|
This is exactly why the lawyers never get invited to the deserted islands...
Premise: The audience feels like the person should win the match.
What happened: The best person was winning and then forfeited, thus not wining the match.
Why it's bad: The best person didn't win and the audience was disappointed.
Here's a deserted island analogy for you.
There is a box of food. The scientist steals all the food.
Engineer: Bad scientist, you are banned.
Doctor: Agreed.
Lawyer: Now wait a minute. There was no specific written law that states that he was not allowed to take all the food. Futhermore, does not every human being have the right to blablablaforthenext4pages.
Sometimes logical thinking will get you were you need to be. You're overthinking it. I guess that happens with everything being a borderline genius lawyer.
PS: I apologize for having the scientist to steal all the food. For the sake of the analogy, the lawyer couldn't do it. It didn't seem likely that the doctor would steal it, Hippocratic oath and all. And I'm an engineer myself. So vilify the scientist it is!
|
United States944 Posts
This is not the work of a brilliant legal mind. This is not up to par with a Marshall or a Warren or even a Roberts opinion. The blog is interesting; it is well-written, mildly-intelligent, and explores a different side of an issue, but don't flatter yourself. You are not a border-line legal genius.
|
Love how you clumped Marshall and Warren with Roberts lol.
|
Australia7069 Posts
On November 17 2011 20:42 RetFan wrote:
Aelonius,
I have great respect towards Chinese people. I believe the top English students in China are able to easily surpass native English speakers in the UK, USA or Australia on tests on grammar. But unfortunately in regards to English , that's where it stops.
If we apply the rules of TL strictly, every poster who is coming here not to discuss the topic but to attack my credentials should be banned from TL
Secondly, with regard to the word colleague, you can interpret it strictly or colloquially. In China, I know students take great pride in being able to show off a wide vocabulary. However, having not been brought up in a native background, it is difficult to use words in the correct context. The word colleague would not colloquially be used to describe someone working in the same profession. Otherwise, every lawyer in the world or who I've worked with would be my colleague. This is clearly not true. Similarly, if we were to take a formal definition, we've been taught to rely on the OED.
ROFL the bolded part made me lol. Which rule good sir, forbids users from challenging the credentials of a poster?
Lets have a lookieloo shall we
1. THIS IS OUR HOUSE
nope - irrelevant here
2. THOU SHALL OBSERVE FORUM ETIQUETTE
nope - they aren't being unruly
3. THOU SHALL THINK BEFORE POSTING
Sure, seeing that your credentials are stupid doens't take MUCH thinking, so i guess you could challenge here simply because its such an obvious conclusion to draw
4. THOU SHALL CONTRIBUTE TO THE SITE
nope - people contribute by ensuring authenticity of the OP
5. THOU SHALL NOT SPAM
nope - haven't seen people spamming stuff
6. THOU SHALL RESPECT FORUM VETERANS
registered late 2010 and have 32 posts? yep doesn't apply
7. ENGLISH IS THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE
seems all good here
8. THOU SHALL RESPECT YOUR ID
Hard to verify, but i dont think you're worth making an alt to insult you on
9. READ THE COMMANDMENTS
Seems like everyone but you did this
10. THOU SHALL HAVE FUN
I'm having fun.
ps: as someone else who was in the top 2% of their high school class in australia, i can tell you for sure that the reason law has such a stringent OP requirement is popularity. I started in science, which was an OP 8 to get in(i got an OP 1) when i graduated in 2004, now i hear is like a 16 or something ridiculous, simply because people dont want to do it. So yeah, your law degree isn't special or harder, its just popular.
pps: I get it, you're doing law, you think you're god of arguing, but just wait till you try to argue with a real lawyer, they'll beat u down sooooooooooooooo hard. Trust me, i know, my cousin in a prosecutor and my dad is one of the best criminal lawyers in australia.
ppps: seems like a real lawyer beat u down already. hope you didn't cry too much. have fun memorising 60 bazillion rulings to get your fancy pants law degree. i'll be doing useful things with my software engineering.
|
On November 18 2011 01:17 mbr2321 wrote:
This is not the work of a brilliant legal mind. This is not up to par with a Marshall or a Warren or even a Roberts opinion. The blog is interesting; it is well-written, mildly-intelligent, and explores a different side of an issue, but don't flatter yourself. You are not a border-line legal genius.
For the sake of posterity: Thechnically he did not refer to himself as borderline genius (he only infers that he is a full-fledged genius many many times throughout his posts). The title was changed by Chill to reflect better the direction that this thread ended up taking
|
So basically the standard is to simply to never identify yourself with anything at all on the internet if you're going to make a statement like Retfan did? If that's just how it is then alright... I get that.. because I guess its just something that is going to happen (get virtual rocks thrown at you) regardless of how true or full of good will it may be, because its just as easy to bullshit whatever you claim.
Thing is, he could have left it at "I'm a lawyer so here are my views." Or, "I study law". No one would have said dick to him then. What he added didn't impress anyone or give any more weight to his opinion. In fact it just diverted attention from the rest of his posts.
I hate any type of brag, real life or internet, true or false. I think every so often even if you are someone who hates egomaniacs, a comment just doesn't annoy you for whatever reason.
|
Especially when the brag is about how he's studying law, and that means that he had awesome marks in high school. Oh, and he interns too.
|
Dude, you're forgetting his interships. He worked for little to nothing or nothing and the people there said he was one of the top few thousand legal minds in the country.
Actually that reminds me of that progamer who disappeared, LegalMind. Hopefully the OP follows suit. He was vaguely threatening to write an opinion piece on training regimes in Korea vs the West as a response to the one by tree.hugger. I can just imagine how good it's going to be...
Edit: First 2 pages will be a more detailed description of his time in academia so that, once and for all, TL can learn to treat him with the respect his opinions deserve. Then I envisage 5-6 pages of stilted, boring prose where he says nothing new or insightful and just generally clunks along. Finally, a few paragraphs explaining why he won't be considering any other opinions or divergent views be cause he <reiterate unique skills, superior intelligence>.
|
On November 16 2011 17:48 RetFan wrote:
Most people will ask that the lawyer be left out. Some will recite Thomas Moore's Utopia in describing lawyers as being 'evil and incapable of any acts of good'.
I would pmsl if any of my friends ever came out with such pretentious crap. And pretty much all of my friends are doctors or are studying for PhD, I'm a lecturer.
On November 16 2011 17:48 RetFan wrote:
I challenge that view. As of background, I am a law student in one of Australia's leading universities. In Australia, our top law schools accept only the top 1-2% of the highest achievers from High School. This ensures that we have lawyers and judges which reflect the brightest academic minds in the country.
This has already been pointed out to be clear rubbish. It's to do with popularity not the demands of intelligence. Not like highschool grades are strongly reflective of intelligence or ability anyway. I would recommend you take yourself a bit less seriously.
|
On November 17 2011 22:19 Chill wrote:
Thread renamed.
LOL. I wondered about that... I logged in this morning and thought 'geez, I dont ever remember it being called that... it SHOULD have been called that....
|
On November 18 2011 01:33 Subversive wrote:Show nested quote +So basically the standard is to simply to never identify yourself with anything at all on the internet if you're going to make a statement like Retfan did? If that's just how it is then alright... I get that.. because I guess its just something that is going to happen (get virtual rocks thrown at you) regardless of how true or full of good will it may be, because its just as easy to bullshit whatever you claim. Thing is, he could have left it at "I'm a lawyer so here are my views." Or, "I study law". No one would have said dick to him then. What he added didn't impress anyone or give any more weight to his opinion. In fact it just diverted attention from the rest of his posts. I hate any type of brag, real life or internet, true or false. I think every so often even if you are someone who hates egomaniacs, a comment just doesn't annoy you for whatever reason.
Yeah but I honor the value of people who actually achieve and do good things for themselves. If they can prove it and they want to brag about it then that is fine by me.
That's why I was so conflicted by what you guys were doing to the OP because just on the first impression of Retfan from his OP I couldn't bring myself to go to town on the guy.
I like to think of Huk when it comes to this. In the beta days he wanted to become the next boxer of sc2, his claim of top 3 control. Everyone thought he was arrogant as hell at first, I did too. Now he's doing well.
If Huk wins GSL and beats the best players in the world repeatedly would you then berate Huk the same way you did to the OP. I'm not making a direct relation to Huk and Retfan btw, thats stupid =_=, just saying would attack him the same way. So would you poke fun at him or be like "alright this guy is legit, he can trash talk all he wants as long as he keeps winning". You can dislike him just as you could dislike IdrA, but you cannot deny him his credentials.
|
I doubt the op is actually a lawyer or law student.
Lawyers have to be good at maintaining (or at least try to maintain) their image, so far it looks like the op has been failing on this point.
|
On November 18 2011 01:45 caradoc wrote:LOL. I wondered about that... I logged in this morning and thought 'geez, I dont ever remember it being called that... it SHOULD have been called that....
What was the original thread name? 
|
I don't think anyone is mocking or insulting the OP because he posted that he is a very successful student of law - most people probably just dislike comments like 'my analytical skills and the depth which I can view a situation is such that MOST other readers will not be able to match.', and the generally condescending attitude of a guy who is obviously not an expert in the field he wants to discuss by any stretch of imagination.
If you think you are smarter and better than others, let your arguments do the talking. No amount of 'credentials' actually proves that. I mean, there's been presidents who were borderline retarded in the history of our planet, nevermind lawyers or doctors or what have you.
|
On November 18 2011 01:58 unichan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2011 01:45 caradoc wrote:On November 17 2011 22:19 Chill wrote:
Thread renamed. LOL. I wondered about that... I logged in this morning and thought 'geez, I dont ever remember it being called that... it SHOULD have been called that.... What was the original thread name?
"Coco/Byun: Why Lawyers are Important" I think it was.
The only reason I remember is because he misspelled Coca. As a man with a legal assistant for a fiancee, I can attest that the legal profession from lawyers on down are absolutely anal about proofreading and spell-checking.
|
Well hi guys, I'm kind of a big deal.
|
On November 16 2011 17:48 RetFan wrote:
Introduction
"If you had to choose three of four professionals listed below to bring with you to an abandoned island set up a colony. Which one would you leave out? "
Your choices are: Doctor, engineer, scientist, or lawyer.
Most people will ask that the lawyer be left out. Some will recite Thomas Moore's Utopia in describing lawyers as being 'evil and incapable of any acts of good'.
I challenge that view. As of background, I am a law student in one of Australia's leading universities. In Australia, our top law schools accept only the top 1-2% of the highest achievers from High School. This ensures that we have lawyers and judges which reflect the brightest academic minds in the country.
Erm. Okay. You haven't told me what I should bring a lawyer over any of the others though :/
|
well I'd say people like the OP are the reason why noone likes lawyers.
riddle solved
|
We aren't all like that (a lot are though)
|
On November 18 2011 02:07 talleyhooo wrote:
We aren't all like that (a lot are though)
He's not even a lawyer yet though. Reading through this thread and projecting it back to what I observed when I was studying he's probably dickwaving to make himself feel more confident ahead of his tests which he may or may not be able to complete. I saw many of this type in my chemitry undergrad and they didn't graduate in the end. We normally lose 30 - 50% after the first year. So at least OP did get to 2nd year so well done.
Anyway, I hope this overego is beaten out of those guys before they make it into real jobs. It certainly is in my field, where 95% of what you do fails (if you are lucky).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
