Your first question to me was:
Here is the thing...FW attacked me when I was honestly asking him a question out of curiosity. He began to get very defensive and started assuming things from my post (which were never intended and I apologized for these). He poo pooed my apology, so I began to attack him right back because he appeared to be an arrogant prick. He may be a good guy to you, but he immediately entered my "arrogant prick that lacks self-confidence so is always on the defensive" kind of guy. Do you seriously blame me for my messages concerning him?
That question already sounded to me like someone either showing off that he knew what "Shepardizing" is or someone hoping to find out that I didn't. In any case, here was my first response.
Did you shepardize or was the paper written with law review articles? I wrote a paper in law school entitled "How to Sue a Terrorist" and I found the best way to attack topics like that is to use law review articles (because they also include specific cases). Actually, the fact that many papers are already written regarding many of the law topics available makes writing a legal topic paper somewhat easy if you know what you are doing.
I'm really overflowing with the "defensiveness" and "arrogance" there, huh?
I will be the first to admit that I don't do formal legal research on any topic of the type required for law journal submissions and I would immediately decline any project that required it and have done so dozens of times for law review articles, although I don't mind editing them for the quality of writing. This dissertation was for a religious studies program and in a standard referencing style used in that program. I used a wide variety of sources for it, most of which were provided by the client.
That should have been the end of the exchange. Then, instead of asking another question
(if you had one) or restricting your statements of ability to yourself, you publicly announced this ridiculous conclusion
that I "wouldn't be able to complete an article asking for a case analysis" which I found presmptuous and offensive, as would most other professional writers with law degrees who routinely write case analyses all the time.
Ah...ok. So you probably wouldn't be able to complete an article asking for a case analysis and your findings of specific facts based on those cases? I am not sure if I would anymore as well seeing as how I do not have access to lexis. Which law school did you attend?
You don't know the first thing about what my capabilities are or what resources I have. If you
can't "complete an article asking for a case analysis" because you
don't have Lexis, that's you
, not me. Speak for yourself and don't publicly announce what type of projects a professional writer you don't even know can or can't write.So I responded appropriately to that obnoxious nonsense while also directly answering your question about where I went to school:
I have no idea how you draw the ridiculous conclusion that I "wouldn't be able to complete an article asking for a case analysis" from my saying that I don't work with law journal-style referencing systems and I don't appreciate it, because it's intentionally insulting. But I'm really not interested in the argument you're apparently trying to start with me. Obviously, I can analyze cases. Also, as a graduate of NYLS (or of any other law school, for that matter), I know that there's no such thing as "an article asking for a case analysis and your findings of specific facts based on those cases" because a case analysis doesn't involve "findings of specific facts" in any way, shape, or form. Only judges and juries "find facts" and one very important clue in that regard that you seem to have missed would be that they're both sometimes referred to as "fact finders."
Quite honestly, nobody with a legal education would ever use the phrase "an article asking for a case analysis and your findings of specific facts based on those cases
" because it's gibberish that sounds much more like someone without any education in the field slinging "legaleze" that he thinks sounds right. In fact, I still believe that sincerely, and unlike you, I don't
base my arguments on the way I "feel" about a person. When challenged by you, I took a few minutes to look around my apartment for something I could scan to prove where I got my degree without divulging my identity. Now, it's your turn
, because I'm flat out saying that I doubt you're a graduate of any law school
...and that's based strictly on how you use language talking about law and law school. I didn't expect anybody to just take my
word for it and nobody here just takes your
word for it. I don't even own a scanner and had to ask a neighbor to scan it for me.
So, post something proving your
degree now or just do what anybody lying would do in this situation and announce that you have "nothing to prove" to me.
Extremely experienced, reliable, honest writer with a law degree in NYC:nycfreelancewriter.homestead.com/index.html