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 - motheroftaurasi

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 20
1
General board for soon-to-be 1Ls / Re: HLS
« on: May 02, 2006, 12:19:09 AM »
Anyone know how many have already picked? I haven't been bumped yet but I'm worried...I don't want to piss somebody else off by bumping them in turn, but mostly I don't want to have to pick another room.

2
General board for soon-to-be 1Ls / Re: HLS
« on: May 02, 2006, 12:13:42 AM »
Went ahead and grabbed a room in Hastings.  Now let's hope this sticks!

Where are you in Hastings? (section?)

3
Law School Applications / Re: Call from Harvard
« on: April 27, 2006, 05:16:23 PM »

Right, because no white applicant with similar numbers had done anything interesting in their life.

The fact is, if a non-URM has crappy (for the school in question) numbers, the application gets thrown in the trash.  It doesn't matter what their "soft factors" are.  Nobody cares unless the applicant is a URM.  As I have said before, once people cut the sh*t and just admit that race was the determining factor, I will stop posting about it. 

Dozens and dozens of other URMs applied to Harvard and were rejected because they didn't present as compelling an application as accepted URMs did. Race was not the determining factor. The facts disprove that argument. It was almost certainly a factor, yes. But if it were literally the determining factor, every URM would get in. The reason you're making this error is because you're totally focused on the plight of white applicants with similar numbers--understandable, if you are one. But that doesn't mean your argument is correct.

4
Law School Applications / Re: Call from Harvard
« on: April 27, 2006, 04:58:30 PM »

Using your logic, you can never know anything in life.  If someone is found dead in a burned out building, how do you know they died from the fire, and not from a heart attack before the fire started?  I think we can safely conclude that if a URM was admitted with numbers substantially below the 25% percentiles, race was the determining factor.

Unless you somehow had access to the Harvard Admissions Office the day they considered Lacoste's application, I have to call bullsh*t. I talked with him for ten minutes on another board and was deeply impressed. I don't see why a Harvard admissions officer couldn't come away with the same impression. It's within reason to argue that race was a factor, but saying that it must have been the deciding factor is flat-out wrong.

5
Law School Applications / Georgetown done?
« on: April 25, 2006, 09:36:55 AM »
Not just with acceptances, but with decisions...nobody has received a decision from Georgetown on LSN since 4/16, and the number of pendings that are left could be chalked up to abandoned accounts. Anybody know what the deal is with this?

(My online status check says complete.)

6
General Off-Topic Board / Re: No DNA Match for Duke LAX Players
« on: April 21, 2006, 08:12:34 PM »

MoT, whose earlier posts were rather hysterical about the harm to Duke and rather disrespectful of both you and the woman involved, is now trying to be much more conciliatory.  

"was trying to be more conciliatory" would be more accurate. And yes, I get a little passionate in my defense of Duke. That can happen with things you love.

7
General Off-Topic Board / Re: No DNA Match for Duke LAX Players
« on: April 21, 2006, 08:08:31 PM »

Wow, with such an overinflated sense of your own argumentative prowess, you're going to get absolutely MURDERED in law school.  I'm almost sorry that I'm not going to the same school you are so I could watch and laugh.

Tedious repetition and deliberately twisting words =/= "decimating an argument".


This is 100% credited.

8
General Off-Topic Board / Re: No DNA Match for Duke LAX Players
« on: April 21, 2006, 07:40:20 PM »

I've asked this several times now, and have yet to receive an answer: how am I trivializing their pain?


This is not terribly complicated. Instead of responding to the report that a student was assaulted because of the allegation of rape, simply because he was a Duke student

Why do you think my reaction was simply because he was a Duke student?

Unbelievable. You truly don't know how to read. The "simply because he was a Duke student" referred to why he was attacked. Yes, there were a lot of commas, and I know that's difficult for people who read at a 2nd-grade level, but no reasonable, literate person would read it any other way.

Quote
, with surprise, shock, horror, or hell, even mild disapproval, your reaction was essentially to say, "It wasn't as bad as you make it out to be" and make a crack about reading comprehension.

1) If you're referring to what I think you're referring to, my comments are being taken out of context. IIRC, I was also referring to how the article itself suggests that fears are overblown, and went on to demonstrate your illegitimate use of hyperbole:


When I wrote the above, I was referring to the following exchange:

Quote
2) I find it odd that the article you cite only noted one incident -- and suggests that the other fears are overblown: "Friday evening, Durham Police Department officers notified the residents of houses along N. Buchanan Boulevard that there were unsubstantiated threats of gang-related violence targeted at Duke students....that the rumors of violence originated from the magistrate's office, but he added that they could not be traced to a credible source."

And I find it comical that you think someone's head being bashed against a car in what looks like clear retribution for the alleged rape is worthy of no more than a shrug. Maybe if it was your head you'd take a different tack?

"When Camu put his head out of the window to hear what the men were saying, Gieseke said an individual approached Camu from behind and punched him in the back of the head. After Camu recovered from the attack, the two students managed to leave the parking lot, but they were briefly pursued by the car that had previously blocked them in."

I could make a snarky comment about remedial reading classes, but I'll be good.

Oh yeah, very clever, because in the context of the argument, there's an important substantive difference between getting your head bashed against a car and getting punched in the head.

Actually, yes: it goes to show that you are deliberately distorting facts in order to substitute hyperbole and emotion for solid reasoning.

This is what infuriates me. Not once did you address the impact of a student being assaulted. Instead, you joke about a mistake I made in the details of the attack, and move on without acknowledging it at all beyond that.

Quote

2) Here are my major comments about the destructive nature of the allegations in and of themselves:

Quote
"I'd like to see some evidence for this first.  It sounds like it makes sense, but all of the studies I've seen on this form of employment discrimination are on convicted felons -- NOT cases where individuals were found "not guilty" or the charges were dropped."

Quote
"Your assertion that their lives were ruined by the accusation was based partly on the premise that it's bad for admission to graduate school.  Insofar as your argument revolved around that idea, my statement was completely relevant."

Quote
"Do you have any evidence for this?  So far the evidence suggests that your claim is true in a much more narrow sense than your statements suggest."

http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,59478.msg1233474.html#msg1233474
http://www.lawschooldiscussion.org/prelaw/index.php/topic,59478.msg1233778.html#msg1233778

I wasn't talking about any of this.

Here's the point: if you, at any point, expressed sympathy or surprise or shock or mild disapproval that a Duke student had been assaulted simply because he was a Duke student, please show that to me. Or hell, just TELL me that you feel any of those things, because that's what pissing me off.

Quote
(I also don't get the point of the story about the burglar. Are you saying that, in your opinion, judges sometimes err?

No.  I'm saying decisions are sometimes less about the validity of the argument and more about appearance, social status and social norms.

Um...what is the relevance of this to your self-appropriation of the authority to judge who is winning an argument?

I'm sorry, but I really can't handle talking with you this way anymore. If at some point you'd like to get together for coffee and talk about this, that'd be fine. But your consistent failure to understand what I'm saying due to basic problems of English literacy makes it impossible for me to talk calmly with you. 

9
General Off-Topic Board / Re: No DNA Match for Duke LAX Players
« on: April 21, 2006, 05:32:26 PM »

I've asked this several times now, and have yet to receive an answer: how am I trivializing their pain?

This is not terribly complicated. Instead of responding to the report that a student was assaulted because of the allegation of rape, simply because he was a Duke student, with surprise, shock, horror, or hell, even mild disapproval, your reaction was essentially to say, "It wasn't as bad as you make it out to be" and make a crack about reading comprehension.

(I also don't get the point of the story about the burglar. Are you saying that, in your opinion, judges sometimes err? Be that as it may, in America, the country where we live, independent judges still decide winners and losers of arguments, not you. Although maybe--God help us--you'll become one someday, and then you can say with authority who's winning and who's losing. Until then, you just sound stupid. And if you meant something else, then you'd better explain.)

10
General Off-Topic Board / Re: No DNA Match for Duke LAX Players
« on: April 21, 2006, 04:12:21 PM »

Ah, no. "Crazy" = searching for reasons to continue fighting with me after I've left, including randomly assigning my identity to other people who disagree with you.

1) Re-read his posts: he didn't disagree.

2) If you really think people don't create fake accounts to bolster their case when they're losing, you haven't been here very long.

3) Talk to Scott.

Who is Scott?

No, I haven't been here very long, and yes, I know he didn't disagree entirely.

You keep alluding to this idea that I was doing things because my argument wasn't holding up, or was being "decimated" by you, or I was "losing." I'm not going to debate this with you, because I think it's stupid for people involved in arguments on online message boards to say whether their side is winning or losing. That's why we have independent judges and juries to decide real arguments--the arguer's opinion on whether he's winning or losing doesn't matter.

We don't differ substantially, okay? I think she's lying, you think I shouldn't make that conclusion just yet, and I can respect that view. When we came to petty insults it was as a result of your misreading of one of my posts, which was partially or entirely due to the fact that I delete quotes to make the posts look neater. Fine. I can let that go, because I accept your general view.

I can't, however, let go this idea you seem to have that this hasn't or won't hurt Duke immeasurably. I can't believe you would nitpick over exactly what happened at the drive-thru incident--for me, as someone who's been to that drive-thru dozens of times, it's unimaginable that someone would walk up and punch me in the head because of this rape allegation. For you to trivialize it, or say, "he was punched in the head, not bashed against the car, stop exaggerating!" just rubs me the wrong way. Do you see why that is? I know you're concerned about the accuser, and I try to refrain from trivializing her (you may have noticed that I consisently call her "the woman" or "the accuser" rather than "the stripper", "the liar" or "the whore"), so I'd hope that you would refrain from trivializing the pain the other side is going through.


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 20