No no nohe said:"come on folks, fool me once, shame on you, fool me once..."He was not offering it as a quote. Its like if you saying this to someone you were talking to. If you were talking to someone this is how you would say it:"come on Charles, fool me once, shame on him, fool me twice, shame is on you"If he was offering it as a quote he should have included a semi-colon. He was addressing you as an audience, he was not talking to me personally. So if you are fooled once, the shame is definitely not on you (the folks)My quote offered was from my perspective, although admittedly i screwed up the beginning...i meant to say "fool you once, shame on me".Eitherway, his rendition was wrong. He was addressing someone other than the fooler so using "you" was VERY INAPPROPRIATE.Heh,Matt
Holy *&^%, this thread is right out of junior high school. Bung grow up, you don't like Matt then deal with it, he lied, so what, he's decent enough. Matt, you lied, some people are evidently choked about it. Deal with it, not everyone needs to like you.Either way, slag off with this nonsense and lets get conversation back towards the more important discussion of the LSAT.
He also repeatedly implies that any score under 160 is darn, which is conceited and rude.HTH
darn good! (telekinesis edit!)Matt
Quote from: Matthew_24_24 on December 05, 2004, 09:58:21 PMdarn good! (telekinesis edit!)Mattsorry smile..child....child.
Quote from: bluewarrior on December 06, 2004, 04:48:12 AMQuote from: Matthew_24_24 on December 05, 2004, 09:58:21 PMdarn good! (telekinesis edit!)Mattsorry smile..child....child.you are lost in the midst.by the way...i think that aye think about the world...and fuch individuals. who have not won the world.