I was just pointing out that we do, in fact, know the method to the madness. If not a flame, I'm thinking high school sophomore.
OK, now THAT was a flame for sure.
No guessing there.
I was just saying dude seems to lack some basic research/reading/reasoning skills.
Certainly, to define something as basic is to define it as "base", simple, rudimentary...or average. Meaning those who would study it would be average. The rankings and their madness are hardly fodder for the faint of heart, which is to say "average" people. So, "lacking basic" reasoning and research skills?...no. Another assumption you make is that because one does not do something, it must be the case that he cannot. Heck, it's a jump to assume someone has not done something, let alone the rest.
Rankings are simple arbitrary madness, and I take them seriously or not so seriously depending on the day of the week. I do not get into every subtlety of the rankings, though I do understand quite a bit. As for my reasoning? 51/51 on the LSAT and perfect (A+) grades in undergraduate philosophy, near perfect grades on all essays, including term papers (never below an A). Those are "reasons" to think otherwise.
But, honestly, we've gone way to far on this topic. I don't even think we are so much disagreeing as over-analyzing. It's killing my buzz.
Go Lawdog, way to go Goodwill Hunting on Ninja!
I wish I could do the same but my academic career would not have the same sting, sadly...