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.
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 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.
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.
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?
You've outed yourself. Congratulations.
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.
But I'm sorry, our lowly 160s make us stupid. Should we grovel?
Quote from: dashrashi on April 10, 2009, 06:43:59 PMAnd 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.
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 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.