Law School Discussion

for those that have started law school

Elephant Lee

  • ****
  • 4664
  • Maybe ju an' me are amigos!
    • View Profile
Re: for those that have started law school
« Reply #110 on: October 08, 2006, 01:58:05 PM »
He's sizing up his future competition. Many of his polls seem directed at that. He's not here to prove himself, which is why he pokes and prods to see what others have to say, but rarely says much. 

obamacon

  • ****
  • 3125
    • View Profile
Re: for those that have started law school
« Reply #111 on: October 08, 2006, 02:02:27 PM »
He's sizing up his future competition. Many of his polls seem directed at that. He's not here to prove himself, which is why he pokes and prods to see what others have to say, but rarely says much. 

Congratulations to you; I've apparently never given you the credit you deserve.

redemption

Re: for those that have started law school
« Reply #112 on: October 08, 2006, 02:03:01 PM »
He's sizing up his future competition. Many of his polls seem directed at that. He's not here to prove himself, which is why he pokes and prods to see what others have to say, but rarely says much. 

Congratulations to you; I've apparently never given you the credit you deserve.

Oh, stop.  :D

obamacon

  • ****
  • 3125
    • View Profile
Re: for those that have started law school
« Reply #113 on: October 08, 2006, 02:03:55 PM »
Oh, stop.  :D

I'm still surprised you didn't get that first.

redemption

Re: for those that have started law school
« Reply #114 on: October 08, 2006, 02:05:39 PM »
Oh, stop.  :D

I'm still surprised you didn't get that first.

C'mon, now. Be reasonable. What competition are you talking about?

obamacon

  • ****
  • 3125
    • View Profile
Re: for those that have started law school
« Reply #115 on: October 08, 2006, 02:21:41 PM »
I've apparently never given you the credit you deserve.
C'mon, now. Be reasonable. What competition are you talking about?

Some of those that come here will eventually be competing with me in one respect or another. Those who don't professionally may in law school, and those who don't in law school provide interesting archetypes for fellow classmates and business partners.

obamacon

  • ****
  • 3125
    • View Profile
Re: for those that have started law school
« Reply #116 on: October 08, 2006, 02:22:06 PM »
Wait, didn't I say you were testing people and that got shot down?  What's the difference?

Quite a bit.

redemption

Re: for those that have started law school
« Reply #117 on: October 08, 2006, 02:25:11 PM »
I've apparently never given you the credit you deserve.
C'mon, now. Be reasonable. What competition are you talking about?

Some of those that come here will eventually be competing with me in one respect or another. Those who don't professionally may in law school, and those who don't in law school provide interesting archetypes for fellow classmates and business partners.

So, you think I'm here to get a sense of 'the competition'? Wow. That's really way off.

SCgrad

Re: for those that have started law school
« Reply #118 on: October 08, 2006, 02:25:58 PM »
Eh, it's not really his thing to like or dislike. He figures you're a good foil, so he'll poke you when you're around.

My sense is that the reason he in general refuses to advocate any position himself is that he thinks he's "testing" us, as it were -- and that some (you, Miss P) have passed his test and others (myself, J) have not.  I could be wrong, though.

I agree with this.  He reminds me of another poster minus the baby talk.  You would never convince him that anything he believes is even questionably not true.  Like Julie, he seems to be trying to "win" arguments, but doesn't go about it in the conventional (law or prelaw) way of trying to iron out a logically structured argument.  I'm not saying it is illogical, it is just not really an argument, but a statement, sometimes camoflauged in the form of questions.  Julie can piss off conservatives so easily with this method, and BB can do the same to liberals.  Some evidence I would put forth is his harping on things of wealth and prestige.  Expensive things and things that only elitest do seem to the topic of almost all of BB posts that are not based on this Julie Fern-esk arguing style.  Then, his other posts revolve around pushing republicanism and conversativism.  He asks what we think of the market hitting a high.  He asks about this Columbia protest, etc.  I think he had something about Clinton on Fox News.  He starts lots of topics and they all are geared towards bashing the left.  He may not be so obvious about it, but it seems that way to me.  Hastart makes some ridiculous claim that the page scandal is a left wing conspiracy launched by Bill Clinton.  Does BB make a thread about that.  No.  I don't blame people for taking stands and being radical or whatever (not saying BB is radical), but this vague bull socratic type way of going about it is kinda female private part if you ask me.  It's as if you're not willing to stand by what you think, so to avoid actually having to defend your beliefs you throw them out there in this disguise and engage in this game of wits to further avoid an honest attempt at proving your point or having it proven wrong.

Come to think of it, Stan does this too (I might do it some too  :-[ )

I think this is why J might despise BB's arguments and style.  I would say they are on complete opposite sides of the arguing spectrum.  J flatly takes a stand and argues as clearly as his verbose vocab will allow him to his points.  I think J might even admit he was wrong if his argument were shut down (in his eyes), but that probably just doesn't happen.

obamacon

  • ****
  • 3125
    • View Profile
Re: for those that have started law school
« Reply #119 on: October 08, 2006, 02:29:07 PM »
Eh, it's not really his thing to like or dislike. He figures you're a good foil, so he'll poke you when you're around.

My sense is that the reason he in general refuses to advocate any position himself is that he thinks he's "testing" us, as it were -- and that some (you, Miss P) have passed his test and others (myself, J) have not.  I could be wrong, though.

I agree with this.  He reminds me of another poster minus the baby talk.  You would never convince him that anything he believes is even questionably not true.  Like Julie, he seems to be trying to "win" arguments, but doesn't go about it in the conventional (law or prelaw) way of trying to iron out a logically structured argument.  I'm not saying it is illogical, it is just not really an argument, but a statement, sometimes camoflauged in the form of questions.  Julie can piss off conservatives so easily with this method, and BB can do the same to liberals.  Some evidence I would put forth is his harping on things of wealth and prestige.  Expensive things and things that only elitest do seem to the topic of almost all of BB posts that are not based on this Julie Fern-esk arguing style.  Then, his other posts revolve around pushing republicanism and conversativism.  He asks what we think of the market hitting a high.  He asks about this Columbia protest, etc.  I think he had something about Clinton on Fox News.  He starts lots of topics and they all are geared towards bashing the left.  He may not be so obvious about it, but it seems that way to me.  Hastart makes some ridiculous claim that the page scandal is a left wing conspiracy launched by Bill Clinton.  Does BB make a thread about that.  No.  I don't blame people for taking stands and being radical or whatever (not saying BB is radical), but this vague bull socratic type way of going about it is kinda female private part if you ask me.  It's as if you're not willing to stand by what you think, so to avoid actually having to defend your beliefs you throw them out there in this disguise and engage in this game of wits to further avoid an honest attempt at proving your point or having it proven wrong.

Come to think of it, Stan does this too (I might do it some too  :-[ )

I think this is why J might despise BB's arguments and style.  I would say they are on complete opposite sides of the arguing spectrum.  J flatly takes a stand and argues as clearly as his verbose vocab will allow him to his points.  I think J might even admit he was wrong if his argument were shut down (in his eyes), but that probably just doesn't happen.

Eh.