LawTalkers - It was the wrong thread

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)

- The Big Board (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=13)

- - It was the wrong thread (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=573)

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
I am both excited and disappointed by the arrival of our new friend, Mr. Sub-Prime. Excited because of the new blood added to our little community, though PLF does seem to have misplaced the Welcome Package that makes all Newbers feel that this is the welcome and warm place that it could be.

But disappointed that Mr. Sub-Prime and his indiscriminate rage -- the best potential foil for our board since Self-Employed Fluffer -- seems in danger of burning himself out in mere days. Save your rage, Mr. Sub-Prime, and remember that pissing while turning in a circle may keep mean and silly posters like Slave and Hank and Ty at bay for a few minutes, but eventually that Gatorade Rain you drank at lunch will run out, and then you'll be facing reinforcements like Thurgreed and Flinty. And will you have any piss and vinegar left? No. I fear that you will not.

Gattigap

I note that all the "scary" posters you mention are at least nominally male. What is up with that? And no, I am not bitter that I went by The Local for a beer and there were no seats at the bar. Because the new hot bartender said hi when I was leaving, and patted my shoulder. And he's hot. So I'm not bitter. Not. No. He is really quite cute.

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I note that all the "scary" posters you mention are at least nominally male. What is up with that?

If it's any consolation, you were right behind Flinty in the silly and mean competition. Unfortunately, Flinty simply knows, when the situation demands, how to bring the mean.

Quote:

Originally posted by Gattigap
If it's any consolation, you were right behind Flinty in the silly and mean competition. Unfortunately, Flinty simply knows, when the situation demands, how to bring the mean.

I'm not really consoled. You think he's meaner than I am?

I am crushed.

ETA are all the sub-primes going bankrupt?

Quote:

My greatest fear is that his mommy or daddy will check the NetNanny report and put a stop to his antics before the true fun begins.

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I'm not really consoled. You think he's meaner than I am?

I am crushed.

ETA are all the sub-primes going bankrupt?

I have always respected your ability to bring the mean.

Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
I have always respected your ability to bring the mean.

That is quite a compliment coming from you, Mr. tax "off-yourself-soon,-bitch" wanker.

Quote:

I said I was sorry already man. Something about a dude bringing swisher sweets and lite beer to a poker game just sets me off. I'm over it now.

Quote:

Originally posted by SubPrime-Time
Just call them bonuses. Not boni, not bonii, and most certainly not boniis.

Bonuses. It's English. Anything more or less reveals your retarded desire to look more intelligent than you are. Of course, your intelligence is imminently displayed by your rehashing of a very old joke that was never funny to begin with. I guess that makes you both smart and funny. NOT. As a point of fact, you might be the biggest moron to ever post on an associate board and anyone who has read judged.com or jdjive.com would agree that that's saying a lot. Anyone who knows anything about associate compensation knows that, except for a brief anomalous period, NYCBIGlaw sets the compensation standard, so when I ask about salaries going to $190K for first years, it assumes that we are talking about the first tier firms in NYC. As such, staying demographically focused, quarterly bonUSES do not exist in NYC, at least not at any “first tier firms" like Sullivan, Cravath, Cleary, DPW, Wachtell, etc. Firms like WSGR may pay out quarterly bonUSES in Cali, but they also downsized their associate pools by scores of associates in the last five years, had payout plans to encourage first-years to leave and created unreachable hour targets to get bonuses of any kind. Further, to the extent that such bonuses exist at these second tier and lower shops, the word is that they are increments that are laughably small. Like your dick. So small that even the top California firms feel no need to match, and they are no match for NYC to start.

Finally, and take this in the sense of constructive criticism, maybe if had you not spent so much time over those last few years web surfing and reading sites like this, maybe your sadsack ass wouldn't be being desparately looking to dredge up stale unfunny old jokes and would actually be at a place going to $190K, so you could offer us some real info. My suggestion for you is go get your shinebox you mutt.

Penske, thank God... The place was going to shit without you.

Never. Leave. Again.

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I'm not really consoled. You think he's meaner than I am?

I am crushed.

ETA are all the sub-primes going bankrupt?

you're not mean here anymore. you turned nice about 2 jobs ago. It's like once you started regularly firing people at work you didn't have to seek out opportunities to be nasty anymore.

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
That is quite a compliment coming from you, Mr. tax "off-yourself-soon,-bitch" wanker.

Even when you have not had my affection, you have had my admiration.

Quote:

Gattigap
If it's any consolation, you were right behind Flinty in the silly and mean competition. Unfortunately, Flinty simply knows, when the situation demands, how to bring the mean.

According to Ty, Josef Stalin is my homie.

Talk about being hoisted by your own petard.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Talk about being hoisted by your own petard.

Trial lawyers advice segment 207: Never give your opinion on any hypothetical matter. Makes it tough to write a textbook though.

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Trial lawyers advice segment 207: Never give your opinion on any hypothetical matter. Makes it tough to write a textbook though.

What if ((compensation for writing book) + (business gained by writing book) > (business lost by looking foolish at trial because of things in book))?

Quote:

Tyrone Slothrop
What if ((compensation for writing book) + (business gained by writing book) > (business lost by looking foolish at trial because of things in book))?

Intersting theory.

It's very much like the now-famous Plame Theorem:

((compensation for writing book) + (business gained by writing book) + (becoming mainstay on the Hollywood circuit) > (business lost) + (looking foolish at hearing))