I should never have entered Esquire's BDRM contest.

[srivats]

I am very glad I chose engineering. **** yeah.

 

[luftvier]

Originally Posted by Bull

Oh ****, The Luftritary....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_(film)

Shweet.

Had I the resources to hire Ms. Gyllenhall...

Originally Posted by srivats

I am very glad I chose engineering. **** yeah.

Word on the street is that engineers don't have it so good nowadays...

 

[srivats]

Originally Posted by luftvier

Word on the street is that engineers don't have it so good nowadays...

True ... But having (mostly) engineer-type friends makes up for that ... atleast I don't have to listen to boring lawyer-types who make sweeping generalizations of things they know barely anything about!

 

[OffTheRack]

Originally Posted by mafoofan

If you don't consider Kirkland an elite firm, then your notion of "elite" must cover an exceedingly small number of firms. It is telling that in terms of compensation, Kirkland is the only firm aside from Wachtell to pay outsize, above market bonuses. Whether a firm has an official billable hour requirement is hardly a measure of anything when they all have de facto requirements anyway. Also, the vast majority of Vault 100 firms pay lockstep compensation. What universe are you coming from?
Paying outsize bonuses is just more evidence of the fact that K&E is late to the elite law firm party. And Ken Starr was a partner there, so that takes them down a notch in my book. I'm not saying they're not a great a firm, just not in the top tier. See below with regards to your view on lockstep compensation. Your statement is just not correct, as noted. Also, not having a billables requirement means getting your bonus no matter what, and that you don't have to worry about hoarding billables as some have mentioned. Not bad for one's peace of mind. I never said you had to work less.

Originally Posted by crazyquik

Perhaps you should tip better. I don't mean to turn this into a law firm pissing match/dick measuring contest/etc but the vast majority of Vault 100 firms do not have lockstep partner compensation. Additionally, the firms offering lockstep associate compensation is declining (not to the 'dwindling' level yet).

Originally Posted by Bull

LOL ok. If we're talking about the highly subjective and meaningless world of "elitism," then fine. But K&E poaches partners from elite institutions all the time, just like they poached Skadden NY's two lead M&A guys last year, just to do it. Elitism is 80s ****. Catholic social clubs and Episcopalian social clubs and mint jelup. Rack of lamb and pissing on redwoods and secret handshakes and ****. Phooey. The 2000s are about $. It's about the guys who weren't invited to the party showing up with a model on each arm, and throwing the keys to the Panamera to the valet. Personally, I can see the allure of elitism, but I could give a **** about such elusive, squishy criteria. The dollar bill doth not lie.
Of course they would poach from Skadden--they have about 8 million partners, not really sure why that shop seems so elite to you, or why its impressive to poach their guys. Skadden's partner turnover is high, especially compared to their "peer" firms.

Originally Posted by srivats

True ... But having (mostly) engineer-type friends makes up for that ... atleast I don't have to listen to boring lawyer-types who make sweeping generalizations of things they know barely anything about!
I've certainly never heard an engineer claim to know about pretty much everything just because he can do some math.

 

[onix]

Originally Posted by OffTheRack

Originally Posted by srivats

True ... But having (mostly) engineer-type friends makes up for that ... atleast I don't have to listen to boring lawyer-types who make sweeping generalizations of things they know barely anything about!
I've certainly never heard an engineer claim to know about pretty much everything just because he can do some math.
But they don't use false logic either

. He never claimed that engineers know everything, he only said that engineers don't talk about things they don't know about.

 

[apropos]

Originally Posted by onix

But they don't use false logic either

. He never claimed that engineers know everything, he only said that engineers don't talk about things they don't know about.
Haha someone got caught - LAWYERED!!

 

[my_alias]

I will just leave this here:

IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later. I AGREE

TIP: to embed Youtube clips, put only the encoded part of the Youtube URL, e.g. eBGIQ7ZuuiU between the tags.

 

[acidboy]

Originally Posted by mafoofan

It's okay. I have no shame, so the more they make fun of me, the more my ego grows, and the more powerful I become.

the more you ignore

the closer he gets
you're wasting your time.

 

[Mr Herbert]

Originally Posted by srivats

I am very glad I chose engineering. **** yeah.

working in an industry barely touched by tghe GFC isnt bad either.

 

[OffTheRack]

Originally Posted by onix

But they don't use false logic either

. He never claimed that engineers know everything, he only said that engineers don't talk about things they don't know about.

First of all, you didn't understand my statement... I'll try to be a bit more direct.

It was implied that lawyers are prone to speak about things as experts despite actually having no real knowledge of the particular subject, yet engineers do not do this. I was refuting the claim that engineers do not speak to things they don't know about, implying through sarcasm that engineers often assert knowledge about all things technical because of their belief that their math skills afford them some general expertise.

I never suggested that the OP claimed engineers know everything, and I'm not really sure how you could have thought I did.

Secondly, you didn't actually accuse me of "false logic." Rather, you accused me of a reading comprehension mistake, which leads me to believe you're not really familiar with logic yourself.

Perhaps you're neither a lawyer nor an engineer?

 

[apropos]

Nice try at a save, but "pretty much everything" ≠ "knowledge about all things technical".

Your words, not mine.

 

[onix]

Dude, you try too hard.

Originally Posted by OffTheRack

First of all, you didn't understand my statement... I'll try to be a bit more direct. It was implied that lawyers are prone to speak about things as experts despite actually having no real knowledge of the particular subject, yet engineers do not do this. I was refuting the claim that engineers do not speak to things they don't know about, implying through sarcasm that engineers often assert knowledge about all things technical because of their belief that their math skills afford them some general expertise. I never suggested that the OP claimed engineers know everything, and I'm not really sure how you could have thought I did.
^ See apropos's response.

Secondly, you didn't actually accuse me of "false logic." Rather, you accused me of a reading comprehension mistake, which leads me to believe you're not really familiar with logic yourself.

Srivat essentially said "Engineers don't talk about thing they don't know". You wanted to disagree with him, meaning you wanted to negate that argument, thus it should have been: "There exists engineer who talk about thing they don't know". Your actual statement was: "There exists no engineer who knows everything". This statement is not even close to the one you intended. Hence, your logic was false. Understand? No? Then I agree that you have reading comprehension problem.

Perhaps you're neither a lawyer nor an engineer?

I'm both (seriously, try to think of a profession that requires both degrees, do try).

 

[OffTheRack]

Originally Posted by apropos

Nice try at a save, but "pretty much everything" ≠ "knowledge about all things technical".

Your words, not mine.

Not really sure how that point, while valid--my original statement was harsher in its critique of engineers--addresses my response AT ALL, as it IN NO WAY challenges the fact that I was refuting what the OP claimed about engineers, rather than, as I was accused of, ascribing to the OP the claim that engineers in fact know everything.

 

[onix]

Pointless arguments anyway... I am off watching the game. US sucks

 

[gdl203]

Originally Posted by gdl203

I can't think of a worse thread in recent MC history. Truly sh1tty.

+1