Law School Discussion

~*~ Dear Santa, for Christmas this year I want . . .~*~

be10dwn

Re: ~*~ Dear Santa, for Christmas this year I want . . .~*~
« Reply #10 on: November 17, 2005, 12:42:44 PM »
I didnt get my first acceptance till feb i dont think...

when did you send out?

ummmm right after I got the Oct LSAT results

SkullTatt

Re: ~*~ Dear Santa, for Christmas this year I want . . .~*~
« Reply #11 on: November 17, 2005, 01:39:43 PM »
I like Montauk's book -- it's got quite a bit of good information.

Montauk's book is excellent. I recommend the Ivey/Montauk combo. But the one thing I can't stand about Montauk's book is that he misuses "affect"/"effect" throughout the entire book -- even in quotes from others!

It drives me, well, bonkers.

The Dread Pirate Roberts

  • ****
  • 4399
  • Back to my non-secret secret identity...
    • View Profile
Re: ~*~ Dear Santa, for Christmas this year I want . . .~*~
« Reply #12 on: November 17, 2005, 01:42:07 PM »
Montauk's book is excellent. I recommend the Ivey/Montauk combo. But the one thing I can't stand about Montauk's book is that he misuses "affect"/"effect" throughout the entire book -- even in quotes from others!

Seriously?  Doesn't he have an editor or something?

SkullTatt

Re: ~*~ Dear Santa, for Christmas this year I want . . .~*~
« Reply #13 on: November 17, 2005, 01:47:46 PM »
I sometimes wonder if it's the editor who changed it without Montauk's knowledge. Because if the error were Montauk's, that would mean that both he AND his editor would have to be confused about the usage.

Whereas maybe his editor, as a final bit of editing, fcked up all the "affects" and "effects."

Re: ~*~ Dear Santa, for Christmas this year I want . . .~*~
« Reply #14 on: November 17, 2005, 02:19:01 PM »
I'd like more time, please.