Citing the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Forum

[BottomOfTotem]

is right, there is absolutely no need to be a douche. OP is confused, probably isn't understanding the material (which is normal), and looked to his cohort for help. Then Kalvalo gives him some back handed response, which he somehow believes is defined by the word succinct, and when somebody calls him out, more people jump in to back the rudeness. THIS IS NOT THE WAY ADULTS BEHAVE.

I get it, chat rooms make people behave in a strange manner. But like Nucky said, if you can't just simply answer the question, don't say anything.

And please keep the, "that is how you teach" crap to yourselves. As a parent of two, it is a shitty way to do it, and is growing evermore out of favor with academics who research teaching methods. In other words, you're wrong.

Tirade over.Sorry OP, I can't help you with the citation. It looks like it was answered though.

So the bolded is "simply answer[ing] the question"? If so, I would not want to read your memos or briefs!

Nice response. Way to put someone down because you (perhaps correctly) believe you are smarter than me. Is that the way you interact with people in the real world?

As to the substance of your response, I again disagree. In my opinion, you have completely taken context out of the conversation. I offered a simple answer to the question - I didn't know how to cite. My additional tirade was not directed whatsoever at OP, whereas my comment about simply answering was. Thus I did simply answer, although I added additional information to other members in the forum.

[Minnietron]

is right, there is absolutely no need to be a douche. OP is confused, probably isn't understanding the material (which is normal), and looked to his cohort for help. Then Kalvalo gives him some back handed response, which he somehow believes is defined by the word succinct, and when somebody calls him out, more people jump in to back the rudeness. THIS IS NOT THE WAY ADULTS BEHAVE.

I get it, chat rooms make people behave in a strange manner. But like Nucky said, if you can't just simply answer the question, don't say anything.

And please keep the, "that is how you teach" crap to yourselves. As a parent of two, it is a shitty way to do it, and is growing evermore out of favor with academics who research teaching methods. In other words, you're wrong.

Tirade over.Sorry OP, I can't help you with the citation. It looks like it was answered though.

So the bolded is "simply answer[ing] the question"? If so, I would not want to read your memos or briefs!

Nice response. Way to put someone down because you (perhaps correctly) believe you are smarter than me. Is that the way you interact with people in the real world?

As to the substance of your response, I again disagree. In my opinion, you have completely taken context out of the conversation. I offered a simple answer to the question - I didn't know how to cite. My additional tirade was not directed whatsoever at OP, whereas my comment about simply answering was. Thus I did simply answer, although I added additional information to other members in the forum.

Whoa whoa whoa cowboy. I thought we were kidding around here. I didn't use a smiley face this time so you take it seriously and personally? Not the intent. I was responding to your disagreement with my assessment in a pedantic fashion because you did not explicitly state in your posting procedures that you are permitted to address ancillary issues that don't simply answer the question.
Speaking of context, I thought the previous posts would indicate the tone of the contentious post. I will start prefacing all joking statements with the forgotten tag: "joke incoming - joke:"

Joke incoming - Joke: You a little testy from the lack of sleep and running around that accompanies two kids? Nap time?

[BottomOfTotem]

is right, there is absolutely no need to be a douche. OP is confused, probably isn't understanding the material (which is normal), and looked to his cohort for help. Then Kalvalo gives him some back handed response, which he somehow believes is defined by the word succinct, and when somebody calls him out, more people jump in to back the rudeness. THIS IS NOT THE WAY ADULTS BEHAVE.

I get it, chat rooms make people behave in a strange manner. But like Nucky said, if you can't just simply answer the question, don't say anything.

And please keep the, "that is how you teach" crap to yourselves. As a parent of two, it is a shitty way to do it, and is growing evermore out of favor with academics who research teaching methods. In other words, you're wrong.

Tirade over.Sorry OP, I can't help you with the citation. It looks like it was answered though.

So the bolded is "simply answer[ing] the question"? If so, I would not want to read your memos or briefs!

Nice response. Way to put someone down because you (perhaps correctly) believe you are smarter than me. Is that the way you interact with people in the real world?

As to the substance of your response, I again disagree. In my opinion, you have completely taken context out of the conversation. I offered a simple answer to the question - I didn't know how to cite. My additional tirade was not directed whatsoever at OP, whereas my comment about simply answering was. Thus I did simply answer, although I added additional information to other members in the forum.

Whoa whoa whoa cowboy. I thought we were kidding around here. I didn't use a smiley face this time so you take it seriously and personally? Not the intent. I was responding to your disagreement with my assessment in a pedantic fashion because you did not explicitly state in your posting procedures that you are permitted to address ancillary issues that don't simply answer the question.
Speaking of context, I thought the previous posts would indicate the tone of the contentious post. I will start prefacing all joking statements with the forgotten tag: "joke incoming - joke:"

Joke incoming - Joke: You a little testy from the lack of sleep and running around that accompanies two kids? Nap time?

Haha fair enough, my bad. Yeah a little slow to jokes, probably from less than full mental ability. DON'T HAVE KIDS!!!... jk. But for real, a nap would be clutch.

P.S. leave the smiley faces to the high school kids...

That was an attempt at a joke - don't judge me. haha

[JGMotorsport]

Nobody is doing OP favors here other than by telling him to use Google+Bluebook. Especially for a citation as basic and prevalent as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

[cavalier1138]

I disagree.

When someone asks you a question, and instead of providing an exact answer, you provide a resource that you find useful - that is not direct. If you answered the question plainly (i.e. it is done like this: Rule 34...), that'd be direct.

Also, not only is indirectness a synonym for backhandedness, you responded to a post seeking help with an inference that the person was inept. Acting as though you care, and that you want to help, while calling the person inept, is another example of a backhanded response.

It's the Bluebook, not some arcane tome of old case rulings.

No one said, "The answer is in a 53-page Holmes treatise on this very subject." They said to check the Bluebook, which is what the OP will expected to do for the remainder of their legal career when they have a citation question. It isn't a "helpful resource". It's literally the only resource, and it provides the only correct answer to the question in plain language.

More importantly, if the OP doesn't learn how to Bluebook properly, what's going to happen in two weeks when they forget what that other student said about citation format? Or what happens when they want to know how to cite to a specific state law resource? Or any number of other citation questions?

I know that the prevailing wisdom is that all law professors are terrible, mean, and totally stuck in an archaic mode of teaching, but there are pretty good reasons that we're supposed to learn citation formats on our own.