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 - sonofapickle

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14
It is not being "snooty," but rather educated. Yes, I will appear as though I am well educated if you were trying to guess. I will not blatantly show my insecurities through piles of errors, comma splices, inane logic, and a letter riddled in idiocy. No, I will not want to appear that way. Would you like to know why? It is a law school, that is why, and the people in this law school have to be well educated, well written, and show civility and class that differentiates you from the proletariat. Instead of trying to ridicule me, try to understand that you must show a sense of worth, not a sense of regularity.

The proletariat views people who are not situated nor obliged by their customs of commonality as haughty. The haughty ones are just people who are much more refined. The proletariats have many facets of communicating with one another, i.e. facebook, myspace, twitter, etc... They need these channels to communicate, as the proletariat are not comfortable being alone, enjoying art and conversing with people within the same culture. The facets they use are just more ways to hide behind themselves and pile unto their own fear of not being "in." To make this short, proletariats do not want to appear as though they are educated nor do they want others to do the same, and if they do... well, the ones who do appear educated are simply ostracized or ridiculed…

That would have gone on longer if I did not catch myself. 

To stay on topic I will say this, Affirmative Action is a copout for those who do not cut it. It is primarily used by people who are not "fit" for a certain job to get one. That in turn, diminishes the intellectual work environment, not help it. The reason why is that other QUALIFIED individuals are negated from that same position all due to someone using Affirmative Action to obtain such a position.

No, he assumed the guy could easily burn out.  Do you know what "could" means???  Here's a hint.  It doesn't mean "far more likely than not."  This bit-o-knowledge may come in handy next month.

 You obviously did not read my post and basically rehashed what I mentioned. How does it feel to be redundant? You obviously failed to get the point also when attempting to insult me in your controverted post. I said the exact same thing. Next time, do read over my post more carefully and get the point that was made within it. I do not know how it feels to be shown up by a guy 11 years younger than you, but you should opt to take the high road. I do not feel like having to keep tutoring you like I did obst in his posts of ignorance. Now, when I say "ignorant," I merely mean not too well informed. In any case, instead of restating what I have already, you should go back and re-read my post, this time, more carefully.

Unlike your posts, my posts aren't meant to insult people but rather shed light on situations. I do not like insulting people so I refrain from it. IF you feel it is necessary to infract me based on your own insecurities of not adequately reading and comprehending a post, then please feel free to do just that. I will not hold anything againt you.

An obvious mistake. My computer was messing up and I did not bother to fix a simple error at them time.

Also, it is grammar not, "grammer."In addition, your mistake lies in your assumption of what I believe. I never once indicated nor stated that my grammar was the best. You obviously misconstrued an unfounded post and came to such a supposition on your own.

"He did not assume he would burn out or even that he probably would burn out..."

Before I move onto my point. I must attack your post due to the blatant insult at my intelligence.

You self contradicted yourself within that same post. First and foremost the contradiction lies within you saying, "probably would burn out," if you had not noticed "probably" is the same way as saying, "vey likely." That means it is more easy for a person to burn out when studying for that long period of time. When I re-read his post, he said, "it is easy for you to burn out."

Onto my point. Jeffort did assume, and that is where you are wrong. His assumption took place when he noted, "you could easily burn out." Him stating as such is an assumption. If you do not know what assumption means then here is the gist, "conjecture based on no proof; guesswork." Jeffore merely was guessing the OP's temperament level and added in, "you could easily burn out." That is an assumption that the OP has a far more likely chance of burning out than not burning out. Jeffort does not know the OP nor did he ask the OP any further questions to give an accurate assessment of his burnability. He just assumed he would easily burn out if he studied for that long.

As usual, 0-3.

I am sure it is rough. It is always good to have people that are family in the business because you're a shoe-in at a good firm.

On topic, you will never see me step foot into Cooley law. I do believe it is that bad.

Unless Jeffort can accurately attest to someone who has been studying for 2 years vs. someone who studies, lets say, a few months, then compare and constrast the individual performance on a test, then he has as much merit as I do on the subject of how long to study. If one studies a head of time then he/she maps out what their weaker areas are and can improve upon them, thus they have more time to work on weak areas, make their stronger areas even better, and study more for the LSAT.

Him tutoring a bunch of children is an irrelevant point as I am merely suggesting study tips. People are different, thus they have different temperaments, etc.., Jeffort saying "you will burn out" is an unfounded statement and his personal opinion on the matter. The OP may not burn out and from what he is saying, I can more accurately assume he won't, than Jeffort can assume he will.

I like that you find life similar to a game. In the essence of playing games, you are now 0-2. ;)

Don't listen to Jeffort.

I have also been studying for the LSAT for two years now. By studying this long, I have not become "burnt out" nor have I declined. I sparse my prep-tests out until new editions arrive and then I buy those to take more prep tests. For over a month now I consecutively score in the high 170s, and I even intentionally answer some questions wrong as I don't want a perfect score (a quirk and funny joke of mine about the paradox of perfection). But, to say the least, the test has become second nature to me. When looking at the different types of logic games, I know how to map them and solve them easily. The logical reasoning portion seems like kid work to me now. The practice tests have become easy for me to pass now and I feel that the test may be just as easy due to some practice tests being actual questions from the real test.

In any case, I may just score in the high 170s if I keep my pace of tackling each test as if it were my last. That doesn't take away my notion of them being easy for me now.

T3 and T4 does not matter, but T4-T2-T1 does matter. Going to a T1 or T2 would be more beneficial to a person career wise.

Largest Lawschool in the nation, largest library and better than most T-1s just view the Rateings section on their page to see for yourself.  ;)   

Largest student body because the school accepts just about anyone. Largest library because of the amount of students it accepts, it generates large sums of money. Better than most T-1s due to them ranking themselves. Lmfao, you Cooley students are just delusional.

Minority and Non-Traditional Law Students / Re: Undergrad School
« on: May 25, 2010, 11:20:27 AM »
I am rarely using the internet and when I do use it, I am doing work and on this forum. I just take intermittent breaks between work and this site. I then check my portfolios and track the markets. So, I am b.sing a 3rd of my time.

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14