Law School 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 - Jake_MONDATTA

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 35
It's right up there in print. 

I don't know that you can really change it.  It seems pretty institutionalized here.  The cliques, I mean.  I think it comes from the fact that many use this site as a social vehicle and that the mods tolerate cliquish behavior, but tend to be tougher on outsiders.

I guess I don't understand why you think the mods shouldn't "tolerate cliquish behavior," if by "cliquish behavior" you mean people using the site as a social vehicle.  As long as people stay off-topic or contribute meaningfully to on-topic threads when they do venture out, it seems to me that mods should tolerate their behavior.  For one thing, it's a huge part of the traffic on this site.  Also, a lot of the old-timers who do have groups of friends here, myself included, are fairly reliable sources of information and advice because we have seen a lot of posters go through the same stuff every cycle.

I don't know if this is part of your beef, but since it has come up a few times earlier in this thread, I will add that when people who know each other from the off-topic board (or in real life) agree with one another in a substantive thread, it's not necessarily the product of some evil cliquish plot.  A lot of the time, the reason we became friends in the first place is because we have similar interests and experiences or because we were arguing similar positions in a contested thread two or more years ago.  The fact that we sometimes wade into the same threads or feel the same way about a given issue strikes me as entirely unremarkable. 

Sure, please consider the examples I've already given.  Given the mild tenor of my posts, for example, did she have any basis for accusing me of hysteria and seeing "evil cliquish plots" everywhere?  Something tells me you wouldn't agree with that characterization of my posts.

I'm not trying to bull you, really.  I don't.

Well then listen to me for a second please, ok?  :)

Miss P acknowledged to me that she didn't realize that people feel the way that I (and I think you) do.  (See the small post where she says this.) 

It certainly seems that she's making a good faith effort to stop you, me, and others from feeling that this place is too "cliquish" in certain respects.  Because of this, I think you should give her some slack. 

But her "good faith effort" involves attempting to marginalize any one who doesn't agree with her.  That's more or less exactly what I'm talking about.

jesus christ.

I'm not asking anything of Miss P.  She's fine without my advice.


Current Law Students / Re: Is the era of biglaw over forever?
« on: June 09, 2009, 07:00:18 PM »
Predictions of the "death of biglaw" are about as absurd as predictions of the "death of capitalism" being floated about.

If you look at the earnings numbers being put out by Amlaw- it's pretty clear that why the firms were definitely hit, there is no Armageddon going on. The fact of the matter is that there is legal work out there that simply requires a large firm. No matter how brilliant or hard-working they may be, a 5 attorney firm can't handle a multi-billion dollar deal.

I really disagree with the first part.  There's nothing absurd about the idea that gargantuan law firms are not eternal.  I mean, a few decades ago people would've said the same thing about the idea that gargantuan auto companies are not eternal.

Okay, I can see you guys are about to come down pretty hard on me for having my own perspective.  I'm not really all that interested in defending my position ad absurdum all evening long.  You guys win, there are no cliques here, discussion is free and easy and this site provides a welcome home for every viewpoint.

Now please excuse me while I take my viewpoint to a forum where it's even more welcome.


This is an odd interpretation of Miss P's question.  How did you reach this extension?

It wasn't an innocent question.  She's been so annoyed with my posts that she's written me two PMs to personally reprimand me, volumes of responses about how I'm going on and on about "evil cliquish plots" and things and now she's even questioning my motivation for posting here.  

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to back down simply because a few people don't agree with me.  I've said what I have to say.  I don't mind if you disagree with it or even challenge me on the specifics - but don't act like my opinions are illegitimate just because you don't agree with them or because they annoy Miss P.  Well, you can do what you want... but I don't have to like it.  I don't.

What I'm talking about, in my view, is worse than driving people away because they feel they don't belong to the clique  I've seen the following scenario acted out several times here:  1) an opinion is expressed that one of the regulars doesn't agree with 2) others in the group of regulars rally to shout down the expressor of the opinion, 3) said opinion expressor gets fed up and moves on.

That limits discussion, stifles diversity of opinion and generally degrades the quality of interaction on this site.

Why do you "remain curious about the things that make [me] want to stay here?"  Why are my motivations for posting here any of your business?  Because you get to evaluate whether or not people posting here have legitimate reasons for doing so?

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 35