Anyone else here used to watch Daredevil?

[CleanHands]

32 minutes ago, Diplock said:

I don't know what you're trying to say right now, but I won't get into tit-for-tat because you've already got your opponent for that exchange. And I really think you deserve each other right now, because you're both offering up plenty of fodder.

Hey, fuck you, I said my piece and you've responded to him more than I have. Haha

[CndnViking]

5 minutes ago, Mountebank said:

With respect, I think you may be missing the forest for the trees here. Yes, CH was vaguely rude to you. The important thing to remember is that nobody cares about that.

Yet, there's a lot to get out of this thread, even in the knowledge and experience that CH is offering you, and you seem to be in danger of it going over your head. I think this is what Diplock is, frankly quite gently, suggesting.

Again, the rudeness isn't even the distinction there. FFS, you guys are lawyers, do you really not see the difference between "you think X, but you may change your mind" and "You know X is false and are lying"? I can't believe I'm having to re-explain this over, and over, and over again.

He could give as rude as humanly possible a version of Diplock's "anxiety drives people to change their mind" argument, and it still wouldn't look anything like what he said, cause what he said is there's no "changing our minds" to be done, because we're JUST LYING. The difference between a change of mind and intentional deception is exactly the sort of thing you'd think lawyers would be cognizant of.

Seriously, am I on one of those practical joke shows or something? 

Edited September 27, 2023 by CndnViking

[Diplock]

6 minutes ago, Naj said:

Look man getting fucked on this forum during your first visit is a canon event. I personally wished they were a little more gentle with it, considering your mature background and all - I think that would've resonated better with you but they're used to younger applicants coming in here and spouting all 'this and that'.  Log off for now without saying any more, come back later with a clear head, and re-read the advice you've been given. 

You are an excellent advocate for the value of giving folks a chance to come around. When I came around here for the first time ages ago I thought I knew everything too, and the only difference is there were almost no actual lawyers hanging around and if a real student in law school weighed in that was huge. All the same, I don't know if I would have done better listening to some lawyer who came at me with a truckload of attitude. Maybe.

Anyway, your contributions here and elsewhere are appreciated.

[Mountebank]

7 minutes ago, CndnViking said:

Again, the rudeness isn't even the distinction there. FFS, you guys are lawyers, do you really not see the difference between "you think X, but you may change your mind" and "You know X is false and are lying"? I can't believe I'm having to re-explain this over, and over, and over again.

He could give as rude as humanly possible a version of Diplock's "anxiety drives people to change their mind" argument, and it still wouldn't look anything like what he said, cause what he said is there's no "changing our minds" to be done, because we're JUST LYING. The difference between a change of mind and intentional deception is exactly the sort of thing you'd think lawyers would be cognizant of.

Seriously, am I on one of those practical joke shows or something? 

I know you've been insulted and I sympathize with how uncomfortable that can feel. But, I would just pose this question in light of your very strong reaction to what CH posted: is it possible you're lashing out because there could be a kernel of truth to what he said?

[CndnViking]

2 minutes ago, Diplock said:

You are an excellent advocate for the value of giving folks a chance to come around. When I came around here for the first time ages ago I thought I knew everything too, and the only difference is there were almost no actual lawyers hanging around and if a real student in law school weighed in that was huge. All the same, I don't know if I would have done better listening to some lawyer who came at me with a truckload of attitude. Maybe.

Anyway, your contributions here and elsewhere are appreciated.

*sigh* let me be clear again - the attitude is annoying, but not the problem. The problem is that you're addressing different issues.

You came in with a warning about how people who honestly believe this can be driven to compromise. That's great, I acknowledged you're likely right a lot of the time, and I believe I thanked you for it, but if I missed that, I apologize and thank you now. Even if that same argument had been loaded with attitude, it would have still been a valid and appreciated point.

"These are honest people can change their minds under pressure" and "these people are deliberately dishonest" are not the same argument regardless of what attitude you wrap them in.

[Diplock]

@CndnViking Just so you know, I've given you a couple opportunities to realize that no one actually cares about whether  @CleanHands was mean to you or not, and that isn't remotely what anyone is talking about anymore. As you surely must appreciate, discussions can move through a variety of topics, and considering you're not even the guy who started this conversation your concerns aren't what define it.

I've moved on to ignoring you completely and I'm now addressing other people.

Sarcasm aside, whether someone was mean to you isn't the point. Move on.

[CndnViking]

16 minutes ago, Mountebank said:

I know you've been insulted and I sympathize with how uncomfortable that can feel. But, I would just pose this question in light of your very strong reaction to what CH posted: is it possible you're lashing out because there could be a kernel of truth to what he said?

Possible how, in theory, that someone might think like that? Absolutely.

In reality, about me? No. I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with someone wanting to work in big law. We need people to do that. So if it's what I wanted, I wouldn't feel the need to lie about it. It's just not who I am, and my entire life history shows as much.

I don't agree with the characterization of "lashing out" to begin with, but insomuch as I'm doing so, by voicing my annoyance at his attitude, it's because this is at least the 3rd or 4th thread in which it's been targeted just at me in like 2 days, on top of several I've seen elsewhere, and just being tired of it. It is possible to just find somebody's behavior exhausting without validating it.

There's also a degree of confusion and frustration that so many people are seizing on just the "he was rude" aspect and ignoring the factual distinction at play, which is also mildly trying my patience - but again, I don't think I've said anything unfair or unjustified, or even particularly insulted him, so what "lashing out" are you referring to?

8 minutes ago, Diplock said:

@CndnViking Just so you know, I've given you a couple opportunities to realize that no one actually cares about whether  @CleanHands was mean to you or not, and that isn't remotely what anyone is talking about anymore. As you surely must appreciate, discussions can move through a variety of topics, and considering you're not even the guy who started this conversation your concerns aren't what define it.

I've moved on to ignoring you completely and I'm now addressing other people.

Sarcasm aside, whether someone was mean to you isn't the point. Move on.

Ah so you've moved on from straw men to gaslighting.... cause, ya know, your own last comment at me dealt with literally nothing else but his rudeness, to the point of pointedly ignoring the actual topic.

You're right though, his "being mean" was never the point. In fact I've said that explicitly about 6 times now. That was only ever the topic of one comment directly aimed to him. Everything since has been trying to get the rest of you to "move on" to the point I was actually making, that you keep refusing to even acknowledge.

At this point, I'm starting to wonder if this "getting fucked on the first interaction" that was referred to as a right of passage earlier means some kind of forum-wide prank where a bunch of people get together and see how much they can dodge the actual point before someone gets fed up and walks away.

Edited September 27, 2023 by CndnViking

[CndnViking]

I wonder, if I put a bunch of these nice and close together, if people will actually listen....

20 minutes ago, CndnViking said:

*sigh* let me be clear again - the attitude is annoying, but not the problem. The problem is that you're addressing different issues.

32 minutes ago, CndnViking said:

Again, the rudeness isn't even the distinction there.

45 minutes ago, CndnViking said:

If you think the only distinction between warning someone of a potential change and calling them a liar is that one is "mean", then I dunno how you ever got past the LSAT, cause that's some of the worst difference spotting I've ever seen.

I've given A LOT of benefit of the doubt that people just missed these and seized on the wrong parts of my comments, but there comes a point where the point-missing starts to look pretty deliberate.

Edited September 27, 2023 by CndnViking

[Naj]

13 minutes ago, CndnViking said:

At this point I'm not sure how to take people still pretending my objection is about his rudeness, except as deliberate misrepresentation. 

That's the point, my friend, even though you're on a forum occupied by lawyers, law students, and applicants, this is still a forum and not a court. 

So you should consider the advice you seek in this context - It's going to come with baggage, the advice may be overbroad, more harsh than warranted, or even flat-out offensive. It may address your situation perfectly, or it may not, and that comes down to the fact that the people giving advice are busy and have previously addressed the same concerns raised by other applicants/students more times than you can count. Personalizing the advice to you specifically is an impossible task to do. So instead, general wisdom is passed down in whatever form that may be, rude or not. If you think someone is misrepresenting what you are saying, give them the benefit, and construe it in a way that would make sense given your special circumstance. If you feel that advice still doesn't apply to you, then move on, don't take it personally because it's not at all personal. If you require more information or clarification, then ask. But arguing over minor factual distinctions that miss the main point of the advice being given is usually met with a good fucking here. Trust me, I know. 

Edited September 27, 2023 by Naj

[CndnViking]

49 minutes ago, Naj said:

That's the point, my friend, even though you're on a forum occupied by lawyers, law students, and applicants, this is still a forum and not a court. 

So you should consider the advice you seek in this context - It's going to come with baggage, the advice may be overbroad, more harsh than warranted, or even flat-out offensive. It may address your situation perfectly, or it may not, and that comes down to the fact that the people giving advice are busy and have previously addressed the same concerns raised by other applicants/students more times than you can count. Personalizing the advice to you specifically is an impossible task to do. So instead, general wisdom is passed down in whatever form that may be, rude or not. If you think someone is misrepresenting what you are saying, give them the benefit, and construe it in a way that would make sense given your special circumstance. If you feel that advice doesn't still doesn't apply to you, then move on, dont take it personally because it's not at all personal. If you require more information or clarification, then ask. But arguing over minor factual distinctions that miss the main point of the advice being given is usually met with a good-fucking here. Trust me, I know. 

Yet again that completely bypasses the point to seize on something totally unlike what's happening here.

"You're all just liars and the entire concern is made up" is not advice, or a warning, or help, or anything else you might want to call it that frames it as well-meaning. It just isn't. There's no benefit to be derived of being warned you may one day do what you already intend to do. That's preposterous. There was no "help" being offered, merely an accusation.

Hell, I have answered several comments, like Diplock's original one, thanking them for genuinely offering help - with my only pushback being when they act as if that's a minor reframing of the same point, when it bares almost no resemblance in any way. 

And what's my response? Simply pointing out "changing your mind and having been lying from the start aren't the same thing" - and somehow this makes ME the unreasonable one, and the very underlying nature of these arguments a "minor logical difference"? What? So I tried to clarify - repeatedly - and the efficiency with which people manage to address everything EXCEPT that point honestly defies any logical explanation.

Sure, I supposed I could have - and arguably should have - just given up and chocked it up to "these people just wanna defend their buddy, and aren't being reasonable." But I guess I had loftier expectations for people in and/or realistically interested in, such a logic-driven profession. Shame on me I guess. 😆

Edited September 27, 2023 by CndnViking

[CleanHands]

 

[LMP]

1 hour ago, CndnViking said:

Yet again that completely bypasses the point to seize on something totally unlike what's happening here.

"You're all just liars and the entire concern is made up" is not advice, or a warning, or help, or anything else you might want to call it that frames it as well-meaning. It just isn't. There's no benefit to be derived of being warned you may one day do what you already intend to do. That's preposterous. There was no "help" being offered, merely an accusation.

Hell, I have answered several comments, like Diplock's original one, thanking them for genuinely offering help - with my only pushback being when they act as if that's a minor reframing of the same point, when it bares almost no resemblance in any way. 

And what's my response? Simply pointing out "changing your mind and having been lying from the start aren't the same thing" - and somehow this makes ME the unreasonable one, and the very underlying nature of these arguments a "minor logical difference"? What? So I tried to clarify - repeatedly - and the efficiency with which people manage to address everything EXCEPT that point honestly defies any logical explanation.

Sure, I supposed I could have - and arguably should have - just given up and chocked it up to "these people just wanna defend their buddy, and aren't being reasonable." But I guess I had loftier expectations for people in and/or realistically interested in, such a logic-driven profession. Shame on me I guess. 😆

I won't comment on the debate or discussion that's happened here, but I did want to say something regarding your last point. 

I'm a third year law student, I don't really have any input on most of the discussion that would be more valuable than the words of actual lawyers, but the "logic" point reminded me of something. 

A lesson I learned early on (and keep learning it seems) is that sometimes there isn't any logic to things and learning to deal with that is crucial. If you'll indulge a story, I'll give you an example. 

I was in court last week, the last session of a case that had been dragging on all summer. We knew that a particular issue would rear it's head that day and I had prepared an argument complete with fairly straightforward case law supporting it. Opposing counsel didn't have anything like that and made, quite frankly, a baseless argument (trust me, for once this isn't sour grapes). Judge decided to agree with them. Now, was this logical? No, not at all! We chatted off the record and even he was shocked it went his way. But there's no point fighting it, the decision had been made and we had to adapt to get the most value we could out of the situation as it was. 

And this kind of thing happens all the time (especially at tribunals, adjudicators love to just make stuff up) but you can't get caught up in trying to argue a point that has already been passed by. I think it's pretty clear how this applies here's. Maybe you're right in a cosmic sense, maybe you're right in a very literal sense, the point is it doesn't matter. I'm not saying concede or roll over whenever you are disgareed with, but learning to be "flexible" might pay dividends down the line. It is something I personally find really hard, but like I said, it seems an important skill! 

[Phaedrus]

Part of what's happening here, I think, is an interpretation of Diplock and CleanHands' posts as amounting to, "anyone that chooses BigLaw but says they actually want to practice people-centred/social justice law is a liar and bullshit artist."  I don't think that's what they meant, but seeing it that way can be forgiven because of, erm, the packaging and delivery. But it's also because you're choosing to frame the conversation as a series of personal attacks and are responding accordingly. You're digging your heels in and are relying on similar fallacies you're accusing them of using. 

The "lesson" woven in the thread is that admits, 1Ls and more have a tendency to permit themselves to live and move through their legal careers - and, more importantly, their lives - in a state of self-delusion, denial, or immaturity and they need to carefully consider what seem like basic questions. The problem with law students or anyone saying they want to choose the 'virtuous life' but must, by circumstance, choose financial comfort (until debs or paid off or whatever) is that the deficiencies in thinking and thought-action incongruence are palpable to everyone that's considered those things deeply and seriously.

It's natural for a person to get their back up when they're confronted in that way. Why? Because everyone - especially law students and lawyers - think of themselves as intelligent, thoughtful, reflective, self-aware, morally "right", and congruent, and now there are a bunch of people saying that, in fact, there are significant flaws that undermine the moral righteousness of saying "I wish I could do the good thing". Others have bluntly called it bullshit, but it's simple immaturity - by avoidance, inability, or choice. Law students and lawyers are generally smart people, so we can eliminate inability. 

Now, those in the trenches tend to have jaded, cynical views of those claiming to share the same perspective, values and drive as they do. The why is easy here; doing the work requires sacrifice and the bottom line is that those who say they want to but don't have chosen not to make that sacrifice, "we are not the same" sorta thing. I'm one of the ones in trenches and the gross income of the people I serve is, on average, less than $16,000/yr. I earn a modest salary and, if I'm honest, I'd do it for less because the work means a lot to me and the people mean a lot to me, and also to my colleagues and support staff. It's thankless and mostly awful, so I find meaning and significance in the ethics and greater purpose of what's largely a Sisyphean task. I tend not to get caught up on people saying they wish they could do what I do but for yadda yadda yadda because, again, those who truly want to, do. I trust others see the virtue signaling for what it is. 

Part of answering those basic questions is understanding that when words and actions conflict, a person is judged - and they must judge themselves - by their actions. What a person do can and will undermine moral virtuosity if it's inconsistent with the values they're telling everyone they have. It's immature because allowing the inconsistency to exist suggests the person doesn't identify the problem in the first place, they're avoiding because of the implication of the having to confront the problem, or they refuse to recognize it. Being generally smart people, it's easy to understand why users are going to respond harshly to a law student or lawyer that's failed to identify the problem, and if we're smart people it's easier to assume the person is simply avoiding it or refusing to see it as an issue at all. 

Again, the lesson is to seriously consider those questions and adjust current and future decisions accordingly, and to ensure they are consistent with what you want to do and why. The wisdom is that relieving yourself of living an inconsistent life/lying to yourself is an incredibly important stepping stone in living well (by your own metrics). Heavy handed as the messages might seem, they have your best interests at heart.

And, if someone doesn't want to do that and instead chooses to act like a hero for wanting to do the right thing, they can fuck off. 

[QueensDenning]

This thread was fun to catch up on.

@CndnViking whining about your hurt feelings doesn't add anything to the conversation and it shouldn't be a surprise that you aren't treated with the utmost respect on an anonymous internet forum full of busy lawyers who literally argue for a living. Get over it. 

I think the fundamental point here is that you just don't know what you're talking about. You can convince yourself of whatever virtuous ideals you can imagine about your future legal career at this point, and whether that amount to "lying" to yourself is largely semantics. But it's a ridiculous idea to think your going to work in a large firm busting your ass working 12+ hour days for a bunch of years developing a practice that caters to large institutions that require specialized, technical expertise and then throw all that effort down the drain before you make the real money to go help the poor. 

[Diplock]

As much as I've moved on from debating anyone's hurt feeling here, I find @Phaedrus's take on this interesting and I'll reply in much simpler terms. Leaving aside the philosophy, to an individual person and to the friends and family who care most about them, the individual is indeed an individual. Their story is unique and yet to be written. But to strangers on the Internet they are only one example of a type. And expecting otherwise is unreasonable.

This comes up in admissions threads all the time. Someone insists that despite their bad stats, poor performance to date etc they will succeed in their application and in law school. It's valid, and entirely rational, to say "probably not." That isn't a comment on the individual. It's a comment on the group they belong to. Individual exceptions exist. But the trend is very clear in the opposite direction.

This comes up in legal practice, which is perhaps why lawyers tend to be so abrupt about this. A large percentage of inmates convicted and sentenced for criminal offenses will tell you they are wrongfully convicted. It isn't impossible that's true in any individual case. Wrongful convictions happen. But most of them are wrong or lying. They just are. A lawyer can't function if they treat each case as individual and take each assertion uncritically at face value. They simply must consider the group and the context of the claim.

Anyway, it's actually a great strength of anonymous advice on the Internet that you get treated like everyone else, and not a unique and special flower. If you want to be treated as the hero of your own story, that's what friends and family are for. But being treated that way also fosters unrealistic expectations - as if triumphant success is only a training montage away. In real life, your more likely result is what happens to everyone else. Being reminded of that, by people for whom you are not special, is a service. And getting offended by it, honestly, is really fucking stupid.

[CndnViking]

On 9/27/2023 at 7:33 PM, Phaedrus said:

Part of what's happening here, I think, is an interpretation of Diplock and CleanHands' posts as amounting to, "anyone that chooses BigLaw but says they actually want to practice people-centred/social justice law is a liar and bullshit artist." 

Seriously, this has to be a joke. 

Not once did I voice or imply such an interpretation of Diplock. I said the opposite repeatedly. As for CleanHands it's not just an interpretation. He said it explicitly and more than once. Each of these points has been explained ad nauseum.

There comes a point where this argument can only be made in bad faith, and that was a few repetitions ago, so im done even reading any response founded on this misrepresentation. 

On 9/27/2023 at 9:47 PM, QueensDenning said:

This thread was fun to catch up on.

@CndnViking whining about your hurt feelings doesn't add anything to the conversation and it shouldn't be a surprise that you aren't treated with the utmost respect on an anonymous internet forum full of busy lawyers who literally argue for a living. Get over it. 

The fact that this forum is full of people that argue for a living is exactly why it's so disappointing that not one response has been faithful to the material it addresses. It has nothing to do with "butthurt feelings." If you think your childish insults are "adding anything to the conversation", you should check your ego. Or maybe just fuck off. That would also be great.

Edited September 30, 2023 by CndnViking

[Yogurt Baron]

5 hours ago, CndnViking said:

The fact that this forum is full of people that argue for a living is exactly why it's so disappointing that not one response has been faithful to the material it addresses. It has nothing to do with "butthurt feelings." If you think your childish insults are "adding anything to the conversation", you should check your ego. Or maybe just fuck off. That would also be great.

Buddy, look. I'm somewhat sympathetic to you here. You're not wrong that you're getting a bit of a rough ride and that that's not a fun time for you.

But your expectations of lawyers are simply skewed. This thread started with someone saying, "Why aren't lawyers superheroes? They're just, like, people and stuff. That's wack. I want to be a superhero!", and then they got some gentle correction, and then you showed up and, essentially, said, "Hey, me too! I want to be a superhero too! If it doesn't get in the way of making some money!" I mean, come on. That is bound to irritate some people. I know you didn't mean to irritate anyone. I know you have no way of knowing that we've seen hundreds of people say the things you're saying and that almost all of them have been jerks, and that that mitigates how much of the benefit of the doubt you're going to get. But here we are.

CH is abrasive, sure. Nobody's disputing that, least of all him. But he's actually out there using his skills as a lawyer to help actual people, not jerking off to what a saint he's going to be if he doesn't choose to get rich instead.

And then this whole vein through your posts that lawyers are supposed to be "logical" and "argue" in the manner that you like...it's simply not realistic. Lawyers are just people. Precise argumentation is not who they inherently are; it's a tool they use at work. Treating an online debate with another human like it's an LSAT question is exactly like saying, "I thought surgeons were supposed to use scalpels, but when I saw a surgeon in a Tim Horton's drive-through, he wasn't being scalpel at all. ☹️"

There's a common element between the "I'm gonna be a superhero" issue and the "why aren't you being sufficiently lawyerly in your responses to me? Fuck off!" issue: the presumption that going to three more years of school somehow makes you be a certain way. It doesn't. It gives you, the human you already are, a credential to do a job - a job, again, that Diplock and CleanHands and several other people who've engaged with you do the hell out of. Does that job change you? Sure, in the way that any life experience changes you - slowly and subtly. You do not pass the bar and then suddenly sprout wings.

I hope this is helpful.

[123]

On 9/26/2023 at 9:28 PM, Naj said:

I was trying to frame this in a more proper way, but I think I'll just come right out and ask it. What exactly are you going to do when you decide to have a family? I mean, what you qualify as "comfortable and secure living" will change once you decide to have and financially account for children, no? Your situation, as you've described it, sounds like you can only really financially support yourself and not accommodate significant expenses associated with having a family. 

So if you can no longer afford to exist on that extreme of public service because there is more than just yourself to care for, are you just no longer a true public interest lawyer as you've described it? I'm being genuine when I ask this. 

 

I make between high five figures and low six figures as a public interest lawyer, and it will likely be low six figures for the near future. As long as I had a partner making at least around the same, I think that we could comfortably support a family. We wouldn’t be super rich. But I still make over the median income on my own, so other families make do with a lot less. 

Edited September 30, 2023 by realpseudonym

[CleanHands]

I can't be the only one who finds it funny that this total crybaby chose "viking" for their handle, right?

[CndnViking]

On 9/30/2023 at 3:30 PM, CleanHands said:

I can't be the only one who finds it funny that this total crybaby chose "viking" for their handle, right?

You mean like how somebody whose literal every comment is being a flagrant asshole is also Mr. Moral High Ground with "clean hands"? 

Irony abounds, it seems.

But really, conflating spotting flawed logic and finding you obnoxious with "crying" is downright MAGA-esque of you. Is your next step calling me a cuck, or whining about participation trophies? 😆

Edited October 2, 2023 by CndnViking

[CndnViking]

On 9/30/2023 at 10:19 AM, Yogurt Baron said:

Buddy, look. I'm somewhat sympathetic to you here. You're not wrong that you're getting a bit of a rough ride and that that's not a fun time for you.

But your expectations of lawyers are simply skewed. This thread started with someone saying, "Why aren't lawyers superheroes? They're just, like, people and stuff. That's wack. I want to be a superhero!", and then they got some gentle correction, and then you showed up and, essentially, said, "Hey, me too! I want to be a superhero too! If it doesn't get in the way of making some money!" I mean, come on. That is bound to irritate some people. I know you didn't mean to irritate anyone. I know you have no way of knowing that we've seen hundreds of people say the things you're saying and that almost all of them have been jerks, and that that mitigates how much of the benefit of the doubt you're going to get. But here we are.

CH is abrasive, sure. Nobody's disputing that, least of all him. But he's actually out there using his skills as a lawyer to help actual people, not jerking off to what a saint he's going to be if he doesn't choose to get rich instead.

And then this whole vein through your posts that lawyers are supposed to be "logical" and "argue" in the manner that you like...it's simply not realistic. Lawyers are just people. Precise argumentation is not who they inherently are; it's a tool they use at work. Treating an online debate with another human like it's an LSAT question is exactly like saying, "I thought surgeons were supposed to use scalpels, but when I saw a surgeon in a Tim Horton's drive-through, he wasn't being scalpel at all. ☹️"

There's a common element between the "I'm gonna be a superhero" issue and the "why aren't you being sufficiently lawyerly in your responses to me? Fuck off!" issue: the presumption that going to three more years of school somehow makes you be a certain way. It doesn't. It gives you, the human you already are, a credential to do a job - a job, again, that Diplock and CleanHands and several other people who've engaged with you do the hell out of. Does that job change you? Sure, in the way that any life experience changes you - slowly and subtly. You do not pass the bar and then suddenly sprout wings.

I hope this is helpful.

That's a whole lot of words to, again, completely avoid the facts of what I said, and frankly I'm tired of repeating myself on it.

And no, I didn't say going to 3 years of school is going to make you a certain way. What I said is that it's baffling that someone can do well enough on a test centered around logic and spotting flaws in arguments, to get into a school where you build skills around spotting flaws in arguments, and work in a field where a major element is finding flaws in arguments.... and then at least 3 or 4 of them now fail to spot one of the most obvious flaws I've ever seen in my life, one which is key in the legal profession. Any lawyer that thinks "they changed their mind" and "they knew better and lied about it", must have literally forgotten the entire concept of intent which even a typical lay person knows is kind of important to law.

So no, I'm not expecting a surgeon to be using a scalpel at Tim Horton's, but I'm sure as hell expecting them to know what one is, and not point to a scalpel and a hammer and tell me "those are the same object." Gimme a fucking break.

[Yogurt Baron]

All right, I was going to write some paragraphs, but I'll let the other guy on the internet have the last word for once in my life. Check it out, everybody. It's a proud day. The Baron's growing up.

[thrill]

OP, if you like daredevil check out the comics sometime. A lot of people will recommend the Miller run for obvious reasons, but I think it's a bit harder to read now that it's aged more. Personally the bendis run is my favourite