Internet advice Forum

[pinkzeppelin]

Everyone is so pessimistic on these boards. I was surfing on the net looking for some data on law employment to help me decide if I really want to start a career as a lawyer, and I came across some exciting news. According to law teacher "only 3.8% of law graduates are unemployed." And "the skills necessary for and developed by a law degree are easily transferable to other jobs and careers." Now I'm sold.

So since law school is for everyone, I also looked up how to get into Harvard. According to this article (LinkRemoved) I don't think I'll get into Harvard, my high school grades weren't so good, and I also didn't take ANY law courses in college.

Also, judging by the high caliber of the writing in the former article, I highly recommend using the Law Teacher to write your essays.

[trialjunky]

In before the word "flame"

[Jacktone]

In before the word "flame"

Flame? I do not think the OP wants us to think that he or she genuinely believes the linked advice is sound. To me the post reads more like sarcasm used to illustrate how disgusted the OP is with the misinformation provided by these websites. If anything, I feel the OP is looking for agreement, not controversy.

OP, you are right about that article about getting into Harvard Law. It is so ridiculous that I at first thought it was funny and then thought it was sad.

[ozarkhack]

The interview with potential candidates I just like a singer going to a record company.

Plus, why is Glen Beck writing "ezine" articles??

Oh, man. Follow the link to his website. More gems:

But, it has been observed that those who get admitted to the law schools do have an edge over the rejected ones.

Law schools look for candidates who are passionate about something. So, a candidate needs to show that he is willing to spend four years, studying a topic he loves

[bk1]

The difference between trolling and sarcasm is largely in expected response rather than the content of the post.

Judging from the OP's other posts I would say it is sarcasm, but it is not funny.

[Jacktone]

The difference between trolling and sarcasm is largely in expected response rather than the content of the post.

Judging from the OP's other posts I would say it is sarcasm, but it is not funny.

I too believe that if one knows his or her post will elicit negative responses and controversy then that person is a troll that should not be protected behind the shield of sarcasm, but I feel it is important to note that if the OP does not expect negative responses then he or she is not a troll. Essentially, the intentions of the poster are paramount. Sarcasm can of course backfire on the internet and should thus always be used cautiously. However, I do not believe that a poster should be ostracized as a troll when others misinterpret his or her post.

Since you yourself claim that the OP's post history indicates a trend of sarcasm, I feel it is clear that the OP did not intend to mislead us.

[pinkzeppelin]

The difference between trolling and sarcasm is largely in expected response rather than the content of the post.

Judging from the OP's other posts I would say it is sarcasm, but it is not funny.

Aw c'mon, not funny? low blow there. It's ok, I wasn't really trying to be funny anyway (and definitely not a flame), I just thought those articles were hilarious. But at the same time, I couldn't help but wonder what would happen if someone naive enough to believe those articles actually stumbled across them. So I decided to share the articles in a way that showed what I was thinking would happen if some interested but law-school-ignorant person found them.

What amazes me the most is how sites like those can get such high search indexes...

[Matthies]

The difference between trolling and sarcasm is largely in expected response rather than the content of the post.

Judging from the OP's other posts I would say it is sarcasm, but it is not funny.

Aw c'mon, not funny? low blow there. It's ok, I wasn't really trying to be funny anyway (and definitely not a flame), I just thought those articles were hilarious. But at the same time, I couldn't help but wonder what would happen if someone naive enough to believe those articles actually stumbled across them. So I decided to share the articles in a way that showed what I was thinking would happen if some interested but law-school-ignorant person found them.

What amazes me the most is how sites like those can get such high search indexes...

Not funny, to be funny on the internet you need to come up with something new, something no one has thought of before, why not post something like the Cooley rankings, that's refreshing, cutting edge, funny