Drake Law Faculty Bumbles Writing Exams, Will Students Suffer?

[PILOFOLO_REGIL]

LOL, what did I tell you.  It's also pretty clear that P has the verbal acuity of granite.  It's amazing that they would let people like that into law schools anywhere, even TTT's.  No wonder this country is full of lawyers working at Starbucks.

[Miss P]

Do you even remember how I used the phrase "verbal acuity?"
 
I said that you have the "verbal acuity of granite."  Are you trying to say that granite has problems transmitting verbal information, but has no problems perceiving it?  Really?

Oh, you were insulting my ability to read things not my ability to write things?  Never mind.  But then also disregard the kudos I gave you for making a sensible argument in the first place.

I give up. I don't normally say things like this, but you are truly as dumb as a box of rocks.  

And when I say that you are dumb as a box of rocks, by the way, I mean that you have as little intelligence as a box of rocks, and not that you are as deaf-mute as a box of rocks -- even though, incidentally, a box of rocks is also undoubtedly deaf-mute.

[PILOFOLO_REGIL]

That's it.  Try very hard, crash and burn and then trot out the insults.  That's the way you roll.

Good luck lady P.  I sure hope, but doubt, you're well above median... or that you at least have something else going for you.  This job market is going to be hard on people like you.  My condolences, if it were up to me they never would have let you into a law school in the first place.

[Miss P]

That's it.  Try very hard, crash and burn and then trot out the insults.  That's the way you roll.

Good luck lady.  I sure hope, but doubt, you're well above median... or that you at least have something else going for you.  This job market is going to be hard on people like you.  My condolences, if it were up to me they never would have let you into a law school in the first place.

  That's rich.  You've been hammering at my idiocy and psychopathy for days now and insults are the way I roll?  Good luck in life.  (And yes, well above the median, thanks.)

[PILOFOLO_REGIL]

Good for you, lady P.  Bad for your law school, but good for you.

[This is wrong.]

I guess my point is that you lose a lot of credibility when you offer up conflicting, bullsh@t explanations for what you really meant to say (so far, I count at least 3 different, mutually exclusive explanations).  You could've just said:  "My bad.  I said that, but I shouldn't have.  That was lame.  I was just going off at the time."  I would have.  Instead, you make up all this elaborate nonsense and spew insults.

What I mean is, you should at least take some personal responsibility for your own posting.

Pot?  Meet Kettle!

[This is wrong.]

You people are children. 

And nice "twit" comment ice cream.  I love these people who pop up with the random insults without saying anything substantive.  I suppose it's a free country. 

 

This from the twit who has still not responded to my post addressing the only substantive issues in this thread, but continues to bicker (ad infinitum) semantics with those who clearly have the right (and, I might add, the standing) to contextualize their own messages.

[This is wrong.]

Okay, fine.  If it means that much to you, all the rest of us are apparently wrong.  Acuity refers only to vision and I used it incorrectly to describe your inability to deal with the printed word.  Which word should I use to describe that, by the way?  You go ahead and tell me and I'll use a word we can all agree on.

How is it possible that you still don't understand how you misused it?  You used a word for perception to talk about how I transmit things, not how I perceive -- that's receive, the opposite of transmit -- them. The fact that acuity happens to have strong figurative associations with vision made the misuse especially grating.  I have already suggested that you meant "agility" or "skill," or perhaps simply "ability."

SRSLY

For all intensive porpoises, this dude is conflating "effect" with "affect"!

[ISUCKATTHIS]

I guess my point is that you lose a lot of credibility when you offer up conflicting, bullsh@t explanations for what you really meant to say (so far, I count at least 3 different, mutually exclusive explanations).  You could've just said:  "My bad.  I said that, but I shouldn't have.  That was lame.  I was just going off at the time."  I would have.  Instead, you make up all this elaborate nonsense and spew insults.

What I mean is, you should at least take some personal responsibility for your own posting.

Pot?  Meet Kettle!

lol.  Mr. Substantive Comment re-emerges from the ether. Dude, you're a total loss.  You have absolutely nothing interesting to say and you manage to say it with the charm, wit and sophistication of a four year old.  I take that back.  A four year old might not be as fluent in emoticons as you seem to be. So, really, by that measure, I guess you're somewhat better than a four year old.

Try to come up with something interesting.  I don't agree with Miss P, but at least she can string a sentence or two together. 

[This is wrong.]

I guess my point is that you lose a lot of credibility when you offer up conflicting, bullsh@t explanations for what you really meant to say (so far, I count at least 3 different, mutually exclusive explanations).  You could've just said:  "My bad.  I said that, but I shouldn't have.  That was lame.  I was just going off at the time."  I would have.  Instead, you make up all this elaborate nonsense and spew insults.

What I mean is, you should at least take some personal responsibility for your own posting.

Pot?  Meet Kettle!

lol.  Mr. Substantive Comment re-emerges from the ether. Dude, you're a total loss.  You have absolutely nothing interesting to say and you manage to say it with the charm, wit and sophistication of a four year old.  I take that back.  A four year old might not be as fluent in emoticons as you seem to be. So, really, by that measure, I guess you're somewhat better than a four year old.

Try to come up with something interesting.  I don't agree with Miss P, but at least she can string a sentence or two together. 

This remains senseless barking until you actually, you know, respond to my analysis.

I even quoted it for you, just in case you missed it earlier.  But I'm not going to quote it again.  Don't ask me why, but I'm pretty sure you just want to pretend it's not there.

OH MAN YOU'RE TOTALLY GETTING UNDER MY SKIN!