Killing a bug is worse than cheating on your girlfriend?
Ben, I think the takeaway is supposed to be that Unf and ogged are an updated and uncaught version Leopold and Loeb. (Or Loeb and Leopold, as the case may be.) It's not so much that ogged hasn't done things that others might consider sins, it's that those things aren't really sins for him.
I don't feel like going back to look, but how objective was the criterion for "worst" in the original post? I can imagine consistently thinking that something one did was justified and thinking it's among the worst things one has done. That would be possible on a highly subjective conception of "worst," something like how badly one feels despite feeling that someone in your circumstances is objectively justified.
You backed over somebody's foot with your car and it didn't explode, or even squirt bodily fluids? What was your car made of, fizzle sticks? Just reading that sentence has made my toes ache. Ow!
You know, Saheli, you're not really one of the damned until you say something cruel about the Mazzo. Do it. You know you want to. Just do it.
Oh hmph. Maybe I'll just say something cruel about you! :-p
Wrong -- false dichotomy! Say something cruel about everyone. Such as: you are all undersexed! And your comment thread is shorter and less weighty than my comment thread! (metaphorically. I have no actual comment thread, for I have no actual blog.)
There is some crazy fog going on in Chicago's west horizon.
That's how your educated blogreader distinguishes this blog from Chicago's west horizon. (Next week: Your ass; a hole in the ground -- distinguishing features.)
Unsure if you have just insulted me. If so, right on! That's the spirit.
although as the two lawyers at work who hate their jobs, we ought to insult someone else. And not everybody has a view of Chicago's west horizon.
Oh yes. I get it now. This is were the un-fog rolls forever forward.
it was crazy fog -- for awhile it was like a drape sitting out there. Now it is faded.
Ah, yes, but through the miracle of time zones, I'm here later than you are. (In retrospect, the parenthetical does look insulting, doesn't it. I mostly just meant to continue riffing on the theme of distinguishing things.)
What kind of lawyer are you? I hadn't realized, which suggests that you show a more fitting reticence about your loathsome job than I do about mine.
The self-loathing kind. I'm a litigator, a first year. I'd like to think it gets better, but what limited information I have indicates the opposite trend.
Why is undersexed always the insult? Because oversexed is the old, prudish dominant paradigm? They're both kinda lame.
You are all optimallysexed, and that's just wrong and brain-cell destroying!!!
/looks around nervously.
How's that?
Is lawyering the only line of work in the world where the "corporate" jobs are the good ones? A friend of mine, fresh off the law-school boat, has settled into a corporate counsel position at a large, faceless, HMO, and loves it, relatively speaking.
Besides being behind an hour, I'm leaving now. So I get to be less miserable for the day.
If you mean in-house counsel by "corporate," then yes, they tend to have better hours. But (allegedly) those jobs are less exciting. So pick your poison.
There are advantages to working for a big firm. From what I hear, at small firms the hours are just as bad and the pay is worse.
I think my problem is I don't like to work very much.
Man, I would love to go inhouse -- my last job hunt was all about finding something inhouse (corporation counsel, like you said), but they just don't want litigators, at least at my seniority level. Transactional types have all the luck.
And text, don't let me get you down. I'm really cranky lately because I hate this tobacco case I'm working on, and I just switched jobs in January and I'm all socially isolated at work. My old job was staffed by lunatics, and I don't mean that only in the charming way, but I kinda liked most of them, and the drama was entertaining. Now, all I've got going on at work is work. So I'm bitching endlessly, but this isn't everyone's experience, and it hasn't always been mine.
From what I hear, at small firms the hours are just as bad and the pay is worse.
Mmmhm. That's why I left my last job -- couldn't justify the lower pay if the hours were still going to suck that badly. And I was getting too close to partner, and it was not a financially stable enough organization that I wanted to be a partner there.
I think my problem is I don't like to work very much.
The problem isn't not liking work- the problem is explaining this to your boss.
Considering we have the greatest philosophical & legal minds of our generation right here in this blog, can we construct a fool-proof, er, proof to explain to my immediate superior how I never have to actually finish anything that is assigned to me, just be able to discuss it vaguely?
Can you copy me when someone sends you one?
If there are such great minds here, why are you thinking so small? First convince him(or her) that s/he didn't assign you anything, then that s/he is not your superior.
This isn't the draft you're looking for...
[waves hands...]
I totally botched that reference up:
These aren't the drafts you're looking for...
[waves hand]
Somtimes I hear people say, "law degrees are useful for things besides practicing law." Sometimes I think people lie.