LawTalkers

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Ohio (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=31)
-   -   Firms and Salary Information - Ohio (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42)

andViolins 05-09-2003 09:01 AM

Bar Goof Part II
 
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaind...2794149970.xml

From the article:

"The Ohio Supreme Court cranked up the mental anguish for Martin and 27 others who were told last week that they had passed the state bar exam. On Tuesday, however, the court told them to prepare to cancel plans for taking their oaths today because a grading mistake might reduce their passing grades to failure.

After the tests were re-examined, the court told all but one of the 28 yesterday that they had passed."

How fucking sick is this????

You passed!!!

Um, whoa there nelly. Scoring goof. You didn't pass!!! Sorry.

Just kidding, you passed!!!!!!

They should all be shot.

aV

ms. naughty diplomat 05-09-2003 05:05 PM

Bar Goof Part II
 
Quote:

Originally posted by andViolins
From the article:

"The Ohio Supreme Court cranked up the mental anguish for Martin and 27 others who were told last week that they had passed the state bar exam. On Tuesday, however, the court told them to prepare to cancel plans for taking their oaths today because a grading mistake might reduce their passing grades to failure.

After the tests were re-examined, the court told all but one of the 28 yesterday that they had passed."

How fucking sick is this????

its just more evidence to show that you must be sadistic to be a bar examiner.

ms. naughty diplomat

spookyfish 05-10-2003 09:33 AM

Bar Goof Part II
 
Quote:

Originally posted by andViolins
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaind...2794149970.xml

From the article:

"The Ohio Supreme Court cranked up the mental anguish for Martin and 27 others who were told last week that they had passed the state bar exam. On Tuesday, however, the court told them to prepare to cancel plans for taking their oaths today because a grading mistake might reduce their passing grades to failure.

After the tests were re-examined, the court told all but one of the 28 yesterday that they had passed."

How fucking sick is this????

You passed!!!

Um, whoa there nelly. Scoring goof. You didn't pass!!! Sorry.

Just kidding, you passed!!!!!!

They should all be shot.

aV
On a related note - Scenes from the Admissions Ceremony

I had an exceptionally good seat in the second row and observed one of the coldest things I have ever seen in my life.

The candidates stood in line awaiting announcement of their names. Each candidate in line handed a card with their name on it to a woman who introduced each new attorney individually to the audience. After your name was announced, you were instructed to move stage left, where a table was set up containing the certificates issued by the SCOO. Farther left, one of four justices present was waiting to congratulate each candidate. One young candidate after em's name was announced moved to the table. The woman who was handing out certificates fumbled about looking for em's certificate. After an uncomfortable few moments, she picked up an obviously too-floppy-to-contain-a-certificate envelope and handed it to em. Em then proceeded across the stage to accept congratulations and eventually returned to em's seat. Em was sitting close enough to me to where I could steal a glance as em sat back down, and em was obviously close to tears. I guess the Board of Bar Examiners didn't find a way to notify em before the ceremony. Unfuckingbelievable, and clearly unforgivable.

When later in the day someone told me there was a ongoing hostage situation at CWRU, my first reaction was to wonder aloud if it was at the law school. I wouldn't have been surprised if it was. I couldn't imagine something more humiliating after all that everybody there had just been through. I concur, they should be shot, but now that I am sworn to uphold the Constitution and Laws, I cannot advocate such behavior.

spookyfish, attorney-at-law (by the grace of God and the Board of Bar Examiners, apparently)

spookyfish 05-14-2003 11:17 AM

No such thing as a free lunch
 
I find this troubling. Big Brother meets the Lunch Lady.

http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/living/...on/5856733.htm

Spree: Link to article about Akron Bd. of Ed. considering purchase of a system which will allow students to purchase school lunches by registering/reading fingerprints.

Sometimes I think we become too enamored of technology for technology's sake. I mean, the board is seriously considering spending $700 K for this system. Meanwhile, there will be no cost savings, no reduction in labor (likely an increase when you consider they will have to program and maintain the servers needed to make this happen) and the fucking idiots think there's not a privacy issue.

Can someone explain to me how mapping two unique points based upon a person's fingerprint as an identifying mark is any less an invasion of privacy than the fingerprint itself? And who really believes that the fingerprints will be disposed of -- Who's going to supervise that?

The claim is that it will reduce loss of lunch tickets and reduce the "stigma" of kids who get free or reduced price lunches and have to pay with a ticket as opposed to those kids who pay with cash. Hardly justifies the cost, if you ask me. Thoughts?

andViolins 05-14-2003 11:35 AM

No such thing as a free lunch
 
Quote:

Originally posted by spookyfish
I find this troubling. Big Brother meets the Lunch Lady.

http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/living/...on/5856733.htm

Spree: Link to article about Akron Bd. of Ed. considering purchase of a system which will allow students to purchase school lunches by registering/reading fingerprints.

Sometimes I think we become too enamored of technology for technology's sake. I mean, the board is seriously considering spending $700 K for this system. Meanwhile, there will be no cost savings, no reduction in labor (likely an increase when you consider they will have to program and maintain the servers needed to make this happen) and the fucking idiots think there's not a privacy issue.

Can someone explain to me how mapping two unique points based upon a person's fingerprint as an identifying mark is any less an invasion of privacy than the fingerprint itself? And who really believes that the fingerprints will be disposed of -- Who's going to supervise that?

The claim is that it will reduce loss of lunch tickets and reduce the "stigma" of kids who get free or reduced price lunches and have to pay with a ticket as opposed to those kids who pay with cash. Hardly justifies the cost, if you ask me. Thoughts?
My first thought after reading the article was what ways would the kids think of to fuck up the system. They mentioned the Garfield Heights system and the problems of reading the prints of kids with grimy hands. What about kids who will take a pen or a knife or some other object and try to scratch or damage the scanner? Or kids that will try to somehow alter their fingertips (glue?) to try and mess up the system. And if and when the system does crash, what do they do? Is there a back-up or does Betty the lunch lady just stare at the nice touch screen monitor for a few hours and hope that the thing magically fixes itself???

I still don't see why they don't go for some other system like a swipe card. The comment that kids lose the cards is recockulous. Charge the PARENTS a replacement fee on an escalating scale. We'll see how fast it would take for Johnny to stop losing the fucking card when mom and dad are charged $50 for a replacement.

It just seemed to me that the Board members view it as a system that comes from some far off fund that doesn't really mean anything, its cool and they are sold on the idea.

aV

spookyfish 05-14-2003 12:08 PM

No such thing as a free lunch
 
Quote:

Originally posted by andViolins
My first thought after reading the article was what ways would the kids think of to fuck up the system. They mentioned the Garfield Heights system and the problems of reading the prints of kids with grimy hands. What about kids who will take a pen or a knife or some other object and try to scratch or damage the scanner? Or kids that will try to somehow alter their fingertips (glue?) to try and mess up the system. And if and when the system does crash, what do they do? Is there a back-up or does Betty the lunch lady just stare at the nice touch screen monitor for a few hours and hope that the thing magically fixes itself???

I still don't see why they don't go for some other system like a swipe card. The comment that kids lose the cards is recockulous. Charge the PARENTS a replacement fee on an escalating scale. We'll see how fast it would take for Johnny to stop losing the fucking card when mom and dad are charged $50 for a replacement.

It just seemed to me that the Board members view it as a system that comes from some far off fund that doesn't really mean anything, its cool and they are sold on the idea.

aV
Only one board member seems to be a voice of reason here, and I know she's a lawyer.

Not to be inflammatory, but do you buy the "stigma of the free lunch ticket"? First of all, I don't think kids who receive free lunches think about it one way or another. Second of all, the kids who pay cash are paying what, a buck ten? I don't remember too many of us who paid for our lunches razzing or getting pissed at the other kids who had lunch tickets when I went to public high school.

Even if that's true and the kids are stigmatized, so what? Call me crazy, but I don't think shame is such a bad emotion to be familiar with. (Either that's a product of my growing up Catholic or the fact that I have observed several kids who pull atrocious shit and have no sense of either shame or regret after doing so).

Let's say, for instance that you do find it embarassing that you qualify for the free lunches (trust me, the bar isn't that low in terms of income). Is that so bad? Maybe the kid will be motivated more to make something more of himself, since presumably these kids will grow up, have kids of their own, and know what that feels like to be "poorer" and thus want to avoid it. I don't know.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in helping the less fortunate, and I don't always believe that one can always pull one's self up by one's bootstraps and that no one gets where they are without either starting out with advantages, or getting some help along the way, but I also don't think anyone should ever become too comfortable or complacent about receiving the government's largesse, especially in this day and age.

andViolins 05-14-2003 12:55 PM

No such thing as a free lunch
 
Quote:

Originally posted by spookyfish
Only one board member seems to be a voice of reason here, and I know she's a lawyer.

Not to be inflammatory, but do you buy the "stigma of the free lunch ticket"? First of all, I don't think kids who receive free lunches think about it one way or another. Second of all, the kids who pay cash are paying what, a buck ten? I don't remember too many of us who paid for our lunches razzing or getting pissed at the other kids who had lunch tickets when I went to public high school.

Even if that's true and the kids are stigmatized, so what? Call me crazy, but I don't think shame is such a bad emotion to be familiar with. (Either that's a product of my growing up Catholic or the fact that I have observed several kids who pull atrocious shit and have no sense of either shame or regret after doing so).

Let's say, for instance that you do find it embarassing that you qualify for the free lunches (trust me, the bar isn't that low in terms of income). Is that so bad? Maybe the kid will be motivated more to make something more of himself, since presumably these kids will grow up, have kids of their own, and know what that feels like to be "poorer" and thus want to avoid it. I don't know.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in helping the less fortunate, and I don't always believe that one can always pull one's self up by one's bootstraps and that no one gets where they are without either starting out with advantages, or getting some help along the way, but I also don't think anyone should ever become too comfortable or complacent about receiving the government's largesse, especially in this day and age.
If the Board members honestly think that kids watch other kids in the checkout line of the lunchroom to see whether they are using a ticket and are thus on government assistance, then those Board members should immediately resign because of sheer stupidity.

aV

ms. naughty diplomat 05-23-2003 01:41 PM

my god
 
you guys are quiet without me around.

:eek2:

ms. naughty diplomat

ms. naughty diplomat 05-23-2003 01:48 PM

No such thing as a free lunch
 
Quote:

Originally posted by andViolins
If the Board members honestly think that kids watch other kids in the checkout line of the lunchroom to see whether they are using a ticket and are thus on government assistance, then those Board members should immediately resign because of sheer stupidity.

aV
oh come on, mr. violins, we all know that children will use any excuse possible to make fun of other children. having poor parents and having to get assistance to purchase the school lunch is certainally the type of thing that would cause kids to make fun of other kids and kids, especially the really bratty ones will certainally search for ways to make fun of other children. has it really been that long since you have been a child, mr. violins?

ruthie

andViolins 05-23-2003 02:02 PM

No such thing as a free lunch
 
Quote:

Originally posted by ms. naughty diplomat
oh come on, mr. violins, we all know that children will use any excuse possible to make fun of other children. having poor parents and having to get assistance to purchase the school lunch is certainally the type of thing that would cause kids to make fun of other kids and kids, especially the really bratty ones will certainally search for ways to make fun of other children. has it really been that long since you have been a child, mr. violins?

ruthie
I certainly agree that kids can be mean and cruel. And I agree that making fun of a kid because em is poor is an easy target. But I certainly don't think that kids are going to figure this out because some kid is using a meal ticket in the lunch line. Its going to be because of how the kid dresses or spends (or doesn't spend) money outside of school. Kids are mean but lazy. ITs got to be staring them in the face. Tell me, do you even remember what the lunch line in your school looked like? I sure don't. And I sure as hell don't remember whether some kid paid with a card or a coupon or shoved his eye into a beam.

aV

ms. naughty diplomat 05-23-2003 02:30 PM

No such thing as a free lunch
 
Quote:

Originally posted by andViolins
I certainly agree that kids can be mean and cruel. And I agree that making fun of a kid because em is poor is an easy target. But I certainly don't think that kids are going to figure this out because some kid is using a meal ticket in the lunch line. Its going to be because of how the kid dresses or spends (or doesn't spend) money outside of school. Kids are mean but lazy. ITs got to be staring them in the face. Tell me, do you even remember what the lunch line in your school looked like? I sure don't. And I sure as hell don't remember whether some kid paid with a card or a coupon or shoved his eye into a beam.

aV
actually, mr. violins, i do remember what the lunch line at my school cafeteria looked like. actually at my elementary school, everybody had tickets - and the teacher handed them out to people right before lunch so that we wouldn't lose them - you had to buy tickets in advance for the week. also you were stuck with one thing, so if you didn't like what they were serving you would have to pack your lunch. the lunch line was this long counter where they served up the food - at one end was the milk counter, at the other end was the cashier - who at least in the first few years of elementary school's main role was to punch the tickets. of course between the school uniforms and giving everybody lunch tickets it dramatically lowered the ability to tell what kids were poor.

ruthie

andViolins 05-30-2003 01:46 PM

Lawyer Discipline
 
Article in the latest Scene Magazine:

"Off the Hook
When lawyers screw up, they usually swim free."

http://www.clevescene.com/issues/200...l/1/index.html

What struck me about all of the clients who are complaining about lousy lawyers -- why does it appear that none of them sued the attorney for malpractice?

aV

ms. naughty diplomat 05-30-2003 04:36 PM

Lawyer Discipline
 
Quote:

Originally posted by andViolins
Article in the latest Scene Magazine:

What struck me about all of the clients who are complaining about lousy lawyers -- why does it appear that none of them sued the attorney for malpractice?
oh come on, mr. violins. we all know that since judges are all lawyers that suing the attorney for malpractice would be useless because the judges would all protect them. and not only that you would have to hire another attorney to help you and after being so traumatized by their last experience with an attorney that would just add needless pain and suffering to their already destroyed lives :eyeroll:

but seriously, i read the article and it seemed like the author had a particular bias in mind to make the disciplinary system look like it protects bad lawyers. however, since we all paid attention in legal ethics class in law school and of course remember all of those legal ethics rules :rofl: we know better. we know that unless you are doing something extreme like using proceeds from cocaine smuggling to bribe the judge to acquit your client that generally lawyers are allowed a second chance after a signle ethical violation. plus how would these nonattorneys and clients realize how bad it is to even get a public reprimand for an attorney.

ms. naughty diplomat

andViolins 06-05-2003 09:23 AM

A clear sign
 
of the apocalypse

http://www.daytondailynews.com/life/...0604nosex.html

[spree: article about the rise of low-sex or no-sex marriages]

aV

ms. naughty diplomat 06-05-2003 03:19 PM

A clear sign
 
Quote:

Originally posted by andViolins
of the apocalypse

http://www.daytondailynews.com/life/...0604nosex.html

[spree: article about the rise of low-sex or no-sex marriages]

that is one weird article, mr. violins :eek2:

maybe the people involved in those marriages are all closested homosexuals ;)

btw, wasn't refusing to have sexual intercourse with your spouse adequate grounds for annulment under common law?

ms. naughty diplomat


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:54 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com