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 - freshk

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7
1
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Please tell me something about Vegas.
« on: August 24, 2005, 10:37:53 AM »
I lived in Vegas for nearly 3 years.  In my opinion, the Hard Rock is by far the best casino to party and gamble at.  They even have swim up black jack in the pool and a craps table on the deck.  The crowd there is also much more hip than that at the Palms.  Make sure you save a day at home to rest when you get back.  You'll definately need it!

2
General Off-Topic Board / Re: East Coast Ski Advice
« on: August 22, 2005, 06:21:04 AM »
Hey  guys,

     Thanks for the advice.  I knew that there was skiing in VT, but I didn't realize how many nice resorts they had.  I am going to look into Okemo and Killington. 

      Before I moved out here, I was in Salt Lake City on business two to three times a month.  All the resorts had a deal where you could ski free the same day you flew in by presenting them your boarding pass.  So despite living in Las Vegas, I was able to get 2-3 ski days in every month during the season. 

     There are some ski resorts just a few hours drive from D.C. I do not know how great they are, but I might have to make some day trips to them to get my legas into shape before the family vacation.  Do ya'll have any tips on a good spot to ski in southern PA on a day trip?

3
General Off-Topic Board / East Coast Ski Advice
« on: August 21, 2005, 04:05:36 PM »
I have never skied east of the Rockies.  Now that I am living on the east coast I need to find out more about the skiing out here.  I would like to book a vacation for the family over Christmas break.  I am looking at Tremblant, but I do not know anybody who has skied there that can give me any insight.  Any advice or suggestions from the east coasters out there?

4
apathetic

5
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Cars we Want to Buy
« on: August 11, 2005, 10:59:40 AM »
Finally figured out how to post pics, so here's the ride I want.





7
My point is that some people are so intellectually lazy that they dismiss an entire argument based solely on the perceived political leanings of the author.

It's like how the news will say "such and such study by the left-leaning/right-leaning think tank.." so that if you agree with that side, you can support it and if you don't agree, you can automatically dismiss it without any consideration. That way no one has to think or consider any possible alternative viewpoint.


And before this comes up, it is a completely separate issue from 'media bias' where a story laced with biased language and framing tries to pass itself off as a factual account. This is clearly an opinion and a setting forth of certain ideas. It's just that some people are too lazy to consider those ideas and it's much easier to simply blow off the author as being from 'the other side'.


The argument in the article was dismissed because it was predicated on an inaccurate comparison of WWII and the current war on terror, not because of where it was posted on the internet. I read the article in its entirety and dismissed it without giving a second thought to who the author might be.  BTW I find it ironic that you are so eager to accuse others of intellectual laziness when you turn to Slate for information to support your anti-Bush stance.

You have no idea where I turn to for information on anything. I just happened to find this particular article interesting and thought I'd put it out there to get opinions. I fail to see how your knowing that I have at least once read Slate gives you any sort of profound insight into where I get my news and information.

Your only comment before this appears to be in regards to the source of the article, not the content of the article. If you have a problem with what's said, why not criticize that instead of the source?

And please go back and read the thread title again. The key word is "difference".

In reverse order...

In order for the "difference" to which the article refers to be meaningful, one must assume that WWII and WoT must be largely similar in context. 

I didn't criticize the article becuae that would have been repetitive.  The article's major flaws had already been pointed out.  I didn't crticize Slate either.  In fact I enjoy Slate.  I simply pointed out that link beacause there were some questions as to the orginal source.  I simply looked it up.

Lastly, you got caught with your pants down by trying to pass off anti-Bush rhetoric as some sort of meaningful argument.  You were bold enough to accuse others of intelectual laziness when in fact that was what you were practicing.

8
My point is that some people are so intellectually lazy that they dismiss an entire argument based solely on the perceived political leanings of the author.

It's like how the news will say "such and such study by the left-leaning/right-leaning think tank.." so that if you agree with that side, you can support it and if you don't agree, you can automatically dismiss it without any consideration. That way no one has to think or consider any possible alternative viewpoint.


And before this comes up, it is a completely separate issue from 'media bias' where a story laced with biased language and framing tries to pass itself off as a factual account. This is clearly an opinion and a setting forth of certain ideas. It's just that some people are too lazy to consider those ideas and it's much easier to simply blow off the author as being from 'the other side'.


The argument in the article was dismissed because it was predicated on an inaccurate comparison of WWII and the current war on terror, not because of where it was posted on the internet. I read the article in its entirety and dismissed it without giving a second thought to who the author might be.  BTW I find it ironic that you are so eager to accuse others of intellectual laziness when you turn to Slate for information to support your anti-Bush stance.

9
This is the link to the original article.  Go figure an editorial from Slate slamming the war.
http://slate.msn.com/id/2123807/#ExtraSpecial



Thank you for proving my point exactly.

So you're point was that a liberal news organization would post anti-war article?  How astute!

10
General Off-Topic Board / Re: Cars we Want to Buy
« on: August 10, 2005, 02:50:30 PM »
Maybach with a driver so that I could sit in the back sip champagne and troll LSD instead of dealing with D.C. traffic.
I can't figure out how to insert pictures so here's the link. http://weaky.free.fr/galeries/de/Maybach.htm
Now that is what I call a ride!

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7