Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - ISUCKATTHIS

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 28
1
Meta Discussion / Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« on: July 12, 2009, 11:55:12 PM »
Actually, you're the one who's been insisting on continuing this disucssion and making unfounded accusations (like the one above).  I've asked you repeatedly (starting in May, see previous posts) to end this discussion.  I've further asked you to stop harassing and just go away.  I would be VERY happy if you would honor those requests.  Until you do, however, I will continue to defend myself and to point out your dishonesty and hypocrisy. 

I'm fine with your never admitting to calling for help in the Drake thread.  You don't need to admit it.  Everybody's already seen your posts in which you call for help.  We don't really have anything more discuss.  You've been outed and nothing you or I say can change that.

Now, if you can please let this go and stop harassing me... you'll be better off.  At the very least, you'll have more time on your hands to hone your writing skills and ween yourself of various co-dependencies.  I wish you the best of luck with all that.

2
Meta Discussion / Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« on: July 12, 2009, 11:31:57 PM »
Face it, I've posted three of your cries for help in this thread alone.  Other posters may back each other up in arguments when they happen to be paying attention to the same thread, but you ACTUALLY SOLICIT HELP.  There are at least two more such solicitations.  After each instance, at least one of the posters from the thread in which you post a cry for help comes over the Drake thread to engage someone who is disagreeing with you.

As goaliechica writes above, she had bowed out of the discussion in the Drake thread.  What brought her back?  Your cry for help.

You couldn't handle the argument on your own and you called in reinforcements.  I hope your future clients DO know who your online persona is and ARE reading this.  I'm sure they'd be very interested to see that you can't even handle an internet chat board discussion about the administration of a Drake university exam without reinforcements.  You'll make one hell of a litigator, LOL.

3
Meta Discussion / Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« on: July 12, 2009, 11:19:16 PM »
Miss P posts:

  • still haven't really started studying [subject]
  • about to head out to dinner
  • OMG, that thread is still making me twitch

(emphasis added)

[/update]

goalie chica is offline at the time of the above post and doesn't appear again until 10am on the next day, May 7 (see p6915 of the SFLSD thread).  At that time, Miss P is offline.  Before Miss P shows up again, however, goaliechica responds to P's bat signal by posting in the Drake thread:

Nor would including duplicate pages, etc. However, I think scewing with the format is a different issue.  I agree that the first thing a student is expected to do when he/she gets an exam is to allocate time appropriately.  Making that process more difficult/confusing for students might well have an impact on their performance.  On that basis alone, I think it's unfair.

Um, I shouldn't really come back to this, but isn't this exactly what happened? There were duplicate pages—not even of substantive pages of the exam—but of the instruction page.

ETA: Unless you only mean duplicate pages that are right in a row—because then it should be obvious what happened—but duplicate pages that are not consecutive are deathly confusing? Again, I feel like we are splitting hairs about saying "this is enough to throw someone off" and "this is not enough to throw someone off." I'm sure someone could come on here and pitch a fit about a misplaced staple, and someone would agree with them.

I agree that the crux of the disagreement is whether you think this is something that could reasonably throw someone off to the extent that it would affect their performance, or whether it's in the realm of somewhat annoying but not particularly debilitating poo that you deal with. Clearly people disagree about that.


4
Meta Discussion / Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« on: July 12, 2009, 09:46:29 PM »
Every one here has already seen the post... or could if they wanted to.  What's the point of re-posting if it's only a few pages back?

Anyway, I'm sure it's not going to affect your career.  I have no idea who you are, I do not want to know, and I have no say about whether or not you make partner.  Quit going on and on about it.  I'd rather discuss why you're an asshat.

;)

(I'm kidding, I think that's a great phrase and I'm just trying to use it as much as possible.  Thanks Matthies.)

Dude, ISUCKATTHIS is not worth engaging with, but I have a vague memory of thinking you, Jason_Perrlx, [ETA] were not so bad, so, against my better judgment, I'm jumping back into the fray here (And yes! I'm biased! In favor of someone with whom I've been friends on and off the board for more the three years! f-ing sue me! AND NO ONE CALLED ME IN HERE. Because what happens is, is that most regular posters read most active threads on the board. And when you are friends with people, on the board, it's often because you have been through stuff like this before and tended to have similar opinions, and it is therefore unsurprising and not some kind of conspiracy that you have similar opinions again).

Do you not remember being part of a social thread? Because my recollection is that you posted in MAS, or that "blah people entertain dotlyn" or whatever was going on around the era when you posted more. I guess my mind is just blown that everyone is so willfully misinterpreting the way this works. You are engaged in some kind of imbroglio with a poster that you perceive to be an idiot/a-hole/recalcitrant jerk, etc. You go and spar for a while and then, YES, you post in your chat thread about the fact that this is annoying, generally with the assumption that most people have already seen and read it, and that if they haven't they might want to go rubberneck the unpleasantness or say something soothing to you. And inevitably some of them will agree with you that said person is an assface and sometimes even be tempted (against their better judgment) to jump into the fray. But the reason that one posts these things is that one is frustrated and wants to vent to one's friends. The idea that Miss P is being slammed for saying (something along the lines of) "Jesus, that dude in the Drake thread is an asshat and he's pissing me off" is completely ridiculous. THAT IS WHAT THE SOCIAL THREADS ARE FOR. People gather in them because they have gotten to know these people and they want to vent about things that are happening in their online communities. The idea that this is out of line seems to be a pretty gross misunderstanding of the situation. And calling people "sad" or "scary" or whatever, seems to be jumping in and stirring the pot and being hurtful. But, you know, I'm glad you find that more entertaining than the "chances" threads.

And this crap about how Miss P tried to get people banned is unbelievable. She has posted the full content of the only comment she made to moderators, which is where she pointed out that PILOFO was equally to blame as comotellamas, and did not request his banning. She has not admitted to or even hinted at having made complaints to the moderators about anyone else, and ISUCKATTHIS has been hammering on for pages and f-ing pages about how she has "admitted" to wantonly demanding that people be banned when they hurt her feelings, despite this making no sense in context and there not being evidence for this. You are welcome to interpret this poo-show however you want, but, again, I remembered liking you back when and was kind of shocked that this was how you chose to re-enter the fray. To each his own interpretation, I suppose.

smh.

Figures.  She was one of the attack dogs who showed up and started insulting with no apparent motive.  She was also a regular poster in that other thread and materialized just after Miss P's bat signal.

I understand points made about not taking this stuff so seriously.  That's fair.  However, I really do like to call people out when they are this filled with sh*t.

5
Meta Discussion / Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« on: July 08, 2009, 09:30:00 PM »
For posterity.

I have to defend my signature now? Seriously? That's the best you can come up with?

Because you two don't understand it, I'll defend it. The first line in my signature was created by another poster and I as a joke after a fairly heated discussion I had where someone completely misunderstood a comment I made to be an insult toward his family.

And anyone familiar with IamAnXMan will know right away that the quote from him that I have in my signature contains the most hilariously ironic words ever strung together in the English language. That's why I keep them. It used to be all the rage to have a quote of IamAnXMan's misguided comments in one's signature. As far as I can tell, I'm the only one who still does.

Now, I'm not tolerating this any further. Come up with some actual, real proof of any wrongdoing on my part, or stop making accusations toward me. Any further post leveling accusations toward me without evidence will be reported. It is up to you to prove that I've done something wrong, which you have failed to do at every turn, and not for me to prove that I didn't. I have corroboration that the situation is exactly as I described it earlier. All that has been directed toward me is speculation.

eta: Oh, and I went back to the Drake thread to see if any part of our first encounter still exists. And it looks like your posts are gone, too. Interesting.

6
Meta Discussion / Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« on: July 08, 2009, 09:27:22 PM »
For posterity.

I'll admit, I did seem to come out of nowhere. I came into the thread after noticing it appear so often at the top of the unreads, read a few pages of the conversation, and recognized you for what you are: a horrible gimmick, trolling for attention. So, I decided to have a bit of fun with you. It started as a discussion between Matthies and myself on how much of a train wreck the thread was, and we briefly talked about puppying/kitten bombing it.

But you must have me confused with someone else. Not once did I attack or insult you. I only told you that you know nothing about me, and that you were wrong when you made insulting comments. Remember that conversation? I can assure you that no insults came from me, but I can say that there were more than a few from you. Maybe if you can figure out how to use the quote function, you'd be able to track a bit better. I'll give you a hint: it's the button to the right, no further action is necessary.

You must be referring to someone else when you say:

When I looked at your posting history, I found that you had been posting in a tread with Miss P.  She had posted a link to the Drake thread while making disparaging remarks about me and a couple of other posters.  You replied to that post and, immediately afterward, started engaging me in the Drake thread.  Several other posters did the same, but none brought to the table the level of wild-eyed viciousness and questionable grammar that appear to be your trademark.

As I said before, MissP and I rarely travel in the same circles. Note that the "feeling you" thread you refer to above is SFLSD. The one I go to every few weeks, as opposed to Exile, the one I post in daily. I didn't reply to any post about the thread, nor did I follow any link she posted in there. You can also see that I have no trouble with grammar, so poor grammar can hardly be called a trademark. Besides, as you're so ready to point out, I delete my posts. So, how much of a post history could there have been to establish any kind of a "trademark" on my posting style? Are you sure you're not thinking of someone else? I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, if you're willing to concede the possibility that I'm only one of several people whose backposts you checked, and have made an honest mistake. But I won't tolerate these lies forever.

And you keep making a big deal about me deleting my posts. Honestly, it's a bit egotistical to think it has anything to do with you. It doesn't matter who the post is directed toward or what it contains. All of my posts get deleted. The only exception at this point are the ones I've made recently enough that people haven't had a chance to read them, and nominations for new moderators, which I've been asked to keep. But once the new mods are announced, they're gone. Why? Because, again, I delete all of my posts, no matter what.

I'm not telling you anything about your posting history you don't already know, as you insinuate. It's just that you're lying about it and I'm not.

You are telling me things about my posting history that I don't know, for the simple fact that I haven't done the things you say I have. And as far as lying about it, I think both our track records can speak volumes for the veracity of our statements. I'll stack my credibility up against yours any day of the week and twice on Sunday, coming out ahead every single time.

Again, get your facts straight. I'm not putting up with any further attacks on my character.

7
Meta Discussion / Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« on: July 08, 2009, 09:21:06 PM »
Isn't it interesting that when Irrx insults someone and brags about it, it's not actually an insult?  No, of course not.  He's a regular.  Kind of like when Miss P complains about someone to the moderator, it's not a complaint.  No, of course not.  She's a regular.  Or like how when Miss P posts something to the effect of "The people in the Drake thread are pissing me off," and the people who read it happen to show up and shower insults on those who disagree with Miss P... well that's not deliberate, that's just coincidence. Of course it's not deliberate.  They're all regulars. Just like when Miss P complains about somebody and they get banned because of her complaints.  That's just coincidence too. Again, she's a regular.

Thanks for explaining, Irrx.  However, I think you have to be a regular to follow your tedious prose and dubious "logic."  To those of us who haven't spent the last 5 years sniffing your a$$, your insults sound an awful lot like insults, your threats sound an awful lot like threats and your writing reads a lot like ESL.

And yeah, that's it... report me for calling you out on the fact that you insulted me.

Go ahead and report me, you fat little girl.
 
And then delete the post in which you said that you would in 4.3 hours or so.  That way, you'll be able to deny it later.

8
Meta Discussion / Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« on: July 07, 2009, 10:00:13 PM »
Of course.

9
Meta Discussion / Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« on: July 07, 2009, 09:33:16 PM »
Irrx,

I cannot find the post of Miss P's I referred to above and I can't be arsed to look any further.  As promised, I owe you an apology for that.  Sorry.

Nevertheless, I stand by everything I wrote above that doesn't concern that post.

SUCKY

10
Meta Discussion / Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« on: July 07, 2009, 09:30:39 PM »
Me neither.  Although, point taken about taking this too seriously.  Nevertheless, I like to call people on their bullsh*t.  It's a kind of hobby.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 28