Logo; Sorority Life
 

Leagleaze

I think I get it. An FB'er that don't know shit ahout shit when it comes to prestige firms can run on at the mouth about them and the people that slave there. But someone cracks back about how that FB'er don't actually know shit about shit -- that's a no no. Heh, heh. if someone doesn't want to be proven ignorant on a subject, they shouldn't talk about it.

I guess that approves the following booshit lies by FB'ers:

I remember an FB'er that didn't know shit about Wachtell saying the firm had lots of leverage and bonuses the same as everywhere else.

I remember an FB'er arguing against the no brainer position that pro bono is less than useless to transactional associates.

I remember an FB'er arguing that bankruptcy work everywhere was the same despite an AmLaw survey of bankruptcy laterals on their motivations for lateralling.

Logo; Sorority Life
 

What it says is that the person asked me to remove it, I've already said why, I'm not going to provide more details and compound the problem. So, I deleted it.

People need to be careful, if someone has never discussed here what kind of firm or organization they work for, it is improper for anyone to discuss that information on this board.

There are other ways, I am sure to express your feelings on the reliability of the person's information. For example, you could say hey person, you are full of shit. That works.

I strongly suggest you aim your anger in the correct place.

Logo; Sorority Life
 

Originally posted by leagleaze

If I'd thought em would think it was outable, I wouldn't have said it or at least not said it the way I did. I guess the lesson for the day is that if a poster shits on a board, you can only rub their nose right after. If you do it later, someone might think it's outable.

Apropos of nothing, you and other female posters have peculiar notions about writing.

If someone replies to my post by purporting to talk to "people" "lurkers" "the community" or some other group of people, or if someone replies to my post by using the first person plural to purport to speak for "the community", I'm amused by the limitations of their skill with rhetoric. It reminds me of the tawdry effects Martin Luther King used in his sermons etc whom he, rightly, perceived as susceptible to cheap rhetorical sleights of hand. That's if women write that way to have an effect on their audience, if they write that way to objectify the audience so it's easier for them to put their feelings away and attack it or to empathize with the audience so it's easier for them to reach out to it, I think alcohol would be faster and more effective.

Also, I don't curse cuz I'm angry, I curse cuz I like to. Kinda like some of the verbal crutches you and other female posters employ.

edited for who/whom mistake

Logo; Sorority Life
 

Huh?

tm

posting styles
 

Coup: "Apropos of nothing, you and other female posters have peculiar notions about writing....[edited to omit a lot of babbling that makes no sense on a first reading]"

You are wrong. You are wrong because you are assuming as you did with my post that I was speaking to you but trying to minimize what I was saying, or making it seem as if it wasn't directed to you. In this case, it wasn't directed only to you. It was a reminder to everyone to not do what you did.

Likely in some cases people are also not speaking directly to you or the person they are responding to, but are speaking generally.

I was speaking to everyone, and explaining that they need to be careful in this regard. I really have no choice but to speak for and to the community from time to time. I am after all the one people are going to come to when they have a problem like this, or in the case of this board, em could have gone to Even.

When I was speaking just to you, I made it clear I was doing so, i.e. your post was obnoxious, focus that elsewhere and not at me. And despite your statement to the contrary, it was still obnoxious.

Next time, if you prefer, I will translate. I will say directly Coup, you moron, don't do that shit, people complain to me and I have to edit it and it irritates me. Then I will make a nice paragraph break and say, and everyone else, this applies to you too. You don't do it either. Actually, I won't do that, it is a waste of space, which is what your stereotyping is, by the way, as well.

Cause you know, people shouldn't stereotype. It makes baby jesus sad.

Coup: "I'm amused by the limitations of their skill with rhetoric."

I'm amused by your lack of skills in reading comprehension. And aren't you here guilty of exactly what you are accusing women of doing? You wanted to accuse me, for some reason, of speaking broadly when you felt I was speaking only to you. By doing it the way you did it, you were doing exactly what you wanted to accuse me (and other women it would seem) of doing. Trying to minimize your own criticism, by speaking to women in general.

Logo; Sorority Life
 

Leagl, this may just be a tech-glitch, but when you edit your posts, the little edited by _____ at _____pm doesn't show up. Maybe just a small point, but, if one doesn't see a pre-edit post, and assumes the post-edit post was the original, but then sees another's reaction to the pre-edit post, one may be left wondering to what that person is reacting.

Logo; Sorority Life
 

If you are confused because you think Coup was responding to something I have since deleted, never fear, that did not occur. The responses he wrote were responses to the final versions of my posts, which remain unchanged.

My original post was slightly different, you probably saw it, but Coup never did, because he was not on the board to see it before I changed it shortly after I wrote it the first time.

When I edit my posts it tends to be immediately, I don't go back and edit them after someone has responded. You actually have the same ability to immediately edit your posts within the first few moments you have written them, without a change being noted. It isn't a glitch, we simply can set how much time passes before the edited stamp shows up. I forget how long it is set at, but probably a couple of minutes.

Also keep in mind if someone quotes someone else (including me) the quote won't be altered by the fact the original post was changed. That happened in this case, Coup quoted me and responded, so you can see exactly what he is responding to.

So your confusion, if any, results from what he said, not because something was altered.


Edited to show that after a few minutes pass, the edited by does in fact show up for me, and also to say I checked it is set at 3 minutes. If you edit a post before 3 minutes it won't show you edited it. We can change that to immediate though if that makes people uncomfortable. Edited again to say hmm, I notice it didn't always show up before, maybe it was a glitch or maybe it was just off. Oh well.

Blocked (cross-posted to get a broader perspective)
 

Make it so you can't see avatars. It will cut down on what you are downloading (the option is in your user cp.)

Logo; Sorority Life
 

I wanted to see if MR was right about someone having delusions of persecution and crying wolf, so I baited leagl into confirming, twice.

I'll stop now because leagl's a nice person and doesn't deserve to be hassled. And it does look like I annoyed her because she deleted the second confirmation and deleted an insult or two she'd thrown at me.

Logo; Sorority Life
 

You baited me perfectly into responding, so bravo, but what does that have to do with a certain someone's delusions or lack thereof?

And hey, if I don't deserve to be hassled, dont' hassle me :P

And by the way, good morning.

Yup, I deleted them, but before you responded, not after. Well it wasn't actually an insult, it was telling you I wasn't suggesting you put your anger in the right place but telling you to do it. I'm not sure what you mean by a second confirmation though. Of course, I'm not actually sure what you mean by a first confirmation. If I didn't give you enough information about why I edited the post why didn't you just ask me?

And you did irritate me, yes.

Revisiting a Classic
 

I saw "Get Carter" again last night. The real one. The 1971 version with Michael Caine, not the silly remake with Sly. I was reminded why it is that Noir is truly a superior film genre, and British noir at its best is really the state of the art. Caine deserved his knighthood for that performance alone.

That's all. Back to your coffee.

Wine Rec
 

The Bonny Doon Vinyard's Ca'del Solo Big House Red is pretty damn good for its price ($8-12, depending on the store and whether it's on sale). It's very fruity, but in a way that isn't overpowering. It's a nice summer cook-out wine with a nice piece of lamb or a steak cooked on the grill.

Interestingly, the vinyard has recently started using screw caps for it's wines, for ecological reasons.

http://www.bonnydoonvineyard.com/pr_screwcap_intro.html

Wine Rec
 

I had the Rancho Zabaco Dancing Bull Zinfandel again last night, and it's good, especially at $8.99/bottle, which is what I found it for at our (usually pricey) local supermarket. (Wine.com is selling it for $10.99, $118.69/case.)

http://a21.g.akamai.net/7/21/2389/b5...els/53674l.jpg

Thanks for the recommendations, all. New things to try.

Diabetes question
 

A Red Sox coach had a diabetes-related seizure on the field yesterday.

(from espn.com)

My question is, how did they know that he was suffering from not enough sugar, and not too much? I thought I'd been told that you don't necessarily know which it is, and that you could be doing harm from giving someone sugar in this sort of situation.

Diabetes question
 

Diabetics, except the most fragile of us, seldom just pass out from an excess of sugar. A "diabetic coma" brought about by hyperglycemia, or an excess of sugar, is far more rare than passing out due to hypoglycemia, or not enough blood sugar. A quick jolt of sugar would have been enough to prompt a positive response to hypoglycemia, while it wouldn't have had any measurable effect on someone suffering from hyperglycemia.

Also, convulsions and rapid onset are far more indicative of hypoglycemia than diabetic ketoacidosis, which tends to be characterized by slower onset and more prolonged less severe symptoms.