LSAC Misconduct for Letter of Recommendation

[CTL]

If you 'know' something, but you can't persuade me with some sort of evidence (no, giving me anecdotal evidence is not enough...considering I could say I have the same experience.  It doesn't mean it's true), then I am not convinced that what you say is true.  

That is how debating works.  

You can't sit there and say, 'they are so naive.  I know this and the fact that they don't take my word for that is their loss.  Therefore, they are weak debaters, and I am awesome.'  To make a successful argument, you must persuade your audience with facts, evidence, and logic.  

[LawDog3]

You say you worked in undergrad admissions and for the Urban League as though they were fact. Proof!

lol!

[LawDog3]

I have to go...but think about it. What should the OP do? That is what he came to ask.

[Cool Beans]

The op's obviously a really good guy.  The LSAC should stop busting his chops.  Sorry, won't do it again.  Let's not ruin lives here folks.  What he did wasn't even really dishonest.  He was just following the standards of conduct which his employer previous instituted.  No deceit, no harm.  Everyone needs to back the @#!* off.  Now.

[non parata est]

History, my friend. If a reputed bank robber is standing near another bank that gets robbed, does that mean that he did it? No. Absolutely not. But, based on history, you're going to check him out...thoroughly, aren't you?

History has shown that any agency that collects DNA, blood, sperm samples, fingerprints, tooth impressions or any other info will find a way to re-use that info or use it beyind its stated purpose. That's just fact.

My version of events is slightly more likely. But according to your logic, you would never have believed the Tuskeegee experiments were going on had you lived in the 1940's.

And, like I said, the real task is helping the OP defend himself against a charge, so he can become a lawyer. 

Buh??

[Cool Beans]

History, my friend. If a reputed bank robber is standing near another bank that gets robbed, does that mean that he did it? No. Absolutely not. But, based on history, you're going to check him out...thoroughly, aren't you?

History has shown that any agency that collects DNA, blood, sperm samples, fingerprints, tooth impressions or any other info will find a way to re-use that info or use it beyind its stated purpose. That's just fact.

My version of events is slightly more likely. But according to your logic, you would never have believed the Tuskeegee experiments were going on had you lived in the 1940's.

And, like I said, the real task is helping the OP defend himself against a charge, so he can become a lawyer. 

Buh??

Try reading a book, dood.

[LawDog3]

History, my friend. If a reputed bank robber is standing near another bank that gets robbed, does that mean that he did it? No. Absolutely not. But, based on history, you're going to check him out...thoroughly, aren't you?

History has shown that any agency that collects DNA, blood, sperm samples, fingerprints, tooth impressions or any other info will find a way to re-use that info or use it beyind its stated purpose. That's just fact.

My version of events is slightly more likely. But according to your logic, you would never have believed the Tuskeegee experiments were going on had you lived in the 1940's.

And, like I said, the real task is helping the OP defend himself against a charge, so he can become a lawyer. 

Buh??

Try reading a book, dood.

You can say that, but you know I'm right. "Try reading a book?" lol! You can't even suggest a good book, b/c you have no argument.

And more on my post below re: Knowing v. Proving 

Proving is a sufficient condition for Knowing (but not a "necessary" one), i.e., if you can Prove something, you must definitely Know it. But it is not the case that if you Know something, you can definitely Prove it.

And there are many instances in which we Know something but cannot Prove it do to lack of presentable evidence. We can know something by virtue of having seen it or seen evidence of it, while being unable to reproduce the evidence.

However, Knowing is NOT a sufficient condition for Proving, i.e., the fact that you Know something does not necessarily mean that you can Prove it.

Moreover, we accept as common philosophic principle (meaning that if people perceive a situation as real, it should have real consequences), that someone CAN, indeed, know something w/o being able to prove it.

You guys who say I need to Prove my assertion that the LSAC keeps AND uses finger prints beyond what is advertised (in order to prove my "knowledge" of the fact) are treating it in the reverse: that Knowing something is a sufficient condition for the necessary Proving of something. It doesn't work that way.

Simple propositional logic. I've read those books! 

[CTL]

History, my friend. If a reputed bank robber is standing near another bank that gets robbed, does that mean that he did it? No. Absolutely not. But, based on history, you're going to check him out...thoroughly, aren't you?

History has shown that any agency that collects DNA, blood, sperm samples, fingerprints, tooth impressions or any other info will find a way to re-use that info or use it beyind its stated purpose. That's just fact.

My version of events is slightly more likely. But according to your logic, you would never have believed the Tuskeegee experiments were going on had you lived in the 1940's.

And, like I said, the real task is helping the OP defend himself against a charge, so he can become a lawyer. 

Buh??

Try reading a book, dood.

You can say that, but you know I'm right. "Try reading a book?" lol! You can't even suggest a good book, b/c you have no argument.

And more on my post below re: Knowing v. Proving 

Proving is a sufficient condition for Knowing (but not a "necessary" one), i.e., if you can Prove something, you must definitely Know it. But it is not the case that if you Know something, you can definitely Prove it.

And there are many instances in which we Know something but cannot Prove it do to lack of presentable evidence. We can know something by virtue of having seen it or seen evidence of it, while being unable to reproduce the evidence.

However, Knowing is NOT a sufficient condition for Proving, i.e., the fact that you Know something does not necessarily mean that you can Prove it.

Moreover, we accept as common philosophic principle (meaning that if people perceive a situation as real, it should have real consequences), that someone CAN, indeed, know something w/o being able to prove it.

You guys who say I need to Prove my assertion that the LSAC keeps AND uses finger prints beyond what is advertised (in order to prove my "knowledge" of the fact) are treating it in the reverse: that Knowing something is a sufficient condition for the necessary Proving of something. It doesn't work that way.

Simple propositional logic. I've read those books! 

You need to prove it to us, or at least convince us that it's true, because we don't believe you.  It's as simple as that.  Noone has gotten any logic wrong.  You're missing the point. 

If someone doesn't believe a contentious claim that you make, you must support your claim with sufficient evidence.  Anecdotal evidence will not fly. 

[PaleForce]

You need to prove it to us, or at least convince us that it's true, because we don't believe you.  It's as simple as that.  Noone has gotten any logic wrong.  You're missing the point. 

If someone doesn't believe a contentious claim that you make, you must support your claim with sufficient evidence.  Anecdotal evidence will not fly. 

cosigned

[Cool Beans]

History, my friend. If a reputed bank robber is standing near another bank that gets robbed, does that mean that he did it? No. Absolutely not. But, based on history, you're going to check him out...thoroughly, aren't you?

History has shown that any agency that collects DNA, blood, sperm samples, fingerprints, tooth impressions or any other info will find a way to re-use that info or use it beyind its stated purpose. That's just fact.

My version of events is slightly more likely. But according to your logic, you would never have believed the Tuskeegee experiments were going on had you lived in the 1940's.

And, like I said, the real task is helping the OP defend himself against a charge, so he can become a lawyer. 

Buh??

Try reading a book, dood.

You can say that, but you know I'm right. "Try reading a book?" lol! You can't even suggest a good book, b/c you have no argument.

And more on my post below re: Knowing v. Proving 

Proving is a sufficient condition for Knowing (but not a "necessary" one), i.e., if you can Prove something, you must definitely Know it. But it is not the case that if you Know something, you can definitely Prove it.

And there are many instances in which we Know something but cannot Prove it do to lack of presentable evidence. We can know something by virtue of having seen it or seen evidence of it, while being unable to reproduce the evidence.

However, Knowing is NOT a sufficient condition for Proving, i.e., the fact that you Know something does not necessarily mean that you can Prove it.

Moreover, we accept as common philosophic principle (meaning that if people perceive a situation as real, it should have real consequences), that someone CAN, indeed, know something w/o being able to prove it.

You guys who say I need to Prove my assertion that the LSAC keeps AND uses finger prints beyond what is advertised (in order to prove my "knowledge" of the fact) are treating it in the reverse: that Knowing something is a sufficient condition for the necessary Proving of something. It doesn't work that way.

Simple propositional logic. I've read those books! 

I'm agreeing with you, dood.  Non patite esta should read a book because you speak the truth.  Are you so used with people arguing with you that you're not used to someone agreeing with you? 

The general lesson is never piss in a cup if you don't want them knowing everything about your genetic material.