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 - RickLax.com

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 26
11
Current Law Students / Re: Studying For The Bar...Well, Trying.
« on: June 29, 2008, 09:55:48 PM »
Hardly committing a crime are they, those ladies.  So not sure how your theory would work.

Rather, you may want to team up with others around you studying and voice your concerns openly and directly to the store.  No need to stay annonymous when you're lodging a valid complaint, eh?

Good point.  I mean, that's what we did a while back to put the gaming ban in effect in the first place.  WIll try the next time I go home.

-Rick @ http://ricklax.com

12
Current Law Students / Something Better To Do
« on: June 29, 2008, 09:51:32 PM »
Really, guys?  Starting a fake profile in my name?  Starting multiple posts making fun of my name?  You’ve got to have something better to do with your time. 

Hmmm…I have a feeling the replies to this topic will prove otherwise…

-Rick @ http://ricklax.com


13
Current Law Students / Re: RickLaxing on the barkin lounger
« on: June 26, 2008, 09:59:31 AM »
With all due respect, Luziana, I do not appreciate you mocking my occasional misspells as I continue to express my views on these boards. If I happen to overlook my grammar errors in my posts, I suggest that everyone just take it easy and RickLax instead of jumping to the opportunity to take advantage of my mishaps.

Kind Rickards, ouffha.

P.S. You are right about one thing. I am clever.

I'm not mocking the misspellings.  It's a fine enough play on words.  What I am doing is asking you, politely, to act like an adult.

Yes, "fine enough" is right.  People mocked my name much more effectively in middle school.

-Ricky @ http://ricklax.com

14
Current Law Students / Re: Another Restaurant Fight
« on: June 26, 2008, 01:04:42 AM »
I agree with the above post. You people need to stop this bashing of a man success. You only look like you are jeolous of the man.

Thanks, yo.

15
Current Law Students / Re: Another Restaurant Fight
« on: June 26, 2008, 12:58:13 AM »
After re-reading the initial post and some of the subsequent posts made here, I've realized that this whole issue is nothing more than an exercise in practicing common sense.

Rick attempts to justify his actions on the basis that (1) the food wasn't that good and (2) he wasn't really on a date, so it's ok to contest marginal bill increases. If I'm a single guy and I'm out to eat with a girl who I have no sexual interest in, the last thing I would want is for her to tell her friends about how I started an issue over $2.50 on a restaurant bill...regardless of how reasonable I thought I was in handling the situation. If he absolutely had to know why the fish sandwich was $2.50 more expensive, the situation should have come to an end when the server mentioned that a side order substitution was the likely reason. This would have put Rick on future notice of the following: (1) to check future menus for substitution costs and (2) that servers aren't going to volunteer this information. Rick allowed the server to go "see what she could do." Most people who aren't from the great depression era would have enough common sense to say "don't worry about it," learn from the situation, and move on. Even assuming Rick's interaction was as honest as he portrays it (Rick being completely respectful, the manager being completely accusatory), it should have never gotten to that point to begin with.

On the other hand, the manager was faced with two situations: (1) prove the point that the $2.50 charge was noted in the menu, make the extra $1 or so in profit, and potentially lose two customers or (2) take the $2.50 off the bill without making an appearance and instruct the wait staff to inform customers about substitution charges as a substitution is requested. To me, an extra buck or so in profits is not worth losing substantial future profits.

Servers DO volunteer this information. ALL THE TIME. 



16
Current Law Students / Re: Another Restaurant Fight
« on: June 26, 2008, 12:57:00 AM »
If you look at the story, some of the things the manager and waitress said don't really make sense.  And some of the things ricklax says aren't really consistent. 

For example, most waitresses wouldn't go get the manager if that's all that happened - not saying it's impossible that the waitress was crazy, but it's more likely ricklax wasn't being as calm as he'd have you believe.  Also, ricklax said early on that he wasn't willing to pay the 2.50, but left that out when telling the story here. (the exchange with the manager doesn't make sense unless rick indicated at some point he wasn't paying the 2.50)

So my point is I think you need to read between the lines a little and realize that ricklax was throwing more of a hissy fit than he's leading on.

Exactly. 

When someone portrays everyone in their story as egregiously wrong, and portrays themself as calm and reasonable at all times, you have to assume you aren't getting all the facts.

I highly doubt he politely inquired about the $2.50, the server immediately went and got the manager, and the manager immediately became hostile with him.  It just isn't plausible.

I agree that it wasn't at all likely that this would happen.  That's what made it notable/why I wrote about it. 

17
Current Law Students / Re: Another Restaurant Fight
« on: June 26, 2008, 12:55:42 AM »
Wow.  That brief was terrible.

finally, a proper brief would have had an intelligent, reasoned argument as to why ricklax's toolery was appropriate and justified in this situation, and that other reasonable persons would surely have exhibited similar toolery over billing discrepancies of the tuberous root vegetable variety.





I didn't pay too much attention in Legal Writing...but this is called "question begging," right?

-Ricky @ http://ricklax.com

18
Current Law Students / Re: Another Restaurant Fight
« on: June 26, 2008, 12:53:18 AM »
Nor am I familiar with you, your book or your blog, RickLax. I dislike you because you raised a ruckus in a public place over a substitution charge which was clearly itemized on the menu. You were willing to pay $15 for a goddamn fish sandwich, but pitched a hissyfit over an additional $2.50 which, with your substitution request, you were obligated to pay.

And then, when some absolute asshat antagonizes countless people on this board while coming to your dubious defense, you sidle up to him and thank him for defending your honor. Birds of a feather.

Define 'ruckus'.  Because asking the waitress if there was a mistake isn't a ruckus.  The waitress escalated it to a manager, with whom Rick spoke.  This is also not a ruckus.
There was no hissyfit.  There was no ruckus.  Your 'hate' is self-created.  And deplorable.
I didn't antagonize anyone.  I merely got involved in the discussion.  A-holes like you antagonized the situation, once again proving that even law student can be short sighted and create facts in situations where none existed (contrary to your training as a law student).
The sad thing is that even after the last few days, you can't be bothered to re-read the original post to see if, in fact, there was a ruckus or a hissyfit.  Instead, you found it much easier to make yourself look as stupid as you very well might be by creating facts that don't exist.  You injected your own perception of how the events unfolded based on your personal distaste for Rick. 
So, you want to be a lawyer?  Good luck with those arguments where you stipulate to facts that you made up.  Let me know how long it is before I can read all about you on the ARDC website.
Allow me to break down the story so even a complete waste of space like you can understand:
Rick ordered a $15 fish sandwich.  He asked if he could substitute a baked potato for french fries and was told "yes".  When the bill came, Rick noticed that instead of being charged $15, he was charged $17.50 and asked why.  The waitress told him that it was their policy and then she got a manager.  The manager told rick that it was on the menu and their policy.  Rick told him that he was unaware that he would be charged for the substitution and that the waitress didn't tell him about the charge.  The manager showed him the menu, so rick told him that he would pay.  The manager took the $2.50 off the bill and Rick paid.  End of story.
That's called a 'brief' and contains all the relevant facts. 
Please tell me where the ruckus and hissyfit are.  Then tell me that you are looking forward to arguing in court, because I get my kicks reading ardc reports about lawyers who lie to the court and add facts to their argument that are baseless.
Grow up, moron.  You can't go through life hating people for situations that occur only in your tiny brain.
Thanks!

How cute is it that you're the one being accused of being antagonizing?


19
Current Law Students / Re: Another Restaurant Fight
« on: June 26, 2008, 12:51:11 AM »
Nor am I familiar with you, your book or your blog, RickLax. I dislike you because you raised a ruckus in a public place over a substitution charge which was clearly itemized on the menu. You were willing to pay $15 for a goddamn fish sandwich, but pitched a hissyfit over an additional $2.50 which, with your substitution request, you were obligated to pay.

And then, when some absolute asshat antagonizes countless people on this board while coming to your dubious defense, you sidle up to him and thank him for defending your honor. Birds of a feather.

Define 'ruckus'.  Because asking the waitress if there was a mistake isn't a ruckus.  The waitress escalated it to a manager, with whom Rick spoke.  This is also not a ruckus.
There was no hissyfit.  There was no ruckus.  Your 'hate' is self-created.  And deplorable.
I didn't antagonize anyone.  I merely got involved in the discussion.  A-holes like you antagonized the situation, once again proving that even law student can be short sighted and create facts in situations where none existed (contrary to your training as a law student).
The sad thing is that even after the last few days, you can't be bothered to re-read the original post to see if, in fact, there was a ruckus or a hissyfit.  Instead, you found it much easier to make yourself look as stupid as you very well might be by creating facts that don't exist.  You injected your own perception of how the events unfolded based on your personal distaste for Rick. 
So, you want to be a lawyer?  Good luck with those arguments where you stipulate to facts that you made up.  Let me know how long it is before I can read all about you on the ARDC website.
Allow me to break down the story so even a complete waste of space like you can understand:
Rick ordered a $15 fish sandwich.  He asked if he could substitute a baked potato for french fries and was told "yes".  When the bill came, Rick noticed that instead of being charged $15, he was charged $17.50 and asked why.  The waitress told him that it was their policy and then she got a manager.  The manager told rick that it was on the menu and their policy.  Rick told him that he was unaware that he would be charged for the substitution and that the waitress didn't tell him about the charge.  The manager showed him the menu, so rick told him that he would pay.  The manager took the $2.50 off the bill and Rick paid.  End of story.
That's called a 'brief' and contains all the relevant facts. 
Please tell me where the ruckus and hissyfit are.  Then tell me that you are looking forward to arguing in court, because I get my kicks reading ardc reports about lawyers who lie to the court and add facts to their argument that are baseless.
Grow up, moron.  You can't go through life hating people for situations that occur only in your tiny brain.
Thanks!

If you look at the story, some of the things the manager and waitress said don't really make sense.  And some of the things ricklax says aren't really consistent. 

For example, most waitresses wouldn't go get the manager if that's all that happened - not saying it's impossible that the waitress was crazy, but it's more likely ricklax wasn't being as calm as he'd have you believe.  Also, ricklax said early on that he wasn't willing to pay the 2.50, but left that out when telling the story here. (the exchange with the manager doesn't make sense unless rick indicated at some point he wasn't paying the 2.50)

So my point is I think you need to read between the lines a little and realize that ricklax was throwing more of a hissy fit than he's leading on.

Look, I'm definitely capable of throwing a hissy fit.  Not going to pretend otherwise.  But in this case, I just wasn't.  I was with a friend who I didn't know that well...and like I said, if it were a date, I wouldn't have mentioned it.  If it were a close friend, I might have put up a big fight.  But this was somebody I only knew kinda well, and I behaved myself. 

20
Current Law Students / Re: Studying For The Bar...Well, Trying.
« on: June 24, 2008, 11:23:35 PM »
You're still posting here? I thought you got banned, as I've noticed you've been re-posting many of your old threads from several months ago over on TLS. The study group suggestion thread seems to be just as despised there as it was here. Congratulations.

Just not getting enough traffic on the ol' blog, huh?

Blog traffic is up, actually, but it could always be higher.  You know how it is.  So tell me already, if you were me, would you say something to the cafe?  Ask them to enforce the law?



Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 26