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 - LoverOfWomen
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12  14 15 16 17
« on: March 30, 2006, 02:44:38 AM »
There are three different ways that Westlaw and LexisNexis bill practitioners. The first is an hourly rate. The second is called transactional. It charges you by the type of transaction you do. If you just enter in the citation, it is "relatively" cheap. If you perform a search, a search on a broader/more national database will be more expensive than just your state database. And like someone else already mentioned, they will also charge extra when you Shepardize or KeyCite a case. Just remember to download and print.
The third way is a yearly flat fee. While you can perform unlimited research for the same charge, Westlaw and Lexis re-negotiate this flat fee every year depending on rising costs and usuage of the firm. For instance, if a firm doubles in size from 60 to 120 attorneys in one year (and some have done this), they are going to be performing a lot more searches and Westlaw and Lexis want a cut. Thus, the firm won't be able to pay the same rate that it paid in the previous year b/c Westlaw and Lexis will demand more. Similarly, if usuage drops, the firm has a better argument to reduce the flat fee. Bottomline: your usuage counts regardless of which billing system the firm uses. Sure if it's a flat fee, your three additional searches won't make a difference but 3 per day * 7 days per week * 50 weeks per year, makes a huge difference.
Where can I get more info on this?
« on: March 30, 2006, 02:42:10 AM »
Your knack for missing the point is incredible. I don't care who you have sex with. That's the point. No one does.
How deliciously hypocritical. Not a word yet on those who were discussing their autoerotic stimulation at the beginning of this post.
Most people would not post something like that on a message board. But like I said, you are special. You see it raises questions about why you would want people to have this wonderful little nugget of information. When you blast through commonly shared subtleties of good taste in such a way, it screams "deliberate effort" whether you realize/care or not.
If it entertains you to think that I spent my time deliberately trying to poke through your "commonly shared subtleties of good taste" (pray tell, does "jacking off" fall into such a category), by all means, do what pleases you.
You do not get to choose the impression your words make. You can only choose your words. When you try to "casually" slip info about your sexual odysseys into unrelated conversations it will ALWAYS sound like you are desperately insecure and trying very hard. ALWAYS. Since you obviously must know that no one here cares who you sleep with, what is it you are trying to justify by decribing the sexual appetite of some chick you bagged? Do you not understand how stupid you sound? Do you want validation? Are you aware that it sounds like you are making it up, even if you aren't? ... ah forget it. I can't believe I'm still responding to this. You get under my skin somehow.
I don't know if you don't know these things or if you are oblivious to conversational tact. Nothing that you said was in the least bit offensive. It was pathetic. See if you can figure it out.
Similarly, when a random poster overreacts at the slightest suggestion of sexuality, certain questions come to mind. It seems pathetic, for instance, that you care so much that I mention sexual relations as a pastime. I really don't see why you are so embarrassed, unless this raises an uncomfortable inadequacy for you. In that case, I sincerely apologize that you are still so woefully repressed. It's dreadfully unattractive.
« on: March 30, 2006, 02:35:53 AM »
" 2) The relationships were casual and purely physical; no harm done.
WTF. I know that you've been taking a lot of heat lately for your other posts, but you had to know that that post would get you a male bashing.
Purely physical/casual relationships are only great for men and do cause harm to the woman. Yes woman can be stupid and sleep w/ sleezy men b/c they're drunk, in which case that is no sexual conquest but a jackpot. However, if you are referring to sober-sex, you are very mistaken. 99.99% of women want a committed relationship. Women will sleep w/ you on a friends w/ benefits scheme but only b/c they are secretly hoping that it will turn into something more. Bottomline: Casual sex is never a good idea if you actually care about the other person's emotions.
Nice to know that 57.2% of statistics are still made up. Your view of gender relations seems to me a very skewed one; assuming that only men have sexual appetites while only women care about relationships undergirds most of the problems of inequality to which you allude. A sexually liberated woman can learn to enjoy physical relationships just as much as the stereotypical man should. In any case, the focus is on pleasure. When I have sex with a woman, we have a very honest communication about what we find mutually pleasurable. This exchange of pleasure certainly constitutes an emotional component, but not as "baggage" that might otherwise weigh down the interaction unnecessarily. The key, of course, is to find a like-minded partner (and they do
exist--usually a woman with some aesthetic sensibilities can understand the sharing of pleasure without any other involvement). I would describe the life philosophy as hedonistic, but it might give the wrong impression to those who don't know Greek.
« on: March 30, 2006, 02:03:04 AM »
That's the same corset that Jessica Simpson is wearing in some of her Dessert ads.
Yeah, most law students don't have money like Jessica Simpson to afford stuff like that.
OK, they can skip the corset.
« on: March 30, 2006, 01:54:40 AM »
but the women I've been hooking up with lately have also been quite the insatiable sexpots!
Oh my god.
Did you just post: "but the women I've been hoooking up with lately have also been quite the insatiable sexpots!"... to strangers... on a message board? That actually made me nauseous.
I think I finally understand you now. You're not just confused or tasteless. You are a very special idiot. To be sure, all of your imaginary friends here in cyberspace wish you happy hunting and more future triumphs in your sexual adventures.
Actually, I only used two o's in spelling hooking up. As to discussing the sexual appetites of anonymous women I am seeing:
1) I didn't reveal their identities; no harm done.
2) The relationships were casual and purely physical; no harm done.
3) It was an offhand observation about my occupations lately, which was perfectly in keeping with the topic of this thread. Other posters noted that they have been masturbating lately; you had no scolding words for them. I suppose you only become angry when sexuality extends beyond one person?
4) I doubt anyone here is imaginary, nor do I pretend any of you are my friends.
« on: March 30, 2006, 01:49:55 AM »
OB - JEC - TIF - I - CA - TION
Porn is not sleazy... because it's lucrative???
It's respected? What exactly do you think the word "respect" means?
Because lawyers are a part of it?
Look, I have nothing against the porn industry at all, but I think you are misguided about what exactly porn is. It is sleazy by its very nature. It's supposed to be.
Porn has nothing to do with beauty. Porn is about jerking off. You are entitled to your opinion, but it is hard for anyone to take it seriously when it is shared most commonly with with frat boys, adolescents, and other shallow, less than sophisticated types. Trying to frame it as something more artistic or profound just appears transparent and cheesy.
1) Spelling a word doesn't make it evil. I don't deny there's a certain aspect of objectification, but there's nothing inherently wrong with it. An artistic production, almost by definition, objectifies its subject matter by categorically reducing it to an agent of pleasure. So? What's your solution? Ban art?
2) You're begging the question. Simply claiming that porn is sleazy doesn't mean it is. While it's certainly possible to reduce the scope of pornographic entertainment, that doesn't mean it ought to be. Pornography explores far more dimensions of human personality than mere masturbation. The fact that you may be unable to appreciate this aspect does not mean it doesn't exist. I mean, for goodness sake, Shakespeare can be used for jacking off (I knew a model who was turned on by the sonnets). Does that make Shakespeare sleazy?
3) Are you claiming that no frat boy or adolescent can appreciate art? I hardly find this convincing reason to condemn an artistic piece.
« on: March 30, 2006, 01:21:59 AM »
Hmmm...the picture from Amy Sue Cooper collection didn't seem to work, so I replaced it with a new one. Enjoy!
« on: March 30, 2006, 01:19:19 AM »
My current distraction:
Masturbation is a lot of fun, but the women I've been hooking up with lately have also been quite the insatiable sexpots!
« on: March 30, 2006, 01:13:51 AM »
What kind of background checks are involved with the DOJ? Do you have to have been squeaky clean, never arrested at all, only seen drugs in the movies, etc.? Does the whole department screen similary to the FBI?
Because umm... a friend of mine wanted to know.
I think the standards are the same. Here's some information for your "friend."
"Withdrawal of An Offer of Employment: The Department can withdraw an offer of employment if the investigation process reveals information that precludes a security and/or suitability clearance. Common problems that arise in background investigations that may result in the withdrawal of an offer include a history of unlawful use of drugs
[/i], failure to fulfill tax obligations, failure to comply with financial obligations, abuse of alcohol, or misrepresentation on the security forms. The Office of Attorney Recruitment and Management (OARM) can advise candidates who receive offers of employment on issues regarding potential suitability problems. Information on who to contact is included in the formal offer and security packet issued by OARM. "
Here's the link: http://www.justice.gov/oarm/arm/hp/hpconditionsofemployment.htm
Oh, and because you asked:
« on: March 30, 2006, 01:12:37 AM »
Stanford? Never heard of it.
Of course you haven't. Not quite your caliber, so don't worry your pretty head over it.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12  14 15 16 17