The Sacred Rules of Gunning. Forum

[stratocophic]

it's so easy to tell the 0Ls from the 1Ls ITT.

truth

Aw, found ourselves another pedestal to look down from, have we? That's nice. I remember doing that sort of thing in the 8th grade.

Identified

[vanwinkle]

it's so easy to tell the 0Ls from the 1Ls ITT.

truth

+1

[superserial]

it's so easy to tell the 0Ls from the 1Ls ITT.

truth

Aw, found ourselves another pedestal to look down from, have we? That's nice. I remember doing that sort of thing in the 8th grade.

Identified

and also, "lolwut?" to his comment.

[dresden doll]

lol you guys are giving him a pretty hard time, but im betting half of you didnt read his whole post either

i actually did, and while his rules arent like the ten commandments or anything (wait, bad example, those get broken all the time), some of them provided some good insighti think a few of his follow-up posts, his profile, are all jokes or him being an e-douche, but his original rules post isnt that bad (yeah i thought accel was hilarious too...esp. given the context)

traydeuce is providing some interesting thoughts as well -- personally, i found both posters informative, or at least they both said things i could learn from for 1L law classes

and i dont know if the OP's rules were "gunning" or not. more like working the system. i thought gunners would do the dumb things as well like give their opinions when unasked for lol.

Not having gone to LS yet, you can hardly know whether OP's advice is actually worth a damn or not.

[Mroberts3]

Sticky?

Best. Flame. Ever.

[traydeuce]

i actually did, and while his rules arent like the ten commandments or anything (wait, bad example, those get broken all the time), some of them provided some good insighti think a few of his follow-up posts, his profile, are all jokes or him being an e-douche, but his original rules post isnt that bad (yeah i thought accel was hilarious too...esp. given the context

Not having gone to LS yet, you can hardly know whether OP's advice is actually worth a damn or not.

It's not. Few professors bump, and to the extent they do, they're not going to do so for answering their generally softball questions. The point of participating in class is to help yourself learn the material, not to impress people. Almost all cases have some kind of ambiguity to them, almost all cases have, at points, somewhat questionable reasoning. These are the things you want to ask questions about. If all you can see in a case is its holding and reasoning, not its flaws or unclarities (making up a word there), you're not going to do so well on exams, because (a) most questions on exams fall in the gray areas that the cases you read aren't going to provide perfectly clear guidance on, (b) if every opinion you read convinces you, if you're not left with some questions every case you read, it's a sign that you're not very good at seeing multiple sides of a legal issue, which is a problem because on exams, you have to know where the weaknesses in your own arguments are, so you can at least acknowledge them and say why you don't think they're fatal to the position you take. A confident "yes, this is a clear-cut case of unilateral mistake" answer won't do so well as a "yeah, there's a pretty strong unilateral mistake argument here, but there are these problems, and one could argue that this is more a matter of constructive fraud or that there wasn't even a contract, but I don't think so and here's why" answer. (That said, you don't want to give tentative answers - you want to ultimately give a confident answer but be aware of the arguments against your answer.) Anyway, to the extent that bumping goes on, it's my view that professors are more impressed by a thoughtful question that shows a lot of understanding of the nuances of the cases than an ability to repeat what a court says when called on.