|
On November 16 2011 20:38 Ganfei2 wrote:Since the OP is so arrogant am I allowed to criticize the post? Your English grammar is very poor. If your writing reflects that of the "best and brightest" of Australian high schools then your country does not have a particularly rigorous education system (not to suggest that the USA does, but that's irrelevant, isn't it). Do you see how I said "that of" instead of just "reflects the" in the sentence above? That's because the latter is an example of a dangling modifier. You had dozens of them in your post. Your writing is extremely stilted and pedantic and has no cadence; it reads like a poorly translated foreign computer manual. It is also riddled with fragments: Show nested quote +
The evidentiary burden for both is also quite different. With the latter being easier to prove.
Clarity and coherence in writing are probably two of the most important skills for anyone in any type of legal profession. Obviously, analytical and logical thinking are also of great value in that field (see how I used "are" instead of "is?" That's proper subject-verb agreement, another rule you ignored multiple times). While the continuing over-jargonization of legalese is unfortunate, and many court documents and briefs are comically incomprehensible and elaborate, they still do not display your writing's disregard for the basics of English grammar. Certainly there is a case to be made regarding comprehension vs rule-following, but when someone is trying to prove to us how intelligent they are I think I'm allowed to point out such elementary mistakes.
lol. I mean granted the op is subtly bragging and trying to sound more intelligent, but isn't this exactly what you are doing as well?
|
Lawyers are so lol. Only profession were you can make $ by being good at nothing, having no skills, and drinking every night lol.
|
On November 18 2011 10:19 -_- wrote:
Lawyers are so lol. Only profession were you can make $ by being good at nothing, having no skills, and drinking every night lol.
Oh, come on. I have several lawyers in my family. They work so hard it's completely ridiculous. I think they've earned every penny.
|
Thoroughly, thoroughly owned.
BTW, I am an economics graduate from a top university and I'm modest enough to realise that you wouldn't take an economist to a deserted island over a doctor, engineer, and a hot girl. Also, what kind of scientist do you mean by "scientist"? I thought lawyers pride themselves on precision.
"Hey, I can help you draw supply and demand curves and help you, um, divide your work better? Or start a bank and issue you money and make more money appear out of a balance sheet?" Is not much help.
Much like the legal profession, which, while essential in a big society like that we live in today, is pretty f**king useless on a deserted island. How egotistical do you have to be to believe what you said?
Intelligence doesn't really factor here. There are plenty of chemistry/physics/bio/med/humanities/business students who are in the top 1% of their high schools, and there are plenty of law students at lesser institutions who are not good students at HS. Finally, intelligence takes a back seat to appropriate skills if you are deciding on who to take to said island.
Furthermore, you sound like a douche. I don't want to live on an island with you.
PS Chill's rename of this thread is pure gold
PPS Talleyhooo, <3
|
I love the new thread name
<3 Chill
|
On November 18 2011 10:09 SpoR wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 20:38 Ganfei2 wrote:Since the OP is so arrogant am I allowed to criticize the post? Your English grammar is very poor. If your writing reflects that of the "best and brightest" of Australian high schools then your country does not have a particularly rigorous education system (not to suggest that the USA does, but that's irrelevant, isn't it). Do you see how I said "that of" instead of just "reflects the" in the sentence above? That's because the latter is an example of a dangling modifier. You had dozens of them in your post. Your writing is extremely stilted and pedantic and has no cadence; it reads like a poorly translated foreign computer manual. It is also riddled with fragments:
The evidentiary burden for both is also quite different. With the latter being easier to prove.
Clarity and coherence in writing are probably two of the most important skills for anyone in any type of legal profession. Obviously, analytical and logical thinking are also of great value in that field (see how I used "are" instead of "is?" That's proper subject-verb agreement, another rule you ignored multiple times). While the continuing over-jargonization of legalese is unfortunate, and many court documents and briefs are comically incomprehensible and elaborate, they still do not display your writing's disregard for the basics of English grammar. Certainly there is a case to be made regarding comprehension vs rule-following, but when someone is trying to prove to us how intelligent they are I think I'm allowed to point out such elementary mistakes. lol. I mean granted the op is subtly bragging and trying to sound more intelligent, but isn't this exactly what you are doing as well?
charliemurphy I think it's probably a good idea for you not to try to talk to me, because it hurts my head trying to wrap my brain around how to respond to someone like you. As I explicated later, I don't know anything about English grammar. These are the most basic rules imaginable, and the fact that I can point out the errors is indicative of problems with the statement "I am the top 1-2% of Australian students."
Also, I don't think you know what "subtle" means. As is generally the case when someone writes at anything above a 5th grade level, someone (you) crawls out of the woodwork to suggest that they are "bragging" by being able to do so. I'm trying really hard not to call you stupid, but as you can see I've failed in this last sentence.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On November 18 2011 11:13 Ganfei2 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2011 10:09 SpoR wrote:On November 16 2011 20:38 Ganfei2 wrote:Since the OP is so arrogant am I allowed to criticize the post? Your English grammar is very poor. If your writing reflects that of the "best and brightest" of Australian high schools then your country does not have a particularly rigorous education system (not to suggest that the USA does, but that's irrelevant, isn't it). Do you see how I said "that of" instead of just "reflects the" in the sentence above? That's because the latter is an example of a dangling modifier. You had dozens of them in your post. Your writing is extremely stilted and pedantic and has no cadence; it reads like a poorly translated foreign computer manual. It is also riddled with fragments:
The evidentiary burden for both is also quite different. With the latter being easier to prove.
Clarity and coherence in writing are probably two of the most important skills for anyone in any type of legal profession. Obviously, analytical and logical thinking are also of great value in that field (see how I used "are" instead of "is?" That's proper subject-verb agreement, another rule you ignored multiple times). While the continuing over-jargonization of legalese is unfortunate, and many court documents and briefs are comically incomprehensible and elaborate, they still do not display your writing's disregard for the basics of English grammar. Certainly there is a case to be made regarding comprehension vs rule-following, but when someone is trying to prove to us how intelligent they are I think I'm allowed to point out such elementary mistakes. lol. I mean granted the op is subtly bragging and trying to sound more intelligent, but isn't this exactly what you are doing as well? charliemurphy I think it's probably a good idea for you not to try to talk to me, because it hurts my head trying to wrap my brain around how to respond to someone like you. As I explicated later, I don't know anything about English grammar. These are the most basic rules imaginable, and the fact that I can point out the errors is indicative of problems with the statement "I am the top 1-2% of Australian students." Also, I don't think you know what "subtle" means. As is generally the case when someone writes at anything above a 5th grade level, someone (you) crawls out of the woodwork to suggest that they are "bragging" by being able to do so. I'm trying really hard not to call you stupid, but as you can see I've failed in this last sentence.
Speaking of sounding stilted...
Anyway, this blog has been at best a misguided attempt to apply what you've learned in your field to a specific problem, of which you really know few details, and at worst a pretentious argument from authority whose underlying message is "I'm way above average and have an itch to share this with people in the most abrasive way possible, so listen to me."
|
if this was an AMA then I'm pretty sure you don't need to bother with writing an unrelated essay along with it. Someone who is borderline genius ought to know that.
Might want to reword the title considering you apparently don't, OP.
|
On November 18 2011 12:25 Geovu wrote:
if this was an AMA then I'm pretty sure you don't need to bother with writing an unrelated essay along with it. Someone who is borderline genius ought to know that.
Might want to reword the title considering you apparently don't, OP.
Might want to read the thread considering you apparently didn't.
|
On November 18 2011 12:59 DefMatrixUltra wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2011 12:25 Geovu wrote:
if this was an AMA then I'm pretty sure you don't need to bother with writing an unrelated essay along with it. Someone who is borderline genius ought to know that.
Might want to reword the title considering you apparently don't, OP. Might want to read the thread considering you apparently didn't.
Epic win.
|
ur have some valid point however the big problem was 2 paragraph into the post, ur still talking about your achievement which sounds like a brag rather than ur trying to establish a point. However, i have to say i agree with most of plexa's point as some of yours come out way too arrogance.
|
I think some of you are being a bit ridiculous... I don't see why we're being so mean! I skimmed through this thread on my phone at the airport earlier (so I didn't exactly read every post) and I really think everyone is overreacting.
I kind of feel bad for this guy, I don't think he meant to come off as being an arrogant d-bag. : /
|
lol
This one is still going and the guy abandoned ship a long time ago. You shouldn't be skimming. This entire thread is full of gold. Welcome to the internet!
*
Sammy,
You've done interviews before; I find it hard to believe that you would buy into this load of crap.
Would you actually consider a relationship with an undergrad as pretentious as him? The lad has no tact.
He's like one of those dweebs who tries to grab a girl on the dance floor by grinding up to them, "I'm sort of a big deal." Girl laughs and walks away.
No mystery whatsoever; doesn't quite fit the funny cocky type.
Instead he's a condescending insecure prick with an inflated ego. As Talleyhooo pointed out I'm led to believe he didn't really have to work hard at all and whatever he got was given to him by his relatives or other connections. Then again, the chap hasn't even started working yet. If he truly acts this way online and given his stance on what he thinks about internet forums, which totally contradicts the e-peen he's tried to flaunt before us might I add, then he's obviously full of rubbish.
Don't be so naive and when you get the chance have an actual read through. It might tickle your fancy. =)
|
On November 18 2011 14:04 Porcelain wrote:
I think some of you are being a bit ridiculous... I don't see why we're being so mean! I skimmed through this thread on my phone at the airport earlier (so I didn't exactly read every post) and I really think everyone is overreacting.
I kind of feel bad for this guy, I don't think he meant to come off as being an arrogant d-bag. : /
Yeah he probably didn't mean to, but he did anyway because he is one. And really, anyone who routinely insults their audience while talking themselves up deserves everything they get.
On November 18 2011 05:49 Fuhrmaaj wrote:
In defense of the OP, he has stated that Australian law schools accept children out of high school so if he's still in law school then he's probably not that mature yet. Maybe cut him a little slack guys
Yeah people keep saying this (and getting confused thinking he's 2nd year) but he said he's in his fifth year which means he is 22-23. So, not that young at all.
|
22-23 is still very, very young especially in law school Sub. There are some guys who don't go into law school until much later.
I'm pretty sure this guy isn't even close to his 30s. He painted a pretty big target on his head.
|
On November 18 2011 15:05 StarStruck wrote:
22-23 is still very, very young especially in law school Sub. There are some guys who don't go into law school until much later.
I'm pretty sure this guy isn't even close to his 30s. He painted a pretty big target on his head.
No, I know. I'm just not wanting people to give him the 'well he's not that old' card because they think he's 18/19.
|
On November 18 2011 12:59 DefMatrixUltra wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2011 12:25 Geovu wrote:
if this was an AMA then I'm pretty sure you don't need to bother with writing an unrelated essay along with it. Someone who is borderline genius ought to know that.
Might want to reword the title considering you apparently don't, OP. Might want to read the thread considering you apparently didn't.
I did and was confused as to why the content was completely unrelated to the title.
w/e brohan
|
On November 18 2011 15:12 Geovu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2011 12:59 DefMatrixUltra wrote:On November 18 2011 12:25 Geovu wrote:
if this was an AMA then I'm pretty sure you don't need to bother with writing an unrelated essay along with it. Someone who is borderline genius ought to know that.
Might want to reword the title considering you apparently don't, OP. Might want to read the thread considering you apparently didn't. I did and was confused as to why the content was completely unrelated to the title. w/e brohan
Chill changed the title on page 8. It was originally Coca/Byun Matchfixing - Why Lawyers are Needed.
|
On November 18 2011 15:17 Subversive wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2011 15:12 Geovu wrote:On November 18 2011 12:59 DefMatrixUltra wrote:On November 18 2011 12:25 Geovu wrote:
if this was an AMA then I'm pretty sure you don't need to bother with writing an unrelated essay along with it. Someone who is borderline genius ought to know that.
Might want to reword the title considering you apparently don't, OP. Might want to read the thread considering you apparently didn't. I did and was confused as to why the content was completely unrelated to the title. w/e brohan Chill changed the title on page 8. It was originally Coca/Byun Matchfixing - Why Lawyers are Needed.
herp.
;oooooooooo;
i admit defeat
tho to be fair those particular 8 pages includes a gimassinormous amount of text
|
On November 18 2011 15:28 Geovu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2011 15:17 Subversive wrote:On November 18 2011 15:12 Geovu wrote:On November 18 2011 12:59 DefMatrixUltra wrote:On November 18 2011 12:25 Geovu wrote:
if this was an AMA then I'm pretty sure you don't need to bother with writing an unrelated essay along with it. Someone who is borderline genius ought to know that.
Might want to reword the title considering you apparently don't, OP. Might want to read the thread considering you apparently didn't. I did and was confused as to why the content was completely unrelated to the title. w/e brohan Chill changed the title on page 8. It was originally Coca/Byun Matchfixing - Why Lawyers are Needed. herp. ;oooooooooo; i admit defeat tho to be fair those particular 8 pages includes a gimassinormous amount of text
Because it was about to become Lawyer World War, Australia vs Rest of the World.
Once again, Chill comes to the rescue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
