T14 vs the top 15-25. Just how big is the difference? Forum

[Clemenceau]

Is nobody going to point out how patently absurd this line is?

All you have to do is write one true sentence. Write the truest sentence that you know. -Hemingway

It's pretty simple. Take Hemingway's statement as a categorical imperative for the art of writing. Lest you argue that Hemingway used artifice or "untrue" statements in his writing as an attempt to disprove the universality of this command, remember that Hemingway's writing was a sophisticated process of sharing revealed truth through conventional narrative form. A seemingly "untrue" statement that Hemingway deployed in service of the communicability of his ideas may in fact be true by placing it in relation with other statements, resulting in a composite truth. A careful reading of Hemingway will reveal this is the case with all of his writing.

However, since in this model "true" statements are created only by their relationships with other statements, then the underlying statements must be true, otherwise the composite is rendered untrue by its deficient component parts. Thus, in order to write a "true" story, each sentence must be "true," and carrying this logic to its furthest extent (Cardozo), each component part of the sentence must be "true." Hence each word must be able to stand alone as its own valid truth.

Get smarter or get BTFO.

Chad, I sincerely hope you aren't like this IRL.

[gsy987]

Is nobody going to point out how patently absurd this line is?

All you have to do is write one true sentence. Write the truest sentence that you know. -Hemingway

It's pretty simple. Take Hemingway's statement as a categorical imperative for the art of writing. Lest you argue that Hemingway used artifice or "untrue" statements in his writing as an attempt to disprove the universality of this command, remember that Hemingway's writing was a sophisticated process of sharing revealed truth through conventional narrative form. A seemingly "untrue" statement that Hemingway deployed in service of the communicability of his ideas may in fact be true by placing it in relation with other statements, resulting in a composite truth. A careful reading of Hemingway will reveal this is the case with all of his writing.

However, since in this model "true" statements are created only by their relationships with other statements, then the underlying statements must be true, otherwise the composite is rendered untrue by its deficient component parts. Thus, in order to write a "true" story, each sentence must be "true," and carrying this logic to its furthest extent (Cardozo), each component part of the sentence must be "true." Hence each word must be able to stand alone as its own valid truth.

Get smarter or get BTFO.

Chad, I sincerely hope you aren't like this IRL.

Dear lord. This forum has reached the post-parody stage.

Also, if you actually do this, can you write a book about it or something? I'm so curious about this!

[Chad_IRL]

Chad, I sincerely hope you aren't like this IRL.

What, awesome?

But in all seriousness, it's a bit unclear what you're criticizing here. Pseudo-intellectualism? Overconfidence? Pedantry? Genuinely curious.

[poptart123]

Chad, I sincerely hope you aren't like this IRL.

What, awesome?

But in all seriousness, it's a bit unclear what you're criticizing here. Pseudo-intellectualism? Overconfidence? Pedantry? Genuinely curious.

I'm curious as well. Chad seems like a really cool guy.

[rpupkin]

Is nobody going to point out how patently absurd this line is?

All you have to do is write one true sentence. Write the truest sentence that you know. -Hemingway

It's pretty simple. Take Hemingway's statement as a categorical imperative for the art of writing. Lest you argue that Hemingway used artifice or "untrue" statements in his writing as an attempt to disprove the universality of this command, remember that Hemingway's writing was a sophisticated process of sharing revealed truth through conventional narrative form. A seemingly "untrue" statement that Hemingway deployed in service of the communicability of his ideas may in fact be true by placing it in relation with other statements, resulting in a composite truth. A careful reading of Hemingway will reveal this is the case with all of his writing.

However, since in this model "true" statements are created only by their relationships with other statements, then the underlying statements must be true, otherwise the composite is rendered untrue by its deficient component parts. Thus, in order to write a "true" story, each sentence must be "true," and carrying this logic to its furthest extent (Cardozo), each component part of the sentence must be "true." Hence each word must be able to stand alone as its own valid truth.

158

[oidsedidy]

Is nobody going to point out how patently absurd this line is?

All you have to do is write one true sentence. Write the truest sentence that you know. -Hemingway

It's pretty simple. Take Hemingway's statement as a categorical imperative for the art of writing. Lest you argue that Hemingway used artifice or "untrue" statements in his writing as an attempt to disprove the universality of this command, remember that Hemingway's writing was a sophisticated process of sharing revealed truth through conventional narrative form. A seemingly "untrue" statement that Hemingway deployed in service of the communicability of his ideas may in fact be true by placing it in relation with other statements, resulting in a composite truth. A careful reading of Hemingway will reveal this is the case with all of his writing.

However, since in this model "true" statements are created only by their relationships with other statements, then the underlying statements must be true, otherwise the composite is rendered untrue by its deficient component parts. Thus, in order to write a "true" story, each sentence must be "true," and carrying this logic to its furthest extent (Cardozo), each component part of the sentence must be "true." Hence each word must be able to stand alone as its own valid truth.

158

I feel vindicated.

[jbagelboy]

Is nobody going to point out how patently absurd this line is?

All you have to do is write one true sentence. Write the truest sentence that you know. -Hemingway

It's pretty simple. Take Hemingway's statement as a categorical imperative for the art of writing. Lest you argue that Hemingway used artifice or "untrue" statements in his writing as an attempt to disprove the universality of this command, remember that Hemingway's writing was a sophisticated process of sharing revealed truth through conventional narrative form. A seemingly "untrue" statement that Hemingway deployed in service of the communicability of his ideas may in fact be true by placing it in relation with other statements, resulting in a composite truth. A careful reading of Hemingway will reveal this is the case with all of his writing.

However, since in this model "true" statements are created only by their relationships with other statements, then the underlying statements must be true, otherwise the composite is rendered untrue by its deficient component parts. Thus, in order to write a "true" story, each sentence must be "true," and carrying this logic to its furthest extent (Cardozo), each component part of the sentence must be "true." Hence each word must be able to stand alone as its own valid truth.

Get smarter or get BTFO.

Ah shit it's this guy

[A. Nony Mouse]

Chad, I sincerely hope you aren't like this IRL.

What, awesome?

But in all seriousness, it's a bit unclear what you're criticizing here. Pseudo-intellectualism? Overconfidence? Pedantry? Genuinely curious.

Pedantry works for me (though to be fair your posts were fine till you invoked Kant/Hemingway).

I may regret this, but: how does a word not stand alone as its own valid truth? "Chair," "red," and "banana" all mean what they mean, in isolation, but that doesn't mean that combining them makes sense to the reader. When is "chair" by itself not its own valid truth?

[cavalier1138]

Chad, I sincerely hope you aren't like this IRL.

What, awesome?

But in all seriousness, it's a bit unclear what you're criticizing here. Pseudo-intellectualism? Overconfidence? Pedantry? Genuinely curious.

Pedantry works for me (though to be fair your posts were fine till you invoked Kant/Hemingway).

I may regret this, but: how does a word not stand alone as its own valid truth? "Chair," "red," and "banana" all mean what they mean, in isolation, but that doesn't mean that combining them makes sense to the reader. When is "chair" by itself not its own valid truth?

Flim-flam.

(Wait, does that count as two words?)

[Yeezus Wept]

Chad, I sincerely hope you aren't like this IRL.

What, awesome?

But in all seriousness, it's a bit unclear what you're criticizing here. Pseudo-intellectualism? Overconfidence? Pedantry? Genuinely curious.

Pedantry works for me (though to be fair your posts were fine till you invoked Kant/Hemingway).

I may regret this, but: how does a word not stand alone as its own valid truth? "Chair," "red," and "banana" all mean what they mean, in isolation, but that doesn't mean that combining them makes sense to the reader. When is "chair" by itself not its own valid truth?

Goddamn it.

[Hikikomorist]

Is it bad that I really, really like Chad_IRL?

[mathis1490]

Is nobody going to point out how patently absurd this line is?

All you have to do is write one true sentence. Write the truest sentence that you know. -Hemingway

It's pretty simple. Take Hemingway's statement as a categorical imperative for the art of writing. Lest you argue that Hemingway used artifice or "untrue" statements in his writing as an attempt to disprove the universality of this command, remember that Hemingway's writing was a sophisticated process of sharing revealed truth through conventional narrative form. A seemingly "untrue" statement that Hemingway deployed in service of the communicability of his ideas may in fact be true by placing it in relation with other statements, resulting in a composite truth. A careful reading of Hemingway will reveal this is the case with all of his writing.

However, since in this model "true" statements are created only by their relationships with other statements, then the underlying statements must be true, otherwise the composite is rendered untrue by its deficient component parts. Thus, in order to write a "true" story, each sentence must be "true," and carrying this logic to its furthest extent (Cardozo), each component part of the sentence must be "true." Hence each word must be able to stand alone as its own valid truth.

158

Generous

[Yeezus Wept]

Is it bad that I really, really like Chad_IRL?

I mean, depends on what you mean by "bad" but it demonstrates a lot about your taste in trolls. Chad_IRL is just bold and fresh enough to be interesting to the less sophisticated, but if you look into his work a little deeper, you'll see that his trolling lacks any substance or artistry. He's like a David painting or an Ayn Rand novel; palatable enough on the surface, but disparaged by people who really know what they're talking about and ultimately forgettable.

Chad_IRL is that weird bro with hipster glasses who had a print of the Oath of the Horatii on dorm room wall and a paperback copy of The Fountainhead next to his bed. You don't mind smoking an L with him and playing Halo, but none of the hot girls on your floor wanna bang him and you certainly aren't asking him to move off campus with you next year.

[Hikikomorist]

Is it bad that I really, really like Chad_IRL?

I mean, depends on what you mean by "bad" but it demonstrates a lot about your taste in trolls. Chad_IRL is just bold and fresh enough to be interesting to the less sophisticated, but if you look into his work a little deeper, you'll see that his trolling lacks any substance or artistry. He's like a David painting or an Ayn Rand novel; palatable enough on the surface, but disparaged by people who really know what they're talking about and ultimately forgettable.

Chad_IRL is that weird bro with hipster glasses who had a print of the Oath of the Horatii on dorm room wall and a paperback copy of The Fountainhead next to his bed. You don't mind smoking an L with him and playing Halo, but none of the hot girls on your floor wanna bang him and you certainly aren't asking him to move off campus with you next year.

I'd like to hear more about what you have against David.

[Yeezus Wept]

Is it bad that I really, really like Chad_IRL?

I mean, depends on what you mean by "bad" but it demonstrates a lot about your taste in trolls. Chad_IRL is just bold and fresh enough to be interesting to the less sophisticated, but if you look into his work a little deeper, you'll see that his trolling lacks any substance or artistry. He's like a David painting or an Ayn Rand novel; palatable enough on the surface, but disparaged by people who really know what they're talking about and ultimately forgettable.

Chad_IRL is that weird bro with hipster glasses who had a print of the Oath of the Horatii on dorm room wall and a paperback copy of The Fountainhead next to his bed. You don't mind smoking an L with him and playing Halo, but none of the hot girls on your floor wanna bang him and you certainly aren't asking him to move off campus with you next year.

I'd like to hear more about what you have against David.

.

[Yeezus Wept]

Is it bad that I really, really like Chad_IRL?

I mean, depends on what you mean by "bad" but it demonstrates a lot about your taste in trolls. Chad_IRL is just bold and fresh enough to be interesting to the less sophisticated, but if you look into his work a little deeper, you'll see that his trolling lacks any substance or artistry. He's like a David painting or an Ayn Rand novel; palatable enough on the surface, but disparaged by people who really know what they're talking about and ultimately forgettable.

Chad_IRL is that weird bro with hipster glasses who had a print of the Oath of the Horatii on dorm room wall and a paperback copy of The Fountainhead next to his bed. You don't mind smoking an L with him and playing Halo, but none of the hot girls on your floor wanna bang him and you certainly aren't asking him to move off campus with you next year.

I'd like to hear more about what you have against David.

Neoclassicism is the sesame crusted ahi tuna of European art. People who don't know any better think it's seriously fine dining, and it is unquestionably delicious/nice to look at. But people in the know understand that it's really derivative and uninspired. While the plebes of the world might salivate over seared sesame tuna at Bobby Flay's new place or The Death of Socrates at the Met, no Michelin star chef/Saudi oil sheikh is going to be caught dead with it in his kitchen/gallery.

I.e., David is basic AF and so is Chad_IRL.

[Toni V]

Personally, I think if you have grades in the top quarter at 15-17 you have a great shot at Biglaw- you won't be working at Cravath, but you'll find something that pays 180k (or whatever else you might be looking for).

Sounds right.

As a JA working with numerous HYCP Ivy associates, there are also a number of non-T14 cohorts on board (although many are from “the area”).

[Grond]

To be fair, don't we all have a friend named Chad irl that does lots of freaky stuff?

[Tempo]

I think you might be guilty of reading the first few lines of a post and then posting- you're now the second person to flesh-out the "poor logic" of my statement by essentially repeating what I've said.

Look, my guy, I'm hung over at work and I have a lot of shit posting I have to do on multiple online forums. I can't read all of the sentences in a paragraph when I find out that the paragraph is a lost cause.

And I've now re-read your post 3 times, and while you did eventually convey the thought in my post, I stand by my decision to criticize you. You very strangely started out with the regional quality of law schools that are known for having a national profile. If the topic sentence of a paragraph is "all law schools have a regional character," you may be blunting the conclusion of that paragraph, "but this insight doesn't apply to the T14."

One thing that I try to do is to make sure that every word that I write is a logically valid statement in and of itself. You could think of this as a Kantian/Hemingway approach to writing. Think about using it.

Is nobody going to point out how patently absurd this line is?

Honestly I actually laughed out loud when I read it.

[Chad_IRL]

Everyone on here is very smug and believes that they've buried Chad_IRL under a mountain of wit, but I'd like to point out the ways in which the responses I've elicited demonstrate the complete vacuity of this forum.

1. Let's just start with the outright laziness of these one line responses. "158." "I feel vindicated." "Ah shit it's this guy." "Generous." Am I supposed to feel annihilated by these posts that took seconds to compose? Did anyone work to refute my claim that every single word should be able to stand as its own valid logical claim?

Here's what I did to support that claim: I cobbled together what I could remember about Hemingway from the "American Authors Since 1875" class that I took as a Freshman, and the class called "The Moral Reasoning of Kant" that I took as a Junior. I combined Hemingway's stupid advice about how to tackle writer's block from A Moveable Feast with the concept of Kant's Categorical Imperative in order to support this untenable concept of "valid words." Even as I was writing my response out, I was looking for ways to delight and titillate readers--see for instance, the random aside I made to Cardozo (he had that quote about ideas being taken to their most logical extreme, which I can't find googling right now but goddamnit I still tried to actually find this quote as opposed to you lazy cucks).

I did all of this just to flame these two losers. Did I totally succeed in making the case that it's possible to make each word in a statement a logically valid statement by itself? Maybe not. But I'm going to let my boy Teddy Roosevelt take it from here: "“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better..."

2. Let's also take a moment to look at how Groupthink and the Bandwagon Effect make people on this site feel secure in numbers, not words. Specifically, I'd like to direct our attention to the absolutely pathetic dude who, after someone posted "158" in response to my post, said that he felt vindicated. Are you so unconfident in your own beliefs that you need someone to make a lame rip on my post in order for you to feel safe from my ideas? Are you that worried I'm going to steal your girlfriend?

Besides that dude, a ton of people decided to just pile on with unfunny posts without contributing anything, as though these qualified as a good contribution to the discussion. I bet you guys say "lol" during in-person conversations.


Honestly, everyone take a look at the man (or woman) in the mirror this morning and ask yourselves whether you are really dominating the shit-posting like you think you are. This forum prides itself on being "tough" and "edgy," especially on newcomers, but I ain't feeling it. At this point, I'm not worrying whether Chad is good enough for this forum; I'm wondering whether this forum is good enough for Chad.

And for those of you who actually wrote out thoughtful responses, I'm sorry you had to sit through this. Maybe other people can learn from our example. Chad out.

[Yeezus Wept]

Everyone on here is very smug and believes that they've buried Chad_IRL under a mountain of wit, but I'd like to point out the ways in which the responses I've elicited demonstrate the complete vacuity of this forum.

1. Let's just start with the outright laziness of these one line responses. "158." "I feel vindicated." "Ah shit it's this guy." "Generous." Am I supposed to feel annihilated by these posts that took seconds to compose? Did anyone work to refute my claim that every single word should be able to stand as its own valid logical claim?

Here's what I did to support that claim: I cobbled together what I could remember about Hemingway from the "American Authors Since 1875" class that I took as a Freshman, and the class called "The Moral Reasoning of Kant" that I took as a Junior. I combined Hemingway's stupid advice about how to tackle writer's block from A Moveable Feast with the concept of Kant's Categorical Imperative in order to support this untenable concept of "valid words." Even as I was writing my response out, I was looking for ways to delight and titillate readers--see for instance, the random aside I made to Cardozo (he had that quote about ideas being taken to their most logical extreme, which I can't find googling right now but goddamnit I still tried to actually find this quote as opposed to you lazy cucks).

I did all of this just to flame these two losers. Did I totally succeed in making the case that it's possible to make each word in a statement a logically valid statement by itself? Maybe not. But I'm going to let my boy Teddy Roosevelt take it from here: "“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better..."

2. Let's also take a moment to look at how Groupthink and the Bandwagon Effect make people on this site feel secure in numbers, not words. Specifically, I'd like to direct our attention to the absolutely pathetic dude who, after someone posted "158" in response to my post, said that he felt vindicated. Are you so unconfident in your own beliefs that you need someone to make a lame rip on my post in order for you to feel safe from my ideas? Are you that worried I'm going to steal your girlfriend?

Besides that dude, a ton of people decided to just pile on with unfunny posts without contributing anything, as though these qualified as a good contribution to the discussion. I bet you guys say "lol" during in-person conversations.


Honestly, everyone take a look at the man (or woman) in the mirror this morning and ask yourselves whether you are really dominating the shit-posting like you think you are. This forum prides itself on being "tough" and "edgy," especially on newcomers, but I ain't feeling it. At this point, I'm not worrying whether Chad is good enough for this forum; I'm wondering whether this forum is good enough for Chad.

And for those of you who actually wrote out thoughtful responses, I'm sorry you had to sit through this. Maybe other people can learn from our example. Chad out.

157.

[poptart123]

Everyone on here is very smug and believes that they've buried Chad_IRL under a mountain of wit, but I'd like to point out the ways in which the responses I've elicited demonstrate the complete vacuity of this forum.

1. Let's just start with the outright laziness of these one line responses. "158." "I feel vindicated." "Ah shit it's this guy." "Generous." Am I supposed to feel annihilated by these posts that took seconds to compose? Did anyone work to refute my claim that every single word should be able to stand as its own valid logical claim?

Here's what I did to support that claim: I cobbled together what I could remember about Hemingway from the "American Authors Since 1875" class that I took as a Freshman, and the class called "The Moral Reasoning of Kant" that I took as a Junior. I combined Hemingway's stupid advice about how to tackle writer's block from A Moveable Feast with the concept of Kant's Categorical Imperative in order to support this untenable concept of "valid words." Even as I was writing my response out, I was looking for ways to delight and titillate readers--see for instance, the random aside I made to Cardozo (he had that quote about ideas being taken to their most logical extreme, which I can't find googling right now but goddamnit I still tried to actually find this quote as opposed to you lazy cucks).

I did all of this just to flame these two losers. Did I totally succeed in making the case that it's possible to make each word in a statement a logically valid statement by itself? Maybe not. But I'm going to let my boy Teddy Roosevelt take it from here: "“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better..."

2. Let's also take a moment to look at how Groupthink and the Bandwagon Effect make people on this site feel secure in numbers, not words. Specifically, I'd like to direct our attention to the absolutely pathetic dude who, after someone posted "158" in response to my post, said that he felt vindicated. Are you so unconfident in your own beliefs that you need someone to make a lame rip on my post in order for you to feel safe from my ideas? Are you that worried I'm going to steal your girlfriend?

Besides that dude, a ton of people decided to just pile on with unfunny posts without contributing anything, as though these qualified as a good contribution to the discussion. I bet you guys say "lol" during in-person conversations.


Honestly, everyone take a look at the man (or woman) in the mirror this morning and ask yourselves whether you are really dominating the shit-posting like you think you are. This forum prides itself on being "tough" and "edgy," especially on newcomers, but I ain't feeling it. At this point, I'm not worrying whether Chad is good enough for this forum; I'm wondering whether this forum is good enough for Chad.

And for those of you who actually wrote out thoughtful responses, I'm sorry you had to sit through this. Maybe other people can learn from our example. Chad out.

too long; didn't read

Is the above statement logically valid? It is at least the truth in and of itself.

[mathis1490]

Everyone on here is very smug and believes that they've buried Chad_IRL under a mountain of wit, but I'd like to point out the ways in which the responses I've elicited demonstrate the complete vacuity of this forum.

1. Let's just start with the outright laziness of these one line responses. "158." "I feel vindicated." "Ah shit it's this guy." "Generous." Am I supposed to feel annihilated by these posts that took seconds to compose? Did anyone work to refute my claim that every single word should be able to stand as its own valid logical claim?

Here's what I did to support that claim: I cobbled together what I could remember about Hemingway from the "American Authors Since 1875" class that I took as a Freshman, and the class called "The Moral Reasoning of Kant" that I took as a Junior. I combined Hemingway's stupid advice about how to tackle writer's block from A Moveable Feast with the concept of Kant's Categorical Imperative in order to support this untenable concept of "valid words." Even as I was writing my response out, I was looking for ways to delight and titillate readers--see for instance, the random aside I made to Cardozo (he had that quote about ideas being taken to their most logical extreme, which I can't find googling right now but goddamnit I still tried to actually find this quote as opposed to you lazy cucks).

I did all of this just to flame these two losers. Did I totally succeed in making the case that it's possible to make each word in a statement a logically valid statement by itself? Maybe not. But I'm going to let my boy Teddy Roosevelt take it from here: "“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better..."

2. Let's also take a moment to look at how Groupthink and the Bandwagon Effect make people on this site feel secure in numbers, not words. Specifically, I'd like to direct our attention to the absolutely pathetic dude who, after someone posted "158" in response to my post, said that he felt vindicated. Are you so unconfident in your own beliefs that you need someone to make a lame rip on my post in order for you to feel safe from my ideas? Are you that worried I'm going to steal your girlfriend?

Besides that dude, a ton of people decided to just pile on with unfunny posts without contributing anything, as though these qualified as a good contribution to the discussion. I bet you guys say "lol" during in-person conversations.


Honestly, everyone take a look at the man (or woman) in the mirror this morning and ask yourselves whether you are really dominating the shit-posting like you think you are. This forum prides itself on being "tough" and "edgy," especially on newcomers, but I ain't feeling it. At this point, I'm not worrying whether Chad is good enough for this forum; I'm wondering whether this forum is good enough for Chad.

And for those of you who actually wrote out thoughtful responses, I'm sorry you had to sit through this. Maybe other people can learn from our example. Chad out.

157.

Still generous

[Yeezus Wept]

Everyone on here is very smug and believes that they've buried Chad_IRL under a mountain of wit, but I'd like to point out the ways in which the responses I've elicited demonstrate the complete vacuity of this forum.

1. Let's just start with the outright laziness of these one line responses. "158." "I feel vindicated." "Ah shit it's this guy." "Generous." Am I supposed to feel annihilated by these posts that took seconds to compose? Did anyone work to refute my claim that every single word should be able to stand as its own valid logical claim?

Here's what I did to support that claim: I cobbled together what I could remember about Hemingway from the "American Authors Since 1875" class that I took as a Freshman, and the class called "The Moral Reasoning of Kant" that I took as a Junior. I combined Hemingway's stupid advice about how to tackle writer's block from A Moveable Feast with the concept of Kant's Categorical Imperative in order to support this untenable concept of "valid words." Even as I was writing my response out, I was looking for ways to delight and titillate readers--see for instance, the random aside I made to Cardozo (he had that quote about ideas being taken to their most logical extreme, which I can't find googling right now but goddamnit I still tried to actually find this quote as opposed to you lazy cucks).

I did all of this just to flame these two losers. Did I totally succeed in making the case that it's possible to make each word in a statement a logically valid statement by itself? Maybe not. But I'm going to let my boy Teddy Roosevelt take it from here: "“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better..."

2. Let's also take a moment to look at how Groupthink and the Bandwagon Effect make people on this site feel secure in numbers, not words. Specifically, I'd like to direct our attention to the absolutely pathetic dude who, after someone posted "158" in response to my post, said that he felt vindicated. Are you so unconfident in your own beliefs that you need someone to make a lame rip on my post in order for you to feel safe from my ideas? Are you that worried I'm going to steal your girlfriend?

Besides that dude, a ton of people decided to just pile on with unfunny posts without contributing anything, as though these qualified as a good contribution to the discussion. I bet you guys say "lol" during in-person conversations.


Honestly, everyone take a look at the man (or woman) in the mirror this morning and ask yourselves whether you are really dominating the shit-posting like you think you are. This forum prides itself on being "tough" and "edgy," especially on newcomers, but I ain't feeling it. At this point, I'm not worrying whether Chad is good enough for this forum; I'm wondering whether this forum is good enough for Chad.

And for those of you who actually wrote out thoughtful responses, I'm sorry you had to sit through this. Maybe other people can learn from our example. Chad out.

too long; didn't read

Is the above statement logically valid? It is at least the truth in and of itself.

You really aren't very funny, you know that

[poptart123]

Everyone on here is very smug and believes that they've buried Chad_IRL under a mountain of wit, but I'd like to point out the ways in which the responses I've elicited demonstrate the complete vacuity of this forum.

1. Let's just start with the outright laziness of these one line responses. "158." "I feel vindicated." "Ah shit it's this guy." "Generous." Am I supposed to feel annihilated by these posts that took seconds to compose? Did anyone work to refute my claim that every single word should be able to stand as its own valid logical claim?

Here's what I did to support that claim: I cobbled together what I could remember about Hemingway from the "American Authors Since 1875" class that I took as a Freshman, and the class called "The Moral Reasoning of Kant" that I took as a Junior. I combined Hemingway's stupid advice about how to tackle writer's block from A Moveable Feast with the concept of Kant's Categorical Imperative in order to support this untenable concept of "valid words." Even as I was writing my response out, I was looking for ways to delight and titillate readers--see for instance, the random aside I made to Cardozo (he had that quote about ideas being taken to their most logical extreme, which I can't find googling right now but goddamnit I still tried to actually find this quote as opposed to you lazy cucks).

I did all of this just to flame these two losers. Did I totally succeed in making the case that it's possible to make each word in a statement a logically valid statement by itself? Maybe not. But I'm going to let my boy Teddy Roosevelt take it from here: "“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better..."

2. Let's also take a moment to look at how Groupthink and the Bandwagon Effect make people on this site feel secure in numbers, not words. Specifically, I'd like to direct our attention to the absolutely pathetic dude who, after someone posted "158" in response to my post, said that he felt vindicated. Are you so unconfident in your own beliefs that you need someone to make a lame rip on my post in order for you to feel safe from my ideas? Are you that worried I'm going to steal your girlfriend?

Besides that dude, a ton of people decided to just pile on with unfunny posts without contributing anything, as though these qualified as a good contribution to the discussion. I bet you guys say "lol" during in-person conversations.


Honestly, everyone take a look at the man (or woman) in the mirror this morning and ask yourselves whether you are really dominating the shit-posting like you think you are. This forum prides itself on being "tough" and "edgy," especially on newcomers, but I ain't feeling it. At this point, I'm not worrying whether Chad is good enough for this forum; I'm wondering whether this forum is good enough for Chad.

And for those of you who actually wrote out thoughtful responses, I'm sorry you had to sit through this. Maybe other people can learn from our example. Chad out.

too long; didn't read

Is the above statement logically valid? It is at least the truth in and of itself.

You really aren't very funny, you know that

I wonder if this is a question or a statement