. Forum

martinriggs · Post by **martinriggs** » Thu Apr 26, 2012 2:27 pm

honestapplicant wrote:If the government tries to bar a woman from becoming president on textual grounds, what governmental purpose is being served?

the purpose being served would be the one that wouldnt have you posting questions about our take home con law exam on top law schools trying to get the answer.

MrPapagiorgio · Post by **MrPapagiorgio** » Thu Apr 26, 2012 2:33 pm

Burned.

uk4220 · Post by **uk4220** » Thu Apr 26, 2012 2:37 pm

So now you're just an IP lookup away from being kicked out of law school.

honestapplicant · Post by **honestapplicant** » Thu Apr 26, 2012 2:38 pm

alabamabound · Post by **alabamabound** » Thu Apr 26, 2012 3:05 pm

martinriggs wrote:
honestapplicant wrote:If the government tries to bar a woman from becoming president on textual grounds, what governmental purpose is being served?
the purpose being served would be the one that wouldnt have you posting questions about our take home con law exam on top law schools trying to get the answer.

Username irony ftw.

Mr. Pancakes · Post by **Mr. Pancakes** » Thu Apr 26, 2012 3:09 pm

honestapplicant wrote:i figured it out thx

you are done.
--ImageRemoved--

TTTLS · Post by **TTTLS** » Fri Apr 27, 2012 12:46 am

Cot damn!

Bildungsroman · Post by **Bildungsroman** » Fri Apr 27, 2012 12:51 am

It's not at all suspicious that you immediately went back and wiped all your old posts. LOL

Sapientia · Post by **Sapientia** » Fri Apr 27, 2012 12:57 am

martinriggs wrote:
honestapplicant wrote:If the government tries to bar a woman from becoming president on textual grounds, what governmental purpose is being served?
the purpose being served would be the one that wouldnt have you posting questions about our take home con law exam on top law schools trying to get the answer.

QFT

jess · Post by **jess** » Fri Apr 27, 2012 12:59 am

so do you go to Duke?

Sapientia · Post by **Sapientia** » Fri Apr 27, 2012 1:04 am

Jessuf wrote:so do you go to Duke?

Funny thing is.. the question isnt that diffiult. Definitely not worth asking on TLS and risking your nuts. I suppose any question isn't worth that; but, still, I think I oculd have come up with a decent answer to that question - and I haven't paid much attention in conlaw this semester.

lobolawyer · Post by **lobolawyer** » Fri Apr 27, 2012 1:12 am

Bildungsroman wrote:It's not at all suspicious that you immediately went back and wiped all your old posts. LOL

tyro · Post by **tyro** » Fri Apr 27, 2012 1:17 am

alabamabound wrote: Username irony ftw.

Yeah..when someone feels like they have to say they're honest or humble in their username you kind of wonder why they thought it was something to be questioned in the first place.

Br3v · Post by **Br3v** » Fri Apr 27, 2012 1:19 am

tyro wrote:
alabamabound wrote: Username irony ftw.
Yeah..when someone feels like they have to say they're honest or humble in their username you kind of wonder why they thought it was something to be questioned in the first place.

Data?

Joke

dabomb75 · Post by **dabomb75** » Fri Apr 27, 2012 1:31 am

haha he wiped every single post he's made. Wonder if someone really wanted to catch this person how hard it would actually be

TTTLS · Post by **TTTLS** » Fri Apr 27, 2012 1:59 am

How terrible would it be if martinriggs was OP's professor? It's like my nightmare to get sniped by a prof. on here.

tyro · Post by **tyro** » Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:06 am

dabomb75 wrote:Wonder if someone really wanted to catch this person how hard it would actually be

Verity wrote:
honestapplicant wrote:
Yes, the obligatory witty TLS response

next
I like how OP has two total posts, but implies a strong familiarity with the ways of TLS. Something's a-brewin'.....

I would say it's someone who had another username on here and then made a new one to post some shit anonomously. I wouldn't be that surprised if f7u12 already knew who it was and made a special file for them

angrybird · Post by **angrybird** » Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:07 am

i always make a point to click on threads that have been renamed "." this one did not disappoint.

Ludo! · Post by **Ludo!** » Fri Apr 27, 2012 2:10 am

angrybird wrote:i always make a point to click on threads that have been renamed "." this one did not disappoint.

+1. Streisand effect

Extension_Cord · Post by **Extension_Cord** » Fri Apr 27, 2012 3:31 am

angrybird wrote:i always make a point to click on threads that have been renamed "." this one did not disappoint.

+2

lobolawyer · Post by **lobolawyer** » Fri Apr 27, 2012 10:33 am

Extension_Cord wrote:
angrybird wrote:i always make a point to click on threads that have been renamed "." this one did not disappoint.
+2

Legendary.

beachbum · Post by **beachbum** » Sat Apr 28, 2012 11:48 pm

See, now I just want to figure out who this is. That's sketchy as hell. Honor code, bro.

ben4847 · Post by **ben4847** » Sat Apr 28, 2012 11:53 pm

edited:

angrybird wrote:i always make a point to click on threads that have been renamed "." this one did not disappoint.

Kikero · Post by **Kikero** » Sat Apr 28, 2012 11:56 pm

ben4847 wrote:Am I the only one who immediately clicks on any thread that has been edited out to a ".", and then looks to see where the OP was quoted?

Nope.

. Forum

.

Re: Con law help?

Re: Con law help?

Re: Con law help?

Re: Con law help?

Register now to search topics and post comments!

Re: Con law help?

Re: .

Re: .

Re: .

Register for access!

Re: Con law help?

Re: .

Re: .

Re: .

Resources to assist law school applicants, students & graduates.

Re: Con law help?

Re: Con law help?

Re: .

Re: .

Register now!

Re: .

Re: .

Re: .

Re: .

Register now, it's still FREE!

Re: .

Re: .

Re: .

Re: .

Seriously? What are you waiting for?