lsat makers should remove LGs

User avatar
Lonagan
Posts: 338
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:03 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby Lonagan » Sun Oct 17, 2010 3:29 pm

SchopenhauerFTW wrote:I remember screwing up on game involving a student's course load, with two statistics classes offered at different times and one of these never being with other subjects but the other one being okay and sometimes neither of them being okay but one could be taken if the kid took history but never the other but what about learning Russian or Japanese and holy crap I'm way over my time limit for this one game why did I choose to do this game second I have two games left dammit dammit dammit


I remember doing that game on a PT and feeling like I finally got games.

SchopenhauerFTW
Posts: 1793
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 10:22 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby SchopenhauerFTW » Sun Oct 17, 2010 3:33 pm

Lonagan wrote:
SchopenhauerFTW wrote:I remember screwing up on game involving a student's course load, with two statistics classes offered at different times and one of these never being with other subjects but the other one being okay and sometimes neither of them being okay but one could be taken if the kid took history but never the other but what about learning Russian or Japanese and holy crap I'm way over my time limit for this one game why did I choose to do this game second I have two games left dammit dammit dammit


I remember doing that game on a PT and feeling like I finally got games.


I pulled through after a few minutes, but it was the first time for me after sufficient practice that I began acting as if I had never seen the LSAT before. I was bummed about it for a day. If I had just properly noted the different timed classes I would have been okay.

User avatar
Blumpbeef
Posts: 3814
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2010 3:17 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby Blumpbeef » Sun Oct 17, 2010 3:36 pm

I hated that one.

Thank the gods for LSAT Blog. Once I learned his method of diagramming with arrows instead of trying to turn everything into a linear game, I finally felt comfortable with the LG section. You can knock out those questions in 10-30 seconds, no hypothetical or anything. It is just a shame that I didn't learn this earlier.

User avatar
IAFG
Posts: 6665
Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2009 1:26 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby IAFG » Sun Oct 17, 2010 3:47 pm

D. H2Oman wrote:
IAFG wrote:
BruceWayne wrote:
You're an utter dumbass. The part that you edited out was the most relevant to the entire sentence (then again that's about the only way you could ever argue with someone with any sort of success---by using strawmans). You're reasoning is analogous to when Fox News edited out the NAACP speech of Shirley Sherrod--not surprising as you seem to share a lot of the same viewpoints and reasoning ability of Fox News. In case you are not aware, Logic games are actually a lot closer to discreet mathematics in many of their principles (I even had a PHD in math tell me this after he glanced over some games). If you think juggling finite numerical issues is the same thing as keeping up with how many different torts this person may have committed, you are an idiot. HTMFH

omg you're d brooks aren't you



holy hell, I think you're right. What a snipe by IAFG.

URM attending UVA were big hints, but what tipped me over was using his friend's accomplishment to buy himself credibility.

User avatar
BruceWayne
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 9:36 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby BruceWayne » Sun Oct 17, 2010 7:02 pm

IAFG wrote:URM attending UVA were big hints, but what tipped me over was using his friend's accomplishment to buy himself credibility.


It may behoove you to stop attempting to solve, analyze, or reason, as it seems to quickly lead to you coming up with bullshit. Definitely not D Brooks. Although even if I was that doesn't amount to some sort of insult, now if you said I was Iafg that would have been a hell of a put down.

"Using his friend's accomplishment to buy himself credibility"? WTH are you talking about, unless you're assuming I'm "friend" with Shirley Sherrod; that's very plausible considering you seem to be one of those ignorant types who equates all Blacks as the same---the real "tip" you used in your "deduction" that I'm D Brooks. I'm still attempting to figure out what you even mean by credibility considering this is an online anonymous internet forum where the topic in the thread is purely opinion based. Then again I notice you have a very hard time distinguishing between opinion and fact.

User avatar
D. H2Oman
Posts: 7469
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:47 am

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby D. H2Oman » Sun Oct 17, 2010 7:13 pm

BruceWayne wrote:
IAFG wrote:URM attending UVA were big hints, but what tipped me over was using his friend's accomplishment to buy himself credibility.


It may behoove you to stop attempting to solve, analyze, or reason, as it seems to quickly lead to you coming up with bullshit. Definitely not D Brooks. Although even if I was that doesn't amount to some sort of insult, now if you said I was Iafg that would have been a hell of a put down.

"Using his friend's accomplishment to buy himself credibility"? WTH are you talking about, unless you're assuming I'm "friend" with Shirley Sherrod; that's very plausible considering you seem to be one of those ignorant types who equates all Blacks as the same---the real "tip" you used in your "deduction" that I'm D Brooks. I'm still attempting to figure out what you even mean by credibility considering this is an online anonymous internet forum where the topic in the thread is purely opinion based. Then again I notice you have a very hard time distinguishing between opinion and fact.



outed

User avatar
BruceWayne
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 9:36 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby BruceWayne » Sun Oct 17, 2010 7:16 pm

D. H2Oman wrote:outed


Clearly, as we are both Black. You're pretty sharp; before I know it you'll have figured out that I'm on welfare too!

User avatar
Jack Smirks
Posts: 1340
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 5:35 am

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby Jack Smirks » Sun Oct 17, 2010 7:19 pm

BruceWayne wrote:
D. H2Oman wrote:outed


Clearly, as we are both Black. You're pretty sharp; before I know it you'll have figured out that I'm on welfare too!

Why are you trying to turn logic games into a racial issue? Take that shit to the URM forum.

User avatar
BruceWayne
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 9:36 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby BruceWayne » Sun Oct 17, 2010 7:24 pm

naterj wrote:
BruceWayne wrote:
D. H2Oman wrote:outed


Clearly, as we are both Black. You're pretty sharp; before I know it you'll have figured out that I'm on welfare too!

Why are you trying to turn logic games into a racial issue? Take that shit to the URM forum.


IAFG and H20 man are not discussing LG, they've gotten into this weird thing where they are trying to say that every Black male poster is the same one. Not surprising considering they think all Blacks are the same, excluding that one Black guy they find really cool---Clarence Thomas. Interesting how you view racial issues as "shit" that should be taken to the URM forum though.

User avatar
shanemahsa
Posts: 655
Joined: Thu Sep 24, 2009 10:46 am

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby shanemahsa » Sun Oct 17, 2010 7:25 pm

IBTL

User avatar
Jack Smirks
Posts: 1340
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 5:35 am

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby Jack Smirks » Sun Oct 17, 2010 7:43 pm

BruceWayne wrote:
naterj wrote:
BruceWayne wrote:
D. H2Oman wrote:outed


Clearly, as we are both Black. You're pretty sharp; before I know it you'll have figured out that I'm on welfare too!

Why are you trying to turn logic games into a racial issue? Take that shit to the URM forum.


IAFG and H20 man are not discussing LG, they've gotten into this weird thing where they are trying to say that every Black male poster is the same one. Not surprising considering they think all Blacks are the same, excluding that one Black guy they find really cool---Clarence Thomas. Interesting how you view racial issues as "shit" that should be taken to the URM forum though.

So now you're calling me racist simply for asking you to tone it down a bit? You have an interesting defense strategy, I'm guessing law
school will work out great for you.

09042014
Posts: 18282
Joined: Wed Oct 14, 2009 10:47 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby 09042014 » Sun Oct 17, 2010 7:52 pm

Thread of the month clearly. IAFG I owe you a beer.

User avatar
BruceWayne
Posts: 2032
Joined: Sat Aug 14, 2010 9:36 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby BruceWayne » Sun Oct 17, 2010 8:37 pm

naterj wrote:So now you're calling me racist simply for asking you to tone it down a bit? You have an interesting defense strategy, I'm guessing law
school will work out great for you.


So you're making the assumption that I consider you a racist because I pointed out the fact that you used the term "shit" in regards to URM issues? You have a interesting level of RC, I'm guessing that law school won't be your cup of tea.

User avatar
Lonagan
Posts: 338
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2009 12:03 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby Lonagan » Sun Oct 17, 2010 8:46 pm

Let's talk about race and see what happens!

Tainted_Praise
Posts: 196
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 3:20 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby Tainted_Praise » Sun Oct 17, 2010 9:06 pm

Lonagan wrote:Let's talk about race and see what happens!



How much longer until this thread gets locked.... Anyone want to place any bets?

User avatar
Jack Smirks
Posts: 1340
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 5:35 am

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby Jack Smirks » Sun Oct 17, 2010 9:07 pm

BruceWayne wrote: I consider you a racist because I pointed out the fact that you used the term "shit" in regards to URM issues.

I'm not racist dude. I just asked you to take it to another forum.

Tainted_Praise
Posts: 196
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 3:20 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby Tainted_Praise » Sun Oct 17, 2010 9:10 pm

naterj wrote:
BruceWayne wrote:
D. H2Oman wrote:outed


Clearly, as we are both Black. You're pretty sharp; before I know it you'll have figured out that I'm on welfare too!

Why are you trying to turn logic games into a racial issue? Take that shit to the URM forum.



That.... Was really unnecessary though.... I hope I don't run into too many people like you while I'm in law school. Smh.

Tainted_Praise
Posts: 196
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 3:20 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby Tainted_Praise » Sun Oct 17, 2010 9:12 pm

naterj wrote:
BruceWayne wrote: I consider you a racist because I pointed out the fact that you used the term "shit" in regards to URM issues.

I'm not racist dude. I just asked you to take it to another forum.



Oh? Now it's just "another" forum? I thought it was a specific forum... The URM one perhaps....

User avatar
D. H2Oman
Posts: 7469
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 5:47 am

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby D. H2Oman » Sun Oct 17, 2010 9:14 pm

I like this new concept of shitty posters typing in brown. Let's me know what I'm getting myself into before reading it.

Keep up the innovation tainted praise.

User avatar
Jack Smirks
Posts: 1340
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 5:35 am

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby Jack Smirks » Sun Oct 17, 2010 9:16 pm

Tainted_Praise wrote:
naterj wrote:
BruceWayne wrote: I consider you a racist because I pointed out the fact that you used the term "shit" in regards to URM issues.

I'm not racist dude. I just asked you to take it to another forum.



Oh? Now it's just "another" forum? I thought it was a specific forum... The URM one perhaps....

Lolwut? I'm not denying I said take it to the URM forum. If race is to be discussed at all on this website it should be in that forum or a a thread that specifically deals with race. Not the LSAT forum. Haha that was terrible, like you caught me in a lie or something. hahaha.

Tainted_Praise
Posts: 196
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 3:20 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby Tainted_Praise » Sun Oct 17, 2010 9:19 pm

D. H2Oman wrote:I like this new concept of shitty posters typing in brown. Let's me know what I'm getting myself into before reading it.

Keep up the innovation tainted praise.



Says the person with Justin Bieber as their avatar. Your words have no validity.
Last edited by Tainted_Praise on Sun Oct 17, 2010 9:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Jack Smirks
Posts: 1340
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 5:35 am

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby Jack Smirks » Sun Oct 17, 2010 9:20 pm

Tainted_Praise wrote:
D. H2Oman wrote:I like this new concept of shitty posters typing in brown. Let's me know what I'm getting myself into before reading it.

Keep up the innovation tainted praise.



Says the person with Justin Beiber as their avatar. Your words have no validity.

She changed it for you Biebs!!! <3<3<3<3<3<3<3<3

Tainted_Praise
Posts: 196
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 3:20 pm

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby Tainted_Praise » Sun Oct 17, 2010 9:29 pm

naterj wrote:
Tainted_Praise wrote:
naterj wrote:
BruceWayne wrote: I consider you a racist because I pointed out the fact that you used the term "shit" in regards to URM issues.

I'm not racist dude. I just asked you to take it to another forum.



Oh? Now it's just "another" forum? I thought it was a specific forum... The URM one perhaps....

Lolwut? I'm not denying I said take it to the URM forum. If race is to be discussed at all on this website it should be in that forum or a a thread that specifically deals with race. Not the LSAT forum. Haha that was terrible, like you caught me in a lie or something. hahaha.


It's this kind of thinking that will prevent this country from moving forward.... A wise man said don't argue with fools, because at a distance no one can tell who is who. You.....Are a fool. And it's a shame that you feel that anything race related should be taken to the URM forum. So if we were having a discussion about Caucasians, would we also have to take it to the URM section?

Blacks are URM's. Anything that is race related should be discussed in the URM forum. Therefore, anything race related should not be discussed in the LSAT forum, and with this being said, anything related to white people should also be discussed in the URM forum.

The reasoning in this argument is flawed because:

A) naterj is a moron
B) Just because a topic deals with race, it does not mean that it belongs exclusively to one part of TLS
C) naterj is a moron
D) naterj is a moron
E) naterj is a moron
Last edited by Tainted_Praise on Sun Oct 17, 2010 9:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Jack Smirks
Posts: 1340
Joined: Sat May 15, 2010 5:35 am

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby Jack Smirks » Sun Oct 17, 2010 9:32 pm

Tainted_Praise wrote:It's this kind of thinking that will prevent this country from moving forward.... A wise man said don't argue with fools, because at a distance no one can tell who is who. You.....Are a fool. And it's a shame that you feel that anything race related should be taken to the URM forum. So if we were having a discussion about Caucasians, would we also have to take it to the URM section?

Blacks are URM's. Anything that is race related should be discussed in the URM forum. Therefore, anything race related should not be discussed in the LSAT forum, and anything related to white people should also be discussed in the URM forum.

The reasoning in this argument is flawed because:

A) naterj is a moron
B) Just because a topic deals with race, it does not mean that it belongs exclusively to one part of TLS
C) naterj is a moron
D) naterj is a moron
E) naterj is a moron

TL;DR

User avatar
Patriot1208
Posts: 7044
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 11:28 am

Re: lsat makers should remove LGs

Postby Patriot1208 » Sun Oct 17, 2010 9:37 pm

Tainted_Praise wrote:
naterj wrote:
Tainted_Praise wrote:
Oh? Now it's just "another" forum? I thought it was a specific forum... The URM one perhaps....

Lolwut? I'm not denying I said take it to the URM forum. If race is to be discussed at all on this website it should be in that forum or a a thread that specifically deals with race. Not the LSAT forum. Haha that was terrible, like you caught me in a lie or something. hahaha.


It's this kind of thinking that will prevent this country from moving forward.... A wise man said don't argue with fools, because at a distance no one can tell who is who. You.....Are a fool. And it's a shame that you feel that anything race related should be taken to the URM forum. So if we were having a discussion about Caucasians, would we also have to take it to the URM section?

Blacks are URM's. Anything that is race related should be discussed in the URM forum. Therefore, anything race related should not be discussed in the LSAT forum, and with this being said, anything related to white people should also be discussed in the URM forum.

The reasoning in this argument is flawed because:

A) naterj is a moron
B) Just because a topic deals with race, it does not mean that it belongs exclusively to one part of TLS
C) naterj is a moron
D) naterj is a moron
E) naterj is a moron


lol

<--------- facepalm.

the level of stupidity in some of these arguments makes it clear why the legal profession is suffering so terribly.
Last edited by Patriot1208 on Sun Oct 17, 2010 9:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BOSStongrl, Chipotle85, MSNbot Media, PantoroB and 16 guests