I have a question for the person who wrote, "Q: I was always a straight A student, magna cum laude, etc. Until I got to law school, where I hit a brick wall. I just didn't get right away what law school was about, what the professors were looking for. "
I didn't know what they were looking for when I went to law school, either. I did notice, though, during my one semester there, that the student who found the correct answers in a library scavenger hunt and then HID THE BOOKS FROM THE REST OF US got an A, and I'd bet real money the professor knew what the guy had done and figured he'd probably go far. I was only in law school because I thought I wanted to be a law librarian. That stunt cured me of that notion, and saved me a bunch of tuition money.
The librarian was ticked because it's nearly impossible to find a hidden book in a library - people stash them behind a row of books on a shelf that's nowhere near where they belong. You find them months if not years later, sometimes, and since these books were important references, he'd have to reorder them. He said it happened all too often. I became a medical librarian instead - no med school necessary.
I never knew who the culprit was. He's probably a Supreme Court justice now.
Seems that is the standard pronunciation (in-de-FAT-i-ga-bly.)
Which is therefore not valid for a double-dactyl poem.
Having read it much more than heard it, “IN-de-fa-TI-ga-bly” seemed plausible to me, and it fits the double dactyl meter. Unfortunately it’s wrong, or at least completely nonstandard.
I'm encouraged that a lot of people seem to like their pharmacies. I'm surprised.
Of course, we used to love our nearby pharmacy, and the chief pharmacist, who knew the whole family by name, and knew our managers and our insurance, as well.
Then that pharmacy was bought by a chain, and then that chain was bought by another chain with a logo that looks like that of our local baseball team.
They decided to shut down the location and transfer out pharmacist not to the nearest alternate location, but to a store 20 miles away.
Of course, they only but other chains to snuff out competition. They closed our nearby location because they already owned the two OTHER closest pharmacies. Where else were we going to go?
I like my pharmacy but I get all my care from the VA. My meds get mailed to me. VA care is how many Americans think “socialized medicine” would be - it’s slow, might take a while to get the specialist appointment you need, often understaffed and underfunded. But it’s a connected system, no capricious insurance company between me and my doctor, no one recommends unnecessary procedures so they can increase practice profits.
In Wayne’s defense, it’s an anthropological phenomenon that in many societies, there is an urge to reassure the father (or perceived father, in Wayne’s case) of a newborn baby that it looks just like him, whether it does or not. There are apparently limits, however; when my wife and I adopted babies of a different race, nobody - whether or not they knew we were an adoptive family - ever tried that with me. Perhaps I should have been offended, but I merely found the lack of this social nicety in my case amusing.
I’m recently back in the WDC area. Originally, I had me scripts filled at at a large chain. They botched my scripts too many times that I sought out a local small pharmacy: shout out to Glen Echo Pharmacy
I will play for a minute and then get I need return to work
1. Sotomayor's dissent on 303 Creative gets a C grade. Good grammar, no content related to the case at hand. Just a simple read and you will see, she argues a completely different set of facts that were acknowledged by the State of CO. If you have to change the facts to fit your argument... need I continue to mansplain?
2. Affirmative Action decision: In no reality is it acceptable to use racism to justify racism. This experiment has failed and thankfully the pendulum of punishing children for the sins of the great-great-great-great grandfathers of other children is now swinging back. Sotomayor's dissent cites precedent. Wrong decisions that harm many and have not had the intended consequences do not equal an argument in support of a clearly unfair position. Asian American students suffer tremendous injustice and for a justice to say, "precedent" makes it right is akin to saying that all decisions before are correct. Dred Scot decision was wrong, Plessy vs Fergueson was wrong. Thank goodness we do not enshrine all decisions the same.
3. Ethical violations: Gene threw the justices under the bus here with generalization. Go ask him why, then go read the rules and the rule changes for SCOTUS, and then go look at the cases and see if it made any difference in any case.
4. I completely agree with you, Opinion is clearly protected. But, if your opinion assumes facts not in evidence, or your opinion is based not upon facts but on prejudice and 'lived experience,' then it may be protected, but it's worth much less. It doesn't make bit of difference who you are, well-stated opinions do not make them true. We all can agree that many wars and atrocities have been committed following the well stated opinions that in retrospect were completely unfounded. Calling this out is important, whether a substack writer like Gene, or Presidents Biden, Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, etc, historical figures like: Hitler, Stalin, Lenin etc, present day US representatives and senators. They all know one thing, people listen, they reflexively react if you push the buttons, mix truth and fiction and create a narrative. Once you start following, it is difficult for the human psyche to question. Questioning opinions is vital to the preservation of democracy.
While I appreciate your willingness to respond, and am more than willing and able to rebut, or provide a different perspective on just about all of it, it's probably unfair to dampen spirits here with a pissing contest. So let's just leave it with an agreement to (mostly) disagree, shall we ?
I share the dislike of the Mischievious Pharmacy monopoly. So much so, that I had my doctor send my prescriptions to Amazon, where they are cheaper by paying out of pocket than they are by using insurance. I click a button, and they show up in 48 hours, sometimes earlier, at my house! I don't need to enter a building, wait in line with parents juggling their sick children waiting for amoxicillin, and then be told, Sorry! Not ready! Come back at 5 pm!
1. Invalidated as you believe personal experience and wealth of rearing has anything to do with making an informed and logical fact driven decision. Clearly you judge people by their upbringing not their decision. Talk about prejudice!
2. Do not address any decision they made (as all decisions were clear if you actually read their opinions.)
3. Completely discount the moronic (and I use that term specifically) dissenting opinions. If a reasonable teacher was to grade these essays, they would say to the dissenters, "Here is a C because you put a lot of grammatically correct sentences on paper. But, your discussion has nothing to do with the cases at hand and do not make valid points."
4. You have exactly zero evidence to support ethical violations. You make the statement as if there are some facts. But the facts as have been discussed ad nauseam clearly do not support the accusations. You therefore malign the justices because you do not like their opinions.
Suggest you be more specific about your "concerns." All I see are generalities. Which decisions ? Which dissents ? Who made charges of "ethical" violations and what were they ? What "facts" do not support which "accusations ?" Let's play court, shall we ? And be careful to separate opinion from absence of fact, it is still protected.
I felt no shame skipping classes at the time, but do occasionally now, having wasted my time and my family's money. It's cheering to see how widespread the practice was among Gene Pool readers. A friend of mine was told during her academic probation meeting that the university was not meant to be used as an extremely pricey hotel.
I always wait for the final notice from the pharmacy on principle, before picking up my prescriptions. The one that says in no uncertain terms that I will be visited upon by at least five of the "Plagues of Egypt" unless I remove my cheap-generic-taking-food-out-of-the-mouths-of the pharmacist's-kids, measly two prescriptions by Tuesday at 4 pm and by the way, we know where you live.
The reason my pharmacy is “fine” is that I am in the Kaiser HMO and all prescriptions go directly to the pharmacy and are ready in 15-20 minutes after my appointment. Still have to wait in a line, but no excuses. My spouse, however, is in a regular plan and gets her meds at a place that sounds like it has Green Walls. And her experience is much like Gene’s—no matter how long the scrip has been sent, it is always 45 minutes from being done.
Seriously. Did Tom write 'flaw' in the ointment?
I have a question for the person who wrote, "Q: I was always a straight A student, magna cum laude, etc. Until I got to law school, where I hit a brick wall. I just didn't get right away what law school was about, what the professors were looking for. "
What were they looking for? Thanks!
I didn't know what they were looking for when I went to law school, either. I did notice, though, during my one semester there, that the student who found the correct answers in a library scavenger hunt and then HID THE BOOKS FROM THE REST OF US got an A, and I'd bet real money the professor knew what the guy had done and figured he'd probably go far. I was only in law school because I thought I wanted to be a law librarian. That stunt cured me of that notion, and saved me a bunch of tuition money.
Wow, that's really cut-throat.
The librarian was ticked because it's nearly impossible to find a hidden book in a library - people stash them behind a row of books on a shelf that's nowhere near where they belong. You find them months if not years later, sometimes, and since these books were important references, he'd have to reorder them. He said it happened all too often. I became a medical librarian instead - no med school necessary.
I never knew who the culprit was. He's probably a Supreme Court justice now.
According to the Cambridge dictionary, indefatigably IS a 6 syllable word, pronounced in-de-Fat-i-ga-bly.
How do you pronounce it?
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/pronunciation/english/indefatigably
That is how I pronounce it. I guess I don't know the "correct" way. Please enlighten us, Pat the Perfect or tell us of the Fault in Ours, Czar?
Seems that is the standard pronunciation (in-de-FAT-i-ga-bly.)
Which is therefore not valid for a double-dactyl poem.
Having read it much more than heard it, “IN-de-fa-TI-ga-bly” seemed plausible to me, and it fits the double dactyl meter. Unfortunately it’s wrong, or at least completely nonstandard.
I'm encouraged that a lot of people seem to like their pharmacies. I'm surprised.
Of course, we used to love our nearby pharmacy, and the chief pharmacist, who knew the whole family by name, and knew our managers and our insurance, as well.
Then that pharmacy was bought by a chain, and then that chain was bought by another chain with a logo that looks like that of our local baseball team.
They decided to shut down the location and transfer out pharmacist not to the nearest alternate location, but to a store 20 miles away.
Of course, they only but other chains to snuff out competition. They closed our nearby location because they already owned the two OTHER closest pharmacies. Where else were we going to go?
Capitalism.
And by managers I of course mean "names.". (that's a weird autocorrect)
I like my pharmacy but I get all my care from the VA. My meds get mailed to me. VA care is how many Americans think “socialized medicine” would be - it’s slow, might take a while to get the specialist appointment you need, often understaffed and underfunded. But it’s a connected system, no capricious insurance company between me and my doctor, no one recommends unnecessary procedures so they can increase practice profits.
In Wayne’s defense, it’s an anthropological phenomenon that in many societies, there is an urge to reassure the father (or perceived father, in Wayne’s case) of a newborn baby that it looks just like him, whether it does or not. There are apparently limits, however; when my wife and I adopted babies of a different race, nobody - whether or not they knew we were an adoptive family - ever tried that with me. Perhaps I should have been offended, but I merely found the lack of this social nicety in my case amusing.
I am glad we could find some common ground. That’s the best anyone can hope to achieve. Sincerely.
I’m recently back in the WDC area. Originally, I had me scripts filled at at a large chain. They botched my scripts too many times that I sought out a local small pharmacy: shout out to Glen Echo Pharmacy
I will play for a minute and then get I need return to work
1. Sotomayor's dissent on 303 Creative gets a C grade. Good grammar, no content related to the case at hand. Just a simple read and you will see, she argues a completely different set of facts that were acknowledged by the State of CO. If you have to change the facts to fit your argument... need I continue to mansplain?
2. Affirmative Action decision: In no reality is it acceptable to use racism to justify racism. This experiment has failed and thankfully the pendulum of punishing children for the sins of the great-great-great-great grandfathers of other children is now swinging back. Sotomayor's dissent cites precedent. Wrong decisions that harm many and have not had the intended consequences do not equal an argument in support of a clearly unfair position. Asian American students suffer tremendous injustice and for a justice to say, "precedent" makes it right is akin to saying that all decisions before are correct. Dred Scot decision was wrong, Plessy vs Fergueson was wrong. Thank goodness we do not enshrine all decisions the same.
3. Ethical violations: Gene threw the justices under the bus here with generalization. Go ask him why, then go read the rules and the rule changes for SCOTUS, and then go look at the cases and see if it made any difference in any case.
4. I completely agree with you, Opinion is clearly protected. But, if your opinion assumes facts not in evidence, or your opinion is based not upon facts but on prejudice and 'lived experience,' then it may be protected, but it's worth much less. It doesn't make bit of difference who you are, well-stated opinions do not make them true. We all can agree that many wars and atrocities have been committed following the well stated opinions that in retrospect were completely unfounded. Calling this out is important, whether a substack writer like Gene, or Presidents Biden, Trump, Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, etc, historical figures like: Hitler, Stalin, Lenin etc, present day US representatives and senators. They all know one thing, people listen, they reflexively react if you push the buttons, mix truth and fiction and create a narrative. Once you start following, it is difficult for the human psyche to question. Questioning opinions is vital to the preservation of democracy.
You are dumb.
While I appreciate your willingness to respond, and am more than willing and able to rebut, or provide a different perspective on just about all of it, it's probably unfair to dampen spirits here with a pissing contest. So let's just leave it with an agreement to (mostly) disagree, shall we ?
I share the dislike of the Mischievious Pharmacy monopoly. So much so, that I had my doctor send my prescriptions to Amazon, where they are cheaper by paying out of pocket than they are by using insurance. I click a button, and they show up in 48 hours, sometimes earlier, at my house! I don't need to enter a building, wait in line with parents juggling their sick children waiting for amoxicillin, and then be told, Sorry! Not ready! Come back at 5 pm!
Good to know.
Tom theButcher wrote “flaw in the ointment.” Not so great for an editor, and don’t tell me that “flaw” could technically be right.
I use the same pharmacy you do. I called it fine,” but only because it’s open 24/7. Haven’t run into any unannounced unavailabilities.
"Flaw in the ointment" is a play on words.
Your statements about the Supreme court are:
1. Invalidated as you believe personal experience and wealth of rearing has anything to do with making an informed and logical fact driven decision. Clearly you judge people by their upbringing not their decision. Talk about prejudice!
2. Do not address any decision they made (as all decisions were clear if you actually read their opinions.)
3. Completely discount the moronic (and I use that term specifically) dissenting opinions. If a reasonable teacher was to grade these essays, they would say to the dissenters, "Here is a C because you put a lot of grammatically correct sentences on paper. But, your discussion has nothing to do with the cases at hand and do not make valid points."
4. You have exactly zero evidence to support ethical violations. You make the statement as if there are some facts. But the facts as have been discussed ad nauseam clearly do not support the accusations. You therefore malign the justices because you do not like their opinions.
Suggest you be more specific about your "concerns." All I see are generalities. Which decisions ? Which dissents ? Who made charges of "ethical" violations and what were they ? What "facts" do not support which "accusations ?" Let's play court, shall we ? And be careful to separate opinion from absence of fact, it is still protected.
Just a bunch of today's cut-and-paste talking points manufactured by the right wing noise machine.
I felt no shame skipping classes at the time, but do occasionally now, having wasted my time and my family's money. It's cheering to see how widespread the practice was among Gene Pool readers. A friend of mine was told during her academic probation meeting that the university was not meant to be used as an extremely pricey hotel.
I always wait for the final notice from the pharmacy on principle, before picking up my prescriptions. The one that says in no uncertain terms that I will be visited upon by at least five of the "Plagues of Egypt" unless I remove my cheap-generic-taking-food-out-of-the-mouths-of the pharmacist's-kids, measly two prescriptions by Tuesday at 4 pm and by the way, we know where you live.
I refuse to engage in a discussion about my pharmacy experiences. If I ever do, you all have permission to hunt me down, hunger games style.
The reason my pharmacy is “fine” is that I am in the Kaiser HMO and all prescriptions go directly to the pharmacy and are ready in 15-20 minutes after my appointment. Still have to wait in a line, but no excuses. My spouse, however, is in a regular plan and gets her meds at a place that sounds like it has Green Walls. And her experience is much like Gene’s—no matter how long the scrip has been sent, it is always 45 minutes from being done.