Concord Law School

[rooskie]

Nice post law543.

Notice how Ruskie proves incapable of answering any of the contentions you made as well as my claim that she is a hypocrite by virtue of the fact that constant talk of sexual encounters defies professionalism.

I suppose this is to be expected from someone who can't get higher than a "Pass" at a T.T.T.

[law543]

<<If I wasn't a law student, why would I post here?>>

If you aren't a law student and you are posting here...that would be a question only you can answer. And if you thought that this statement of yours is *proof* that you are a law student...apparently Boalt isn't teaching you much about reasoned arguments. Of course, most learn that sort of information in undergrad.

<<Even long-winded judges know to put a period at the end of a sentence.>>

They might always know...but do they always "do"? In order to answer that...you'd have to locate the editors of every case book in existence to determine if they ever left out a period. My guess is....they do on occasion. (and I think you know this, as well, even if you won't admit it.)

Further, do they always include the requisite commas? If so...and YOU made this argument...shall I show you 3 posts I found of yours just in the last 10 minutes where you left out requisite punctuation? Or will you now just cut your losses, admit you were wrong about tromping down on that one poster unjustifiably?

Let's hope your ethical nature will finally out.

<<Good lawyers also don't make unwarranted assumptions.>>

"Unwarranted" is a subjective term, conveniently posited by one trying to win an argument. Your "unwarranted" is another student's "warranted". Since my conclusions were justified (feel free to review the posts) in a reasoned manner using your own words...and you made no arguments in response (except unequivocal statements with no reasoned justification)...I feel better about mine.

Law543

[law543]

Nice post law543.

Notice how Ruskie proves incapable of answering any of the contentions you made as well as my claim that she is a hypocrite by virtue of the fact that constant talk of sexual encounters defies professionalism.

I suppose this is to be expected from someone who can't get higher than a "Pass" at a T.T.T.

It certainly shows that the best students and lawyers aren't always found at Boalt. *laughs*

(notice that Russkie Girl continues to rate my posts negatively. She's an interesting one, I'll give her that.)

Law543

[ruskiegirl]

Law543,

You play some creative, albeit unimpressive, semantics games.  If you review my post, I never said that judges ALWAYS put periods at the end of sentences.  Although I suspect they do so the vast majority of the time, I am not so naive as to believe that NO legal opinion in existence contains such an omission.  Saying that a party "knows" to do something is very different from saying they "always" do that thing.  Please refrain from putting words in my mouth and basing your arguments on things I did not say.

[rooskie]

Ok, let's talk about things you did say. How were you acting professionally while regaling the board with your sexual adventures with black men? The "broom closet" conversations on BLSD are one of numerous examples.

[ruskiegirl]

Ok, let's talk about things you did say. How were you acting professionally while regaling the board with your sexual adventures with black men? The "broom closet" conversations on BLSD are one of numerous examples.

Apparently your 99th percentile LSAT score has failed to give you a sense of humor and an ability to spot jokes.

[law543]

<<You play some creative, albeit unimpressive, semantics games.>>

Why, thank you. I aim to please. Incidentally, I thought I would make it public that in private PM you arrogantly and immaturely attempted to make me feel "less than" you by saying that we will, based upon our respective law schools, be in different professional settings once we graduate...as if that were a good argument.

Do you even care how this sort of insipid statement paints a picture of you? Do you realize how much maturing one must endure before they would find such a statement to be silly and purile? *laughs*

That is the sort of mentality that most well-adjusted individuals leave behind once they graduate from high school. It was a very telling statement on your part, that's for sure.


<<If you review my post, I never said that judges ALWAYS put periods at the end of sentences.>>

I said you said this....where?

<<Although I suspect they do so the vast majority of the time, I am not so naive as to believe that NO legal opinion in existence contains such an omission.>>

Yet, this one arbitrary thing you decided upon which to focus...is what you decided (arbitrarily) was the measuring stick for professionalism and knowledge. Perhaps the poster you insulted doesn't do it *all the time* either...yet, that didn't seem to keep you from snobbishly acting like his one punctuation infracture was an insult to your superior intellectual nature.

Why don't you just admit that you were being an ass?

<<Saying that a party "knows" to do something is very different from saying they "always" do that thing.>>

Yet, your insult to the poster in question implied that his one infraction either represented how he posts all of the time...or that you don't really believe what you said above...or that you are now backpedaling.

Which is it?

<<Please refrain from putting words in my mouth and basing your arguments on things I did not say.>>

You say enough things that get you into intellectual and logical peril...than for me to have to have to add anything.

Either say what you DO mean...or refrain from saying anything at all. (or suffer the consequences of doing neither)

Law543

[ruskiegirl]

You continue to attribute comments, ideas and qualities to me without having any basis for doing so.  You can save your demonstration of superb intellect for your professors or collegues, or anyone else who cares to listen to your ramblings.  I prefer not to argue with people like you.  You remind me of those people in class who won't shut up because they have an insatiable need to demontrate their collection of 5-dollar words and superior knowledge of the material at hand.  It is my right to limit that torture to the gunners I have to put up with in my classes.  Now if you will please excuse me, I have finals in two weeks and must study.

[law543]

<<You continue to attribute comments, ideas and qualities to me without having any basis for doing so.>>

Well, let's review what you did say to me: "I suspect we will find ourselves in very different professional settings upon the completion of law school." 

That was a lovely demonstration...wasn't it? Apparently you do lack integrity and grace...because what person of integrity and grace would stoop to such a level as to suggest that your professional position deems you any better than anyone else?

(you claimed in PM that you weren't being superior in this statement of yours...but in the context you gave it...coupled with a post made recently to a non-traditional law student...I find it hard to believe that you didn't mean it in that context...but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.)

<<You can save your demonstration of superb intellect for your professors or collegues, or anyone else who cares to listen to your ramblings.>>

No, I think I'll save them for individuals who make an ass of themselves in public. Since I never claimed to be of superior intellect...yet you DID claim to be superior, based upon the school you atttend...I'll leave it to the casual reader to decide whose statements are based in logical reasoning and whose are based on pompous arrogance and juvenile tendencies.

<<I prefer not to argue with people like you.>>

Yet, you have been attempting to argue. Odd statements you make.

<<You remind me of those people in class who won't shut up because they have an insatiable need to demontrate their collection of 5-dollar words and superior knowledge of the material at hand.>>

Oh, so the psychological hangups with which you are so plagued are not limited in their expression to this forum...apparently it bleeds over into your reaction to your classmates, as well. Tell me...will the problems you say they have also render them in an inferior professional setting as well once they graduate...or is this insult limited to those you encounter online?

<<<<Now if you will please excuse me, I have finals in two weeks and must study.>>

Let's hope you apply better logic and reasoning skills in that endeavor than you apply here. Maybe once you are in your superior professional setting beyond graduation...you'll feel better.

Law543

[allicatOU]

Hi all -

Thought I'd bring this discussion full circle back to the Concord discussion. . .

I'm really interested in your thoughts on my dilemma.

I am a full-time online professor.  I've been teaching online for about six years, FT for about a year.  As others have posted in this and other threads, without a doubt, online courses are just as (if not more) challenging than F2F ones.  I went to a "brick and mortar" school for undergrad and graduate school and have taught a myriad of courses both online and F2F.  Alternately, I realize that there is still a stigma about online ed.

So, here's my dilemma. . .

If I do not wish to practice law and only want the JD because of the need for a terminal degree in upper-level administrative positions within higher education is Concord the way to go?  As all of you, I'm quite busy (FT career, young kids, etc.) so a "traditional" law program is out of the question, but recognize that I cannot move much higher in my career without a doctorate degree.  Alternately, I am much more interested in law course work than the courses required within a doctorate in education, psychology, etc.

I look forward to seeing your thoughts on this; thank you in advance.