Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here  (Read 43412 times)

ISUCKATTHIS

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 261
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« Reply #160 on: June 20, 2009, 04:36:36 PM »
This place does seem to have what I consider to be an irrational and incorrect school and grade fetish.  Having worked for a v100 firm for the past 5 yrs, I can say that many of the partners are non T14 grads.  In fact, I've seen more than a few COOLEY grads who've made partner in biglaw.  My last count was three and, since I don't know too many partners, that's a significant fraction.  I mention this because it seems like LSD gospel that you need a TX (where X = 5, 10 or 14, depending on the time of day) degree in order to get a job anywhere.  In my experience it's just not true.

That said, I think it's pretty hard to give advice about lower ranked schools.  For these schools, the differences that really matter (geography, price, scholarship $, etc.) tend to be more specific to the person considering them and less universal.

ISUCKATTHIS

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 261
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« Reply #161 on: June 27, 2009, 09:42:31 AM »
What I wrote before notwithstanding, I would urge anybody with interest to browse the Drake thread.  It is a textbook example of regular posters turning an ordinary and legitimate disagreement over some substantive issue (here the issue involved the administration of a test) into an all-out hate fest and character assassination.  One banning and reams of hate-filled schlock later, here we are.

If you have interest, please go back and read my posts.  Samples appear below.  If you do, you will see that I wasn't the one spewing insults.  In fact, I repeatedly, nearly beggingly, tried to end the conversation when I felt others were getting abusive.

The truth is that it all started because I, and a couple others, disagreed with some regulars about whether or not a law school exam at Drake University should be re-administered.  People simply couldn't handle that and went nuts on us.

I know what I said above, but I'm not going to bullsh1t about this or dance around it.  THIS is why this forums sucks.  This is why people like me leave.  Perhaps others leave for different reasons, but chalk me up as one who leaves because a group of regulars have dedicated a great deal of time to stifling disparate voices and extinguishing legitimate intellectual discourse.

2:  it's not relevant because the oversight was yours.

Dude, the oversight here was the OP's, too.  Your argument is that there should be a remedy for the OP even though this  external factor -- the bad pagination -- affected the OP in a way that it likely did not affect other similarly situated students.  The OP's response to seeing the extra pages was obviously strange -- however understandable it might be if we take into account the pressure of exam time -- and she made a mistake.  You have to at least admit this.

You've completely mis-characterized what I was saying above. 

This discussion has become like a game of whack-a-mole.  One of you two makes some flagrant mis-characterization of my previous posts, I explain the mis-characterization and the cycle begins again. 

I don't think we're getting anywhere and I'm getting kind of bored with this.


You're a scab-picker, eh? 


In short:  I wasn't ever truly offended by anything you wrote, I'm quite sure I didn't really understand but now I really really do not want to go back there.

To be honest, I did not read your remark about standing to mean that I would not have standing to bring a law suit against you for being tightly wound.  I read your use of "standing" as the plain and ordinary meaning not the legal one.  That's how I read it, maybe not how you meant it. 

I find the whole thing very confusing and I do not want to revisit it for no better reason than to avoid the firestorm of incredibly personal and inane discussion that followed. 


"No one here disagrees that it is important for the playing field to be level.  We are merely discussing what, if anything, can and should be done when it is not."

Exactly.  And based on reams and reams of discussion, I think there are substantially different views on that subject.  I also think that we're not going to reach a consensus.  I am content with that.

As an aside, it's kind of hilarious that Irrx engages in pages upon pages of discussion, sleeps on it, gets embarrassed about it and then deletes it all the next day.  What a little weenie.  Not that he shouldn't have been embarrassed...

"Fair enough.  If you ever try to explain how I'm off base, I'll be happy to reconsider my positions or admit fault where appropriate."

I don't have standing for this, lol.   

Frankly, I think we've reached an impasse.  Why don't we both simply acknowledge what it is we're disagreeing about and move on? 

I think that the error made in the Drake student's case was one that could have affected students performance. I think on that basis alone, some action should be taken to correct the exam.  As far as I understand, you disagree with the idea that the administrative error could have affected performance.  Then, you think no action should be taken because, in your view, any action would be worse than the effect of the original mistake.

Why don't we just leave it there and agree to disagree? 

(as I, incidentally, tried to do about 4 pages ago)






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. 

I don't know what is going on here, but I want no part of this.  You people deserve each other.

You're a bunch of f@cking idiots going on and on about very little.

Incidentally, Miss P, I think you're totally off base.  That said, I obviously care a lot less about this than you do.

"I honestly find it hard to believe that this would be confusing for any culturally literate person, particularly one with a year or more of law school under his belt."

That's kind of an obnoxious thing to say.  Anyway, I'm leaving this where it is.  You can have it.  You can also feel free to call me "culturally illiterate," ignorant or whatever. 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/standing



non parata est

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1052
  • buh??
    • View Profile
Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« Reply #162 on: June 28, 2009, 11:55:52 PM »
"Letting it go" isn't coming back and posting in a week-old thread.  You claim that you try so hard to "end the conversation."  Know how that's done on a discussion board?  DON'T CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION.  If your interlocutor is too immature, too scab-picking, too committed to bringing you down, then just don't post back.  You're convinced that some people here are a lost cause.  You're convinced that this board sucks.  Why do you continue to torture yourself if it's so bad here?
Quote from: Lionel Hutz, Esq.
Well he's had it in for me ever since I kinda ran over his dog... Well, replace the word "kinda" with "repeatedly" and the word "dog" with "son."

Julie Fern

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 27216
  • hillary clinton say "boo!"
    • View Profile
Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« Reply #163 on: June 30, 2009, 05:53:33 AM »
you ask many questions, grasshopper.

ISUCKATTHIS

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 261
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« Reply #164 on: June 30, 2009, 09:52:08 PM »
"Letting it go" isn't coming back and posting in a week-old thread.  You claim that you try so hard to "end the conversation."  Know how that's done on a discussion board?  DON'T CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION.  If your interlocutor is too immature, too scab-picking, too committed to bringing you down, then just don't post back.  You're convinced that some people here are a lost cause.  You're convinced that this board sucks.  Why do you continue to torture yourself if it's so bad here?

LOL, typical.

No f*cking way.  I'm not going to be silenced just because someone is too immature to agree to disagree.  I'll also post where and when I please, at least until I'm banned.


Why don't you stop posting here?  If you're so convinced that my perspective is illegitimate, why do you read and respond to my posts?

Jamie Stringer

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 8588
    • View Profile
Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« Reply #165 on: June 30, 2009, 10:16:50 PM »
"Letting it go" isn't coming back and posting in a week-old thread.  You claim that you try so hard to "end the conversation."  Know how that's done on a discussion board?  DON'T CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION.  If your interlocutor is too immature, too scab-picking, too committed to bringing you down, then just don't post back.  You're convinced that some people here are a lost cause.  You're convinced that this board sucks.  Why do you continue to torture yourself if it's so bad here?

LOL, typical.

No f*cking way.  I'm not going to be silenced just because someone is too immature to agree to disagree.  I'll also post where and when I please, at least until I'm banned.

Why don't you stop posting here?  If you're so convinced that my perspective is illegitimate, why do you read and respond to my posts?

Speaking just for myself, I keep reading because when you bump the thread, it shows up again in my unreads.  Reading it is the only way to make it go away to hopefully die a merciful death.
Quote from: Tim Mitchell

F*cking bi+ch drinks a 1 oz bottle of goose and thinks she's French

non parata est

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 1052
  • buh??
    • View Profile
Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« Reply #166 on: June 30, 2009, 10:51:36 PM »
"Letting it go" isn't coming back and posting in a week-old thread.  You claim that you try so hard to "end the conversation."  Know how that's done on a discussion board?  DON'T CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION.  If your interlocutor is too immature, too scab-picking, too committed to bringing you down, then just don't post back.  You're convinced that some people here are a lost cause.  You're convinced that this board sucks.  Why do you continue to torture yourself if it's so bad here?

LOL, typical.

No f*cking way.  I'm not going to be silenced just because someone is too immature to agree to disagree.  I'll also post where and when I please, at least until I'm banned.


Why don't you stop posting here?  If you're so convinced that my perspective is illegitimate, why do you read and respond to my posts?

I'm not saying that you should *be silenced*

I'm saying that it's inconsistent to claim to take the high road by letting it go while bumping a week-old thread.  You're obviously starved for attention, and everyone here (including me) is giving you what you want because it is genuinely entertaining to read your posts (in the same way it's genuinely entertaining to watch Al Gore chase ManBearPig on South Park).
Quote from: Lionel Hutz, Esq.
Well he's had it in for me ever since I kinda ran over his dog... Well, replace the word "kinda" with "repeatedly" and the word "dog" with "son."

ISUCKATTHIS

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 261
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« Reply #167 on: June 30, 2009, 11:13:31 PM »
I never claimed to be altruistic or even right about the opinions I expressed in the Drake thread.  I'm the first to admit that I'm anything but pure and that I've been wrong many times.  I do try to admit it when it happens, but I'm sure I fall well short of perfection.

What I did claim... and I stand by the claim... is that I was beat up for disagreeing with a regular.  I further claim that there is a crowd here that stifles legitimate debate and discourse.  What I said two posts ago is that my experience in the Drake thread seems to me to be solid evidence of all this.

I am happy that you're entertained.  Manbearpig was awesome.  You flatter me with the comparison. 

Miss P

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 21337
    • View Profile
Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« Reply #168 on: July 01, 2009, 12:24:34 AM »
What I did claim... and I stand by the claim... is that I was beat up for disagreeing with a regular.  I further claim that there is a crowd here that stifles legitimate debate and discourse.  What I said two posts ago is that my experience in the Drake thread seems to me to be solid evidence of all this.

I'm sorry that you feel this way, but I really think that if you try to read the thread with a clear head, you'll realize that most of the people there were trying to discuss the issues with you, not going nuts or attacking you.  Indeed, I spent some time going through the hypothetical solutions you listed before you decided you had nothing further to contribute.  That seems to be legitimate debate and discourse, albeit debate and discourse you felt to be a waste of time after we went back and forth for several pages.

I know from (extensive) experience that it's not fun to be in the minority on an issue, but that's just not the same thing as being beaten up or, worse, the victim of an all-out hate fest and character assassination.  And for what itís worth, just looking at the quotations you've pulled out of the Drake thread, it appears that you called some posters "children" and "f-ing idiots," me a "scab-picker," and IrrX a "little weenie."  These certainly aren't the worst things people have said about each other here, but they don't evince your desire to focus on the merits of the argument at hand -- or to abandon it altogether -- either. 

I reiterate what you've quoted me as saying almost two months ago now: "If you ever try to explain how I'm off base, I'll be happy to reconsider my positions or admit fault where appropriate."  Until then, I agree with what you said a week or so ago: let's not post about or in response to each other for a while, okay?

Meanwhile, if you have a suggestion about how the moderators or other people should address situations where a poster feels victimized, please share it.  Even if I disagree with you about the contours of this particular argument, I am sure that you're right that posters do (perhaps legitimately) feel this way sometimes, and it would be nice if there were something the moderators and others could do to help.
That's cool how you referenced a case.

Quote from: archival
I'm so far from the end of my tether right now that I reckon I could knit myself some socks with the slack.

ISUCKATTHIS

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 261
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: The Senate Floor: Debate the Ban Process Here
« Reply #169 on: July 01, 2009, 09:20:48 PM »
Clearly it would do you some good to go over the thread and the repeated posts above.  Take your time.
 
1) What I said about our discussion in the Drake thread was that we'd reached "an impasse."  The post is reproduced above so your failure to understand it is perplexing.
 
My point was that our disagreements stemmed from differences in fundamental value judgments.  People can't really argue those kinds of differences - they do not necessarily have a rational basis and are largely formed by experience.  I summarized the differences and then suggested that we simply and amicably agree to disagree.
 
You couldn't handle that.  Your point was that I lacked the social "standing" to disagree with you openly on this forum.  You called in your attack dogs like Irrx, Thisiswrong and sundry others who then spent hours and pages attacking me and my character.  Re-read the thread, most of it is still there except for Irrx's posts. You engaged in the insults yourself as well, but you were mostly content to have your cohort do the work.  Behind the scenes, you were busy complaining about other posters who also disagreed with you about related issues.  Those complaints resulted in at least one of the posters with whom you disagreed being permenantly banned from the site.
 
2) Yes, I called Irrx a "little weenie" for deleting the six pages of insults he posted one night.  In my mind, if you insult someone you should either stand by the insult or, if you later believe you were wrong, take the insult back and apologize.  Spewing insults and then deleting them is, in my view, pretty cowardly.  It's frankly bizarely cowardly, since this is a semi-anonymous internet forum... but cowardly nevertheless.
 
3) Again, I understand that we have fundamentally different ideas concerning what these chat boards should be about.  You think they should be largely social networking sites and that those who make the most use of them as such should be able to censor, exclude and harass those with whom they disagree.  I favor open fora where all can express their viewpoints and that constructive disagreement/discussion can lead to mutual understanding and perspective broadening.  We are simply fundamentally different people with fundamentally different perspectives.
 
Let's just agree to disagree and leave each other alone.