Making friends with D-bag law students Forum

[AreJay711]

What's really crazy is that a bunch of law students at my school couldn't even agree on what the answer is to 48÷2(9+3).

There is a reason you don't use " ÷ " after 6th grade. Most people think of division as fractions which fucks them up.

[NYC Law]

What's really crazy is that a bunch of law students at my school couldn't even agree on what the answer is to 48÷2(9+3).

Did they not remember PEMDAS? I feel like that's all I learned in elementary school.

PEMDAS? Standard order of operations, bro.

[AreJay711]

What's really crazy is that a bunch of law students at my school couldn't even agree on what the answer is to 48÷2(9+3).

Did they not remember PEMDAS? I feel like that's all I learned in elementary school.

PEMDAS? Standard order of operations, bro.

Multiplication and division happen simultaneously. Left to right is just a convention.

[BeenDidThat]

What's really crazy is that a bunch of law students at my school couldn't even agree on what the answer is to 48÷2(9+3).

Did they not remember PEMDAS? I feel like that's all I learned in elementary school.

PEMDAS? Standard order of operations, bro.

PEMDAS be one and the same homes.

[NYC Law]

What's really crazy is that a bunch of law students at my school couldn't even agree on what the answer is to 48÷2(9+3).

Did they not remember PEMDAS? I feel like that's all I learned in elementary school.

PEMDAS? Standard order of operations, bro.

PEMDAS be one and the same homes.

But see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_o ... operations

These mnemonics may be misleading when written this way, especially if the user is not aware that multiplication and division are of equal precedence, as are addition and subtraction. Using any of the above rules in the order "addition first, subtraction afterward" would also give the wrong answer.

[Yvonnella]

A word used by uneducated people intending to sound intelligent. Often, the defendant will use this word in court in an attempt to impress the judge and jury. Educated people notice and those who use this word instantly identify themselves to educated people as being uneducated. Educated people rarely correct them because it helps educated people more easily identify them if they are well-groomed.

For all intensive purposes, you knew what he meant by irregardless.

--ImageRemoved--

Thank God for Mr. P. At least somebody's paying attention.

Um: for all intents and purposes. I mean, please.

[beachbum]

This thread is making me hate law students.

[jkpolk]

This thread is making me hate law students.

Now make friends with them, go!

[bartleby]

there is only one person in my section that i truly can't stand. we're talking about locke for property and she brought up hobbes, even quoting "short, nasty, and brutish" 2x. she also talks so fast that she trips all over her words. it is unbelievable. it isn't even how she talks normally.

for example, imagine reading this post out loud as fast as you could, like you were in a speed reading competition, and stumbling after every 10 words.

[eandy]

I legitimately love my class. We all get along really, really well. I feel pretty lucky.

(attractive chick who thinks everyone likes her for her personality)

What makes you think that?

Attractiveness has nothing to do with it. Our class is just really close.

[$peppercorn]

This thread has become an example of itself.

Lol

[bk1]

What's really crazy is that a bunch of law students at my school couldn't even agree on what the answer is to 48÷2(9+3).

I can't tell if this is a joke or obliviousness to 1-2 of the most awful threads on TLS. (I'll take confirmation of the former via a Simpsons "That's the Joke" meme.)

[YankeeFan2]

This is the best thread I've read in a while.

+1 This is funny!

[zanzbar]

It felt like a friggin LSAT problem. A dated B, then broke it off with B to bone C, and C broke it off with A to bone D, who was just starting to bone B. Oh and C and B knew each other before law school and were good friends, and B has no idea that C was boning A while A was boning B.

Anyone else get that B and D are gay together out of this or did I mess up my diagram?

[NoleinNY]

It felt like a friggin LSAT problem. A dated B, then broke it off with B to bone C, and C broke it off with A to bone D, who was just starting to bone B. Oh and C and B knew each other before law school and were good friends, and B has no idea that C was boning A while A was boning B.

Anyone else get that B and D are gay together out of this or did I mess up my diagram?

+1, although D could be opposite sex and bi-curious.

[NYC Law]

What's really crazy is that a bunch of law students at my school couldn't even agree on what the answer is to 48÷2(9+3).

I can't tell if this is a joke or obliviousness to 1-2 of the most awful threads on TLS. (I'll take confirmation of the former via a Simpsons "That's the Joke" meme.)

--ImageRemoved--

[zanzbar]

It felt like a friggin LSAT problem. A dated B, then broke it off with B to bone C, and C broke it off with A to bone D, who was just starting to bone B. Oh and C and B knew each other before law school and were good friends, and B has no idea that C was boning A while A was boning B.

Anyone else get that B and D are gay together out of this or did I mess up my diagram?

+1, although D could be opposite sex and bi-curious.

That is true I guess I messed up a contrapositive. The CR is somebody enjoys smashing clams.

[NoleinNY]

It felt like a friggin LSAT problem. A dated B, then broke it off with B to bone C, and C broke it off with A to bone D, who was just starting to bone B. Oh and C and B knew each other before law school and were good friends, and B has no idea that C was boning A while A was boning B.

Anyone else get that B and D are gay together out of this or did I mess up my diagram?

+1, although D could be opposite sex and bi-curious.

That is true I guess I messed up a contrapositive. The CR is somebody enjoys smashing clams.

Because I have a ton of free time right now...

It's totally possible (though less titillating for some) that they could be all screwed up heterosexuals.

For assumptions:
A=M
B=F
C=F
D=M

A<-->B
^...../...^
|..../.....|
v.../......v
C<-->D

That way, A/B is a straight couple, A/C is a straight couple, C/D is a straight couple, and D/B is a straight couple. B & C (alleged friends) are both female.

[NYC Law]

Goddammit scooped. Well anyway, I made a chart to prove that it is all hetero sex

[NoleinNY]

Goddammit scooped. Well anyway, I made a chart to prove that it is all hetero sex

lol

E is a FA, so the gender doesn't matter.

[zanzbar]

It felt like a friggin LSAT problem. A dated B, then broke it off with B to bone C, and C broke it off with A to bone D, who was just starting to bone B. Oh and C and B knew each other before law school and were good friends, and B has no idea that C was boning A while A was boning B.

Because I have a ton of free time right now...

It's totally possible (though less titillating for some) that they could be all screwed up heterosexuals.

For assumptions:
A=M
B=F
C=F
D=M

A<-->B
^...../...^
|..../.....|
v.../......v
C<-->D

That way, A/B is a straight couple, A/C is a straight couple, C/D is a straight couple, and D/B is a straight couple. B & C (alleged friends) are both female.[/quote]
The only problem I could see is you forgot the inference where B-C being "good friends" from college really meaning they experimented with each other.

[PinkCow]

Find the people who like to drink beer and used to play counter-strike/starcraft/N64. Ask said people if they'd like to drink beer and play some smash bro's. Then you've got smashed bro's, playing smash bro's, and that equals a good time.

If you're a girl, IDK, in your situation I'd try to hang out with the married girls which entails dinner parties I'd imagine.

During finals this semester, I played so much Counter-Strike that I moved to # 40 out of like 350,000. Feltgoodman.

[NoleinNY]

It felt like a friggin LSAT problem. A dated B, then broke it off with B to bone C, and C broke it off with A to bone D, who was just starting to bone B. Oh and C and B knew each other before law school and were good friends, and B has no idea that C was boning A while A was boning B.

Because I have a ton of free time right now...

It's totally possible (though less titillating for some) that they could be all screwed up heterosexuals.

For assumptions:
A=M
B=F
C=F
D=M

A<-->B
^...../...^
|..../.....|
v.../......v
C<-->D

That way, A/B is a straight couple, A/C is a straight couple, C/D is a straight couple, and D/B is a straight couple. B & C (alleged friends) are both female.

The only problem I could see is you forgot the inference where B-C being "good friends" from college really meaning they experimented with each other.[/quote]

That's why I included the diagonal line connecting them instead of just using asteriks. Plus, you can still be a "screwed up heterosexual" and still have an experimentation (in theory, at least... I'm not going to open that can-of-worms.)

[zanzbar]

It felt like a friggin LSAT problem. A dated B, then broke it off with B to bone C, and C broke it off with A to bone D, who was just starting to bone B. Oh and C and B knew each other before law school and were good friends, and B has no idea that C was boning A while A was boning B.

Because I have a ton of free time right now...

It's totally possible (though less titillating for some) that they could be all screwed up heterosexuals.

For assumptions:
A=M
B=F
C=F
D=M

A<-->B
^...../...^
|..../.....|
v.../......v
C<-->D

That way, A/B is a straight couple, A/C is a straight couple, C/D is a straight couple, and D/B is a straight couple. B & C (alleged friends) are both female.

The only problem I could see is you forgot the inference where B-C being "good friends" from college really meaning they experimented with each other.

That's why I included the diagonal line connecting them instead of just using asteriks. Plus, you can still be a "screwed up heterosexual" and still have an experimentation (in theory, at least... I'm not going to open that can-of-worms.)[/quote]

You might as well open that can of worms now because who knows how long SOPA is on the backburner, and we have to all go back to random chatrooms just to offend others...

[NYC Law]

I posted this in another thread, but it's apparently still relevant