Just got score today! 168 3.2 gpa . . . can i Pepperdine? Forum

[20160810]

1.) Just FYI, the burden of proof is always on the person saying "I know the answer to all of the mysteries on the universe," not on the guy who says "No, that doesn't sound right."

2.) Continued discussion of religion should be removed per the TLS Rules of Civil Procedure §1441 et seq to the Lounge. This thread should be about whether or not OP can and/or should go to Pepperdine.

[romothesavior]

1.) Just FYI, the burden of proof is always on the person saying "I know the answer to all of the mysteries on the universe," not on the guy who says "No, that doesn't sound right."

2.) Continued discussion of religion should be removed per the TLS Rules of Civil Procedure §1441 et seq to the Lounge. This thread should be about whether or not OP can and/or should go to Pepperdine.

+1 on both accounts.

And as I said before, whether Christianity has merit or not is irrelevant to this discussion. Either way, OP should not go to Pepperdine (or any law school) for religious reasons. Go to the best school for your career goals and join a church.

Also, I'm still 90% sure this is flame.

[sanpiero]

Did the burden of proof discussion ever happen over in the lounge? 'Cause that shit's hilarious, and no matter how often it happens on forums, I never get tired of it.

You have no idea what you're talking about. So please, just stop.

I take it carter lost?

[cartercl]

1.) Just FYI, the burden of proof is always on the person saying "I know the answer to all of the mysteries on the universe," not on the guy who says "No, that doesn't sound right."

2.) Continued discussion of religion should be removed per the TLS Rules of Civil Procedure §1441 et seq to the Lounge. This thread should be about whether or not OP can and/or should go to Pepperdine.

1) I don't need you to tell me which person the burden of proof is on because I already know that.

2) I never said that "I know all the mysteries to the universe." It appears that you haven't even read what was discussed because if you had, you wouldn't be mischaracterizing my statements, just FYI.

3)The burden of proof rests on the one making the initial claim (whether positive or negative), and that person happened to be Case when he stated that God was imaginary (i.e. he does not exist). That is his belief. I can then say to him "prove what you're saying." Once he provides evidence for his claim I can then make an objection to said evidence. Honestly, I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand. Your problem is that you have either 1) not read; or 2) misunderstood what you read. Case did not say, "No, what you're saying doesn't sound right." Instead he said, "God does not exist."

4) Either way, Case and I misunderstood each others argument and the "claim" we both were referring to was different. Hence, the confusion. Romo has pointed this out to me already and the issue has been resolved.

[cartercl]

Did the burden of proof discussion ever happen over in the lounge? 'Cause that shit's hilarious, and no matter how often it happens on forums, I never get tired of it.

You have no idea what you're talking about. So please, just stop.

I take it carter lost?

Lol. Not exactly.

[20160810]

1.) Just FYI, the burden of proof is always on the person saying "I know the answer to all of the mysteries on the universe," not on the guy who says "No, that doesn't sound right."

2.) Continued discussion of religion should be removed per the TLS Rules of Civil Procedure §1441 et seq to the Lounge. This thread should be about whether or not OP can and/or should go to Pepperdine.

1) I don't need you to tell me which person the burden of proof is on because I already know that.

2) I never said that "I know all the mysteries to the universe." It appears that you haven't even read what was discussed because if you had, you wouldn't be mischaracterizing my statements, just FYI.

3)The burden of proof rests on the one making the initial claim (whether positive or negative), and that person happened to be Case when he stated that God was imaginary (i.e. he does not exist). That is his belief. I can then say to him "prove what you're saying." Once he provides evidence for his claim I can then make an objection to said evidence. Honestly, I don't know why this is so hard for you to understand. Your problem is that you have either 1) not read; or 2) misunderstood what you read. Case did not say, "No, what you're saying doesn't sound right." Instead he said, "God does not exist."

4) Either way, Case and I misunderstood each others argument and the "claim" we both were referring to was different. Hence, the confusion. Romo has pointed this out to me already and the issue has been resolved.

Continued discussion of this topic belongs here: http://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/v ... 0&t=124126

Now we can siphon off all the religious sidetracks and go back to talking about whether OP can Pepperdine.