edit

barnum
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:41 pm

edit

Postby barnum » Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:02 pm

Edit: Pulled at request of LSAC
Last edited by barnum on Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:17 pm, edited 3 times in total.

sportgirl234
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 12:19 am

Re: -13 for 170

Postby sportgirl234 » Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:02 pm

wait really??

FAJISTE
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 8:04 pm

Re: -13 for 170

Postby FAJISTE » Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:02 pm

Scam?

xmrmckenziex
Posts: 56
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2009 12:26 pm

Re: -13 for 170

Postby xmrmckenziex » Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:03 pm

IBTL

User avatar
dietcoke0
Posts: 601
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 2:46 pm

Re: -13 for 170

Postby dietcoke0 » Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:03 pm

...

FAJISTE
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 8:04 pm

Re: -13 for 170

Postby FAJISTE » Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:03 pm

You work for a company? Congrats.

User avatar
JamMasterJ
Posts: 6688
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 7:17 pm

Re: -13 for 170

Postby JamMasterJ » Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:04 pm

IBTL

User avatar
TrojanHopeful
Posts: 385
Joined: Sun Apr 04, 2010 1:37 am

Re: -13 for 170

Postby TrojanHopeful » Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:05 pm

Ibtl

User avatar
dietcoke0
Posts: 601
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 2:46 pm

Re: -13 for 170

Postby dietcoke0 » Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:05 pm

search.php?author_id=22360&sr=posts


No other misleading posts. I'll take as fact with grain of salt. Need something to get me through this day

User avatar
941law
Posts: 425
Joined: Wed Aug 24, 2011 9:21 am

Re: -13 for 170

Postby 941law » Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:06 pm

would read again.

FAJISTE
Posts: 37
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2011 8:04 pm

Re: -13 for 170

Postby FAJISTE » Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:06 pm

dietcoke0 wrote:http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/search.php?author_id=22360&sr=posts


No other misleading posts. I'll take as fact with grain of salt. Need something to get me through this day


This is true.

senorhosh
Posts: 470
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 2010 4:45 am

Re: -13 for 170

Postby senorhosh » Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:07 pm

I've been looking at curve prediction threads. The curve has always been 1 above the score most voted for.
Oct's most vote for was -12. I'd say -13 sounds about right (but then again, it might just be mere coincidence)

User avatar
dietcoke0
Posts: 601
Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2011 2:46 pm

Re: -13 for 170

Postby dietcoke0 » Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:07 pm

941law wrote:would read again.


What do you see? I see him working for Griffon Prep., saying that for a year now.

barnum
Posts: 53
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:41 pm

Re: -13 for 170

Postby barnum » Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:08 pm

Yes, really. This is not spam. I work for a company called Griffon Prep http://www.griffonprep.com

Bernie
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 1:15 pm

Re: -13 for 170

Postby Bernie » Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:08 pm

Um, Barnum has a serious professional reputation. He's not going to get on here and spam just to stress you all out. So calm down, he's doing you a favor.

JustSomebody
Posts: 54
Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 12:33 am

Re: -13 for 170

Postby JustSomebody » Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:13 pm

Man, I so want to believe.

User avatar
Bildungsroman
Posts: 5548
Joined: Sun Apr 11, 2010 2:42 pm

Re: -13 for 170

Postby Bildungsroman » Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:15 pm

Bernie wrote:Um, Barnum has a serious professional reputation. He's not going to get on here and spam just to stress you all out. So calm down, he's doing you a favor.

I have trouble believing LSAC would license and release an unreleased LSAT without requiring that the person not talk about its contents publicly.

User avatar
tanzie
Posts: 14
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2011 8:49 pm

Re: -13 for 170

Postby tanzie » Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:17 pm

Scam or not, I'm going to hope that this is true...however, I noticed that the predicted curve was -11 for the past 3 weeks, and only changed to -12 a couple of days ago (as we're nearing our anticipated score release and hoping for the best). Either way, good luck everyone! :)

User avatar
WhiteGuy5
Posts: 919
Joined: Thu Oct 06, 2011 3:47 pm

Re: edit

Postby WhiteGuy5 » Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:22 pm

I was almost going to believe it, but his bullshit edit gave him away.

He tried to make it more legit. Failed miserably. I don't think I did that well but I could tell the test was nowhere [edit: what he said it was.]

User avatar
BeatenHorse
Posts: 38
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 4:34 pm

Re: edit

Postby BeatenHorse » Mon Oct 24, 2011 2:25 pm

Clever troll is clever. Very clever.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alexandros, bearedman8, dontsaywhatyoumean, drumpf, goldenbear2020, LewD33, maybeman, SunDevil14, VMars, xtremenite and 36 guests