Fed. Public Defender

[UnbiasedObserver]

Oh my god.

Please don't put your inferiority-whatever onto me. It's a pet peeve. I don't look down on anyone for whatever their academics happen to be, nor have I ever done so--and you're not going to find evidence to the contrary. Similar pet peeve: the "you're a nasty bitter person whom no one will ever love" thing that, gosh darn it, only seems to be lobbed at women. What. Are. The. Odds. So you're already operating at a deficit here.

Perhaps you don't look down at others.  However, you give off that impression when you become defensive and argue--and I doubt I'm the only person that thinks this that has been on this forum for a long time.

And where do you justify the assumption that this comment would only be directed towards women?  I make no such claim, and actually I could see a good argument that men are more likely to live lonely, bitter lives, in my personal experience. 

For the record, I didn't mean to be cryptic, in that I meant to come back to the thread, but I don't have laptop-allowing classes on Thursdays and Fridays and yesterday was the second seder so I hadn't been on the internet again, basically, until this afternoon.

And I very carefully framed my initial post to be very clear that the general attitude that something like the OP espouses tends to make me irritable. Not that it's necessarily objectionable, but that it often invokes things that make me not firedupaboutinjustice! or extremelyangry! but, simply, irritable. Less than enthused.

You're really smart.  I've seen your posts many times.  So you're honestly going to tell us that you honestly feel that you "carefully crafted your initial post?"  I have a hard time believing that you didn't know that it would be misconstrued by many. 

It wasn't obvious to me.  And I think the responses directed at you seem to point otherwise.  See below.   

You had absolutely no reason to assume that when I said waystation, what I somehow really meant but only you could divine was "stepping stone." They mean different things, as you so adeptly pointed out. I'd prefer that somebody saw PI as a stepping stone, in fact, because it would imply that at least there was a PART of them that wanted to be there, and that would be the attitude that clients interacted with, as opposed to a I-don't-even-want-to-be-here thing that would more likely be the norm when a PI position is a waystation, because that's a much more harmful attitude for the clients. So, whatever you think you're inferring "based on [my] posting history and [my] comments" somehow managed to be incorrect. Shocker.

Perhaps, but perhaps not.  If you would have just have been clear in the initial post, it would've made it easier to discern what you meant.  However, maybe I didn't read your other posts carefully.  If so, I apologize. 

I did not assume that jalex solely sees his job as a waystation. But I think one can infer that he at least in part sees his job as a waystation, which makes it more probable than it would be otherwise (i.e. without that information) that he does see it solely as a waystation. Furthermore, I did not impugn jalex. I specifically said that THIS THREAD makes me IRRITABLE because it brings up attitudes and ideas that I find irritating. I did not say that jalex is a corporate whore. I don't think jalex is a corporate whore. I don't know jalex. But the general possibility of people seeing PI as a waystation is irritating to me for the reasons Miss P mentioned as well as the ones I detailed above.

Perhaps next time you should be clearer?  Especially in a thread where he's asking a question related to the topic? 

And yes, I know that you're thinking, "Well, I said 'thread,' not jalex!"  And that's true.  But I think it's not unreasonable to gather that you might have thought otherwise, and poster's replies demonstrated this. 

And, when it comes down to it, I'd argue that all of us look at jobs at least partially as a waystation in life, even us hardcore "PI'ers," when we really think about it.

Also, by the way, I find it irritating if one would use it solely as a stepping stone to a firm job. 

One more time: I never said that "someone being at a PI job irritates [me.]" I said that the question/discussion raised in this thread, about whether PI (specifically indigent defense) would harm someone in the Great Law Firm Job Hunt, brings up attitudes and ideas that I find irritating.

I don't know what the laugh-y face is about. I don't know what assumption of yours you're analogizing to one of mine, or why that would be funny.

But gotta say: Looooove the "rant and rave" bit, as well as the "sad dad" routine. I'm sure you use that when you're talking to men all the time. Amiriteorwhat?

Actually, I was just using that to lessen the antagonistic mood.  Again, I don't dislike you. 

Men rant and rave too.  I really don't see where you're going with this, but it's an interesting tactic. 

You've outed yourself. Congratulations.

Ok???

[dashrashi]

So, being defensive and arguing automatically means a person thinks they are superior because of their academics?

And my positing that you only throw the "you're a bitter person and no one will ever love you" line at women but huh gosh not at men is suddenly transformed into me assuming that you don't think men can be bitter? It's an argument about what tactical moves you makes, against whom, and why--as is the "rant and rave." When was the last time you told a man he was "ranting and raving"? Or the last time you told a guy on this forum that if he was this defensive and bitter in real life, no one would ever love him and he would have an unhappy life? When was the last time anyone directed that at a man? Casual misogyny does more than irritate me. It makes me mad as f-ing hell.

For the record, yes, I did carefully craft my initial post. Which you can see by the fact that I haven't backed off a single word or nuance of it. It was also something of an unusual construction, in that I very clearly and specifically didn't attack the OP as people often do in threads like this, but rather modulated and phrased my response and feeling very carefully. I admit that it was brief, but I didn't think the whole shebang was appropriate without a few more posts in the thread.

You weren't completely unreasonable to assume I meant jalex (though I would argue at least slightly unreasonable, given "plain meaning"), but the fact remains that you DID in fact misconstrue my meaning. The question is why you persist in holding onto that mistaken reading when it's been pointed out to you, in detail and repeatedly, both that you are wrong and why you are wrong.

What do you mean, "perhaps, but perhaps not"? Perhaps you didn't misconstrue my post? Clearly you did. Now who's being cryptic.

You're entitled to find people using PI as a stepping stone irritating. I don't not find it irritating. But I find it less irritating than using it as a waystation. But since you disagree, perhaps that's why you jumped to that meaning even though it didn't match what I said. Perhaps you're motivated to impugn to me what you think is the most extreme attitude you can come up with. "Perhaps, but perhaps not."

[jalex519]

Thanks for your kind words Unbiased.

I think all of our (Dash, Unbiased, etc.) collective energy would be better utilized preparing for exams than bickering on an online discussion board though! I got my question answered... thank you to everyone who replied.

 
Here's to the last Friday night of fun until summer 

[UnbiasedObserver]

So, being defensive and arguing automatically means a person thinks they are superior because of their academics?

To be fair, it could mean many things.

Maybe you don't know me very well, but I've been here a long time.  It seems to me that when someone makes a comment directed at you that you don't like, you often resort to cursing and "blowing up."  You call people stupid.  Sometimes you're blunt.  Other times, you're subtle.

So maybe I'm just reacting to what I feel happens quite often.  Perhaps I'm even mischaracterizing the situation.  Or maybe they're isolated events, because I don't spend much time on here anymore.  

It's not as though I'm not going to respect your opinion after we finish this discussion.  You're a quality poster here.

And my positing that you only throw the "you're a bitter person and no one will ever love you" line at women but huh gosh not at men is suddenly transformed into me assuming that you don't think men can be bitter? It's an argument about what tactical moves you makes, against whom, and why--as is the "rant and rave." When was the last time you told a man he was "ranting and raving"? Or the last time you told a guy on this forum that if he was this defensive and bitter in real life, no one would ever love him and he would have an unhappy life? When was the last time anyone directed that at a man? Casual misogyny does more than irritate me. It makes me mad as f-ing hell.

Well, you can believe it all you want, but I'm not misogynistic. Thinking back, I can think of quite a few instances where I've told men that they need to stop "ranting and raving."  As for stating directly to someone that they lead a lonely, sad, life, I'm not sure if I'm used that line at someone directly.  I normally don't say things like that to someone, so it was a first for me on here.  Looking back at your posts, I sincerely regret making that comment.  I apologize, and if you don't accept, I understand.  That's cool.  


And I could go on about how woman have it much harder than men, but I don't think it'll mean much to you, so I won't waste your time.  

For the record, yes, I did carefully craft my initial post. Which you can see by the fact that I haven't backed off a single word or nuance of it. It was also something of an unusual construction, in that I very clearly and specifically didn't attack the OP as people often do in threads like this, but rather modulated and phrased my response and feeling very carefully. I admit that it was brief, but I didn't think the whole shebang was appropriate without a few more posts in the thread.

C'mon!  Despite the "odd" construction, it's hard to believe that there wasn't sufficient ambiguity on a message board to create a stir.

But we're just beating a dead horse.  

And IIRC, you posted after people made a hoopla about it, although I admit that I could be mistaken.  

You weren't completely unreasonable to assume I meant jalex (though I would argue at least slightly unreasonable, given "plain meaning"), but the fact remains that you DID in fact misconstrue my meaning. The question is why you persist in holding onto that mistaken reading when it's been pointed out to you, in detail and repeatedly, both that you are wrong and why you are wrong.

What do you mean, "perhaps, but perhaps not"? Perhaps you didn't misconstrue my post? Clearly you did. Now who's being cryptic.

Well, thank you.  

Sorry for being cryptic.  I was only trying to point out that my inference wasn't unreasonable.  That's all!

EDIT: Dash, I'm sending you a pm. 

[goaliechica]

But I'm sorry, our lowly 160s make us stupid.  Should we grovel?   

You said many, many things in this post that make you sound like a pathetic jackass. And no, I haven't read dash's response yet (and I'm sure that somehow, somewhere, bosco will come into this and tell us that agreeing with each other makes us bad). But this is the thing that makes you sound most like a jackass. I have never, ever seen dash disparage anyone based on where they go to school, or what they got on their LSAT. For you to say something like this based on her saying that a thread about public defense made her irritable, because it reminded her of all the annoying-ass issues related to public defender stuff shows how bizarrely defensive you are about your own issues, which are apparently LSAT scores. For you to bring LSAT scores into this, well, proves that you actually have nothing useful to say about the issue at hand, and would prefer to somehow pretend that you're being disparaged by someone at HLS on the basis of LSAT scores rather than poor arguments.

Apparently, anyway.

JESUS.

ETA: I've read the rest of the thread, and it doesn't change my mind. Unbiased Observer, I can tell you think you mean well, but your gibes are frankly absurd, this one quoted in particular, and this "I know you, I've read your posts" routine is particularly bad.

[Susan B. Anthony]

And my positing that you only throw the "you're a bitter person and no one will ever love you" line at women but huh gosh not at men is suddenly transformed into me assuming that you don't think men can be bitter? It's an argument about what tactical moves you makes, against whom, and why--as is the "rant and rave." When was the last time you told a man he was "ranting and raving"? Or the last time you told a guy on this forum that if he was this defensive and bitter in real life, no one would ever love him and he would have an unhappy life? When was the last time anyone directed that at a man? Casual misogyny does more than irritate me. It makes me mad as f-ing hell.

Well, you can believe it all you want, but I'm not misogynistic. Thinking back, I can think of quite a few instances where I've told men that they need to stop "ranting and raving."  As for stating directly to someone that they lead a lonely, sad, life, I'm not sure if I'm used that line at someone directly.  I normally don't say things like that to someone, so it was a first for me on here.  Looking back at your posts, I sincerely regret making that comment.  I apologize, and if you don't accept, I understand.  That's cool.  


And I could go on about how woman have it much harder than men, but I don't think it'll mean much to you, so I won't waste your time.

I don't know you, so I'm not going to say that you do do or do not intentionally or consciously engage in misogynistic behavior - perhaps you really are one of those rare individuals who manages to evaluate and criticize men and women by the same standards and in the same way. If so, I applaud you, because I haven't managed it yet. That said, my comments that follow are not meant as a particular criticism of you. I don't know you, and that would probably be unfair. But I do hope that you - and everyone else reading this - will stop and think about this.

Women, particularly strong-willed, opinionated, stubborn, and/or vocal women, are frequently, perhaps even systemically, accused of "ranting and raving," being hostile, etc., and are informed that, as a result of that, they will lead a sad and lonely life, that no man could possibly love them, etc. I cannot count the number of times I've been told that, and I would be willing to wager quite a lot that this is true for most of the women who post here, most women who are in law school, and, in general, a large segment of the female population. While I'm sure that some men hear this as well, I'd also be willing to wager that it doesn't happen with anything near the same frequency. I've heard, time and again, from friends, acquaintances, bloggers, teachers, etc., the same story. 

These kinds of comments are used to shame women into conforming to a more socially acceptable role, as well as to discredit their (our) arguments without actually addressing them on their merits. Now, I'm not saying that that is what you were intentionally doing here. However, whatever your intention, and even if you would say the exact same thing to a male poster who said what dash said (which I sincerely doubt, but cannot prove), every time someone makes comments of this sort, it contributes to the system - a system that I personally have experienced as telling women to sit down, shut up, and smile prettily already for Christ's sake. And, speaking again from my personal experience, it gets really f-ing old.

So what's my point? I would propose that, if you or anyone else wants to be able to claim to not be misogynistic, you ought to consciously refrain from making these kinds of statements to women under any circumstances - even if you sincerely believe that the gender of the speaker has nothing to do with your assessment. This is a consistent issue that women face, and it shames and it silences, and it has got to stop. We can all do better than this.

[armyjag]

I'm going to guess that because it's April people must be stressing.  So, the following comments should be given as little deference as they should be in the grand scheme of the entire universe. 

Who in god's name said that either jalex or myself saw this opportunity as resume builders or that any of your other rationales even apply?  First, if someone is curious for advice, there is no need to give a snappy, trite response.  He asked a legit question.  Second, if you think it's some larger issue with the biglaw world that people at elite schools live in, then that's an issue in your world.  Rest assured, in the world of lesser ranked law schools that I live in, there are always legitimate worries as to whether a DA/AG will take you if you've done defense work. 
Moreover, your comments about people who do indigent defense indicates to me that you may not have ever talked to an attorney who works for the FPD, since many of them (the ones who aren't brief writers straight out of school) have come after years and decades of doing private practice work after clerking for judges.  They don't all wear white hats; they all have families who need to be fed.  If they would deem me qualified enough to join their ranks out of school, so be it.  If they don't, then maybe I can make a decent salary for once in my life since I'm no longer in Army, and then with some experience they will let me join the ranks.  In any event, whether you are a 1L, 2L, 3L, or a graduate, you should learn the lesson to move on and not comment if you do not have something illuminating to say.  Playing dime-store-internet-psychologist is not flattering no matter who or what you are.

[dashrashi]

When jalex asked about the effect on his future job hunt, that strongly implies that he sees this job as a waystation. This is all I ever said, and I really don't think it's an arguable point.

Furthermore, I have spoken to many crim practitioners, all of whom agree that it is much easier to go from the defense side to the prosecution side than vice versa, if they think that the division is nonpermeable at all, as most said that a given attorney can switch back and forth between the two sides. So how "legitimate" your "worries" about the DA/AG are seems at least a little suspect to me--and perhaps it indicates that you haven't spoken to many practitioners in this area.

This still has very little to do with my irritation at the thought of people treating PI and specifically ID as a waystation, and it very certainly has absolutely nothing to do with where I go to school. As I have said before, please do not lay your inferiority-whatever on me. I have never said anything to warrant it.

If my comments about people who do indigent defense "indicate[] to you that [ I ] may not have ever talked to an attorney who works for the FPD," then your indicator is way off, as I worked for an FPD last summer. I am well and truly aware of their qualifications and career histories, at least for multiple attorneys in the FPD office I worked at.

No one here is playing dime-store-internet-psychologist. I really have no idea what you're talking about.

Also, obviously, what Goalie and Cady said.

[archival]

Women, particularly strong-willed, opinionated, stubborn, and/or vocal women, are frequently, perhaps even systemically, accused of "ranting and raving," being hostile, etc., and are informed that, as a result of that, they will lead a sad and lonely life, that no man could possibly love them, etc.

You don't say.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN0140518520070803

[UnbiasedObserver]

You said many, many things in this post that make you sound like a pathetic jackass. And no, I haven't read dash's response yet (and I'm sure that somehow, somewhere, bosco will come into this and tell us that agreeing with each other makes us bad).

Goalie,

C'mon. In your second sentence you admit that you haven't even read her response yet, but you're coming to her defense.  You can see that you're already coming into this fray with your own set of strong biases.  Is that not true?

But this is the thing that makes you sound most like a jackass. I have never, ever seen dash disparage anyone based on where they go to school, or what they got on their LSAT. For you to say something like this based on her saying that a thread about public defense made her irritable, because it reminded her of all the annoying-ass issues related to public defender stuff shows how bizarrely defensive you are about your own issues, which are apparently LSAT scores. For you to bring LSAT scores into this, well, proves that you actually have nothing useful to say about the issue at hand, and would prefer to somehow pretend that you're being disparaged by someone at HLS on the basis of LSAT scores rather than poor arguments.

Apparently, anyway.

JESUS.

ETA: I've read the rest of the thread, and it doesn't change my mind. Unbiased Observer, I can tell you think you mean well, but your gibes are frankly absurd, this one quoted in particular, and this "I know you, I've read your posts" routine is particularly bad.

No, but I've seen her disparage people based on their intelligence on here a few times.   

Did they deserve it? Perhaps.  I don't frequent here or follow conversations here with the frequency that I used to.  Did she mention their LSAT or school?  No, but I sometimes get a sense of intellectual arrogance from her, either "it's my way or the highway."  Maybe I'm crazy and I'm the only one that thinks that.  It doesn't really matter, because I'm not a "regular" here anymore (and I never really was a "big-time regular" here anyhow) and I expected people to dash to her defense quicker, in fact.     

Could I be wrong about this?  ABSOLUTELY.  But I went out on a limb and made a comment--Goalie, check my previous posts.  If anything, I'm rarely antagonistic.  I don't like controversy.  I should've just not posted. 

Think about that before you rip on me.  But if you don't agree with me, it's cool.