Did I just blow my chances with a specific law firm for 3L mass mailing by going to office hours? Forum

[Anonymous User]

Nony et al I think it's time to nuke this guy

then someone got cute and "kinda wants to know who I am IRL, but is 'on the fence.'" They can do that if they want, but it's going to have collateral consequences (even assuming he gets it right, which, lol good luck with that). Esp if it puts me in a "nothing to lose" situation, since at that point, well, what do I have to lose?

What does this even mean? Do you understand what nuke means in this context?

If it means unveiling the OP and thereby his RICH, informative posting history, which may (but probably won't) help someone trying to triangulate OP's identity, then collateral consequences: some other identities may bounce around too etc.
If it's an inside joke meaning something else then I don't care. But I'd wait to see what's being carried out, and I'll proceed "appropriately."

[mornincounselor]

I don't think it sets a good precedent for OP to get outed in this way. Sure, the guy is clearly someone who shouldn't be a lawyer and is bound to be disbarred, but this site is supposed to be a safe place for people to receive anonymous advice.

[Caesar Salad]

Interesting like "Huh, I guess some humans' brains work that way." Maybe effective, definitely could have been more far fetched/ridiculous/ineffective. But I agree with everyone else: the fact that you reflexively behaved this way spells trouble for your future. Some reflection on what made you lie in the first place, and how to fix that, would be worthwhile.

As everyone else said, telling this dude you didn't have a job (aka the truth) was the right move. Whether or not that would have led to him not being in your corner is irrelevant. If you reflexively lie to people, your career will not be very long.

[justabitunusual]

then someone got cute and "kinda wants to know who I am IRL, but is 'on the fence.'" They can do that if they want, but it's going to have collateral consequences (even assuming he gets it right, which, lol good luck with that). Esp if it puts me in a "nothing to lose" situation, since at that point, well, what do I have to lose?

In context...

I really hope someone doesn't email this every adjunct partner at a big firm at CLS.

...tbh, i'm on the fence...we're 7 pages in so i kinda wanna know who OP is and see what his prof thinks...
...and the fact that OP is pretty much identifiable, unless he lied ab which schools he is on par with, which is also probable.

On the other hand, OP is socially impaired and I don't think it would be fun to see him trying to explain to his professor... (his elaborate scheme, knowing it will fail).

I never suggested I knew who OP was or that I would inform anyone, I merely said (mostly in jest) that i was on the fence as to whether I would like to see OP outed by an anon email.

[Mr. Blackacre]

I don't think it sets a good precedent for OP to get outed in this way. Sure, the guy is clearly someone who shouldn't be a lawyer and is bound to be disbarred, but this site is supposed to be a safe place for people to receive anonymous advice.

Agreed. What this thread needs is to be locked before OP gets even more out of control. OP has received numerous answers to his question. At this point there's not really anything of value left to say.

[Anonymous User]

Interesting like "Huh, I guess some humans' brains work that way." Maybe effective, definitely could have been more far fetched/ridiculous/ineffective. But I agree with everyone else: the fact that you reflexively behaved this way spells trouble for your future. Some reflection on what made you lie in the first place, and how to fix that, would be worthwhile.

Can you think of any solutions that'd be more effective? What motivated the truth spinning here was not only that I cared about his perception of me; but ultimately my odds a year down the line. I thought spinning the truth a bit less would've ended my chances right there; maybe I was wrong about that.

as to whether I would like to see OP outed by an anon email.

OK...then let me say ("mostly" in jest) that I'm on the fence as to sending out a few anonymous emails myself.

[pleadthafif]

I don't think it sets a good precedent for OP to get outed in this way. Sure, the guy is clearly someone who shouldn't be a lawyer and is bound to be disbarred, but this site is supposed to be a safe place for people to receive anonymous advice.

I don't think anyone knows who the OP is (except maybe mods?), but advancing that narrative to watch his paranoia has been fun. I guess all good things must come to an end though, this one seems to have run its course.

[20160810]

Nuke in this context means that I was suggesting that she ban you because you seem to have a personality disorder and be kinda unstable. Nobody is going to out you despite your oddball antics here.

[justabitunusual]

I don't think it sets a good precedent for OP to get outed in this way. Sure, the guy is clearly someone who shouldn't be a lawyer and is bound to be disbarred, but this site is supposed to be a safe place for people to receive anonymous advice.

Yeah, i agree that i wouldn't want OP outed here, unless it was confirmed as trolling somehow, then it wouldn't matter. But, I and i think a few others were more commenting on the implausible/humorous thought of the thread being emailed to professors.

[Paul Campos]

You didn't spin the truth. You told an outright unambiguous lie. If you can't tell the difference between those two things you're going to be in a lot of trouble as a lawyer.

[Caesar Salad]

Can you think of any solutions that'd be more effective? What motivated the truth spinning here was not only that I cared about his perception of me; but ultimately my odds a year down the line. I thought spinning the truth a bit less would've ended my chances right there; maybe I was wrong about that.

Not really. As I said, my solution would be to chalk it up as an L. The odds of getting the job aren't good enough, for my liking, to risk getting outted as a bald faced liar.

Your decision to lie, banking on your chances at employment a year from now, was super off base. There was no reason to lie, and many reasons not to. I know of a lot of people who reflexively lied in interviews. None of them ended up with jobs at those firms.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Yes, "nuke" the OP doesn't mean "out" the OP, although I'm not shocked the OP would leap to that conclusion. It means ban the OP, which would be justified by the OP's willingness to out people here, and ridiculous threats to send material from this site to adcomms or otherwise "proceed 'appropriately.'"

To be clear: outing people, including sending material from TLS to adcomms/employers/etc. in the hopes of screwing someone, is a bannable offense. People here know that. Threatening to out people or send their TLS material to adcomms/employers is fairly disturbing and puts someone on a pretty short leash.

(For the record, there's also a difference between saying "someone in his class could figure out who the OP is pretty easily " or even "it would be really funny if someone sent the prof a link to this thread," and saying "I will pin this on 7-8 different people" or "I will tell adcomms 5 different people lied on their applications.")

But yes, I agree that this thread has run its course (well, it did so long ago, but it's so hard not to rubberneck...).