I think my writing is anything but a rant or a rave - you are using those words incorrectly.
You can attack Wikipedia, and it certainly has its flaws, but the "Fake Civ Pro" entry says more about the kind of people you and your friends are than it does about the sources I rely upon.
I do not blindly follow Wikipedia, I actually read the entries critically.
I imagine what bothers you more is not so much my reference to Wikipedia, but that you can't debate the entry itself. Did you even read it? Or are you just lashing out at Wikipedia to discredit it, and only providing an anecdote that makes you and your friends look like law school jackasses than it does question the reliability of an encylopedia.
Since you are that lazy, I will post it here. If you challenge the defintion on Wikipedia, it would be one thing. Instead you just try and discredit the source. More troll methods. Grow up, and use your intelligence - it's time to stop arguing like a teenager.
In fact, what are you arguing against? Do you have a point of view on this thread, or are you just on here to argue against Me? I welcome it because each time a person leaves a ridiculous post that only attacks a postor he knows nothing about, it illustrates the ridiculous level of public discourse in the country.
Thank you for providing illustrations of what's wrong with Americans today - all attacks and no ideas.
Socratic Method: [Supposedly] Typical Application in Legal Education
Socratic method is widely used in contemporary legal education by many law schools in the United States. In a typical class setting, the professor asks a question and calls on a student who may or may not have volunteered an answer. The student's answer stimulates other students to offer their own views, thus generating a wide range of opinions and exposing the strengths and weaknesses of each.
The answers usually become increasingly refined as each is built upon the previous ones. Then the professor moves on to the next question, often without authoritatively answering the first one, and so on. It is important to understand that typically there is more than one "correct" answer, and more often, no clear answer at all. [This last sentence is true, they leave you wondering - but the dynamic discussion and refining of facts rarely, if ever happens]
The primary goal of Socratic method in law schools is not to answer usually unanswerable questions, but to explore the contours of often difficult legal issues and to teach students the critical thinking skills they will need as lawyers.
The class usually ends with a quick discussion of doctrinal foundations (legal rules) to anchor the students in contemporary legal understanding of an issue. For this method to work, the students are expected to be prepared for class in advance by reading the assigned materials (case opinions, notes, law review articles, etc.) and by familiarizing themselves with the general outlines of the subject matter.Chris Laurel
P.S. I've heard that "Fake Civ Pro" thing before - be original, as opposed to claiming a shop-worn law school urban legend as your own, beyotch.
"I'm not sure if it's still there" - Because it would take sooooooo long for you to check instead of telling the entire world "I am speaking about something I do not know if it is still true." Dude - the Internets were supposed to make it easier
to back yourself up.