|
I don't think this OP belongs in "blogs" either.
Too bad there isn't a forum for "masturbation."
The argument that you present misses the problem of match fixing entirely. In a competition, each player is trying to prove he/she is the best, and a disingenuous match only cheapens the efforts of 1) Those who aren't match fixing (but instead legitimately trying) and 2) The player who ends up winning. This effectively invalidates the tournament/game/competition and then we just have a WWE for video games. And, statistically speaking, less than half of us want to watch half naked men play Starcraft.
You would bring a lawyer to a desert island so when you get fed up with his pretentious ass you can just cannibalize him. It would take longer to starve to death.
|
Hi there Retfan,
I rarely post, but I just couldn't pass up this one. I am a patent attorney in the United States. I graduated from a top 5 US law school in 2006 and am currently a senior associate at my firm. Before attending law school, I was an electrical engineer.
Your posts come across as arrogant and you spend so much time trying to talk down to your audience that you fail to get your point across. I find it extremely difficult to read your posts, and I write patents and contracts for a living. For such a brilliant legal mind, you have a very hard time conveying your arguments. You should work on your brevity.
I do not know the system down there in Australia, but I assure you that your arrogance would not get you far in the US. I have interviewed many law students and I can smell the punks like you the moment they enter reception. I expect that you will be humbled when you enter the real world. Those partners who are schmoozing you right now are going to be treating you very differently when you are a first-year associate.
And to everyone else, not all of us lawyers are dicks. Objectively speaking we are no better than any other occupation at forming and expressing opinions. Please don't judge us all by this clown.
|
Terrible thread, I'd take the doctor, engineer and scientist. I disagree with much of your OP but I'm not going to bother typing it out because it has been covered many times by more intelligent individuals than myself in this thread already.
You should try posting in existing threads for a while instead of creating new ones, the last thread you created was also bad.
|
On November 17 2011 13:31 phiinix wrote:
There are probably 5-10 reasons why a lawyer would be useless on an island, a main one being that contracts can't be made on a island because there's no way to reinforce them. But that's been pretty beaten to death, and I'm pretty sure everyone would still choose to kick out the lawyer. And also to echo the sentiments of most posters here, if you're representative of Australia's top 1-2% and top 4 law firms, I'm not impressed. I don't care if you're Robert Sharpio or Chris Gardner, no one cares about your credentials or sob story. Why should I trust your views? You law background has no implication on the matter. Did you work cases on match fixing in Australia? Then I don't want to hear it.
I'm going to keep this short because I heard from someone who has a top legal mind says words shouldn't be wasted. I fully disagree with your statement that "making a moral argument doesn't mean much in reality". That is one of the driving forces of all sports, and especially true in starcraft2 (due to it's lack of structure and earnings). Integrity, self respect, reputation are some of if not the most important attributes of players. Players without the fans are nothing. True athletes and entertainers know the role of fans and spectators. We pay our money and time to watch. If a league had a 50% match fixing rule, no one would watch. Even if they were fixed in a way to be more entertaining, no one willingly watches a game that isn't "live" in the sense that the next moment is unpredictable. These sound like moral issues to me. And they mean a lot.
And for God's sake it's Coca, not Coco.
Edit: I didn't read all the pages before and my goodness someone has an ego. Look, you're going to post your cool story credentials and then half ass an article/blog without putting substance or thought into it, don't. Throw it out. Have you heard of drafts? Yours didn't make the cut. If you're trying to stir shit up with a poorly written argument and defend it with legal jargon, you're making yourself look like more of a douche. The least you could do is clean up your post instead of defending your already dead argument.
Everyone who watches pro wrestling would care to differ ^^.
|
Interestingly enough, neither player has been denied to perform their job for which they have signed a contract. The only thing that is happening, is that the profile of the job has changed.
You make it sound as if I, an Information Security Management (student), would be able to legally pursue my employer because he wants me to go left instead of right with methods. This is the exact same thing as you claiming that the actions taken by the teams aren't correct.
|
On November 16 2011 18:00 Pandemona wrote:
Hmmmmmmmmmm.
You seem a bright young solicisator in the making, however your overall point seems to be that match fixing isnt a breach of a players contract? And that only silly people get caught and you wouldnt know if people are match fixing if they do it properly on a small scale?
Basicly I understand from his post that he just says :
"They were too stupid to hide it, so because of this drama I will share my ePeen with everyone. Maybe someone strokes it."
Not a good trait for a future lawyer. I know that I wouldn't hire him.
|
Modesty is something which I reserve for real life.
I think most people would agree that society expects people to be humble. Yet I doubt the majority of Harvard and Yale graduates would not believe themselves to be superior to their counterparts who went to lesser universities or have lesser jobs.
Society respects prestige, educational qualifications, and money. Yet it teaches us not to flaunt either aspect. Yes this is true for reality but not so online. For all the lawyers here - see firmspy.
People who think I'm here to show off are simply wrong. As I've mentioned a few times, I'm simply here to put in my two cents and to back it up with my credentials (which are not bad).
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.
|
On November 17 2011 15:01 RetFan wrote:
Modesty is something which I reserve in real life.
I think most people would agree that society expects people to be humble. Yet I doubt the majority of Harvard and Yale graduates would not believe themselves to be superior to their counterparts who went to lesser universities or have lesser jobs.
Society respects prestige, educational qualifications, and money. Yet it teaches us not to flaunt either aspect. Yes this is true for reality but not so online. For all the lawyers here - see firmspy.
People who think I'm here to show off are simply wrong. As I've mentioned a few times, I'm simply here to put in my two cents and to back it up with my credentials (which are not bad).
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.
Lesser universities? Son, you are ignorant as hell, like seriously.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/02/14/110214fa_fact_gladwell
Please don't talk about statistics, rankings, etc, when you clearly have no clue how they work, what they mean, or how they are obtained. Like seriously, I thought the post I made would take some of the wind out of your sails, but I was wrong. There is no slowing down the self-righteous, exuberantly confident zealot.
You obviously don't understand the differences between modesty, pride, and braggartry. I did actually read your response to me, and it certainly doesn't "feed my ego" to "attack" you. That's like suggesting that it feeds my ego to correct a 3rd grader when I'm teaching him how to multiply numbers.
On November 16 2011 21:34 RetFan wrote:Ganfei, I admit there are a lot of grammatical mistakes in my initial post. In fact, I concur that the quality of what I wrote declines gradually as you read through the article. However, I'm slightly bewildered why you feel so inclined to comment on it. I would like to think that someone as intelligent as yourself would understand that this blog is: 1. placed online in TL.net and not a formal legal document or anything that is required to be submitted to be assessed 2. it's much easier to write longer sentences than one which is concise, clear and succinct Point 2, is not an excuse for poor writing and I am aware of that. However, I would bring to your attention that I have two exams next week and I didn't find it necessary to really edit the post for the purposes of making it more coherent. I find that the opening post is sufficiently clear for everyone to understand. Back to your comment, I would suggest that you're not really picking on my actual English skills as you are trying to pedantically find a reason to criticise me. Either that, or you are trying to have a contest to see who has a bigger ****. I could easily reciprocate your condescending tone and make a number of pedantic observations. What about the word rigorous being unsuitable as the modifier to the word eduction. As you probably know, a rigorous education system does not always reflect a good educational system. Take for example the Chinese educational system which focuses on rote learning, which although more rigorous is perhaps less successful when you consider the performance of Qinghua, or Peking University graduates with their peers in Yale or Harvard. Could I also ask you to read Richard Wydeck's book on Plain English for Lawyers, it might help you with your use of nominalisations. For example, using the sentence with the word 'over-jargonisation' together with legalese could be stated 'you should only use legalese when it is required'. See, I can be pedantic like your as well  Or perhaps you can just drop the high horse and realise this is blog which I wrote relatively quickly. And although it might feel good for you to feed your ego by criticising others, it certainly doesn't address the crux of the blog at all. You should also try and loosen your syntax in your writing to sound more colloquial. The best way to do that is to read what you say out aloud. I would polish up what I wrote if I had the time, unfortunately I don't care enough to do so. What I've written is more than comprehensible for the average person to read.
Dude this is so stupid I honestly don't know how to reply.
...
edit: Wait a second, is this snuggles guy legitimately serious? I thought he was a mod's alt making fun of the OP. HAHAHAHA
|
On November 17 2011 15:01 RetFan wrote:
Modesty is something which I reserve in real life.
I think most people would agree that society expects people to be humble. Yet I doubt the majority of Harvard and Yale graduates would not believe themselves to be superior to their counterparts who went to lesser universities or have lesser jobs.
Society respects prestige, educational qualifications, and money. Yet it teaches us not to flaunt either aspect. Yes this is true for reality but not so online. For all the lawyers here - see firmspy.
People who think I'm here to show off are simply wrong. As I've mentioned a few times, I'm simply here to put in my two cents and to back it up with my credentials (which are not bad).
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.
No you have it all wrong. No one really thinks you're here just to brag. It's a lot worse than that. That'd be annoying, but a fairly common failing. What's so sad is that you aren't trying to be a braggart, it just comes out completely naturally. Because that's who you are at your core. And you're unaware of it. So not only are you totally conceited, you also lack any self-awareness.
|
a lawyer would be the least useful person to rebuild a colony. what could they bring to help rebuild that would be more beneficial then what would be lost be excluding one of the others? nothing.
|
Modesty is something which I reserve in real life.
THIS IS NOT A SENTENCE DUDE I CANT GET OVER IT
|
Maybe we're all taking it too hard on the guy. Maybe english isn't his first language?
Modesty is something which I reserve in real life.
See, that's mindboggling. What does it even mean? It's not a sentence at all.
Also, if he has two exams coming up... shouldn't he be studying for them instead of making very lengthy posts on TL?
|
Isn't this guy like 19? 2nd year law student in Australia when law school is not post-undergrad? And he's talking about the "adolescent 14-21 year old garbage?"
Omfg this is the best thread I've seen on TL in years, this is like when monkeyspanker wanted encouragement to steal his grandman's prescriptions LOL
|
On November 17 2011 15:01 RetFan wrote:
Modesty is something which I reserve in real life.
I think most people would agree that society expects people to be humble. Yet I doubt the majority of Harvard and Yale graduates would not believe themselves to be superior to their counterparts who went to lesser universities or have lesser jobs.
Society respects prestige, educational qualifications, and money. Yet it teaches us not to flaunt either aspect. Yes this is true for reality but not so online. For all the lawyers here - see firmspy.
People who think I'm here to show off are simply wrong. As I've mentioned a few times, I'm simply here to put in my two cents and to back it up with my credentials (which are not bad).
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.
I've bolded the problem.
See, people would be making fun of you as much if you had done one of a two things:
(a) not bothered with credentials, because bad news - a lot of us have more impressive credentials than two years of undergraduate education and don't like being talked down to, nor do we open our posts with them
(b) bothered with credentials, but given a decent argument as well
I've shown above that you basically assumed your conclusion by restricting the domain of the debate to something incredibly tiny about which we have very little actual information and then expected people to be impressed. Not only that, but in restricting the domain you dropped out probably the more important part of the conversation: whether what Coca and Byun did was right, as opposed to legal.
Edit: FWIW, restricting the domain of the debate without justification in order to strengthen your points is not uncommon in undergraduate writing. I'm unsure that finding out that the problems with your style of argument are common, though, will comfort you.
|
On November 17 2011 13:45 talleyhooo wrote:
Hi there Retfan,
I rarely post, but I just couldn't pass up this one. I am a patent attorney in the United States. I graduated from a top 5 US law school in 2006 and am currently a senior associate at my firm. Before attending law school, I was an electrical engineer.
Your posts come across as arrogant and you spend so much time trying to talk down to your audience that you fail to get your point across. I find it extremely difficult to read your posts, and I write patents and contracts for a living. For such a brilliant legal mind, you have a very hard time conveying your arguments. You should work on your brevity.
I do not know the system down there in Australia, but I assure you that your arrogance would not get you far in the US. I have interviewed many law students and I can smell the punks like you the moment they enter reception. I expect that you will be humbled when you enter the real world. Those partners who are schmoozing you right now are going to be treating you very differently when you are a first-year associate.
And to everyone else, not all of us lawyers are dicks. Objectively speaking we are no better than any other occupation at forming and expressing opinions. Please don't judge us all by this clown.
LAWYERED.
![[image loading]](http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRWde_Zmkxtp9xzghk931ggwYwP78s0QiXu2HHd-CN77HqjRM26)
|
Hi again Retfan,
You stress your attention to details, yet your posts are riddled with errors. You berate a poster for using unnecessary legalese, yet you used the term "prima facie" in your original post (incorrectly I might add). You tout your credentials, yet you have none.
I bet that you got where you are in life not from hard work, but because everything has been handed to you. Your posts make that pretty clear. Some of your statements are so idiotic that I briefly considered the idea that you might be a troll. More likely you are just naive.
You spout off all this bullshit on here trying to take advantage of what you consider to be an uneducated audience. I think it has become pretty clear that it is you who has a lot to learn.
Also, I find it hilarious that you only have two years of college under your belt. I regularly use Australian counsel to file patent applications for my clients in Australia (Freehills if you have heard of them). I am going to make fun of you quite a bit next time I speak with my colleague there. He is really going to get a kick out of this.
|
P.S. Please tell me you work for Freehills
|
Gee guys, I apologize. I originally was critical of the OP under the assumption that he was a second year student in a postgraduate law program. But apparently the Australian system is such that you can enter law school directly out of high school, and the OP is a second year undergraduate student who doesn't even have so much as an undergraduate degree?! Apparently my assertion that his credentials were laughable was actually a gigantic understatement.
|
Geez, I had friends in law school who complained they try to acculture you to be elitist (with all the accompanying condescension of others and inflated sense of self importance), but surely it can't be as bad as this post seems to suggest.... could it?
A lawyer on an island? cuz you're the most smart of all?
Lawyers require a large number of people in a society organized in a very particular way to even be relevant. Deserted island skills they are not.
|
Well, this is certainly a  thread for the ages.
As for the deserted island problem, it seems a little vague. What type of doctor/engineer/scientist are we talking about? Although to be honest, after reading this thread, even if the guy was a software engineer I would take him over the lawyer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
