EPTYour choices are: Doctor, engineer, scientist, or lawyer.
after reading your blog, i still think the lawyer should be left out. not that the question had a whole lot to do with it
I'm a borderline genius lawyer - AMA - Page 11
| Blogs > RetFan |
|
rabidch
United States20289 Posts
Your choices are: Doctor, engineer, scientist, or lawyer. after reading your blog, i still think the lawyer should be left out. not that the question had a whole lot to do with it | ||
|
ketomai
United States2789 Posts
| ||
|
Tortious_Tortoise
United States944 Posts
On November 18 2011 01:18 talleyhooo wrote: Love how you clumped Marshall and Warren with Roberts lol. I keep them together because I don't want to seem as if only liberal or activist supreme court chief justices have brilliant legal minds. Roberts is incredibly intelligent, even if he is a crazy, Constitution-shrinking reactionary. Anyway, the point is that OP doesn't have half the experience or intelligence of these actual brilliant legal-minds. | ||
|
Hynda
Sweden2226 Posts
On November 18 2011 01:20 Kiante wrote: 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. those rules are way to strict  | ||
|
Subversive
Australia2229 Posts
On November 18 2011 01:53 Snuggles wrote: 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. If he was really conceited and a prick, yeah I'd hate him. If he said he was the best progamer, I'd probably like his cockiness, must as people do when bw progamers exhibit a lot of confidence. If he said he was more important to history than Nelson Mandela or something I'd probably think he was a fuckwit. On that point, yeah Huk is arrogant and yes, I don't like that about him. But it's nothing overboard so it's fine. Well arrogant isn't even the right word, just a little more confidant at times than is pleasant. | ||
|
rei
United States3594 Posts
OP demonstrated his lack of reasoning and logic by not able to anticipate this situation in teamliquid before he made his starting post in this thread. If he is as smart as he say he is, he would have not brag about his grades. The only thing needed was a sound argument in which every single premise is facts, then people can't possibly rebut your conclusion. The fact that you put your credential in the front before your argument is a clear sign of lack of confidence. Let me summarize your performance in this thread for you, you lack the ability to deduce the reaction of your audiences, and you lack confidence in your own logic and reasoning. You need a lot of work young padawan. | ||
|
MjoLniRXx
United States84 Posts
I am utterly convinced that RetFan is about as intelligent as my Jack Russell Terrier that is sitting beside me. Here are a few quotes that are of particular hilarity: Further, since you're unfamiliar with the Australian educational system (which means you probably shouldn't be posting), most undergraduates here do a combined degree. So no, I'm not second year, I'm in my 5th year. RetFan is obviously unfamiliar with many things he has been espousing, thus, by his own reasoning, he shouldn't be posting. Refuting the idiots who are trying to criticise me is fairly entertaining and helps relieve stress I've got two years of undergraduate psych under my belt, so obviously I am qualified to comment on this (see what I did there?). Sounds to me like refuting idiots is a projection of your need to justify yourself spawning from a deep seated insecurity. This insecurity is probably fostered through your environment where you worry that everyone around you is possibly (and probably) more capable than you. Blah_blah, you are completely obsessed with stalking me. If there was an option to block on TL.net, you would be the only one on the list. Would it help your fragile ego if I said "science is superior, requires brains and law does not'? Would that be enough to get you to go away? LOL. Again, taxing my two years of undergrad psych here, but you are leaking insecurity all over the floor. Why are you so important to stalk on an anonymous message board? You aren't. Though, you have an inflated self image and thus see yourself as greater than the rest of us to compensate for the reality of your situation. SCPlato, I'm not trying to make you mad. If you want to mature as a person, you need to sincerely understand what I am about to say. Again, he didn't sound at all like he needed to mature as a person. That sounds like a construct from your own mind and the condescension in your tone is palpable. I am pretty sure that he understood you quite well. In real life, I would never brag about my accomplishments. The truth is this is TL.net, I am just being really really honest You wouldn't brag because they aren't brag worthy. This is TL.net and just because it is digitized doesn't make it any less of a reality. You posted your credentials because in your mind you feel that they make you special and superior. However, you would never voice this in person (in real life is just so limited) because those around you are probably more capable than yourself. But, statistics would show that based on my achievements I'm likely to be smarter than most of the people on this forum. You do know that quoting a statistic is a basic flaw in any argument right? I'm 99% certain of that. (statistics!) If you were truly intelligent you would realize your self-worthlessness in regards to the people on this forum. I think you should refer to yourself as educated because you do not possess raw intelligence of that I am sure. You seem to be stuck in a sort of identity foreclosure and are pawning off other peoples opinions as your own. In my opinion, you are not educated enough to really hold a decent conversation with and I will refrain from responding in the future unless I'm really bored. Your sentences are long and lack structure. Overall, it sounds like you're mad at me for listing my credentials. A lot of the answers you are looking for (or not looking for) are in what I wrote. You just need to pay attention to detail. He just said he was a philosophy major a few post up and in a very unpretentious way, might I add. His post was what you tried to accomplish in your preface. A declaration of legitimacy in regards to his opinion. Choose a side man, do you value education or intelligence? "I have never let schooling get in the way of my education." Do you know who said that? If you were truly intelligent, then you would have no problems holding a conversation with someone who wasn't educated because you would be able to recognize intelligence in another. Obviously, that's asking a bit much. Dang it, I just read you are not responding anymore. That is a shame since I know you are still reading everything said in this thread. I hope you change your mind by page 11 because this systematic breakdown of your idiocy is great fun. - reading through to page 11- Well, you haven't responded to this thread any more. That is just a shame, we were all having such a good time with you. I felt an obligation to post that spawned from your desecration of the image of an intelligent person. Want my credentials? I am a 19 year old college student that is currently majoring in General Studies (that just looks so shiny next to your Law major). I live in a small town in South East Georgia, where the school systems are by no means elaborate nor is the curriculum hard. I made a relatively high score on the SAT (higher than the base average of 1500). Hell, I even got into an honors program at a 4 year university. All these "achievements" still don't make me qualified to espouse anything which you have espoused and at the end of the day, I am just a kid who really likes StarCraft (hell yeah!). Both you and I are far too inexperienced in life to think we know it all. However, your mistake lies in the fact that you think yourself better than the average person and it is apparent from the first word in your post to the last. I can't stand idiots like you who think they are intelligent and worthy of some special treatment or that their achievements are worth anything. You are meaningless in this sea of faces. All that matters is what matters to you. Your pretention is horrifying and I do hope you do not hold peoples lives in the balance in court because you are just stupid enough to think that your opinion is the best, most well rounded, most well thought opinion on the matter... I mean you do have greater than average observational skills and can see a situation on a level that the average reader can't, isn't that right? I am under no illusions, I know you will disregard this post with the same ease which you disregarded the post of the fine gentleman (and possible gentlewomen) that posted before me. However, that doesn't stop the reality of the situation from existing and it sure as hell doesn't stop you from being meaningless. Good day. | ||
|
caradoc
Canada3022 Posts
something about coca, it was weird, kind of a bait and switch imo. OP probably intended a reception something like "I came here to talk about the Coca situation, but I stayed here to marvel at his intelligence and suave meticulous image. The world needs him." It was also a forum post, not a blog. | ||
|
jacen
Austria3644 Posts
On November 16 2011 17:48 RetFan wrote: The high entry requirements of the top law schools ensure that most of the students admitted into our top law schools are "LESS prone" to making mistakes. Thus ensuring a fairer justice system and less decisions being arbitrarily made or which lack equity. I think I would be bored to no end. Not being able to fail implicates that you won't ever try anything you don't know the outcome. If you would be really intelligent, you would not degrade yourself to this outlook. But I guess the power of the green paper is dictating here as you already emphasized in your post how you handle clients that shuffle around much of that stuff. Deep down in me, I am disgusted to the bone by your view. And THAT is the reason why most people would leave the lawyer on the island. Not because he is not useful, but because he could be much more useful if he wasn't so uptight. Just hope that you will always have the sheltering cushions of society around you to shield you from that sentiment. | ||
|
caradoc
Canada3022 Posts
On November 18 2011 02:32 ketomai wrote: Haha this was pretty entertaining. Always the threads with OP's gone wrong that turn that way (hi rpf facebook thread). Ohhh, ima dig that one up for cross reference. The infamous rpf facebook thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=76842 | ||
|
emperorchampion
Canada9496 Posts
| ||
|
MCDayC
United Kingdom14464 Posts
| ||
MoonBear
Straight outta Johto18973 Posts
On November 18 2011 03:41 MCDayC wrote: Can someone explain wtf is going on in this? I'm lost... Someone made a brag blog about how smart they were under the pretense of how Lawyers are really important because of the recent issue of Coca throwing a game to another player (Byun). TL takes offense at how condescending the poster was, not to mention that a lot of what was written didn't make proper sense either. Mods have a laugh and change the blog name. Just another typical day on TL. | ||
|
MCDayC
United Kingdom14464 Posts
| ||
|
Ganfei2
473 Posts
On November 17 2011 18:02 RetFan wrote: Ganfei, I can tell you're mad. Try and calm down son - by the way, what is a Grandman? Why are you picking on my typos anyway? Nevuk, I should be studying for exams. Refuting the idiots who are trying to criticise me is fairly entertaining and helps relieve stress Blah_blah, you are completely obsessed with stalking me. If there was an option to block on TL.net, you would be the only one on the list. Would it help your fragile ego if I said "science is superior, requires brains and law does not'? Would that be enough to get you to go away? LOL. Further, since you're unfamiliar with the Australian educational system (which means you probably shouldn't be posting), most undergraduates here do a combined degree. So no, I'm not second year, I'm in my 5th year. Talleyhoo, I hope for your sake you aren't a basement nerd pretending to be a patent lawyer because that would truly be sad. - Firstly, I've never said I've only had two years of college under my belt. - Secondly, Contrary to what you believe, prima facie was in fact used correctly and using the term meant I could save two words. - Thirdly, you misuse the word counsel - Freehills is a firm of solicitors and not barristers - Fourthly, why would someone be your colleague in Freehills if you are patent attorney in the United States? You misuse the word colleague. LOL - Lastly, the fact that you obviously pay no attention to detail, invent things up that I've never said, invent the fact that "I berate a poster for using unnecessary legalese" and impliedly misunderstand what nominalisation means, not understand what counsel means, shows that you are probably not a lawyer at all. In fact, that's why its so silly for people to pretend to be someone they're not online, once they're shit has been taken apart, its quite humiliating. yo dawg a typo isn't the same as repeated egregious assaults against basic English grammar yo dawg wat is a grandman? a grandman is a grandma with an extra n attached "I enjoy being made fun of and "refuting" the insults by making even more of an ass of myself" is a tried and true excuse, keep it up. A little encouragement: + Show Spoiler + So now that I've given my kneejerk response, I'm going to actually reply: colleague: col·league/ˈkälēg/ Noun: A person with whom one works, esp. in a profession or business. Counsel: 3. Law . ( used with a singular or plural verb ) the advocate or advocates engaged in the direction of a cause in court; a legal adviser or counselor: Is counsel for the defense present? Can we stop with this "nominalisation" crap? We know what it is, fool. Here, I'll use my trusty google skills again: In linguistics, nominalization or nominalisation is the use of a verb, an adjective, or an adverb as the head of a noun phrase, with or without morphological transformation. The term can also refer specifically to the process of producing a noun from another part of speech via the addition of derivational affixes (e.g., legalize versus legalization).[1] Nobody is pretending to be anything they aren't online, except maybe you (I'm an amazing lawyer!!). I myself never said a single thing, I just corrected your glaring and frankly pathetic English mistakes. I tried to stay away from actual ad hominem or personal insults but honestly, the mistakes you make create an impression of immense stupidity. On an online forum the way you write is the only way you can craft an image of yourself or come across to other people and you sound unbelievably arrogant, narcissistic, and oblivious to your own shortcomings. Your statement that you don't "need to make an impression" on us is obviously false, because you've spent over 10 pages "refuting" (i.e. making even more of an ass of yourself) people in this thread. My academic "accomplishments" are significantly more "impressive" than yours but I don't need to preface everything I say with them nor let my audience know that "statistically" I'm "more likely to be better at everything/smarter/sexier/benchpress more" than them. Hell, the mere fact that I'm not even capable of purposefully writing as horrendously as you, even when trying my hardest to sound like a cretin, should make it patently clear that you're already not exactly the CREME DE LA CREME (holy shit, was that a foreign expression? I'm a fucking genius). You sound like a Surfer4Life who graduated high school. You won't get that reference, but some others might. | ||
|
FryBender
United States290 Posts
On November 18 2011 03:48 MoonBear wrote: Someone made a brag blog about how smart they were under the pretense of how Lawyers are really important because of the recent issue of Coca throwing a game to another player (Byun). TL takes offense at how condescending the poster was, not to mention that a lot of what was written didn't make proper sense either. Mods have a laugh and change the blog name. Just another typical day on TL. Pretty much except TL takes offense not simply because it ws a brag blog but because he specifically stated that he was smarter than all of us with things like this: However, please understand that none of the words I'm writing are wasted. They are not meant to show off. They are there because I want readers to understand that what I write, my analytical skills and the depth which I can view a situation is such that MOST other readers will not be able to match. (emphasis are the Author's own) | ||
Kipsate
Netherlands45349 Posts
On November 18 2011 04:11 FryBender wrote: Pretty much except TL takes offense not simply because it ws a brag blog but because he specifically stated that he was smarter than all of us with things like this: (emphasis are the Author's own) Reminds me of ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3zUpl.jpg) | ||
|
rei
United States3594 Posts
| ||
|
YoureFired
United States822 Posts
Not all lawyers are assholes. My mom used to work for a law firm and, although she had to defend some pretty disgusting people because they paid enough money to hire her firm, she also did a large amount of pro-bono (free) work for families without the means to hire a lawyer who were threatened by foreclosure or were in a battle with insurance companies over compensation for an injury. So please don't let RetFan make you think all lawyers are douches | ||
|
Ganfei2
473 Posts
On November 18 2011 04:11 FryBender wrote: Pretty much except TL takes offense not simply because it ws a brag blog but because he specifically stated that he was smarter than all of us with things like this: (emphasis are the Author's own) Thanks for separating that out for me, I didn't read most of what the OP wrote. That right there is grammatically horrendous and doesn't even actually make sense. Sure I can piece together what this clown was trying to say but only because I too am a genius. They are there because I want readers to understand that what I write, my analytical skills and the depth which I can view a situation is such that MOST other readers will not be able to match. Let me "peer" edit this for you (get it, I'm a peer because I too am a genius). They are there because I want readers to understand that what I write, my analytical skills, and the depth with which I can view a situation (reconsider use of the word "can," try using something more like "I am able to," can is simplistic and much too pleb for someone of your stature; "view" is not really a great choice of verb for this so-called "deep analysis") are (it's that pesky subject-verb agreement again, man, fuck that shit) such (you cannot say "are such" when the items in the list are not categorized similarly[ that MOST other readers will not be able to match their ______ [try something like depth, rigor, insight, etc.] (that goddamn DANGLING MODIFIER SHIT AGAIN WHAT THE FUCK). So here's the final product: They are there because I want readers to understand that what I write, my analytical skills, and the depth with which I am able to scrutinize a situation are all so advanced that other readers will not be able to match their insight/rigor, perhaps even WISDOM or SAGENESS/SAGACITY -- after all, we are being blessed and bathed in your 2nd year law school wisdom. Oh, by the way, I'm pretty sure that "analytical skills" and "the depth which I can view a situation" are the same thing, so that's pretty damn redundant. Lastly, I'd like to point out that this shit is not complicated or advanced grammar. I don't know jack shit about English grammar. This is the crap that the SAT tests high school students with; like 50% of the reading section in the SAT involves misuse of dangling modifiers and subject-verb agreement. Your writing is just so childish that I am able to pick problems out without knowing anything but the barest modicum of English grammar. Nobody gives a shit if you list your credentials. You didn't list your credentials, you trumpeted them to the forums in horribly stilted English and then threw out random gems like this crap I have friends much much smarter than me but that's not the point. For example, I've done work for a barrister who did their BCL in Oxford through a Rhodes Scholarships, then to Harvard for their LLM. I know people who rejected Goldman Sachs to work in the law firm I plan to join. I have friends who are geniuses in Finance having graduated from Stockholm School of Economics. There are even posters here who are moving onto the bar or working as patent attorneys (god those guys get paid a lot). I simply claim that I am a law student with good marks and firms seem to think I know what I'm doing. From that, I believe I could do a good job analysing the issue of matchfixing. I don't know why people expect me to be anything but honest here. That's completely fucking irrelevant and you try to weasel this crap into everything you've posted. This is like someone saying "hello" to someone else and the other person launching into a list of everything they've done that they consider prestigious. I guarantee you that you'd be laughed out of the room at any job interview if this was how you acted. | ||
| ||
