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 8 ... 35
I'm not some anti-clique activist or anything. I really don't appreciate being painted as such and having my views marginalized.  Perhaps I'm completely warped, but it doesn't seem to me that anything I've said is off the deep end.

I don't know if cliques on this site drive people away or if cliques are related to subscribership being down.  All I really know about is my own situation. 

For me, certain things I've seen on this site have made me want to spend less time here and take it less seriously as a resource for information. I see these "things" as being related to the social networking aspect of the site bleeding into the law school discussion aspect.  I've seen a lot of posters gang up on other posters who have merely expressed unpopular viewpoints or dared to disagree with certain prominent voices.  That annoys me.  That's all I was saying.  I wasn't making any grand statements about cliques, nor was I singling out specific posters.

I don't see any "evil cliquish plots."  As I mentioned, I think that the cliques can stifle the free-flow of ideas and generally prevent the site from being a resource for those who don't belong. 

I understand that people use the site primarily for socializing and I see nothing inherently wrong with that.  However, I think it's a shame that it gets in the way of what I would have assumed to be main purpose of the site.

On another note, I don't really appreciate the hostility.  People have different viewpoints.  I don't see why this fact should be so upsetting to any one.


Perhaps the mods aren't being "tougher" on outsiders.  It could very well be that those who have posted here are given the benefit of the doubt because they've demonstrated that they post "meaningfully," whereas there is no such evidence from new posters.

I see the above as a slightly different spin on exactly what I was saying.  In other words, it seems like we both acknowledge the same phenomenon but would describe it in slightly different ways.

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 post on other boards relating to IP law and I don't find the same thing.  Maybe it's because the crowd is a bit more professional and open-minded. I also find people over there more genuinely interested in providing useful advice and engaging in productive discussion.

Totally cliquish.  There are a lot of people here who use the site as a social tool and do little else with it.

While I agree that there are cliques here:

a) many of these people also give great advice; and

b) there are many people like me who are not part of any clique and give advice when we can do so competently. 

There's always going to be cliques on a discussion forum.  A discussion forum is a virtual real world, so why does it bug you so much? Learn to live with it!  :)

LOL.  I didn't say that it "bugs me so much."  I do think that the cliquishness can get in the way of honest discussion.  There's no problem when the cliqusters stick to the off topic board, but when they start tag-teaming and ganging up on other people just to show each other loyalty... it stifles debate.  It makes the board, as a whole, take on the personality of the regulars and shun new ideas or new perspectives.  This board definitely has a lot of that kind of thing.  I find it annoying, especially when compared with other boards where the community of regulars is not as strong or as devoted.

Totally cliquish.  There are a lot of people here who use the site as a social tool and do little else with it.

Current Law Students / What's the worst law school in the NYC area?
« on: May 26, 2009, 07:04:13 PM »
What's the worst law school in the NYC area?

Okay, if that's right it makes sense to me and I agree. 

If it were absolutely and completely impossible for someone to predict the consequences of his actions... such an unfortunate person could not be held responsible for the consequences of his actions.

Now why is that it would be absolutely impossible for BIGLAW attorneys to predict the economic consequences of their work? 

Under your standards of predictability, is there any one who would ever be able to predict the economic consequences of his work?  If so:  who, when and why?

Okay, so in lieu of quibbling over the specifics of the examples each of us has chosen to bolster his argument... how about if I attempt to summarize your position as I understand it?  Since I will inevitably (and inadvertently) misinterpret, mischaracterize and/or misrepresent what you're saying, please edit as necessary.

You are saying that:

Lawyers who work for BIGLAW cannot be held responsible for the economic consequences of their work because, although they have the power to bring about those consequences, they lack the background and education to understand those consequences.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 35