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 - nethgilne
« on: February 22, 2006, 01:29:42 AM »
Your analagizing my claim to a primitive grunt of disapproval is a good start. I don't think that your interpretation is entirely correct. I was being dismissive because, having passed the horror of Contracts behind me, few things seem less appealing than explaining how Contracts work to a bunch of 0Ls. While you might be eager (and from your naive invocation of "Paper Chase - Contracts for the Kings" this seems correct) to engage me in a legal discussion before you head off to CLS or HLS, again: I would be speaking in language that you don't fully understand and any statements I made would appear conclusary and unsubstantiated to you and thus have all of the rhetorical effect -- to you -- as would a primitive grunt of disapproval or dismissive pedantry.
Consideration requires that both parties give something up. Signing a document is not consideration in that respect. This is more akin to a promise serving as something analagous to consideration to another promise. Nuanced thinking is CRITICAL for law exams, but I would encourage you to heed your own advice:
"I agree that UC Hastings (1) has not suffered severe, if any, damages; and (2) is very very unlikely, to say the least, to haul his ass into small claims court. But this has nothing at all to do with the question of whether or not a contract has been formed. I understand distinctions of this nature are fairly important when writing law school exams."
Notice how before I talked about damages, I said "EVEN IF A CONTRACT HAD BEEN FORMED." Your saracstic retort displaying your 'understand[ing] [that] distinctions of this nature are fairly important when writing law school exams" provides me with the inference that you, for whatever reason -- a lapse of comprehension perhaps -- thought I was discussing damages (and we actually call them 'remedies') in an attempt to persuade you plebs that no K had been formed. This couldn't have been further from the truth. I was only pointing to the unliklihood and inadequacy of any potential remedy in order to support what I thought was the clear overarching theme of my post: that any contractal analysis or that even looking at this as a conract would be meaningless.
Again, if you're still shitting fire about my previous post and still believe it your place to moralize this poor kid who is going to be stuck at Hastings for 3 years if he can't get out of the ED, I might get some more work done (deciding to post here and waste 2 hours has already screwed me over for the next two nights) and then explain this sh*t to you in 1 hour.
I take the silence to mean that you guys aren't responding, which is good. I really need to get work done and I don't want to ever come back to LSD again. If you have any questions or take issue about what I just said, PM them to me and, if I ever come back to the site, I'll respond.
« on: February 22, 2006, 01:13:53 AM »
Not everything can be reduced to and analyzed by case-law. I mainly took issue with the guy who was referring to Ks despite not knowing anything about Ks. It's a vain attempt at invoking authority -- in this case legal knowledge -- and it was misplaced and inaccurate. I don't see how my post evidenced my reading the wrong thread or my not undersatnding "facts." I was only confused over his Hastings ED date. I would take a shot at why I think ED isn't subject to K law, but I have a lot of work left tonight and two more angry posters to correct. Let me just add that no matter what happened, he would lose the seat deposit. That's just his paying to keep an option for the seat open, and nothing more.
Second guy: As I said before, it's mainly an (artificial) ethical question. I think it's ridiculous how all of these people are quick to jump on him for looking out for #1. I can understand that what he's doing is selfish, but I suspect that most if not all of you would do the same. The legal world is not happy and cheery; people are cutthroat in lawschool no matter where you go and no matter how nice you are, and it gets a LOT worse (from what I've heard) once you start practicing. For this Colombia guy, his chances of getting ANY job out of Hastings are a lot lower than if he were to goto Hastings. If he can find a way out of it, I hope he uses it. I take issue with all of the moralizing and entitlement that goes on on this board. What he does shouldn't concern you, even if it does directly or indirectly affect your chances at lawschool admission (because you maybe accepted UCDavis when Hastings sent Colombia his ED acceptance but you your deferral), and even if it exhibits disregard for his peers and the process. I would do it. I think you would do it. I think you would be stupid to not at the very least consider it if you wouldn't do it. Maybe once you start law-school at a school where your job prospects are less than certain and you realize that most everybody who's not in the top 1/4 will have a lot of trouble, you might be able to share this sentiment; but nonetheless I think it ridiculous that everyone feels the urge to jump on the bandwagon and try to tell this guy how to live his life.
Also, Alec, I'm not a troll. I define troll as someone who lurks and doesn't provide good information. On the contrary, I provide a lot of useful information, but use incendiary language and tone.
Third guy: wants to talk substance; I'll address that in another post if there aren't any more angry replies until then.
« on: February 22, 2006, 12:02:23 AM »
First of all, Kruddler, you got a 159 on the LSAT and a 2.62 from what probably amounts to an equally mediocre undergraduate institution. Your quote, indicating that the process was 'binding,' does nothing more than tell us that UCHastings thinks it's binding. Nothing within the langauge indicates that it is some sort of contractual agreement, and the preceding posters who haven't even so much as stepped foot into a contracts classroom, but still see it fit to espouse their 0L beliefs that this is somehow a contract backed by consdieration, are misinformed and misguided.
if ED is part of a contract backed by consideration, I see nothing preventing this guy from breaching. he can pay whatever money the school lost; I doubt a court would force him to goto the school. The only true foce at work here is that the adcomms might get together and agree that his not accepting ED would thus render his other acceptances moot because it displays a lack of honesty and professionalism as well as a disdain for the entire process. However, he needs to balance this risk with the fact that graduating from Hastings at bottom 33% (which appears likely for him) puts him in fighting contention for Sacramento Public Defender's Office whereas graduating from Berkeely at bottom 5% (which again appears very likely for him) puts him in fighting contention for some bad midlaw gig somewhere in california. Although both options suck in absolute terms, given that this guy is a veritable incompetant (and yes, we can tell that Kruddler is seething with envy that a URM with 9 less his LSAT got Boalt while Kruddler's instead fighting for an accredited degree), the Boalt to mid-law gig looks SO much better, and, who knows, maybe Colombia can get a few class participation bumps during 1L and lucky on a few other exams against his boaltdolt peers and hit up median after 1L.
This all having been said, I would try to play it off to Hastings as:
1) financial reasons necessitate his going to Berkeley (although given its proximity to Hastings, you'd have to play this off very well) OR
2) that he couldn't withdraw the Hastings as soon as he got the Berkeley because of all the confusion around the UCB admissions *&^%.
« on: June 28, 2005, 05:56:29 PM »
tag for unreads
« on: June 05, 2005, 03:09:48 PM »
your cheeky grin is ridiculous!
« on: June 05, 2005, 02:51:44 PM »
Braden: if you dont already post on xoxo you should np. And yes, rejected by boalt with high LSAT is more prestiguous than being accepted. credited observation
« on: June 05, 2005, 02:41:39 PM »
Dear dirty whore,
YOu stated in an above post that you would do ANYTHING for a 175. Why don't you checkout those 'studies' which noone on this board have linked to and find if there are any permanent side effects resulting from one dosage. You'll probably read something about how people with hypertension or previous heart problems shouldn't take adderall (or any amphetamine for that matter) and that you may experience temporary inappetite, waning sex drive, and a few other completely harmless side effects -- nothing permanent (aside from addiction caused by prolonged use). Since you want a 175 and are obviously stupidly cuntish enough to argue with me about a proven breadwinner of a pill and can therefore never get a 175 without significant chemical help, try TAKING one adderall and seeing how much better you perform on your LSAT practice test. You will THANK me PROFUSELY when you see the effects. Granted, a casual survey of my college buddies is by no means an appropriate substitute for actual, documented laboratory work; but nonetheless, every one of my friends (surprisingly I do have well over 50 close friends, they must be retarded to enjoy, or pretend to enjoy, my company) who has taken it -- regardless of their temperment (which varies considerably mind you) -- has studied harder and better than ever before. At my undergraduate (a top institution, unless you're rocking HYPS) a very significant percentage of the wealthier kids takes adderall on a regular basis and even devotes facebook groups to it. If you REALLY want a 175 and would really do ANYTHING for that score, you would be a FOOL to not, at the very least, TRY adderall on one practice exam a month before the actual thing. HTH newb
« on: June 05, 2005, 02:19:47 PM »
« on: May 23, 2005, 12:07:15 PM »
« on: May 21, 2005, 07:10:35 PM »
Would they frown upon this, would they tell other admissions officers to look at your application less favorably, at a school like, I don't know, let's say, Indiana?