding to what it wants to respond to. Iím sorry if I offended anyone with my posts, but I can garunetee you will go longer reading this board and not get offended than I or others in my place will.

So Iím out.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: dashrashi on December 17, 2008, 01:27:56 PM

this is no argument at all.  basically all you're saying is, "i think it's okay, therefore there should not be a problem."


It's not so much an argument as a basic tenant of humor. Wide sweeping stereotypes are the basis for a large amount of humor. God forbid you ever watch Avenue Q on Broadway, or, for that matter, any sort of humor that has a target to it. I tried explaining it, but honestly you're not even listening.


hahahahahahahahaha. Funny =/= -rude. Are we clear yet? Talk about not listening.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Mulliganstew on December 17, 2008, 01:30:36 PM
... Do either of you actually enjoy comedy? George Carlin? Demetri Martin? God forbid Daniel Tosh?

I think we need to find out what your definition of funny is first before we can continue this conversation.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: dashrashi on December 17, 2008, 01:33:44 PM
... Do either of you actually enjoy comedy? George Carlin? Demetri Martin? God forbid Daniel Tosh?

I think we need to find out what your definition of funny is first before we can continue this conversation.

No, we don't. It's very simple. One more time: funny =/= -rude. In words: funny does not equal not rude. In a sentence: something can be funny, yet also be rude. In a different sentence: just because something is funny does not mean it's not rude.

You're not helping my New Year's Resolution.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Matthies on December 17, 2008, 01:34:50 PM
this is no argument at all.  basically all you're saying is, "i think it's okay, therefore there should not be a problem."

It's not so much an argument as a basic tenant of humor. Wide sweeping stereotypes are the basis for a large amount of humor. God forbid you ever watch Avenue Q on Broadway, or, for that matter, any sort of humor that has a target to it. I tried explaining it, but honestly you're not even listening.

so what is NOT acceptable in your opinion?

But its OK to have a baord full of TTT bashing and no one steps up to condone it becuase it does not effect them personally?

like i said, i don't say anything one way or the other about schools with which i have no familiarity.  i've proposed a simple solution to your complaint about a double standard: we get to call you out on your T14 jokes and you get to call us out on our non-T14 jokes.  that way, no one's being called out on things over which they have no control.  sounds fair, don't you think?

But you do have control over it. Its become part of this board culture that its ok to trash everyone in the TTT, with a shotgun approach as Dash says, but not the other way around. You condone it by your silence as one of the most well know posters on this board even if you do not personally participate. Just because youíre not the one getting personally shotgunned in those threads makes it OK to ignore them, but then protest if it does affect you personally? that is what is so hard for me to accept, and where I see the double standard.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Mulliganstew on December 17, 2008, 01:35:35 PM
fair enough.  you said: "Wide sweeping stereotypes are the basis for a large amount of humor."  so racial/ethnic/religious humor is funny, right?


In the right context? See Avenue Q.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: dashrashi on December 17, 2008, 01:35:56 PM
You're not helping my New Year's Resolution.

which was...

I feel bad saying it. I already deleted it twice because it's horribly rude to even imply it.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Matthies on December 17, 2008, 01:37:14 PM
... Do either of you actually enjoy comedy? George Carlin? Demetri Martin? God forbid Daniel Tosh?

I think we need to find out what your definition of funny is first before we can continue this conversation.

You're not helping my New Year's Resolution.

Its not new years yet?


And can't we just find something we would all argree upon? I mean no one would be offned if I relapced "T14" with vandy right?  ;)
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Mulliganstew on December 17, 2008, 01:39:34 PM
No, we don't. It's very simple. One more time: funny =/= -rude. In words: funny does not equal not rude. In a sentence: something can be funny, yet also be rude. In a different sentence: just because something is funny does not mean it's not rude.

You're not helping my New Year's Resolution.


Okay, so you're arguing that if something is funny and rude, someone should apologize while saying it? That'd ruin the punchline of almost every good joke.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: dashrashi on December 17, 2008, 01:41:17 PM
No, we don't. It's very simple. One more time: funny =/= -rude. In words: funny does not equal not rude. In a sentence: something can be funny, yet also be rude. In a different sentence: just because something is funny does not mean it's not rude.

You're not helping my New Year's Resolution.


Okay, so you're arguing that if something is funny and rude, someone should apologize while saying it? That'd ruin the punchline of almost every good joke.

If you say something that is both funny and rude, and someone takes offense, because they didn't deserve to be insulted by your rude joke, then yes, the adult thing to do is to apologize for insulting them. Don't you have manners?
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Matthies on December 17, 2008, 01:46:08 PM
In the right context? See Avenue Q.

so...  when people are paying to go see a show that they know includes this kind of humor, it's okay.  that's what i'm getting here, and i'm not clear as to how you think this helps your argument.

I feel bad saying it. I already deleted it twice because it's horribly rude to even imply it.

PM me then.

And can't we just find something we would all argree upon? I mean no one would be offned if I relapced "T14" with vandy right?  ;)

i would still get offended.  and frankly i want vandy to rank above GULC this year.

But you do have control over it. Its become part of this board culture that its ok to trash everyone in the TTT, with a shotgun approach as Dash says, but not the other way around. You condone it by your silence as one of the most well know posters on this board even if you do not personally participate. Just because youíre not the one getting personally shotgunned in those threads makes it OK to ignore them, but then protest if it does affect you personally? that is what is so hard for me to accept, and where I see the double standard.

so basically you're saying if i don't support you vehemently enough, i'm undermining you.  that's a little unfair don't you think?

Actually no, I donít care if you support me or not. But I donít buy the argument that your free enough from sin to cast the first stone and tell me I canít do whatís done all over this board because, now, it impacts the school you go to. If your personally offended by what I said, that is one thing, if your offended by what I said because it included the T14 but would not if it was the TTT, thatís another.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Mulliganstew on December 17, 2008, 01:52:42 PM
so...  when people are paying to go see a show that they know includes this kind of humor, it's okay.  that's what i'm getting here, and i'm not clear as to how you think this helps your argument.

If you can't tell the difference between hurtful insults aimed at a particular person and broad sweeping satire, you need to go back to high school and retake drama class. And, if, after that, you're still offended, I don't know what to tell you except get over it. I don't care if you insult Cooley or even the school I end up at. Just don't expect me to pull my punches when it comes to ribbing the schools of my choice. I'm never going to personally insult anyone on this board. You'll never see me say, "Hey tm is such a male private part. No really. They are!" You want my line? There it is. But then, it's not humor anymore is it? See the difference now? I've been trying to paint it for a while.


If you say something that is both funny and rude, and someone takes offense, because they didn't deserve to be insulted by your rude joke, then yes, the adult thing to do is to apologize for insulting them. Don't you have manners?

Manners? Are you serious? It's a joke, not polite dinner. I'm not dabbing my mouth and asking to pass the chick peas. If I had to apologize for every joke I've ever made that possibly offended someone, I'd have killed myself by now. If it's a joke, take it as one. Laugh along with it. If you think they were aiming at you personally as an insult and just were being passive aggressive, well that's not funny. See? We're going back to the difference between a joke/satire and actual hurtful insults.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: dashrashi on December 17, 2008, 01:58:56 PM
so...  when people are paying to go see a show that they know includes this kind of humor, it's okay.  that's what i'm getting here, and i'm not clear as to how you think this helps your argument.

If you can't tell the difference between hurtful insults aimed at a particular person and broad sweeping satire, you need to go back to high school and retake drama class. And, if, after that, you're still offended, I don't know what to tell you except get over it. I don't care if you insult Cooley or even the school I end up at. Just don't expect me to pull my punches when it comes to ribbing the schools of my choice. I'm never going to personally insult anyone on this board. You'll never see me say, "Hey tm is such a male private part. No really. They are!" You want my line? There it is. But then, it's not humor anymore is it? See the difference now? I've been trying to paint it for a while.


If you say something that is both funny and rude, and someone takes offense, because they didn't deserve to be insulted by your rude joke, then yes, the adult thing to do is to apologize for insulting them. Don't you have manners?

Manners? Are you serious? It's a joke, not polite dinner. I'm not dabbing my mouth and asking to pass the chick peas. If I had to apologize for every joke I've ever made that possibly offended someone, I'd have killed myself by now. If it's a joke, take it as one. Laugh along with it. If you think they were aiming at you personally as an insult and just were being passive aggressive, well that's not funny. See? We're going back to the difference between a joke/satire and actual hurtful insults.

Okay, seriously, were you home-schooled? I don't know that I can be clearer. If and when someone is offended by something insulting you said, the adult thing is to apologize. Doesn't matter if you were joking, doesn't matter if it was funny. You don't even HAVE to apologize if you insult someone. My only point is that it's immature not to. Do you disagree?

Putting the onus on the insult-ee to grow a thicker skin is in effect a way of not taking responsibility for the fact that your actions hurt someone who didn't deserve it. That's very immature.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Matthies on December 17, 2008, 02:00:00 PM
If your personally offended by what I said, that is one thing, if your offended by what I said because it included the T14 but would not if it was the TTT, thatís another.

wait, so this would all end if i was like, "dude stop talking smack about my school"?  really?  WHY ARE WE STILL TALKING ABOUT THIS???

i mean the truth is yeah i'm a LITTLE offended, but i know that you're joking around for the most part so not really.  i'm just saying if it's okay for me to say that i'm offended, why is it a big deal if that jaycls dude said he was offended?

Yes, and I apologize again if I personally offended anyone, its was not meant to single out one person more than TTT is to single out more than one person. But realistically, if I had said Cooley, would any of you be here right now? Would this be 13 pages? Why it is tolerated to say Cooley, but not T14. If its because its personal to you, thatís a valid argument I wonít deny. But TTT is far more personal to far more people, yet is readily tolerated, even encouraged here, but the opposite goes to far, that is where I have the problem.   I have no problem making fun on my school, or my T2 status, or my job prospects, I do it all the time. Iím self deprecating like that. Sometimes I forget others are not.    
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Matthies on December 17, 2008, 02:00:51 PM
so...  when people are paying to go see a show that they know includes this kind of humor, it's okay.  that's what i'm getting here, and i'm not clear as to how you think this helps your argument.

If you can't tell the difference between hurtful insults aimed at a particular person and broad sweeping satire, you need to go back to high school and retake drama class. And, if, after that, you're still offended, I don't know what to tell you except get over it. I don't care if you insult Cooley or even the school I end up at. Just don't expect me to pull my punches when it comes to ribbing the schools of my choice. I'm never going to personally insult anyone on this board. You'll never see me say, "Hey tm is such a male private part. No really. They are!" You want my line? There it is. But then, it's not humor anymore is it? See the difference now? I've been trying to paint it for a while.


If you say something that is both funny and rude, and someone takes offense, because they didn't deserve to be insulted by your rude joke, then yes, the adult thing to do is to apologize for insulting them. Don't you have manners?

Manners? Are you serious? It's a joke, not polite dinner. I'm not dabbing my mouth and asking to pass the chick peas. If I had to apologize for every joke I've ever made that possibly offended someone, I'd have killed myself by now. If it's a joke, take it as one. Laugh along with it. If you think they were aiming at you personally as an insult and just were being passive aggressive, well that's not funny. See? We're going back to the difference between a joke/satire and actual hurtful insults.

Okay, seriously, were you home-schooled?

I was home schooled, don't bash my education!
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: dashrashi on December 17, 2008, 02:02:10 PM
It was tm's suggestion.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Mulliganstew on December 17, 2008, 02:04:01 PM
Okay, seriously, were you home-schooled? I don't know that I can be clearer. If and when someone is offended by something insulting you said, the adult thing is to apologize. Doesn't matter if you were joking, doesn't matter if it was funny. You don't even HAVE to apologize if you insult someone. My only point is that it's immature not to. Do you disagree?

Putting the onus on the insult-ee to grow a thicker skin is in effect a way of not taking responsibility for the fact that your actions hurt someone who didn't deserve it. That's very immature.


Home schooled? No wonder you were so offended. You ARE elitest! My cousins were home schooled. Nothing wrong with them. College graduates and everything.

Other than that little revelation, you still seem stuck on this jokes are insults things. Which, I don't feel like going around in circles explaining to you that jokes are NOT personal insults (especially when used about a broad population in obviously satirical themes).
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Matthies on December 17, 2008, 02:11:27 PM
It was tm's suggestion.

Ok, I'll put home schooled kids in the OK to shotgun, and add Vandy to the not ok to shotgun cataory.  ;)
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Matthies on December 17, 2008, 02:14:01 PM
So, with all of the anti-Cooley sentiment and TTT-bashing going on around here, is it that those affected by those comments have thicker skins or is it that with all of the unapologetic bashing, an apology wouldn't be forthcoming no matter how strongly they protest?

Put simply: are they not insulted, or are they afraid to say they're insulted? Or even afraid to disclose that they attend a TTT? Or maybe it's just seen as "the way it is" and going against it would just be making waves.

i don't really know why they don't protest more vehemently.  wouldn't the better course of action be to convince them to do so rather than to tell me that I have to do it?

i mean come on, what exactly do you want me to say anyway?

Yes, and I apologize again if I personally offended anyone, its was not meant to single out one person more than TTT is to single out more than one person. But realistically, if I had said Cooley, would any of you be here right now? Would this be 13 pages? Why it is tolerated to say Cooley, but not T14. If its because its personal to you, thatís a valid argument I wonít deny. But TTT is far more personal to far more people, yet is readily tolerated, even encouraged here, but the opposite goes to far, that is where I have the problem.   I have no problem making fun on my school, or my T2 status, or my job prospects, I do it all the time. Iím self deprecating like that. Sometimes I forget others are not.    

again, why would i be out defending something i know next to nothing about?  wouldn't it make more sense to criticize people who actually GO to non-T14's about the fact that they're not more vocal?

AND THANKS DASH.

The problem is, and the point I'm trying to make is most of them have been run off by the fact that everyone thinks its OK to bash them. If this place was full of T14 bashing jokes and everytime you psoted some body said what what do you expect from X school, would you stay here? really?
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: dashrashi on December 17, 2008, 02:17:56 PM
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. I can't believe the home-schooling thing has gone down this way.

But sincerely, if I have offended anyone with my comment about home-schooling, I sincerely apologize. It was not meant to offend, but that doesn't negate the fact that you could legitimately have found it offensive and apparently did. Accordingly, I am very sorry.

So, Mulligan, was that unnecessary?

tm, I swear to god, I am sitting here with my lips pressed together.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Miss P on December 17, 2008, 02:18:49 PM
I'm sure I'm going to regret wading into this, but here goes.

1. Dash is, of course, right that the adult thing to do when you offend or insult someone you like or respect (especially when you did not intend to offend him or her) is to apologize.  It doesn't matter if you were joking, or even if it was funny.  The point is that if you like and respect people, you don't want to offend them.  Repeating that someone has no sense of humor or doesn't know how to take a joke heaps on further insult.  (It's also particularly ironic in Dash's case.)

2. I agree to some extent with IrrX, who seems to be arguing that T14 students and students at other schools are differently situated with respect to this kind of stereotyping about schools, intelligence, lawyering skills, life chances, etc.  People at elite schools have a good deal of privilege and prestige both on this board and in the legal community more broadly, and the TTT bashing and such serves to reinforce this privilege and prestige.  The T14 bashing, on the other hand, goes against that grain.  It may be stupid, mean, crass, bitter, and/or self-aggrandizing, and it's certainly unfair stereotyping, but it is fundamentally different in character from all the talk about the idiot losers who go to TTTs that shouldn't even be open.  I'm surprised that some of you don't recognize that.

(Note: I am not suggesting that any of the posters in this thread have themselves taken part in this offensive elitism or that there's anything wrong with being offended by Matthies' jokes about the T14.  I'm just saying that the two sets of stereotypes function differently and the two sets of students are situated differently in our community.)

if crappy public schools were good enough for me, they're good enough for everybody.

 ::) :P
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Mulliganstew on December 17, 2008, 02:19:48 PM
Here. I'll illustrate the obvious difference between a "rude" insult and a joke.

Insult:

Okay, seriously, were you home-schooled? (Aimed directly at me while insinuating that being home schooled is a bad thing.)

Joke:

How many home schoolers does it take to plug in a light bulb? 2. 1 to teach it wrong, and the other to figure it out on their own.

See? Yes, the joke is objectionable in that it might offend the home-schooled, but its intent is a joke not to insult a particular person. If a home-schooled person decides to take this seriously and gets offended by it, that's fine, but they should understand that it wasn't a personal attack. No you's were implied. I don't see how toughening up could be such a terrible thing here. The real world is caustic. Expecting everyone to hand you life on a silver platter is just asking for disappointment.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: dashrashi on December 17, 2008, 02:21:30 PM
And I apologized for insulting you. Someone would be equally justified to be offended by the second "joke," though. 

Dipshit.

ETA: tm, I think I found my noun! Oldie but goodie!
In related news, I won't be apologizing for calling a dipshit a dipshit.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Miss P on December 17, 2008, 02:21:46 PM
i mean what exactly do you want me to do here?  give me an example of a post that you would find offensive and tell me what kind of response you'd expect me to give.

You might not want to issue this challenge.  I could come up with examples, as you well know. ;)
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Matthies on December 17, 2008, 02:22:18 PM
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. I can't believe the home-schooling thing has gone down this way.
But sincerely, if I have offended anyone with my comment about home-schooling, I sincerely apologize. It was not meant to offend, but that doesn't negate the fact that you could legitimately have found it offensive and apparently did. Accordingly, I am very sorry.


Oh you have to admit the irony, at least from my stand point, was so worth it though
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Miss P on December 17, 2008, 02:25:37 PM
well i'm really curious as to what people would want me to say.

I always tell you exactly what I think you should or shouldn't have said. :P
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Mulliganstew on December 17, 2008, 02:28:14 PM
And I apologized for insulting you. Someone would be equally justified to be offended by the second "joke," though. 

Dipshit.

ETA: tm, I think I found my noun! Oldie but goodie!
In related news, I won't be apologizing for calling a dipshit a dipshit.


 ::) See, you just weren't willing to accept just how much of an elitest you were. It's alright.

I also find it highly amusing that a while ago you were playing the, "Oh everyone should not hurt eachother," card and now you're calling me a dipshit. The difference between you and me is that I don't personally attack people. (Well, that and I don't believe I'm better than anyone else... unless they believe THEY'RE better than someone else.)
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: dashrashi on December 17, 2008, 02:31:08 PM
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. I can't believe the home-schooling thing has gone down this way.
But sincerely, if I have offended anyone with my comment about home-schooling, I sincerely apologize. It was not meant to offend, but that doesn't negate the fact that you could legitimately have found it offensive and apparently did. Accordingly, I am very sorry.


Oh you have to admit the irony, at least from my stand point, was so worth it though

All right, I'll let everyone in on the joke. I was trying very hard earlier not to call Mulligan a tard, because my New Year's Resolution (never too early to start self-improvement! Chipper chipper chipper!) is to stop using "retarded" and its derivatives as pejoratives. It's terrible and completely indefensible. Tm suggested "home-schooled" as an alternative. The opportunity presented itself, so I gave it a whirl.

It's unclear to me whether it's actually worse than calling him a tard (I'm inclined to think not), or whether people are just going along with it because of the thread's context. But in any event. I also think I got a nifty little chance to show an apology for an inadvertent insult in action.

Mulligan should be clear, of course, on the fact that I meant to personally insult him. Because he is obtuse as *&^%. And it is giving me a headache from suppressing the giggles.

Also, P's right on both counts. I fully agree that the TTT-bashing is worse, and if I had to pick one, I'd pick Matthies' jokes. My only point is that it doesn't make it okay to bash anyone, and that the adult thing to do is probably not to fight fire with fire, hitting bystanders and justifying it after the fact instead of apologizing.

Miss Manners over here, I know. Sigh.

And I apologized for insulting you. Someone would be equally justified to be offended by the second "joke," though. 

Dipshit.

ETA: tm, I think I found my noun! Oldie but goodie!
In related news, I won't be apologizing for calling a dipshit a dipshit.


 ::) See, you just weren't willing to accept just how much of an elitest you were. It's alright.

I also find it highly amusing that a while ago you were playing the, "Oh everyone should not hurt eachother," card and now you're calling me a dipshit. The difference between you and me is that I don't personally attack people. (Well, that and I don't believe I'm better than anyone else... unless they believe THEY'RE better than someone else.)

You are killing me when you keep misspelling elitist. People should not hurt each other when they don't deserve it. Your willful obtuseness means, as I said earlier, that you now deserve it, and we can go "full f-ing throttle." "Dipshit" is generous, mkay?

I do find it unfortunate, in the context of the thread, that my problem with you is your obtuseness, but I think that we've established enough of a paper trail, as it were, that I can be absolved of using any unfair heuristics to evaluate your intellect.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: dashrashi on December 17, 2008, 02:32:42 PM
I thought he was kidding.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: dashrashi on December 17, 2008, 02:34:32 PM
I thought he was kidding.

who?

You?
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Mulliganstew on December 17, 2008, 02:40:23 PM
You are killing me when you keep misspelling elitist. People should not hurt each other when they don't deserve it. Your willful obtuseness means, as I said earlier, that you now deserve it, and we can go "full f-ing throttle." "Dipshit" is generous, mkay?

I do find it unfortunate, in the context of the thread, that my problem with you is your obtuseness, but I think that we've established enough of a paper trail, as it were, that I can be absolved of using any unfair heuristics to evaluate your intellect.

I thought this thing had a spell checker. Well, dammit. I should have known my spelling wouldn't be that good.

See, my problem with you was your prissy nature, but then I realized you weren't prissy so much as arrogant. I think it hurt you so deeply because you realized how true it was. Which, you know, if it's true, you deserve it.

Also, heuristics? Seriously? Glad you used your ACT word of the day? Yeah, I'm a dumb sonovagun alright. I don't know what heuristics means.

I think you mistake me for someone who actually cares what you think of me. If something's funny, whether it's aimed at people I identify with or not, I'm gonna laugh at it. After all, you miss out on a lot of life if you spend all of your time feeling butt hurt about it. Well, you also miss out on a lot of life if you spend your time feeling superior to people who don't agree with you. But then, you'll find that out eventually.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: dashrashi on December 17, 2008, 02:46:41 PM
I'm not prissy; I might be arrogant; if I'm acting arrogantly towards you, it's only because you richly deserve it; nothing you said has hurt me deeply, I assure you; I did not take the ACT; I won't apologize for my vocabulary, especially when it's (for instance) a word that I learned last year in class, along with everyone else in my section, and when you have working fingers and an internet connection and are fully capable of looking it up if you choose; I have no illusions that you care about what I think of you; I only insult you because it is true; I do not care what you do or do not laugh at; you are entitled to be rude; this does not make it any less rude; I do not know what "butt hurt" is; I don't feel superior to people I disagree with as a rule; I find your attempt at superiority in the last clause very amusing; I have merely been trying to discuss what is and is not rude; you are still a dipshit.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: dashrashi on December 17, 2008, 02:47:58 PM
Great minds, habibi.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Miss P on December 17, 2008, 02:50:00 PM
no seriously, find me a thread where you wish i had said something and tell me what you wish i had said.

Oops, sorry, I missed this.  (The thread is moving too fast for me.  I'm too old for multitasking.)

I don't have time to seek out examples.  There was something last month where I condemned your prestige-whoring (and we had a grumpy argument in SFLSD about it); it was about a GULC poster saying he was happy with his career prospects.  (I realize this is a different issue, but it's related.)  In the past, I have been annoyed (and told you I've been annoyed) when you have failed to be more critical toward some of the more elitist student-side posters like YBR, themanwithnoname, and Jacy.  It's never really a big deal, but it's not as if you're the paragon of enlightened egalitarianism all the time.  And I do nag you about it every once in a while, so I'm pretty sure you're aware of my opinions as it's happening.  That's all.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Matthies on December 17, 2008, 02:51:19 PM
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. I can't believe the home-schooling thing has gone down this way.
But sincerely, if I have offended anyone with my comment about home-schooling, I sincerely apologize. It was not meant to offend, but that doesn't negate the fact that you could legitimately have found it offensive and apparently did. Accordingly, I am very sorry.


Oh you have to admit the irony, at least from my stand point, was so worth it though


Also, P's right on both counts. I fully agree that the TTT-bashing is worse, and if I had to pick one, I'd pick Matthies' jokes. My only point is that it doesn't make it okay to bash anyone, and that the adult thing to do is probably not to fight fire with fire, hitting bystanders and justifying it after the fact instead of apologizing.



Iím not disagreeing with anything you said, except the ďjustifying it after the fact instead of apologizing.Ē I think maybe thatís where this went off the rails, Iím not trying to justify it after the fact, the whole thing, as I intended, was to point about how stupid bashing TTTs is by using something no one bashes. Iíve not tried to justify what I did after the fact, Iíve simply been trying to explain why I did it, and why to me its seem so ironic that I am getting so much grief for doing it. Iím not doing a good job. Iíll wholeheartedly admit Iím sorry I offended anyone, an d sorry this thread has gone this direction. But I never (and I would admit it if I was) did any of this to make some excuse for it, I stand by what I said even if it was stupid and offense to some, I said it and Iím not going to make up some excuse to get out of it. I donít do that. I do apologize that my meaning offended anyone.  Just want to set the record straight, Iím not backtracking or trying to justify what I did after the fact, but that does not change the fact that I am cognizant that I hurt some peoples feelings along the way.

And PS, some people have disabilities that making spelling more of a challenge than others, thatís not necessarily indicative of their intelligence.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: dashrashi on December 17, 2008, 02:56:32 PM
Hi Matthies! I'm barely talking about you anymore! I am basically completely in abstraction-Land at this point! And I hope you know that I don't call people out for their spelling as a rule, as it really does not indicate intelligence in ANY way, a fact of which I am fully aware! However I think I was justified in this small circumstance, given the context and that it was just one word and a repeated misspelling, and oh what a word to repeatedly misspell in this context, and I am very aware that it is fraught, but still, I don't think I was out of line to bring it up just this once, given the circumstances! I hope you don't disagree! And I hope that you don't think I'm elitist because I really don't think I am! Of course you're free to disagree! But I hope you don't!
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Mulliganstew on December 17, 2008, 02:57:02 PM
See the other sentence where I admit I feel superior to people who feel superior to other people. (This can cause an infinite loop so beware.)

I was trying to be nice about it. I even made a post along the way trying to convince Dash she/he was NOT elitist if they felt they weren't.

It's simple. You're not going to make it very far in life if you cry about everything that offends you to everyone. Call me a simplistic hard ass. I don't care. I can guarantee you that my PS has plenty of events on it you would not want to go through. If I have to use cliches, I will. I swear I'll use them. When life gives you lemons, make lemonade. If someone makes a joke about how pretentious your college is and you believe it enough to let it hurt you, then that's your own fault for not believing in the college. If you're going to bear the plaque of a law school for the rest of your life, you'd better damn well believe that plaque means something you're proud of.  
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Miss P on December 17, 2008, 02:59:27 PM
well that was me sticking my foot in my mouth.  i apologized for that.  and i just gave YBR a hard time like 20 minutes ago. 

Good.  (And yes, you did, and I apologized for being an ass.  My intention wasn't to re-open any wounds or anything.)

furthermore, i don't claim to be a paragon of enlightened egalitarianism.  i don't see why i'm being held to that standard. 

I'm confused.  I thought you wanted to know how I thought you could be more critical of some of the elitism on this board.  I am not saying that you've let me down or something.  I'm just telling you that there are opportunities you don't take.  I actually mean this in a pretty value-neutral way.  
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: dashrashi on December 17, 2008, 03:02:21 PM
Okay, seriously? At this point? You're getting upgraded to f-ing dipshit. It's unreal.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Mulliganstew on December 17, 2008, 03:05:17 PM
are you kidding?  complaining is a GREAT way to get ahead in life.


It was a mistake to say the PS thing. I knew we'd get into a whose life sucked more but we're not complaining argument.

I think we have to agree to disagree here. I come from a working class family, and if there's one thing I've learned from that is hard work is the best way to get ahead in life. No one likes a complainer.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: dashrashi on December 17, 2008, 03:06:15 PM
Oh, the mistake was mentioning your PS! Glad we cleared that up!
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Miss P on December 17, 2008, 03:08:16 PM
No one likes a complainer.

You know who else no one likes?  The dude who insults people and then tells them they're thin-skinned, humorless pussies if they can't take a joke.  That guy's a jerk.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Mulliganstew on December 17, 2008, 03:11:04 PM
No one likes a complainer.

You know who else no one likes?  The dude who insults people and then tells them they're thin-skinned, humorless pussies if they can't take a joke.  That guy's a jerk.

While I am a jerk, you can't honestly say that I've been the insulting one the whole time. I'm not calling anyone dipshits or f-ing dipshits. Ignoring that is just as bad as ignoring the disparity in tone on this messageboard towards T2/3/4 schools.

Coming from a working class family counts as adversity? I just thought it...was. :D



Never said that was adversity. I had plenty of options thanks to my parents.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: dashrashi on December 17, 2008, 03:14:04 PM
OH NO MOMMY SHE IS INSULTIN' ME.

Deserved vs. undeserved. I have been excruciatingly careful throughout to preserve this distinction. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge the difference only adds to my justification in calling you, oh, I dunno, numbnuts.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Miss P on December 17, 2008, 03:14:13 PM
No one likes a complainer.

You know who else no one likes?  The dude who insults people and then tells them they're thin-skinned, humorless pussies if they can't take a joke.  That guy's a jerk.

While I am a jerk, you can't honestly say that I've been the insulting one the whole time. I'm not calling anyone dipshits or f-ing dipshits. Ignoring that is just as bad as ignoring the disparity in tone on this messageboard towards T2/3/4 schools.

I don't think this message is properly directed at me.  (You may want to review my posts in this thread.)

And yeah, it sucks to be called a dipshit, but you were going pretty hard on them (and being pretty obtuse) earlier.  I'd call it a wash.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Matthies on December 17, 2008, 03:15:19 PM
Hi Matthies! I'm barely talking about you anymore! I am basically completely in abstraction-Land at this point! And I hope you know that I don't call people out for their spelling as a rule, as it really does not indicate intelligence in ANY way, a fact of which I am fully aware! However I think I was justified in this small circumstance, given the context and that it was just one word and a repeated misspelling, and oh what a word to repeatedly misspell in this context, and I am very aware that it is fraught, but still, I don't think I was out of line to bring it up just this once, given the circumstances! I hope you don't disagree! And I hope that you don't think I'm elitist because I really don't think I am! Of course you're free to disagree! But I hope you don't!

Oh, you took all the fun out of that! I know your not singling out anyone for their spelling, Iím just kind of having fun with the fact that you have shotguned two groups I belong to in less than three pages. Add some gay stuff and we should have it all covered. I have head ache and you people are posting to fast for me to keep up.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Miss P on December 17, 2008, 03:16:52 PM
No one likes a complainer.

You know who else no one likes?  The dude who insults people and then tells them they're thin-skinned, humorless pussies if they can't take a joke.  That guy's a jerk.

this is not true.  the people who thought the dude's insults were funny like that guy.  do you not KNOW any men?

lol.

<--- militant

Also:

<--- complainer
<--- liked by at least one poster (Captain Sparrow)

So there you go.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Mulliganstew on December 17, 2008, 03:18:07 PM
Honestly, tm, at this point, I think it's time for me to call it quits.

I was coming at this from the perspective of someone whose major passion is freedom of speech. From this perspective, I honestly have no idea where you're coming from on this one. I get that people are offended by jokes, but the jokes should still be allowed to be told and should not be apologized for. That'd be like an editorial having to apologize for its views.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Matthies on December 17, 2008, 03:21:24 PM
Add some gay stuff and we should have it all covered.

i'll let dash cover the gay-bashing, but i will say this:

cats suck.

I can handel the gay bashing but why do you have to pick on the cats?
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: dashrashi on December 17, 2008, 03:22:41 PM
Help, help, he's bein' suppressed!

Primer: freedom of speech = constitutional right. No one is suppressing you, whatsoever. Asking for an apology, and stating that adults give them, is not an infringement on your right to speak freely (since, for one, I am not a state actor). In fact, it's not even an infringement on your right to be a f-ing immature feminine hygiene product a-hole. It is merely a statement about manners.

Passion away about free speech, little man. Free speech has, as a cause, absofuckinglutely nothing to do with whether you, as an adult and member of society, choose to act like a civil human being. Except that assholes often hide behind "free speech" when they are thoroughly misinformed about it. Sounds to me like what you're really passionate about is no one calling you an a-hole or telling you when you should apologize. Hardly a principled position; more like a personally expedient one.

Grow the @#!* up.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Miss P on December 17, 2008, 03:24:17 PM
i don't see how this responds in any way to what i said about it not being true that no one likes the guy who insults people.

Oy.  I was making a joke about my militant lesbianism since you asked if I knew any men (which I thought was funny, btw).

I also meant to imply that both positions (re the complainer, the guy who insults people) were sort of silly.  There's someone out there for everyone.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: nealric on December 17, 2008, 03:29:09 PM
I officially pronounce this thread EPIC.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Mulliganstew on December 17, 2008, 03:31:07 PM
Help, help, he's bein' suppressed!

Primer: freedom of speech = constitutional right. No one is suppressing you, whatsoever. Asking for an apology, and stating that adults give them, is not an infringement on your right to speak freely (since, for one, I am not a state actor). In fact, it's not even an infringement on your right to be a f-ing immature feminine hygiene product a-hole. It is merely a statement about manners.

Passion away about free speech, little man. Free speech has, as a cause, absofuckinglutely nothing to do with whether you, as an adult and member of society, choose to act like a civil human being. Except that assholes often hide behind "free speech" when they are thoroughly misinformed about it. Sounds to me like what you're really passionate about is no one calling you an a-hole or telling you when you should apologize. Hardly a principled position; more like a personally expedient one.

Grow the @#!* up.


... Wow. Do you read the *&^% you type? You obviously didn't read mine. If you had, you would know I was talking about jokes, you know, the original topic, not your incessant *&^% talking.

You seriously need to calm down, Dash. Nowhere did I get this vile with you.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Miss P on December 17, 2008, 03:34:30 PM
I officially pronounce this thread EPIC.

You might be interested to note that tm. was implicitly insulting your school near the beginning when he said that he believed the T14 was an "artificial" category or some such.  ;)
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: goaliechica on December 17, 2008, 03:50:24 PM
I officially pronounce this thread EPIC.

For, like, SERIOUS  :D
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Matthies on December 17, 2008, 03:51:46 PM
I officially pronounce this thread EPIC.

You might be interested to note that tm. was implicitly insulting your school near the beginning when he said that he believed the T14 was an "artificial" category or some such.  ;)

He can do that though the rules don't apply to him!
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Mulliganstew on December 17, 2008, 03:52:08 PM

stop telling her to calm down.

i like it when dash gets angry.


Hey, you're not the one she's/he's angry at! Dash is scary.  ;D

In all honesty, I am sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings. While I will always staunchly defend the right to satire, I realize, after cooling down, that I went a little too far with the elitism crap. I fell into a trap of my own accord and harped on it way past when it was necessary.

I didn't want my first major thread here to end up with people thinking I was a complete a-hole. I mean, I am, but generally it's supposed to take a while before people figure that out so they can forgive it as one of my many wonderful quirks.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: ,.,.,.;.,.,. on December 17, 2008, 03:52:23 PM
Great minds, habibi.

dash needs to use Hebrew more often.  The language is more amenable, IMO, to diatribes.  :)  (I kid, Dash.  Sort of.)

Also, I'm a little surprised to not be mentioned in the same sentence with "elitist" posters like YBR, themanwithnoname, and someone else.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Miss P on December 17, 2008, 03:55:14 PM
Hey, you're not the one she's/he's angry at! Dash is scary.  ;D

In all honesty, I am sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings. While I will always staunchly defend the right to satire, I realize, after cooling down, that I went a little too far with the elitism crap. I fell into a trap of my own accord and harped on it way past when it was necessary.

I didn't want my first major thread here to end up with people thinking I was a complete a-hole. I mean, I am, but generally it's supposed to take a while before people figure that out so they can forgive it as one of my many wonderful quirks.

I actually think it's pretty cool to be able to come back and say this after each side of this argument has gotten so entrenched.  Gracious, even. :)

Also, I'm a little surprised to not be mentioned in the same sentence with "elitist" posters like YBR, themanwithnoname, and someone else.

Don't take this the wrong way, but you're kind of . . . too weird?
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Mulliganstew on December 17, 2008, 03:59:09 PM
As a scriptwriting major in UG, I had to realize very quickly that I'm wrong an awful lot. Usually I have editors carrying my back though.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: dashrashi on December 17, 2008, 04:04:11 PM
Can I just say the R-word has been just streaming, nonstop, through my head? And that I have never felt so tested in my life?

One more time, for the peanut gallery, and then I have to go to some thing: being passionate about free speech =/= being passionate about the civility and propriety of making "jokes" that insult undeserving others and then refusing to apologize, like a big f-in' baby. I, for instance, am passionate about the former, and am, uh, skeptical about the latter.

Of course, always, love to hear I need to "calm down." Guess what, sugarplum? I'm calm as can be. I can call you a f-ing dipshit and stay cool as a cucumber. Magical, I know.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: ,.,.,.;.,.,. on December 17, 2008, 04:04:48 PM
It's probably both.  Hebrew, especially modern Hebrew, takes many words from Arabic.  "Yallah" comes to mind as a borrowed word.  "Kos-e-meck" is a borrowed expression that expresses frustration.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Matthies on December 17, 2008, 04:05:53 PM
I just realized this thread has hit 20 pages without any misogyny. Iíll rectify that by saying I just got done vacuuming my house and I can totally understand why you women want to enter the work force like men, its hard work.

Have I left anyone out offense wise?
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: goaliechica on December 17, 2008, 04:08:26 PM
I just realized this thread has hit 20 pages without any misogyny. Iíll rectify that by saying I just got done vacuuming my house and I can totally understand why you women want to enter the work force like men, its hard work.

Have I left anyone out offense wise?


Eff teh gayz!

Did no one take care of that yet?
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Matthies on December 17, 2008, 04:10:20 PM
I just realized this thread has hit 20 pages without any misogyny. Iíll rectify that by saying I just got done vacuuming my house and I can totally understand why you women want to enter the work force like men, its hard work.

Have I left anyone out offense wise?


Eff teh gayz!

Did no one take care of that yet?

Well TM started to, but then he went after the cats instead. We fogot the irish and no one has mentioned AA admits either.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Mulliganstew on December 17, 2008, 04:11:35 PM
You can't have a hate thread without the Slovaks!


Edit: I'll leave the thread with this:

There are two options.

1. The person meant to hurt you.
2. The person didn't mean to hurt you.

If the person meant to hurt you, why would you want an apology from them? It'd be meaningless. If the person didn't mean to hurt you, there's nothing to apologize for.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: nealric on December 17, 2008, 04:24:24 PM
Quote
You might be interested to note that tm. was implicitly insulting your school near the beginning when he said that he believed the T14 was an "artificial" category or some such.  Wink


*Summons rage*
*Throws chair across library*

GULC IS THE GREATEST SCHOOL FOR ANY SUBJECT EVER. GOD AND THE POPE WILL SMITE THOSE WHO BLASPHEME AGAINST THE HOLY GULC!

LONG LIVE THE T14!
LONG LIVE THE T14!
DEATH TO ALL T6 SNOBS and TTT WANABES!

*Calmly sits down and continues studying for professional responsibility*
*Clutches model rules while being hauled away by security*
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: nealric on December 17, 2008, 04:41:49 PM
I would be much honored.
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Matthies on December 17, 2008, 04:50:00 PM
I would be much honored.

Its OK after Vandy takes your guys spot you can join with me in the T14 haterade
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: Confused1Ltop10 on December 25, 2008, 05:14:44 AM
Don't you all know it is top 10 or bust now? IN THIS ECONOMY
Title: Re: Jesus, those JD Underground people are blunt.
Post by: ak362 on December 27, 2008, 02:21:04 PM
Avenue Q is a good show.