Closing Thoughts Forum

[jayn3]

On TLS you are hearing opinions about the law from people who have never practiced it. Sure, you get clues about study techniques and the likes but I'd love to see some actual attorneys with 15-20 years experience discuss some of the issues raised. I had opinions about medicine, medical school and training back when, but they differ slightly after 20 years in practice. I think some of the practical advice on TLS (typing speed, organization, etc.) have been outstanding, but let opinions be what they are and consider where they are coming from.

Why would an actual attorney's opinion about a law school exam be more relevant than a current student's? I thought this thread was only about practical advice.....

i wish advice on prep/exams/etc only came from current or recent students. there are too many 0Ls (myself included) who have opinions and feel the need to share.

in general, though, i do think TLS would benefit from the input of practicing attorneys. there are a ton of TLSers who have no clue what areas of law are interesting to them. i almost did a backflip of joy when the family law guy took questions the other night.

[prezidentv8]

On TLS you are hearing opinions about the law from people who have never practiced it. Sure, you get clues about study techniques and the likes but I'd love to see some actual attorneys with 15-20 years experience discuss some of the issues raised. I had opinions about medicine, medical school and training back when, but they differ slightly after 20 years in practice. I think some of the practical advice on TLS (typing speed, organization, etc.) have been outstanding, but let opinions be what they are and consider where they are coming from.

Why would an actual attorney's opinion about a law school exam be more relevant than a current student's? I thought this thread was only about practical advice.....

i wish advice on prep/exams/etc only came from current or recent students. there are too many 0Ls (myself included) who have opinions and feel the need to share.

in general, though, i do think TLS would benefit from the input of practicing attorneys. there are a ton of TLSers who have no clue what areas of law are interesting to them. i almost did a backflip of joy when the family law guy took questions the other night.

Well...yeah. I agree.

[Thane Messinger]

All -

It's good to see this discussion take a substantive turn. To be honest, I was looking forward to quitting. Again.

As is often the case, we tend to argue past each other. As to burnout, if one is going to burn out it will be because of poor study habits. Whether it takes six months or nine months or ten to get there is irrelevant. Moreover, I argue that nearly all of the techniques that most students use are worthless (meaning that they have a low benefit-cost) or worse (meaning that they lead to burnout).

Here's a recent post from a 0L, who was getting advice from a 3L:


"What should I do about my friend? I tried to share some of my study techniques with her. She strongly disagreed with many things I said. I think she was even offended by certain things I said, such as C's are failing grades in law school, reading casebooks is highly inefficent to learn the law, etc. I also believe the more I talk to her, the more I become unsure of myself. If she was another 1L, I would probably ignore things, but her '3L' status does seem to make her look like she knows what she's doing. She tells me she still has trouble reading all her cases. Does this sound like she's hopelessly lost? even as a 3L?"

[Note: This 3L admitted to . . . "being confused all the time, but still was able to pass all her courses by practicing revising outlines and issue spotting on past exams."]


I fully agree that we are each responsible, and these opinions are just that. Here is my response to the 0L, written about five minutes ago, as it happens:


"I'm glad your wrote about your friend. The short answer is, "back off." Be friendly, and listen, but don't flog the issue. She's given you her input, and it's not just pointless but also riling to continue the discussion. On the substance, she does indeed deserve deference for her 3L status. Where I think law school is so harmful is that nearly everyone is operating in a bubble. You mention that she "[was] confused all the time, but still was able to pass all her courses by practicing revising outlines and issue spotting on past exams." The key words are "confusion" and "pass." Do you see the issue? Are those even remotely good enough? Nearly everyone suffers from this, so of course it's hard to see that it could be any other way. And, yes, even 3Ls can be lost, which should be answer enough. (This is not at all a criticism of her personally.)

There is a strong degree of faith in breaking this pattern. That is where the initial success comes in. Read LEEWS, focus on your outline, and by the time you're at the middle of the semester, start taking practice exams, for real. Not "work through them," but TAKE them, timing yourself short. If you can find one or two who are serious about their approach too, that's even better. How to find out? Carefully. Keep your conversations light, and do NOT discuss the different study patterns throughout the semester. That's part of the bad habit to break. Each law student is an adult, and must make his or her own way. I'm truly sorry the majority couldn't be helped, but to try to do so will only rebound, negatively, on you. (And when you are #1, it would be even more negative.) Be careful here."


To each, I will restate the original advice: Don't just accept the common wisdom. Think about what you're about to enter, and how.

Thane.

PS: A "C" is indeed a failing grade, in this market and for most law students. And, yes, a strong ability to type is valuable, as is an ability to leave sloppy-ish grammar in an exam alone. The best exams are not fine literature. (Or even gross literature, for that matter.) What they ARE is something that might have been written by, yes, a real lawyer.

On TLS you are hearing opinions about the law from people who have never practiced it. Sure, you get clues about study techniques and the likes but I'd love to see some actual attorneys with 15-20 years experience discuss some of the issues raised. I had opinions about medicine, medical school and training back when, but they differ slightly after 20 years in practice. I think some of the practical advice on TLS (typing speed, organization, etc.) have been outstanding, but let opinions be what they are and consider where they are coming from.

Why would an actual attorney's opinion about a law school exam be more relevant than a current student's? I thought this thread was only about practical advice.....

i wish advice on prep/exams/etc only came from current or recent students. there are too many 0Ls (myself included) who have opinions and feel the need to share.

in general, though, i do think TLS would benefit from the input of practicing attorneys. there are a ton of TLSers who have no clue what areas of law are interesting to them. i almost did a backflip of joy when the family law guy took questions the other night.

[Thane Messinger]

Mistergoft -

You've noted several important truths, but I would suggest that the conclusions are exactly the opposite.

Of course one must know the prof. This doesn't go to "prof v law" but rather to an essential element of thinking like a lawyer: if the law makes sense, so too will the prof. With that understanding, which will be hindered the way most law students go about it and aided with a wise framework (not "study"), it becomes easier to know which elements must be mentioned and dismissed (because they are tangential) and which are the real point-getters. The open secret is that nearly every exam will test just about every major element, in one way or another (even if mentioned just to show that you know why it doesn't apply). Thus, the question presented, not the prof, is the key--although the prof's prejudices come into play in another way: which elements get highlighted, and how, and which lines are not emphasized.

The irony here is that the main of my advice does not concern preparation. That is helpful, but in many ways is yet another distraction. The real problem is that law students operate in a tar pit of bad study habits, which at best do not provide the most helpful, most efficient ways to do well in exams.

Thane.

Shut up, Thane.
Shut up, MURPH.

Feel free to reply with a substantive argument of why I shouldn't prep. I live in Hawaii and there are plenty of beaches and swimming pools I could spend the next five weeks sitting near, if you could convince me.
Thane is an author. He is not here to figure out how to get into law school or how to get a good job. He has done that. He is dropping some advice on his area of expertise: the stuff he has written a couple of books about. We get occasional law professors and occasional big law lawyers here who give advice now and then. There is nothing controversial about that.
The only thing that seems to stir people's anger is the suggestion of pre-law prepping. TLS members go berserk about it. Even when numerous people with high GPAs state that they prepped, the party line is that prepping is a waste of time. Any deviation from that is considered a flame.
I am a 0L, ignorant and stupid in the ways of the law. Help me. explain why I should close my E&E, Delaney and other books and relax. I am willing to listen.

Because 1L is a marathon and people burn out. If you're prepping substantially it is likely this will happen to you. It really doesn't matter how well prepared you are for an exam when you're bleary eyed and can't focus because you're so overworked and mentally exhausted that you can't begin to string together a coherent sentence less one that articulates a comprehensive understanding of the law.

In addition, having additional knowledge can be confusing and sometimes even detrimental. Your professor is going to test you on his or her understanding of a particular, minuscule body of a much more vast area of law (ESPECIALLY in property). The professor will have a certain understanding of rules that may differ dramatically from the way the E&Es or the hornbooks lay out the rules. If you have prepped, you may subconsciously attempt to force the outside source's understanding of the law on your professor and you will be penalized for that. In addition, you may focus on an area of the law that isn't necessarily as important to the question as you think; professors write nuanced and complex exam questions, which warrant various arguments that may be outside the scope of the course or, alternatively, have a certain legal issue that is vastly more important to speak about depending on the focus areas of your class. I made this fatal error on the exam I received my worst grade on in law school; I spoke about an obscure issue extensively and this caused me to miss points on another issue that was more relevant and important to what our class had focused on. Finally, not only may you focus on something that is obscure and your professor only discussed tangentially, you might focus on something that is completely outside the scope of your course. When you've prepped, you're going to have knowledge that will be completely irrelevant to your course; I prepped for two courses and this is absolutely true. You're going to have a LOT of unnecessary knowledge, actually, at least in the sense that the knowledge is applicable to a particular course. So, bearing that in mind, when finals come around and you're frantically pouring through your notes and checking them against treatises, you WILL be confused about what law was derived from what sources. Here's a lesson: what the professor says IS THE LAW. It doesn't matter if you disagree. The reason for this is that 1) no one knows what the law is anyways and 2) the professor is trying to assess your ability to understand law - ANY law - and while they will try to teach you the law as it exists in practice, you'll find that in many areas it is hard to say with any sort of precision EXACTLY what the law is. Therefore, if you're talking about how the rule against perpetuities blocks a certain individual from receiving the future interest that would have been created by a contingent remainder, and your professor hardly even spoke about the RAP, your hard work will ultimately be futile as the professor glosses over the paragraph of writing you just effectively wasted. And don't say "oh, well, I'm too smart and discerning, this will never happen to me," because it will; law school is confusing and when you're at the end of a course you're trying to cling to any source of knowledge you can, including the ideas that you're ultimately going to recall from all that unnecessary prep you did.

Oh, one more thing: prepping is absurd because YOU CAN LEARN EVERYTHING YOU NEED TO KNOW IN A SEMESTER. People say prepping is unnecessary because, ultimately, it is. You'll hear time and time again from every professor you have that you don't need any outside knowledge of the law to do well in their course. This is absolutely true; I know many successful students who never even picked up a treatise. The guy who booked my contracts class never read anything outside of the material presented in the book; he read the cases and the restatement and received a book award. You can too, although, with all the prepping you're doing, you'll likely be too burned out and baffled by the time you take exams that you'll be contending for Bs, not book awards.

hth.

[MD/JD2B]

Why would an actual attorney's opinion about a law school exam be more relevant than a current student's? I thought this thread was only about practical advice.....[/quote]

An actual attorney's opinion, not on actual exam at a particular school, may give some pespective on the study of law, even if it is anecdotal. Most of the postings are are opinions nothing more or less of law school. But I guess that is what people on this board want--comments from students and and that's it. Now get back to your normal posts.

[vamedic03]

Why would an actual attorney's opinion about a law school exam be more relevant than a current student's? I thought this thread was only about practical advice.....

An actual attorney's opinion, not on actual exam at a particular school, may give some pespective on the study of law, even if it is anecdotal. Most of the postings are are opinions nothing more or less of law school. But I guess that is what people on this board want--comments from students and and that's it. Now get back to your normal posts.[/quote]

There is a large disconnect between law school and legal practice - I think all of us students on here can tell you this. But, what we can tell you, having experienced recruiting and gearing up to go through OCI, is that law school performance is very, very important for getting a job. All of us on here can tell you what 1L is like, what worked for us, and what didn't work for us. Further, we can tell you about those experiences based on just having gone through them. If you don't want that, then there's no point in hanging around these forums. I think everyone is rather open about that.

[Thane Messinger]

Why would an actual attorney's opinion about a law school exam be more relevant than a current student's? I thought this thread was only about practical advice.....

An actual attorney's opinion, not on actual exam at a particular school, may give some pespective on the study of law, even if it is anecdotal. Most of the postings are are opinions nothing more or less of law school. But I guess that is what people on this board want--comments from students and and that's it. Now get back to your normal posts.

There is a large disconnect between law school and legal practice - I think all of us students on here can tell you this. But, what we can tell you, having experienced recruiting and gearing up to go through OCI, is that law school performance is very, very important for getting a job. All of us on here can tell you what 1L is like, what worked for us, and what didn't work for us. Further, we can tell you about those experiences based on just having gone through them. If you don't want that, then there's no point in hanging around these forums. I think everyone is rather open about that.

It is understandable but quite misleading to go down the "law school has little to do with law practice" road. First, law exams ARE very much like law practice. This is one of the few things law exams do test reliably. (Falsely narrow, true, but they are accurate.) Second, since law exams are the only things that count, what's the basis for the thought that law practice has no relevance? Third, every law school guide that I know of is written by former law students. (And--personal prejudice here--having re-read many, years out of law school, the bad advice comes from those who are still in school, written "by and for" law students.) This is not intended as in insult; it is simply the result of the groupthink mentality that results, prima facie, in so much misery in law school. This does not have to be. Agree or disagree, I stand by my admittedly antagonistic old-fart view that the problem with law school for most law students is the students themselves. Not their qualities, but their understandably bad approach to learning the law. (I get angry when I think of the authors who have perpetuated these bad tactics. Case briefing, color coding, overstudying, gunning . . . you must be joking. THIS is what is wrong with law school, and why law students face such a dreary, disorienting time. With these bad habits, and with the all-too-real pressures on law students today especially, how CAN law school be fun?)

Fourth, is there not more than an element of reverse snobbery here? That a real live attorney and prof simply cannot know what law school is really like--the "practical" side? We're dumb? No, that can't be it. We're stuffy? Well, true. We're too far removed? Maybe. Except that some of us are in the classroom too, albeit at the front. Hmm. Finally, isn't this all just a bit silly? Prepare, don't prepare. What I encourage all law students to do is to think. My version of "think," however, is the opposite of a macho mental joust. That's where law students go wrong, because law school is no longer a mental pissing contest. Sorry for the not-terribly-appealing mixed metaphor. What law school is is a new world, and one that rewards different skills than any student has ever used before, in quite the same way. What law school is, also, is a prelude to a professional world that is very, VERY different from school (of any kind). This is why the games played in law school are, at best, a major distraction.

I know that what I write cuts very much against the grain. But you're smart. Really smart. Consider the field of psychology, and the possibility and contours of cognitive dissonance. It's YOUR life and livelihood on the line, not mine. Where does that analysis take us?

Thane.

[Mr. Matlock]

I'm not sensing any closure.

[prezidentv8]

I'm not sensing any closure.

[jayn3]

I'm not sensing any closure.

mods?

[MD/JD2B]

Nice discussion; in my medical school, we had substantial hospital contacts from year one and a physician with at least 10 years experience to help sort out the world of medical school from the world of medicine. I found it immensely helpful and so have my students in subsequent years. If such contacts are not provided to you in law school, take the time to single out the prof who you seems would be an appropriate mentor. Don't stick to one person. Show up where 1ls would be unlikely to do so (within reason) and learn from experience. I had to hire a real estate lawyer recently and after business was conducted we talked for about an hour and a half (being that we were both in our 40s helped, no doubt). I found it very valuable (and these were not billable hours! He loved to have the chance to talk about his work)

[RUQRU]

... I found it immensely helpful and so have my students in subsequent years. If such contacts are not provided to you in law school, take the time to single out the prof who you seems would be an appropriate mentor. Don't stick to one person. Show up where 1ls would be unlikely to do so (within reason) and learn from experience...

Great suggestion. I plan to set up a meeting with some of the folks in our legal department to get their thoughts about what they do.

[summoner]

in general, though, i do think TLS would benefit from the input of practicing attorneys. there are a ton of TLSers who have no clue what areas of law are interesting to them. i almost did a backflip of joy when the family law guy took questions the other night.

Well most of our input is not appreciated, namely the shell-shock of those of us who are practicing and see how amazingly bad the legal market is, and are continuously surprised at the venomous response we receive here when we try to warn all of you.

[mallard]

I had a girlfriend once who would say she was going to break up with me and then stand and wait for me to say "No, no, don't go!" Thane is that girl for TLS.

[jpfrawg]

Just my opinion:

Substantive law (E&E's, etc): 50 hrs 0L summer prep = 3 hours 1L week 1 work = 1 hr 1L week 10 work

[prezidentv8]

Why would an actual attorney's opinion about a law school exam be more relevant than a current student's? I thought this thread was only about practical advice.....

An actual attorney's opinion, not on actual exam at a particular school, may give some pespective on the study of law, even if it is anecdotal. Most of the postings are are opinions nothing more or less of law school. But I guess that is what people on this board want--comments from students and and that's it. Now get back to your normal posts.

There is a large disconnect between law school and legal practice - I think all of us students on here can tell you this. But, what we can tell you, having experienced recruiting and gearing up to go through OCI, is that law school performance is very, very important for getting a job. All of us on here can tell you what 1L is like, what worked for us, and what didn't work for us. Further, we can tell you about those experiences based on just having gone through them. If you don't want that, then there's no point in hanging around these forums. I think everyone is rather open about that.

It is understandable but quite misleading to go down the "law school has little to do with law practice" road. First, law exams ARE very much like law practice. This is one of the few things law exams do test reliably. (Falsely narrow, true, but they are accurate.) Second, since law exams are the only things that count, what's the basis for the thought that law practice has no relevance? Third, every law school guide that I know of is written by former law students. (And--personal prejudice here--having re-read many, years out of law school, the bad advice comes from those who are still in school, written "by and for" law students.) This is not intended as in insult; it is simply the result of the groupthink mentality that results, prima facie, in so much misery in law school. This does not have to be. Agree or disagree, I stand by my admittedly antagonistic old-fart view that the problem with law school for most law students is the students themselves. Not their qualities, but their understandably bad approach to learning the law. (I get angry when I think of the authors who have perpetuated these bad tactics. Case briefing, color coding, overstudying, gunning . . . you must be joking. THIS is what is wrong with law school, and why law students face such a dreary, disorienting time. With these bad habits, and with the all-too-real pressures on law students today especially, how CAN law school be fun?)

Fourth, is there not more than an element of reverse snobbery here? That a real live attorney and prof simply cannot know what law school is really like--the "practical" side? We're dumb? No, that can't be it. We're stuffy? Well, true. We're too far removed? Maybe. Except that some of us are in the classroom too, albeit at the front. Hmm. Finally, isn't this all just a bit silly? Prepare, don't prepare. What I encourage all law students to do is to think. My version of "think," however, is the opposite of a macho mental joust. That's where law students go wrong, because law school is no longer a mental pissing contest. Sorry for the not-terribly-appealing mixed metaphor. What law school is is a new world, and one that rewards different skills than any student has ever used before, in quite the same way. What law school is, also, is a prelude to a professional world that is very, VERY different from school (of any kind). This is why the games played in law school are, at best, a major distraction.

I know that what I write cuts very much against the grain. But you're smart. Really smart. Consider the field of psychology, and the possibility and contours of cognitive dissonance. It's YOUR life and livelihood on the line, not mine. Where does that analysis take us?

Thane.

--ImageRemoved--

[jayn3]

in general, though, i do think TLS would benefit from the input of practicing attorneys. there are a ton of TLSers who have no clue what areas of law are interesting to them. i almost did a backflip of joy when the family law guy took questions the other night.

Well most of our input is not appreciated, namely the shell-shock of those of us who are practicing and see how amazingly bad the legal market is, and are continuously surprised at the venomous response we receive here when we try to warn all of you.

i would like to apologize on behalf of fellow 0Ls who happen to be douchebags sometimes most of the time. please contribute whatever advice you can. it's sorely needed around here.

to be fair, though, most of us know the economy is shittastic. but maybe if we can learn something occasionally from you guys, we won't sound like such complete tards when we try to interview. or at least i can hope.


and mallard: win.

[MURPH]

I had a girlfriend once who would say she was going to break up with me and then stand and wait for me to say "No, no, don't go!" Thane is that girl for TLS.

Seriously, what is the problem here? Thane gave pretty reasonable answers to a couple of posts on a thread that he started. What is with all of the hostility?
A couple of months ago I suggested that he check out TLS because he has written books for law students and young lawyers, he taught in law schools and currently teaches (I think he is still teaching, don't quote me on that) and he is a practicing lawyer. Maybe he is a little heavy on recommending his own books but he is pretty quick to recommend others when the discussion calls for it. His posts maybe a bit longer than most but they are substantive. I am kind of embarrassed that I recommended TLS to him now.
So Mallard, spell it out for me. What is the problem? Why, on a site for law students, are we being rude to a guy who taught law and wrote and published books for law school students? What do we gain by running him off the site?

[Cleareyes]

I had a girlfriend once who would say she was going to break up with me and then stand and wait for me to say "No, no, don't go!" Thane is that girl for TLS.

Seriously, what is the problem here? Thane gave pretty reasonable answers to a couple of posts on a thread that he started. What is with all of the hostility?
A couple of months ago I suggested that he check out TLS because he has written books for law students and young lawyers, he taught in law schools and currently teaches (I think he is still teaching, don't quote me on that) and he is a practicing lawyer. Maybe he is a little heavy on recommending his own books but he is pretty quick to recommend others when the discussion calls for it. His posts maybe a bit longer than most but they are substantive. I am kind of embarrassed that I recommended TLS to him now.
So Mallard, spell it out for me. What is the problem? Why, on a site for law students, are we being rude to a guy who taught law and wrote and published books for law school students? What do we gain by running him off the site?

He comes off as a huge blowhard. He throws up walls of text like it was still the 07 housing boom and he's king of the WoT construction industry. He mystifies law school over and over claiming that it will make you think in ways you never have before and all that other shit that intimidates people and does not accurately describe the experience of many posters here who have attended law school.

The goal is not to run him off the site but to curb his pompous epic poem posts and to fight back against what we believe to be inaccurate information delivered for self-serving purposes (Nobody ever sold a book by claiming that law school was pretty much like college only you kind of have to do the reading and everything comes down to a final exam that will be delivered in a somewhat novel format, so make sure to read sample exams and sample answers that did well so you're familiar with the format before you take the test.)

[vamedic03]

I had a girlfriend once who would say she was going to break up with me and then stand and wait for me to say "No, no, don't go!" Thane is that girl for TLS.

Seriously, what is the problem here? Thane gave pretty reasonable answers to a couple of posts on a thread that he started. What is with all of the hostility?
A couple of months ago I suggested that he check out TLS because he has written books for law students and young lawyers, he taught in law schools and currently teaches (I think he is still teaching, don't quote me on that) and he is a practicing lawyer. Maybe he is a little heavy on recommending his own books but he is pretty quick to recommend others when the discussion calls for it. His posts maybe a bit longer than most but they are substantive. I am kind of embarrassed that I recommended TLS to him now.
So Mallard, spell it out for me. What is the problem? Why, on a site for law students, are we being rude to a guy who taught law and wrote and published books for law school students? What do we gain by running him off the site?

People take offense because he's trying to sell his own product and push his own product.

[jayn3]

I had a girlfriend once who would say she was going to break up with me and then stand and wait for me to say "No, no, don't go!" Thane is that girl for TLS.

Seriously, what is the problem here? Thane gave pretty reasonable answers to a couple of posts on a thread that he started. What is with all of the hostility?
A couple of months ago I suggested that he check out TLS because he has written books for law students and young lawyers, he taught in law schools and currently teaches (I think he is still teaching, don't quote me on that) and he is a practicing lawyer. Maybe he is a little heavy on recommending his own books but he is pretty quick to recommend others when the discussion calls for it. His posts maybe a bit longer than most but they are substantive. I am kind of embarrassed that I recommended TLS to him now.
So Mallard, spell it out for me. What is the problem? Why, on a site for law students, are we being rude to a guy who taught law and wrote and published books for law school students? What do we gain by running him off the site?

People take offense because he's trying to sell his own product and push his own product.

...and because he writes overly long, overly pompous posts that are obnoxious to slog through because they are so poorly written. this forum is supposed to be law students' break from difficult reading.

[mallard]

The problem is that he is
(1) stupid,
(2) often wrong,
(3) egotistical,
(4) condescending,
(5) incomprehensible,
(6) untrustworthy,
(7) stupid,
(8) a fucking stupid moron
(9) who silly 0Ls cotton on to
(10) and then get all up in arms
(11) when people like me say he's dumb
(12) - which he is -
(13) to justify their own silly 0L thoughts.

[270910]

The problem is that he is
(1) stupid,
(2) often wrong,
(3) egotistical,
(4) condescending,
(5) incomprehensible,
(6) untrustworthy,
(7) stupid,
(8) a fucking stupid moron
(9) who silly 0Ls cotton on to
(10) and then get all up in arms
(11) when people like me say he's dumb
(12) - which he is -
(13) to justify their own silly 0L thoughts.

I've read his book, it's actually fairly decent overall. Your ad hominims are probably out of line. He often comes across quite regrettably online though, I'll grant you that much.

[doyleoil]

Your ad hominims are probably out of line. He often comes across quite regrettably online though, I'll grant you that much.

it's "ad homonyms"






(no, jk, it's actually "ad hominems")

[Mr. Matlock]

The problem is that he is
(1) stupid,
(2) often wrong,
(3) egotistical,
(4) condescending,
(5) incomprehensible,
(6) untrustworthy,
(7) stupid,
(8) a fucking stupid moron
(9) who silly 0Ls cotton on to
(10) and then get all up in arms
(11) when people like me say he's dumb
(12) - which he is -
(13) to justify their own silly 0L thoughts.

This makes it seem like he should fit in just fine here.