Hey jerky, don’t you have some crow to eat for saying I would avoid the tax question, when in reality I answered it and got a passing score?
Find one post where I’ve done this. You are making shit up.
It’s not that I’d prefer people not question me about my personal philosophy, it’s that you are not making a coherent point. You seem to think there’s some inconsistency with me saying that people are responsible for their choices and me not being as rich as I possibly could be, which is just bullshit. It is not the case that I have not demonstrated some personal consistency. You are talking completely out of your ass and making less sense than you were before at this point. I can’t believe you too have so little regard for how other posters view your intellectual abilities that you would continue this line of questioning. So embarrassed for you.
You are not being inconsistent if you recognize the importance of factors outside a person’s control. Until this thread, you’ve shown no awareness of such factors, and have denied their existence when people have suggested that sometimes a person can be poor through no fault of their own.
Indeed, your arrogant assumption each time someone posts about economic difficulty is that they’ve made some personal mistake. Maybe that’s true. Maybe it’s even true a majority of the time. But without any inquiry at all you’re happy to leap to that conclusion every time. So when **Quartz **–to pick one example of several–says there are 2000 applicants for 2 jobs, you assume at some point he could have chosen a job where this would never happen. It seems to never occur to you that his options might have been constrained by outside factors. And while you assume that for him, you concede that your career choices were limited by outside factors.
If that still doesn’t make sense to you, it speaks more to your self-delusion than my intelligence. I’m confident of that.
Rand Rover I think you missing some of the point here.
I work in Hedge Funds (boo hiss [quiet at the back]) and can quite confidently state that I
- Work longer hours than you
- Earn more than you
Which may give my opinion some traction with you.*
People who choose other career options that involve fewer hours worked or less money are not bad people. Take your admonishment of one poster for stating she’d rather be in bed than working. Now that’s not for me (or you) but it doesn’t make it wrong or something to be embarrassed about. It’s just different. The world needs all sorts of people to make it an interesting place and get everything, not just the ‘important’ tax lawyer-ing, done.
In short – stop making value judgements on others who have made different choices. Enjoy conversing with them, you may learn something.
- yes I know it shouldn’t
This is factually incorrect. You are a liar.
This is not true. You are a liar.
This is not true. You are a liar. He asked how he was supposed to compete against 2000 people, so I said he should become qualified for jobs that don’t get 2000 applicants.
I never have said they are. This whole line of attack is another example of people assuming that because they think I am a bad person that I must believe other things that would also make the believer a bad person.
The post saying “I’m working while you are all in bed, suckers” was just a joke. I am fully aware of the fact that some people choose to do other things besides making the most possible money they can. Hell, my wife has chosen to do other things besides make lots of money.
Some of you people are not very good at telling the difference between posts where I am joking and having some fun with what I perceive as your perception of me and posts where I am serious.
This is the stuff that made people jump your shit. You’re on him about decisions he made in the past, insulting him with no regard for why he made them and no suggestion on how he can work with what he has. I’d call that mean and useless.
Whose fault is that do you think?
But this is not an example of me rubbing people’s noses in the shit that is the economy. As I explained ad nauseum in that thread, I was fetting on to the OP for lamenting that he had to “pound the pavement,” as if that was beneath him. I explained that all in the thread but all many of you see is “Rand Rover is being mean to an unemployed guy” without looking into exactly what I was saying.
Richard Parker I figured your dumb ass out. You wanted me to say that outside factors caused me to be a lawyer instead of a business person, and then you would rub my face in the inconsistency of wanting others to consider outside facotrs that happen to me but me not considering outside factors that happen to others. However, your little plan backfired when I si$ply replied that it was a result of my choices. You have now tried to salvage your argument by saying that my choices were affected by outside factors (or someting), which doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Also, your whole premise is wrong because, to reiterate, I don’t believe that others’ outside factors should not be considered.
Others have done this. It just makes you look like an idiot. Whose fault is that?
I know exactly what you were saying. He is unhappy about having to look for a job (who isn’t?) and you are blaming him, rather than the economy, for the fact that he doesn’t have a job at the moment. He never said it was beneath him. He said he didn’t like the process of finding work. You used his mild rant as a platform to tell us yet again how fucking wonderful you are with your big-ass job and your highly honed skills. No one gives a fuck. You are incapable of understanding the tone in which the OP was delivered and your desire to look down your nose at the rest of the world (minus those 2000 geniuses who can do your job, of course) overrode your miniscule comprehension skills.
Perhaps you can explain something for me. Why do you continue to think that it is your ideas that are under fire in this thread rather than your actions? Don’t get me wrong. I disagree with your philosophy and your misinterpretation of Randian theory but that isn’t why you were called out. You were called out because you are being an ass. I have not seen one person in this thread defend you*.
None of this is a statement on your political beliefs. It is a statement on you and the way you interact with others. Maybe you don’t see it. Maybe you do and don’t care. Maybe I’m an idealist who does not understand the way this place works all that well but seems to me you could have avoided five pages of people telling you what an ass you are if you had apologized for being one in the first place. You ain’t winning this one, son. Efforts to do so are only making you look smaller and more full of yourself.
*Msmith defended libertarianism, not your methods.
Probably a net positive, all things considered. Better for her to miss him, not knowing his character, than actually have him around, and recognize him as a dick.
Your first post in that thread was to tell Quartz that he should get a job that doesn’t have 2000 applicants. You then followed up with all the idiotic posts Kalhoun took the time to post for you. You ignore the multiple points other attorneys have brought up for you-which is that the state of the economy is creating ferocious competition for limited openings including in your own beloved field of law. The OP later came back and talked about how he works in IT.
You never took the time to consider whether or not the OP’s frustration with the level of competition may have been borne out of the fact that he DID work his ass off for years, did get a good education and the end result was that he still had to face 2000 other competitors for the same job because of outside circumstances, not because he didn’t do everything (up to that moment) correctly. Newsflash-this is the same situation for nearly every attorney, MBA and Ph.d graduating over the next 6 months. Why? Because the economy sucks.
With the level of arrogance you displayed, I’d have thought you were Warren Motherfucking Buffet or something. Instead, it seems like you’re a solidly mediocre calculator confined to some back office taking depreciation deductions on Kimberly Clark’s stock of tampons. No offense, but the second year associates at Goldman Sachs are pulling in more than you. Maybe they should come berate you for not making the right economic choices and providing better for your family.
Lost me - I was asking whose fault do you think it was that some your posts are misconstrued to be serious as opposed to ‘humourous’.
So this is going to be the pattern I assume…
Mr. Rover posts what, on the surface appears to be a cold hearted, obnoxious statement, blunt and short. People complain. Mr. Rover defends himself, but also explains what he really meant was something much more acceptable, he was just a little brusque in his delivery.
And now Mr. Rover is happy, because he has made the thread about him, rather than the original topic. Attention whore.
Sounds like you need to take responsibility for your actions and improve your communication abilities so that the difference will be more clear. Why are you blaming other people for the fact that you sound like an ass?
-
I have not ignored the posts by attorneys about the legal market. In fact, I responded directly to those posts in this very thread. You are therefore a liar.
-
The rest of your post is just drivel that’s not worthty of a response.