do you believe in God and green Lifesavers

Okay, on second thought, I'm not sure if this counts as discussing my answer. So off this goes until next month, just in case.

Except for this bit, which gives absolutely nothing away:

I think I just wrote the IR equivalent of "Look, Ray, turtles!"



At 8/29/2006 12:49 PM, Blogger Priya said...

Not sure why you just didn't pick one (AW is the bestest, brilliantest person evah! OR AW's a bloody awful twit) and just argue for it. You are the lawyer after all--argue away, woman!

Onwards to the next question(s)

At 8/29/2006 1:02 PM, Blogger Elizabeth said...

No, see, that's what I *tried* to do. But it all went horribly wrong. Because they asked for a broad discussion of what lots of people think about it, and I can't seem to strike a good balance between that part and the argument part.

When you make a legal argument, it's the other guy's responsibility to mention the stuff that doesn't agree with you.

At 8/29/2006 2:02 PM, Blogger Priya said...

Lol! I think this is along the lines of "Here's what I think (possibly agreeing with one of the "Schools" or pretending to do so), here's what other people think (but imply and point out they are all w**kers and, therefore, wrong. Not because of the activity itself but because of what being a w**ker implies), trot out a few (tried and tested) reasons why these people are wrong, reiterate your (marvellous and perfectly obvious by now) Rightness and voila! you're done.

At 8/29/2006 2:24 PM, Blogger Elizabeth said...

Yeah, it ought to work that way. Of course, you've seen the result, and so know that there's very rarely a one-to-one correspondence between theory and reality. Or realities. Or constructed impressions of something that may or may not be reality.

Fuck. Fuckity fuck fuck. I'd have been better off writing about Huntington's invisible theoretical framework.

Even knowing that Cubically Contained was written for CKR cannot cheer me up now. I suspect that I'll be unable to summon enough energy to watch Hard Core Logo if it shows up today. Which it probably won't, because I don't deserve to watch it because I'm a Bad Grad Student.

Although the possibility of debate between you and Theory Guy is vaguely amusing. As is his misuse of the phrase "battle royale."

At 8/29/2006 6:17 PM, Blogger Priya said...

Now there's 3 of us after Realism.
That should be even more fun.

Just keep in mind that there are only two (hopefully one by now) more to go and that the questions are meant merely as a guideline and can be (re)worked as suits you.

I'm planning on being awake most of tonight to try figure out SNA. Yes, I'm well aware people take entire classes on that but, as you know, I don't have that luxury. Nodes, connections and whatnot, here I come!!

Oh, and I don't own a John Scott either. This is going to suck.

At 8/29/2006 6:19 PM, Blogger Priya said...

Forgot to add that I ran into TG looking more like "the Man" than even the Man can look and was told that was the "academic in drag" look. I love how people delude themselves since there was not much "drag" and too much "American Academic" about the look.

It was a gray suit. Need I add more?

At 8/29/2006 10:33 PM, Blogger Elizabeth said...

Wait, where the fuck did my comment go? It was all snarky and stuff, and now it's just disappeared. Damn it.

And I'm not sure it was Cubically Contained. Now I can't remember, because I'm busy worrying about what's on the rest of the exam that I can't make myself look at until tomorrow morning, because as far as my brain knows there's still eight hours before the next part's due, and so it would much rather think about Paul Gross chained to a building.

Also, shouldn't that be Academic Drag? Because Academic in Drag would be, maybe, The Bowler in a catholic schoolgirl uniform.

Or Weber in a cocktail gown (now *there's* an image that's hard to block out)

Or neither, since he's an academic and not really pretending to be one. So I'm pretty sure he can't make that particular claim. Of course, neither can we.

At 8/31/2006 10:11 AM, Blogger Elizabeth said...

Hey, Priya, does whining about my inability to talk about Wendt count as discussing the exam? It's on every test, so it can't possibly give anything away, can it?

Now I'm paranoid, because (as I was just reminded) they might want to use the questions again. Argh. I should probably take everything down, just in case.


Post a Comment

<< Home