citrustang wrote: bk1 wrote:
Fark-o-vision wrote:citrusstang, right or wrong, is the only one showing the spirit of a litigator. Everyone keeps arguing about pesonal responsibility, or damaging others, or right and wrong. Citrusstang just identified an ambiguity in both the word and the rules and determined that procedural action should be taken against it.
So you're saying that I should go litigate that the sky is red because I believe it to be true in the face of massive evidence that I am wrong?
Ever seen the sun set over Arizona?
No, I'm saying the term was ambiguous. To a degree that it should be removed, well, I think I'm with the others on this one. However, if I remember the wording accurately (and I may not) either interpretation is valid and makes sense in common usage. Applying the rule to the game didn't immediately clear it up, because the first question could be answered in a manner that led one to believe they had obtained a correct result.
I don't think it will be thrown out. I don't even really think it should. However, Citrusstang identified a possible inconsistency in the test and is pursuing it because, for no other reason, the rules matter. He hasn't been acting like a baby (like most of the rest), and has stated over and again that he'll drop it if LSAC doesn't see a problem.
That people are so dedicated to breaking this down is interesting. Let the man pursue his cause.
Basically my argument comes down to this--most of you are arguing about what is "right" or "wrong", or what is "good" or "bad". Citrusstrang is the only one focused on what may or not be valid within the rule set. Often attorneys are going to do wrong, or bad, things. Our job will be to identify what can and cannot be done within the rule set.