Law School Discussion

Nine Years of 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 - UnbiasedObserver

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 205
91
Meta Discussion / Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« on: July 05, 2009, 10:47:28 PM »
julie feeling very republican today and so need be told what think.

Wow, you're still alive here?  Somebody must keep feeding you.   ::)

92
Meta Discussion / Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« on: July 05, 2009, 10:46:34 PM »
I still think the evidence is clear.  Sands said that PILOFOLO was banned because of complaints.

Show us clear evidence that they were banned solely because of those comments, or your argument is severely weakened.  You're a smart cookie; I don't think I need to explain to you why this really weakens your argument.

I also don't really think you have clear evidence of this.  If you do, show it to us!  I'd be happy to see it. 

  Miss P admitted that she did the complaining.  Further, she made the complaints knowing that people get banned because of such complaints. 
Again, did she know they'd be banned solely based on her comments?

There are more variables than just complaining, such as the offense; amount of times an offense was committed; among other things.  It's hard for you to say that she definitely knew this would lead to Pilofilo being banned, when there are more variables than you'd like to admit.

By the way, when should we complain to mods?  It seems that you're holding onto an unpalatable position that we can NEVER complain to mods.  That's fairly unreasonable, and I really hope you're not asserting that.   


I agree that my analogy is imperfect, but I think it's also pretty appropriate.

Your analogy, with all due respect, is extremely overboard.  Making an argument that Miss P was being extremely reckless by complaining is absurd, coupled with the many other variables that cause a person to be banned. 

Anyway, have a good holiday.

Same to you!

93
Meta Discussion / Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« on: July 04, 2009, 04:02:36 PM »
Alright, so you think I'm the cause of the mess...

I've made that clear a few posts ago, when I made the nasty divorce analogy, that you are a part of the cause, but not the entire cause, of this mess.

That you even make this comment this late in the game betrays your partiality, my friend.  It saddens me to have to see two often well-meaning people do this to one another on a daily basis. 

Am I the only person who doesn't hold grudges, for the most part?  :-\

That's that, then.  I realize that Miss P and others agree with you and would like to see my voice permanently silenced.  That's cool - it's exactly what I'm talking about.

While I don't think you're stating this, I just want to be clear: I do NOT think you should be silenced. 

At the same time, both of you blew this out of proportion.  You keep harping on this too.  If you wouldn't have reposting, we wouldn't be on this carousel yet again.


I disagree, but I don't see any point in discussing it further.  If you think my sarcasm and the fact that I disagreed with Miss P is enough to merit the hate fest that follows, we don't see eye to eye.  And, yes, I did know that you were a regular.

At the risk of you complaining about it yet again, you're pulling a strawman.

I never said disagreeing with Miss P is enough to merit a hate fest, coupled with sarcasm/etc.  In fact, I just said a few posts ago that the ganging up is wrong, and it needs to stop.

Your first post was extremely condescending.  Making claims that the "only" rational  argument against your position is [insert the argument you stated] is ridiculous.  You can't expect that people aren't going to react to that in a nice light.

Does it make it right?  No.  But it's reasonable to expect that: a) when you start off the thread with a "bang," by being extremely condescending, and b)start arguing with someone who is well-known, the people who didn't like your tone to start with come out of the bushes.  It's not they weren't annoyed with you earlier; it's simply that your argument gave them a convenient time to attack.

A lack of virtue brings about problems for a person, my friend.  But that's for another discussion....

(And, no, I'm not saying you're a bad person by any stretch.  If you can't tell, I'm a very philosophical person.) 

If Miss P knew that posters were banned because of her complaints and then complained about a poster, I think it's safe to say she wanted the poster banned.  Arguing otherwise is a bit like contending that someone who sticks a gun to another's head and pulls the trigger didn't necessarily want to shoot that person... that they were just really into pulling triggers. Who knew that indulging one's self in the normally benign hobby of trigger pulling would have such dire consequences in this case?

Yeah, right.

There are a few issues here:

1) Is there direct evidence that she: a) knew that posters were banned; b) solely because of her complaints (this is crucial; if not, your argument is extremely weakened)?  What is the clear evidence?  If it's clear, show it.  No more inferences.  Make it clear.  And don't say "it's in the thread."  You've opened the door by re-posting in this thread.  If you want to close the door, you need to shut the door yourself. 

2) Point 1 leads to this point:  your analogy is imperfect.  The certainty of pulling a trigger is a wanton disregard for another, obviously.  The recklessness here, unless she is certain that her comment, and hers alone, caused the banning of poster(s) (is it one? two? do you have evidence of even one poster get banned, before you make an allegation that she got more than one banned?), is of an entirely different magnitude than your analogy.  In fact, most things in life are, and again, this analogy betrays your partiality because your emotions are getting in the way. 

And again, you know that, ISUCK.  You don't want to hear me out, because you know I have no dog in this fight.  I think my last post to MissP demonstrates this clearly, and when you have calmed yourself down, go back and see what I wrote to her.  Really, it is amazing how two intelligent, well-meaning people can't get along.  It blows me away how fickle humanity is....

Take care. 

94
Meta Discussion / Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« on: July 04, 2009, 12:50:16 PM »

Unbiased:

"'You want to simplify this by stressing the ganging up on you and the ban on Pilofilo, but it cuts deeper than that.  And you know it!"

I agree with that.  The above is only one of many good examples of what I'm talking about.  It's simply that latest one and the one that I observed most directly.

I don't get this business about Sand's saying that Miss P's complaints about PILOFOLO got him banned not being direct evidence.  Please explain why that's not direct and I'll try to address you explanation.  In my view, it's more or less an admission of what I'm talking about by the person who did the banning.  How do you see it?

Well, while you agree, I don't think you get my point: I think that you're either: a) too blinded by your involvement in your fray to realize that you've caused part of this mess, and continue to do so by making unfounded allegations; or b) you're intentionally ignoring your involvement to make yourself look better.

I really hope that you're in category a, and not b.  I think you're starting to finally see the light (or at least I hope so). 

By the way, EVEN IF Sands said that Miss P's complaints were ONE of the things that got Pilofilo banned, that doesn't necessarily mean that she said he should be banned. One can complain about a poster and still not want that poster banned.  I think you can see the difference, and without direct evidence of this, you're wrong in crying foul. 


95
Meta Discussion / Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« on: July 04, 2009, 12:58:43 AM »

I have already apologized for something I don't remember having done (calling ISUCKATTHIS dim), and I will reiterate that apology.  It's not nice to demean others' intelligence, and it doesn't contribute anything to the conversation.  It was, as I said, beneath me, and I will not do it again.

I'm glad to hear that.

Also, if you or any other poster has constructive criticism for me, grounded in things I've actually done or said, I will be happy to hear you out and, where appropriate, reform my behavior, apologize, and/or otherwise make amends.  I can't promise to agree with your assessment, but I can promise to consider your criticism carefully and to offer a thoughtful and polite response.  I strive to be a good member of this community, and I will sincerely appreciate your taking the time to let me know how I misstepped -- even if it's unpleasant to read and think about at first.

I think you mean well, and I consider you a good poster here--I think I've made that clear in my numerous posts in these threads.   :) 

With that being said, I do think you jumped the gun in the Drake thread by claiming that ISUCK was being hysterical, and then complaining that all-of-a-sudden he decided to let bygones be bygones and leave the thread.  And you did seem to show a decent lack of empathy and sympathy from the start in the Drake thread.  (Please note that I agree with your assessment of the Drake scenario, in terms of what happened to that student(s).  But there are better ways to word our responses to show proper sympathy and empathy towards the students who were in that situation.  We've had similar problems in other threads, and we need to be careful about this.)

It seems that sometimes you let your emotions get the best of you--and then you start shooting off responses, without considering the import of your words.  I'd venture that most of us consider doing that at times, but we must remember that words can hurt on here just as they can hurt IRL; therefore, we should use the same caution online as we do IRL. 

And I mean that as constructively as possible.  I'm no saint either!  :P

I will not, however, ignore ISUCKATTHIS/Jake_MONDATTA's baseless accusations against me, and I will not admit to things I have not done for the sake of achieving some sort of false balance.  However under siege ISUCKATTHIS feels, perhaps even sincerely, I know that I neither attacked him nor encouraged others to attack him.  I am sorry that he feels the way he does, but I'll also admit that his hostility and smears have pushed me to the limits of my tolerance and concern for his feelings. 


I think that's fair that you deserve direct proof if he's going to make such accusations.  I don't really think that you encouraged  others to attack him; however, the fact is that people DID gang up on him.  It's happened more than once on here, and it needs to stop.  To be fair, a person can be defended by others if they're being unfairly treated, but there's been bad acts by both sides here.   

96
Powerscore Logical Reasoning Bible
Powerscore Logic Games Bible

The Powerscore Reading Comp Bible wasn't out yet when I was studying, so I can't speak to that, but the other two are invaluable.  You'll also want to stock up on as many previous LSATs as you can afford (sold through LSAC).  What I did was to use the older tests to drill individual sections, and the more recent ones for full practice tests.  I really cannot stress enough the importance of taking as many practice tests as your time and finances allow.

I know I didn't really answer your question.  You asked for a recommendation of a single comprehensive book, but I'm not aware of any good one out there.

I strongly concur, although I also can't really answer the OP's question.   :P

97
Meta Discussion / Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« on: July 03, 2009, 10:47:29 PM »
I can be occasionally condescending and unreasonable, I admit that.  Sometimes I'm flat out wrong.  I've said things I regret.  When I do, I usually take them back and apologize.  I doubt that I'm the only one, but I'd be willing to bet serious cash that I'm one of the only ones here who would admit it. Certainly said regulars wouldn't.

Well, I'm glad to hear that you can apologize IRL. 

And, I also will admit when I am wrong.  I'm a regular, and I've apologized to people online.  Sometimes they accept my apology; other times they don't.  So you're not alone, and there are many other great posters here who continue to make this place great.  Don't think that you're a martyr, my friend; there are others like you, and guess what: they're regulars! 


What I don't do is get other people to back me when I know I'm out of line.  In fact, my good friends wouldn't do that.  Instead, they'd be honest with me and tell me when I was out of line.  Clearly that kind of friendship isn't operative here.

I agree that it is wrong to back up someone when they're wrong, and that good friends won't do that.  Yet that's irrelevant to the fact that you also played a hand in this.

You want to simplify this by stressing the ganging up on you and the ban on Pilofilo, but it cuts deeper than that.  And you know it!  :)

The evidence is as follows.  Miss P complained about PILOFOLO and he was banned shortly thereafter.  Now, granted, Sands said that PILOFOLO's sarcasm supposedly played a role in his banning in addition to Miss P's complaints.  However, PILOFOLO's sarcasm (please go back and read it) was hardly severe and certainly not abusive or out of line.  He did make fun of Sands a little, admittedly.  Yet, it is clear to me that the major cause of his banning was Miss P's complaining about him.  Sands, more or less admitted this and steadfastly refused to provide any offending or out-of-line posts by PILOFOLO.  I asked Sands to do this at least three times and I wasn't the only one.

What more do you need in the way of evidence?

Do you have direct proof of this?  I really don't think so, and I really don't feel like reading the Drake thread yet again (as I just did) to see if it is true that Miss P wanted him/got him banned.

If you recall, I also said it was suspicious when Pilofilo was banned after Sands made that comment to him in reaction to Pilofilo's mocking of Sands.  Yet the evidence of Miss P getting him banned, let alone wanting him banned, is lacking.  You're making inferences, and that's a big allegation to make based on an inference.  If you can't substantiate it, it's not right to continue claiming. 

Without clear evidence, you're letting your emotions from your sparring with Miss P control your "logic."  Surely you can see that. 

I want both of you to continue to stay on this site and be good posters.  It's really silly to continue this "fight." 

98
Meta Discussion / Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« on: July 03, 2009, 08:59:30 PM »
Irrx,

You did actually come to the thread after Miss P posted a link to it in your SFLSD or whatever thread.  She complained that she was dealing with "idiots" etc. and you came running.  You posted exactly nothing on topic, instead all of your posts were directed at me and how supposedly foolish I was to disagree with Miss P.  Then you deleted the posts within 12 hours.

To all:

I am confident that anybody who reviews these threads and the threads in which these locals post will see exactly what I'm talking about.  Certain regulars are still actively reprimanding newcomers when their opinions differ (yes, I've been watching you do this over the last few days) and they're still reporting people to the mods to try and get them banned.

That's great that you people have found each other and can support each other. 

However, you've ruined this site for what seems to be its intended purpose.  It's funny that you actually wonder outloud why people aren't posting here any more.  Here's a hint:  law school applications are not down.  In fact, more people are attending law school than ever before.  The explanation you seek for why people have been abandoning this site may be a little closer to home.

You've stifled honest and intellectual discourse on this site and turned it into a social networking site for people who have enough time to post warm and fuzzies to each other 22 hours a day and to smack down anybody who dares disagree with any one of you.

Congratulations.



1) I don't necessarily disagree with you with respect to the Drake thread; people ganged up on you.  I think it's uncalled for, I've seen it happen to others such as myself, and it needs to stop. 

With that being said, this reminds me of a nasty divorce where both sides are at fault, yet each side is convinced that it is entirely the other fault's side. 

That couldn't be further from the truth.  I decided to peruse the Drake thread again, and your very first post betrayed your condescending tone.  When you set a tone such as this, you're only asking for trouble.  People aren't going to receive your subsequent posts kindly, even if you lose that tone (which I'm not conceding necessarily).  Respect is hard to gain, and easy to lose.  You know that. 

Your condescending tone also stifles good intellectual discourse--but you seem to be ignoring that.

2) Trying to figure out the precise reason(s) that this site is struggling (question: do we have "hard facts" wrt this?  People say this, but it's not safe to assume that it's any different than previous years.) is more complex than you're making it out to be.  Yes, you qualify your statement, but then you also say it in a matter-of-fact tone. 

3) I think you're exaggerating that the social networking of this site is bringing down the informative purpose of this site.  I've been frequenting MANY threads over the past few weeks, and so have many other regulars, giving advice about law school. 

Honestly, ISUCK, you and Miss P need to just let it go.  This would end if both of you would just admit that you're both partially at fault--and then let it go.  It's really sad that humans can't just admit that they've screwed up wrt each other and still have a meaningful relationship....

But I don't see that from either of you.  Agreeing to disagree often just leads to more problems. 

4) Lastly, where's you evidence that regulars are trying to get others banned, who do not have legitimate reasons to be banned?  If you're going to make drastic accusations, show the proof.  Otherwise, you're just saying it to make your argument stronger, without any basis.  That's not cool. 

5) Have a great July 4th holiday. 


99
Studying and Exam Taking / Re: Briefing a case
« on: June 30, 2009, 09:37:33 PM »
This is true for some people and not true for others.

If you find it's helpful, do it. If you don't find it helpful (and aren't required to do it), don't do it. It seems like most law students progress from briefing in full to book briefing to not briefing at all, at different rates and stopping at different places. That doesn't mean, however, that briefing doesn't serve some purpose in the beginning for many students. A lot of people find it helpful in learning how to identify what's important in the readings and how to organize that information, both on paper and mentally.

I agree. 

100
Law School Applications / Re: Chances 4.0 166
« on: June 29, 2009, 03:03:48 PM »
Definitely retake.  The benefits vastly outweigh the risks in this instance.  Good luck!

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... 205