Law School Discussion

for those that have started law school

SCgrad

Re: for those that have started law school
« Reply #120 on: October 08, 2006, 02:30:21 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.

right on que

redemption

Re: for those that have started law school
« Reply #121 on: October 08, 2006, 02:39:07 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.

Well, yeah. That's what rubs people the wrong way about bb. But the small-town aspirational   conservative thing -- the quality, prestige, Dow, classical music, etc -- is par for the course, no? Ironically, if you put him on the couch, I'd bet that it's the small-town petit-bourgeois thing that he wants to get away from the most. I like to think that he's aware of that irony and works with it.

His arguing style is similar to the dearly departed Stan's, but Stan adjusts, like a wrestler (damn asian), even if he doesn't come out and ever assert something in the way that J does. I hought bb believed that stuff he was saying, and despised some things that he said to Annabel, but really, but really, I think he's just curious and likes conversation. And, as we all know, once you've built a rep, it's hard to shake.

Miss P

  • *****
  • 19300
    • View Profile
Re: for those that have started law school
« Reply #122 on: October 08, 2006, 02:43:16 PM »
Red., a few pages back you said something very silly, but I do appreciate it.

Had I been around, I could have told you why Breadboy is here, too, but it would have left me feeling rather cynical.  (Also, it does put a rather unfortunate Machiavellian spin on his recent inducements for me to transfer up and/or go for BigLaw.  :D)  Anyway, I like him rather well, despite my frustrations with his style of argumentation (which I do believe SC captured fairly well, though he overlooked the occasional bit of insight or true engagement Bb chooses to offer up to LSD).  I think people are way too hard on him.  I have forgiven him for the few transgrassions I witnessed, and I don't like the idea of conflating those with his general conservative, elitist posture.  (EDIT: Bb, if you are reading this, I think we could call this a mixed metaphor - transgressions and postures.  I'm not sure.  I would definitely say that it is catachretic.)

And Stan, since you apparently have a deep connection with Southside, please curse him out for not returning my email.  JK.  Kinda.

redemption

Re: for those that have started law school
« Reply #123 on: October 08, 2006, 02:46:43 PM »
Eh, I'm not convinced that he's conservative in any true sense.

Miss P

  • *****
  • 19300
    • View Profile
Re: for those that have started law school
« Reply #124 on: October 08, 2006, 02:47:57 PM »
Eh, I'm not convinced that he's conservative in any true sense.

I agree.  I called it a "posture," after all.  I do believe he wants different things from life than I want.  Than you want, probably, too.

obamacon

  • ****
  • 3125
    • View Profile
Re: for those that have started law school
« Reply #125 on: October 08, 2006, 02:49:39 PM »
Had I been around, I could have told you why Breadboy is here, too, but it would have left me feeling rather cynical.  (Also, it does put a rather unfortunate Machiavellian spin on his recent inducements for me to transfer up and/or go for BigLaw.  :D)  Anyway, I like him rather well, despite my frustrations with his style of argumentation (which I do believe SC captured fairly well, though he overlooked the occasional bit of insight or true engagement Bb chooses to offer up to LSD).  I think people are way too hard on him.  I have forgiven him for the few transgrassions I witnessed, and I don't like the idea of conflating those with his general conservative, elitist posture.

Iím not being completely Machiavellian. I honestly think both you and red would be happier with the kind of power your skills suggest you should have.

redemption

Re: for those that have started law school
« Reply #126 on: October 08, 2006, 02:50:13 PM »


Iím not being completely Machiavellian. I honestly think both you and red would be happier with the kind of power your skills suggest you should have.

lol

obamacon

  • ****
  • 3125
    • View Profile
Re: for those that have started law school
« Reply #127 on: October 08, 2006, 02:50:48 PM »
Eh, I'm not convinced that he's conservative in any true sense.

You're on quite the role today. Although I think I've mentioned this before so it probably shouldn't count.

redemption

Re: for those that have started law school
« Reply #128 on: October 08, 2006, 02:50:58 PM »

I agree.  I called it a "posture," after all.  I do believe he wants different things from life than I want.  Than you want, probably, too.

"Posture" is right, but at least it's self-conscious.

Miss P

  • *****
  • 19300
    • View Profile
Re: for those that have started law school
« Reply #129 on: October 08, 2006, 02:52:27 PM »


Iím not being completely Machiavellian. I honestly think both you and red would be happier with the kind of power your skills suggest you should have.

lol

Seriously.  If it wouldn't look so damned conceited, I would definitely quote this in my sig.