To apply or not

(Applications Advice, Letters of Recommendation . . . )
amorfati
Posts: 191
Joined: Fri Sep 03, 2010 12:14 pm

Re: To apply or not

Postby amorfati » Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:28 pm

Wow, I just wiki'd it too... I did not even know this was a thing.

Still, getting brought downtown over a tattoo sounds awfully unlikely. I mean, where is this thing, on your forehead?

User avatar
DukeCornell
Posts: 279
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 3:19 am

Re: To apply or not

Postby DukeCornell » Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:30 pm

StillHerexxx wrote:There is a certain school, in a certain state, I want to apply to. They sent me an application fee waiver too, so that is helpful. The issue is, I have a certain affiliation I guess you could call it that would make me instantly get put into a certain file in that state and city. Is it worth applying? I think it could be counter productive, because it is a good school, but could fuck the whole becoming a lawyer thing up.


Retake. :lol:

User avatar
DukeCornell
Posts: 279
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 3:19 am

Re: To apply or not

Postby DukeCornell » Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:33 pm

...

User avatar
TommyK
Posts: 1309
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 3:08 pm

Re: To apply or not

Postby TommyK » Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:35 pm

Veyron wrote:Yah, totally not the first time I've fucked up the use of this word. I completely avoid it in legal writing. Maybe if I get enough shit for it on teh interwebs I'll learn.


Ahh, I was actually 80% sure you used it humorously on purpose. As a point of clarification: there is no correct way to use this word since it's not a real word.

BlueDiamond
Posts: 953
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 12:56 pm

Re: To apply or not

Postby BlueDiamond » Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:35 pm

DukeCornell wrote:...


I thought it was funny.. somewhat overused.. but funny

User avatar
Veyron
Posts: 3598
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:50 am

Re: To apply or not

Postby Veyron » Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:42 pm

TommyK wrote:
Veyron wrote:Yah, totally not the first time I've fucked up the use of this word. I completely avoid it in legal writing. Maybe if I get enough shit for it on teh interwebs I'll learn.


Ahh, I was actually 80% sure you used it humorously on purpose. As a point of clarification: there is no correct way to use this word since it's not a real word.


Thats debatable. English doesn't have a standard list of words. People have been using the word "Irregardless" for 100 years. Perhaps the most that you could say is that the word is not conventional, informal, or not commonly used.

User avatar
BrownBears09
Posts: 330
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:48 pm

Re: To apply or not

Postby BrownBears09 » Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:48 pm

Veyron wrote:
TommyK wrote:
Veyron wrote:Yah, totally not the first time I've fucked up the use of this word. I completely avoid it in legal writing. Maybe if I get enough shit for it on teh interwebs I'll learn.


Ahh, I was actually 80% sure you used it humorously on purpose. As a point of clarification: there is no correct way to use this word since it's not a real word.


Thats debatable. English doesn't have a standard list of words. People have been using the word "Irregardless" for 100 years. Perhaps the most that you could say is that the word is not conventional, informal, or not commonly used.


It's not a real word, nor does temporal context have any substance in the argument. Regardless if it's been used incorrectly for 100 years, it doesn't (by default) make it correct. Alright?

User avatar
johnnyutah
Posts: 1709
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 6:00 pm

Re: To apply or not

Postby johnnyutah » Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:52 pm

Veyron wrote:
TommyK wrote:
Veyron wrote:Yah, totally not the first time I've fucked up the use of this word. I completely avoid it in legal writing. Maybe if I get enough shit for it on teh interwebs I'll learn.


Ahh, I was actually 80% sure you used it humorously on purpose. As a point of clarification: there is no correct way to use this word since it's not a real word.


Thats debatable. English doesn't have a standard list of words. People have been using the word "Irregardless" for 100 years. Perhaps the most that you could say is that the word is not conventional, informal, or not commonly used.

Wait, wait, wait. Earlier, you were talking about people having to learn "proper" English, and now you're arguing that usage makes a word valid? Laaaaaaame :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

User avatar
TommyK
Posts: 1309
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 3:08 pm

Re: To apply or not

Postby TommyK » Mon Jan 03, 2011 6:05 pm

Veyron wrote:
TommyK wrote:
Veyron wrote:Yah, totally not the first time I've fucked up the use of this word. I completely avoid it in legal writing. Maybe if I get enough shit for it on teh interwebs I'll learn.


Ahh, I was actually 80% sure you used it humorously on purpose. As a point of clarification: there is no correct way to use this word since it's not a real word.


Thats debatable. English doesn't have a standard list of words. People have been using the word "Irregardless" for 100 years. Perhaps the most that you could say is that the word is not conventional, informal, or not commonly used.


I understand your implicit argument that language is dynamic by nature and words are frequently entering and exiting common and accepted use, but c'mon - irregardless? If we're going to use an incredibly broad definition of what can and can't be constituted a word, I'd like to humbly submit "uninflammable" to the list. It does after all, convey a pretty easily decodable meaning. Whooops, accidentally hijacked the thread. sorry.

jaestro
Posts: 48
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2010 2:50 pm

Re: To apply or not

Postby jaestro » Mon Jan 03, 2011 6:16 pm

I just learned something new (what straight edge means). I always thought drugs define rock. Straight edge is different.
Regardless, why can't you get the tattoos removed?

User avatar
StillHerexxx
Posts: 325
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 4:58 pm

Re: To apply or not

Postby StillHerexxx » Mon Jan 03, 2011 7:44 pm

Mainly I wouldn't want to. They still mean something to me, and both of my legs, upper arms, and torso have quite a few on them. Would cost too much and suck to have done.

RicketyCricket
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 10:28 pm

Re: To apply or not

Postby RicketyCricket » Mon Jan 03, 2011 10:37 pm

Veyron wrote:
TommyK wrote:
Veyron wrote:Yah, totally not the first time I've fucked up the use of this word. I completely avoid it in legal writing. Maybe if I get enough shit for it on teh interwebs I'll learn.


Ahh, I was actually 80% sure you used it humorously on purpose. As a point of clarification: there is no correct way to use this word since it's not a real word.


Thats debatable. English doesn't have a standard list of words. People have been using the word "Irregardless" for 100 years. Perhaps the most that you could say is that the word is not conventional, informal, or not commonly used.


Nice work refudiating TommyK's argument.

User avatar
BrownBears09
Posts: 330
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 2:48 pm

Re: To apply or not

Postby BrownBears09 » Tue Jan 04, 2011 12:28 am

RicketyCricket wrote:Nice work refudiating TommyK's argument.


Image

User avatar
Veyron
Posts: 3598
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:50 am

Re: To apply or not

Postby Veyron » Tue Jan 04, 2011 12:46 am

BrownBears09 wrote:
Veyron wrote:
TommyK wrote:
Veyron wrote:Yah, totally not the first time I've fucked up the use of this word. I completely avoid it in legal writing. Maybe if I get enough shit for it on teh interwebs I'll learn.


Ahh, I was actually 80% sure you used it humorously on purpose. As a point of clarification: there is no correct way to use this word since it's not a real word.


Thats debatable. English doesn't have a standard list of words. People have been using the word "Irregardless" for 100 years. Perhaps the most that you could say is that the word is not conventional, informal, or not commonly used.


It's not a real word, nor does temporal context have any substance in the argument. Regardless if it's been used incorrectly for 100 years, it doesn't (by default) make it correct. Alright?


Ummmm, actually, a long period of use can make a word "real." Think about it like the common law, if something unconstitutionl is held to be the law often enough and for long enough, it eventually becomes the law. English doesn't have a "supreme court" to kick peoples' asses back into line.

Irregardless :D I still used the word incorrectly.

User avatar
Veyron
Posts: 3598
Joined: Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:50 am

Re: To apply or not

Postby Veyron » Tue Jan 04, 2011 12:52 am

[/quote] I understand your implicit argument that language is dynamic by nature and words are frequently entering and exiting common and accepted use, but c'mon - irregardless? If we're going to use an incredibly broad definition of what can and can't be constituted a word, I'd like to humbly submit "uninflammable" to the list. It does after all, convey a pretty easily decodable meaning. Whooops, accidentally hijacked the thread. sorry.[/quote]

Ironically enough, gas tankers used to have the word "inflamable" painted on the side until oil companies realized that motorists thought the word meant "does not burn" and behaved recklessly around them. They re-labeled them as "flammable." English is a practical language, there is no royal accademy to hold you back, only differenct circles with their own distinct code of acceptable uses.

User avatar
CG614
Posts: 825
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 10:26 am

Re: To apply or not

Postby CG614 » Tue Jan 04, 2011 12:59 am

Veyron wrote:

Ummmm, actually, a long period of use can make a word "real." Think about it like the common law, if something unconstitutionl is held to be the law often enough and for long enough, it eventually becomes the law. English doesn't have a "supreme court" to kick peoples' asses back into line.

Irregardless :D I still used the word incorrectly.


What???? You go to UPenn?




Return to “Law School Admissions Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Yahoo [Bot] and 6 guests