Christopher Hitchens: Lite Fare for the Uninformed

[youngterrier]

Constantine doesn't approve it, it dies like a thousand other myths.

I don't buy that. Constantine didn't exactly pick an obscure religion and somehow hoisted it onto the Roman Empire - Christianity was growing incredibly enough on its own, without state-approved assistance from Rome (and actually in spite of the tremendous resistance from Rome to snuff it out). Certainly Constantine's acceptance and conversion to Christianity was a boon to the religion as an entity, but you could argue that the tremendous growth of that religion over the 200 some years before Constantine converted to it was indicative that it had plenty of staying power. It was already vastly different from the other belief sytems you mention long before Constantine got his hands on it.

If I'm not mistaken Constantine was baptized on his death bed and another emperor a generation or two later made it the official religion of the empire (though I can't remember his name)

[youngterrier]

No, I understand that wasn't your point in the sentence, but the way one communicates a point is very indicative of how one thinks.

You don't have to be an empiricist to use the methodology of empiricism to communicate the superiority of a point; most people use empiricism by default. Politicians do it in political debates and so on. Any appeal to the natural world is to an extent an empirical argument.

And when you advocate a teleological argument, directly or indirectly, you're using an empirical argument.

You can't really use empiricism to disprove itself, and you didn't really do a good job of even trying quite frankly. You're not going at this sort of a discussion in the right way and that's why you're absolutely terrible at communicating your point. You're addressing people on empirical issues like they're stupid and that's not where the discussion needs to be in the first place.

Quit being condescending, Jesus. You're spending more time talking down to people like they're stupid than you are being generally informative. I guess it says more about why you, ~a distinguished lawyer~ such as yourself. is on a football website prancing around all smarter than thou. We get it, you're a lawyer. If you're so smart you'd probably get that sort of recognition in the real world and wouldn't demand to feel that way around here. That begs the question of why you do it. Do you feel unappreciated?

PS - I studied Hagel under Quentin Lauer -- which means I forgot more about Hagel than you will ever know.

See this is what I'm talking about: elitism, condescension, and so on. It just goes to show that when someone legitimately challenges you you'll peel back into this because it threatens your ~superiority complex~

You're just someone who isn't intellectually respected by his peers so you go online to piss on ~smaller people~ to make yourself feel better.

You can't even spell Hegel's name right so I'm going to assume you're full of shit, and I'm not a stickler for that sort of thing but if you're going to claim ~superiority~ you'd think you'd spell the person's name right.

PS: I googled "top Hegel scholars" and your professor is not on any of those lists

[JoltinJoe]

PS - I studied Hagel under Quentin Lauer -- which means I forgot more about Hagel than you will ever know.

See this is what I'm talking about: elitism, condescension, and so on. It just goes to show that when someone legitimately challenges you you'll peel back into this because it threatens your ~superiority complex~

You're just someone who isn't intellectually respected by his peers so you go online to piss on ~smaller people~ to make yourself feel better.

You can't even spell Hegel's name right so I'm going to assume you're full of ****, and I'm not a stickler for that sort of thing but if you're going to claim ~superiority~ you'd think you'd spell the person's name right.

PS: I googled "top Hegel scholars" and your professor is not on any of those lists

Yawn. If you claim to know a lot about Hegel, and have never heard of Quentin Lauer, you are a fraud.

Seriously, you're just a petulant child. And nothing you say makes much sense.

BTW, a google search for "Quentin Lauer Hegel" returns 1,150,000 hits -- and Lauer has been dead for nearly 20 years.

[youngterrier]

See this is what I'm talking about: elitism, condescension, and so on. It just goes to show that when someone legitimately challenges you you'll peel back into this because it threatens your ~superiority complex~

You're just someone who isn't intellectually respected by his peers so you go online to piss on ~smaller people~ to make yourself feel better.

You can't even spell Hegel's name right so I'm going to assume you're full of ****, and I'm not a stickler for that sort of thing but if you're going to claim ~superiority~ you'd think you'd spell the person's name right.

PS: I googled "top Hegel scholars" and your professor is not on any of those lists

Yawn. If you claim to know a lot about Hegel, and have never heard of Quentin Lauer, you are a fraud.

Seriously, you're just a petulant child. And nothing you say makes much sense.

Actually, I never claimed I "knew a lot about Hegel," just that my understanding of his conceptualization of God was plausible. I don't know why that's a bad thing, and I don't know why that's something you would berate me about, especially since we probably agree on it, so why are you doing so but to belittle me and make yourself feel better?

Secondly, if I have to type in Quentin Lauer's entire name into google to get a response, that's telling of his significance or insignificance for that matter. He doesn't even have a wiki page, and a lot of (if not all of) the prominent modern day philosophers have one. I'm not doubting the man's knowledge of Hegel, just point out there's a difference between knowing Hegel and building on his philosophy. Many people can do the former, but there's no claim to fame in that, and very few do the latter successfully. The person you're citing has so many hits on google because he has the same books and articles redirecting to each other, and that's nothing to frown on but don't pretend it's some sort of indicator when many of the links are the same or similar thing.

Zizek, Lacan, Adorno, Marcuse, and much more I can name have done readings and works on Hegel and built on his philosophy. The fact is that the tradition that Hegel is a part of is more significant in continental philosophy than it is western, so the continental philosophers to a better job of reading him.

You're really getting angry over something small and it's kind of unsettling. I'm not saying this to get a rise out of you, but you should probably either A) have a drink or B) see a shrink because you shouldn't get so defensive and attacking on something like the internet.

[JoltinJoe]

Actually, I never claimed I "knew a lot about Hegel," just that my understanding of his conceptualization of God was plausible. I don't know why that's a bad thing, and I don't know why that's something you would berate me about, especially since we probably agree on it, so why are you doing so but to belittle me and make yourself feel better?

Honestly nothing you say bothers me, but perhaps you need to go back and look who took the first nasty shots here. We were having a discussion, spirited but cordial, up to this point:

Quit being condescending, Jesus. You're spending more time talking down to people like they're stupid than you are being generally informative. I guess it says more about why you, ~a distinguished lawyer~ such as yourself. is on a football website prancing around all smarter than thou. We get it, you're a lawyer. If you're so smart you'd probably get that sort of recognition in the real world and wouldn't demand to feel that way around here. That begs the question of why you do it. Do you feel unappreciated?

That being said, yes, I agree that Hegel's concept of God affords grounds for belief to people who grapple with the concept of God as a "being." You correctly surmised that, I'd guess, from my statement that God is the source and repository of all knowledge and truth. That idea is certainly influenced by Hegelian thought.

People usually try to conceive God as a "being" because that coincides with our frame of reference. Once you accept that our frame of reference is severely limited, the notion that God is more like a force -- but still a "personal" force -- is plausible (as you say).

Truth is, God is something which is beyond our grasp and comprehension. But Jesus said not to worry, just accept God with the faith of a child.

BTW, here's the leading modern English-language work on the subject of Hegel's Concept of God. I strongly recommend it.

http://www.sunypress.edu/p-328-hegels-c ... f-god.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[houndawg]

Really? What do you think?

Christ the ink wasn't even dry on the NT for 300 years! The good stuff too!

It's hard to judge 1700 years after the fact; however, this Yale professor argues that Constantine's conversion cannot be adequately explained on strategic grounds. The claim that he converted for political reasons is certainly disputable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcIuAJ-jaSg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Of course, everyone knows that the event which really galvanized Christianity, and which spurred its growth, was when John the Apostle was thrown into a vat of boiling oil in front of an SRO crowd, and emerged unharmed.

I think there is next to nothing that an Emperor does that isn't for political reasons.

[houndawg]

I don't buy that. Constantine didn't exactly pick an obscure religion and somehow hoisted it onto the Roman Empire - Christianity was growing incredibly enough on its own, without state-approved assistance from Rome (and actually in spite of the tremendous resistance from Rome to snuff it out). Certainly Constantine's acceptance and conversion to Christianity was a boon to the religion as an entity, but you could argue that the tremendous growth of that religion over the 200 some years before Constantine converted to it was indicative that it had plenty of staying power. It was already vastly different from the other belief sytems you mention long before Constantine got his hands on it.

If I'm not mistaken Constantine was baptized on his death bed and another emperor a generation or two later made it the official religion of the empire (though I can't remember his name)

So he hadn't converted when the Council of Nicaea was held?

[youngterrier]

Actually, I never claimed I "knew a lot about Hegel," just that my understanding of his conceptualization of God was plausible. I don't know why that's a bad thing, and I don't know why that's something you would berate me about, especially since we probably agree on it, so why are you doing so but to belittle me and make yourself feel better?

Honestly nothing you say bothers me, but perhaps you need to go back and look who took the first nasty shots here. We were having a discussion, spirited but cordial, up to this point:

Quit being condescending, Jesus. You're spending more time talking down to people like they're stupid than you are being generally informative. I guess it says more about why you, ~a distinguished lawyer~ such as yourself. is on a football website prancing around all smarter than thou. We get it, you're a lawyer. If you're so smart you'd probably get that sort of recognition in the real world and wouldn't demand to feel that way around here. That begs the question of why you do it. Do you feel unappreciated?

That being said, yes, I agree that Hegel's concept of God affords grounds for belief to people who grapple with the concept of God as a "being." You correctly surmised that, I'd guess, from my statement that God is the source and repository of all knowledge and truth. That idea is certainly influenced by Hegelian thought.

People usually try to conceive God as a "being" because that coincides with our frame of reference. Once you accept that our frame of reference is severely limited, the notion that God is more like a force -- but still a "personal" force -- is plausible (as you say).

Truth is, God is something which is beyond our grasp and comprehension. But Jesus said not to worry, just accept God with the faith of a child.

BTW, here's the leading modern English-language work on the subject of Hegel's Concept of God. I strongly recommend it.

http://www.sunypress.edu/p-328-hegels-c ... f-god.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Actually no, it started with the post before that when you implied I was a bad writer who had never engaged in any sort of legitimate discourse (cuz emailing friends yooooooo or some shit like that), said you needed an "English translation" and that I had multiple run on sentences, when I had only one.

Whether you acknowledge it or not your post style is a little presumptuous to where you come off as condescending, not to mention you do this whole act where you're smarter than everyone else (which is evident in this thread pre-me-entering) so my initial comment was at least slightly justified. In fact I'm pretty sure that wasn't in the original post but I went back and read other comments in this thread and added it in there because it was frustrating to watch.

And thanks for the book request, I'll read it eventually but $56 for a book? yikes.

[youngterrier]

If I'm not mistaken Constantine was baptized on his death bed and another emperor a generation or two later made it the official religion of the empire (though I can't remember his name)

So he hadn't converted when the Council of Nicaea was held?

I don't know, that's just one of the historical facts that blurbs in my mind currently. I am 90% sure he didn't make it the empire's official religion though.

[houndawg]

Actually, I never claimed I "knew a lot about Hegel," just that my understanding of his conceptualization of God was plausible. I don't know why that's a bad thing, and I don't know why that's something you would berate me about, especially since we probably agree on it, so why are you doing so but to belittle me and make yourself feel better?

Honestly nothing you say bothers me, but perhaps you need to go back and look who took the first nasty shots here. We were having a discussion, spirited but cordial, up to this point:

Quit being condescending, Jesus. You're spending more time talking down to people like they're stupid than you are being generally informative. I guess it says more about why you, ~a distinguished lawyer~ such as yourself. is on a football website prancing around all smarter than thou. We get it, you're a lawyer. If you're so smart you'd probably get that sort of recognition in the real world and wouldn't demand to feel that way around here. That begs the question of why you do it. Do you feel unappreciated?

That being said, yes, I agree that Hegel's concept of God affords grounds for belief to people who grapple with the concept of God as a "being." You correctly surmised that, I'd guess, from my statement that God is the source and repository of all knowledge and truth. That idea is certainly influenced by Hegelian thought.

People usually try to conceive God as a "being" because that coincides with our frame of reference. Once you accept that our frame of reference is severely limited, the notion that God is more like a force -- but still a "personal" force -- is plausible (as you say).

Truth is, God is something which is beyond our grasp and comprehension. But Jesus said not to worry, just accept God with the faith of a child.

BTW, here's the leading modern English-language work on the subject of Hegel's Concept of God. I strongly recommend it.

http://www.sunypress.edu/p-328-hegels-c ... f-god.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

So we weren't created in "his" image?

[kalm]

Actually, I never claimed I "knew a lot about Hegel," just that my understanding of his conceptualization of God was plausible. I don't know why that's a bad thing, and I don't know why that's something you would berate me about, especially since we probably agree on it, so why are you doing so but to belittle me and make yourself feel better?

Honestly nothing you say bothers me, but perhaps you need to go back and look who took the first nasty shots here. We were having a discussion, spirited but cordial, up to this point:

Joe, I know lawyers have a tough time owning their own pomposity and arrogance, but it's ok and probably good for you to do so once in awhile. You'll sound even more smarter and approachable from a standpoint of "spirited and cordial discussions" if/when that happens

[∞∞∞]

To throw out a Sagan quote (since I know YT loves him, as do I):

"People are not stupid. They believe things for reasons. The last way for skeptics to get the attention of bright, curious, intelligent people is to belittle or condescend or to show arrogance toward their beliefs."

Just food for thought.

[D1B]

To throw out a Sagan quote (since I know YT loves him, as do I):

"People are not stupid. They believe things for reasons. The last way for skeptics to get the attention of bright, curious, intelligent people is to belittle or condescend or to show arrogance toward their beliefs."

Just food for thought.

Go fuck yourself, Ahknaad.

[GannonFan]

So he hadn't converted when the Council of Nicaea was held?

I don't know, that's just one of the historical facts that blurbs in my mind currently. I am 90% sure he didn't make it the empire's official religion though.

He didn't make it the official religion in Rome - that didn't happen until the Edict of Thessalonica in 380 or so. There's no concrete evidence of when he converted although he certainly did favor the religion and gave it prominence in the empire.

[SeattleGriz]

Bullshit on the empiricism call. Christians invented the scientific method. While most Christians lack science literacy, so do the vast proportion of Americans.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

I believe the invention of the scientific method is actually credited to a Muslim scientist.

But honestly, it's a concept that's been seen as early as the Ionian School. Democritus, Euclid, Ptolemy, and other Greek scientists/philosophers seem to have practiced it in some form.

Yeah, misspoke on that one. Meant to say Christians have done more for the scientific method than any other group, especially atheists. If it were not for the monks and early Christian universities, the scientific method would not be close to what it is today.

Christians mainstreamed the scientific method.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

[D1B]

I believe the invention of the scientific method is actually credited to a Muslim scientist.

But honestly, it's a concept that's been seen as early as the Ionian School. Democritus, Euclid, Ptolemy, and other Greek scientists/philosophers seem to have practiced it in some form.

Yeah, misspoke on that one. Meant to say Christians have done more for the scientific method than any other group, especially atheists. If it were not for the monks and early Christian universities, the scientific method would not be close to what it is today.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

No shit, dipshit. There were like 4 atheists in the entire world back then. Back then, if you weren't a christian, you were a dead man, at least in the Western world.

Practically all of those same christian scientists would be athesist if they knew then what we know now.

[SeattleGriz]

I believe the invention of the scientific method is actually credited to a Muslim scientist.

But honestly, it's a concept that's been seen as early as the Ionian School. Democritus, Euclid, Ptolemy, and other Greek scientists/philosophers seem to have practiced it in some form.

SeattleJizz

Say, SJ, still looking for that jesus proof.

Sorry, been relegated to the tablet and it is a pain to type on. My point I was trying to make was the irony atheists display when asking for proof in regards to Jesus.

You don't believe scholars about the existence of Jesus the who are schooled in history and biblical studies, but accept a myth from a conspiracy theorist.

That is laughable.


Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

[SeattleGriz]

Bullshit on the empiricism call. Christians invented the scientific method. While most Christians lack science literacy, so do the vast proportion of Americans.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Do you know what empiricism is? Either way I think you misunderstood what I was saying

Empiricism is atheistic by definition because it presupposes there isn't a God, prides itself on uncertainty and not coming to a conclusion without a certain amount of evidence. You would have to ask yourself, what kind of proof would one want for the existence of God? The thing is that empiricism is a methodology that searches for a natural explanation for everything and by definition won't be satisfied with "God did it"

So, in this way, it's atheistic because the only way it will "prove God" is if it defines God in a certain way (which will probably be radically different than what believers define God as).

The fact that Christians created says nothing about the methodology itself. That's like saying Algebra is a Muslim methodology, as it was created by Muslims. Algebra is in itself a study of numbers and is thus nontheistic. You aren't going to use algebra to prove the existence of God as its more of a question of making balances and so on. Empiricism is different in that it's more broad and deals with the nature of existence, so people are more inclined to think it will prove/disprove God. But it won't because its very nature is atheistic.

Maybe I am wrong, but you seem to be lumping every day people in with the scientists. Christian scientists don't always default to God. Many should believe God gave us a brain for a reason - to deduce the real answer.
Knowing the answers to a few items in our Universe hardly sets Man up to be on part with God, especially if you believe He created the Universe.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

[youngterrier]

I believe the invention of the scientific method is actually credited to a Muslim scientist.

But honestly, it's a concept that's been seen as early as the Ionian School. Democritus, Euclid, Ptolemy, and other Greek scientists/philosophers seem to have practiced it in some form.

Yeah, misspoke on that one. Meant to say Christians have done more for the scientific method than any other group, especially atheists. If it were not for the monks and early Christian universities, the scientific method would not be close to what it is today.

Christians mainstreamed the scientific method.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

no one is (seriously) disputing that

[youngterrier]

Do you know what empiricism is? Either way I think you misunderstood what I was saying

Empiricism is atheistic by definition because it presupposes there isn't a God, prides itself on uncertainty and not coming to a conclusion without a certain amount of evidence. You would have to ask yourself, what kind of proof would one want for the existence of God? The thing is that empiricism is a methodology that searches for a natural explanation for everything and by definition won't be satisfied with "God did it"

So, in this way, it's atheistic because the only way it will "prove God" is if it defines God in a certain way (which will probably be radically different than what believers define God as).

The fact that Christians created says nothing about the methodology itself. That's like saying Algebra is a Muslim methodology, as it was created by Muslims. Algebra is in itself a study of numbers and is thus nontheistic. You aren't going to use algebra to prove the existence of God as its more of a question of making balances and so on. Empiricism is different in that it's more broad and deals with the nature of existence, so people are more inclined to think it will prove/disprove God. But it won't because its very nature is atheistic.

Maybe I am wrong, but you seem to be lumping every day people in with the scientists. Christian scientists don't always default to God. Many should believe God gave us a brain for a reason - to deduce the real answer.
Knowing the answers to a few items in our Universe hardly sets Man up to be on part with God, especially if you believe He created the Universe.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. I'm just saying that the metaphysical nature of the methodology of empiricism is atheistic. You don't have to be an atheist to use the methodology. But when you use that methodology to confirm the existence or nonexistence of a supposedly nonphysical entity, you're not going to be able to do that.

[D1B]

SeattleJizz

Say, SJ, still looking for that jesus proof.

Sorry, been relegated to the tablet and it is a pain to type on. My point I was trying to make was the irony atheists display when asking for proof in regards to Jesus.

You don't believe scholars about the existence of Jesus the who are schooled in history and biblical studies, but accept a myth from a conspiracy theorist.

That is laughable.


Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Show me the proof.

[SeattleGriz]

Sorry, been relegated to the tablet and it is a pain to type on. My point I was trying to make was the irony atheists display when asking for proof in regards to Jesus.

You don't believe scholars about the existence of Jesus the who are schooled in history and biblical studies, but accept a myth from a conspiracy theorist.

That is laughable.


Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Show me the proof.

I don't need to show you the proof, for my point has been proven already by those that deny Jesus, the man, existed.

You would rather cling to your unfounded heresy, rather than listen to those educated in the fields because it doesn't fit into your belief system.

For the record, I am not directing this at you specifically, more at houndawg.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

[JoltinJoe]

Honestly nothing you say bothers me, but perhaps you need to go back and look who took the first nasty shots here. We were having a discussion, spirited but cordial, up to this point:

Joe, I know lawyers have a tough time owning their own pomposity and arrogance, but it's ok and probably good for you to do so once in awhile. You'll sound even more smarter and approachable from a standpoint of "spirited and cordial discussions" if/when that happens

I pointed out that someone wrote the most crucial component of their thought in a confusing, run-on sentence. If that makes me pompous and arrogant, then I'm pompous and arrogant. I had to re-read that sentence several times, reconstructing it in my mind to conform with written English, before I completely understood what he wrote.

Candidly I thought I was doing him a favor. I've taught law school classes for the past 16 years. Over the years, I have observed that students writing has become increasingly difficult to grasp. Today the students -- many are graduates of top colleges too -- tend to produce sloppy, dense, and ambiguous writing. Often they use words like "thru" and "nite" as if texting shorthand is acceptable English. There is no excuse for this, especially since these assignments are take-home. The students have as much time as they need to re-write their papers.

I return many of the students' first papers ungraded. I tell them I have no idea what they have written and I need them to re-work their assignment. Sure, many of them are pissed and think I'm arrogant. No one has ever told them they write badly before.

Truthfully, they are not bad writers but they simply have never been told before that they need to work harder to refine their writing. They have grown up using forms of written expression which value immediacy over careful expression, and this mentality has worked its way into their formal writing.

They are going to be lawyers. No judge is going to cut them a break. If a judge doesn't understand what they have written, he or she is going to give my student a second chance.

What I get back is usually a much better product. Eventually the students understand that no judge is going to give them the pass that many of their undergraduate professors did. I hear often something like, "You know, I thought you were a jerk for giving my paper back to me, but now I'm happy that you did."

So, with that explanation, I'll own my pomposity.

[kalm]

Joe, I know lawyers have a tough time owning their own pomposity and arrogance, but it's ok and probably good for you to do so once in awhile. You'll sound even more smarter and approachable from a standpoint of "spirited and cordial discussions" if/when that happens

I pointed out that someone wrote the most crucial component of their thought in a confusing, run-on sentence. If that makes me pompous and arrogant, then I'm pompous and arrogant. I had to re-read that sentence several times, reconstructing it in my mind to conform with written English, before I completely understood what he wrote.

Candidly I thought I was doing him a favor. I've taught law school classes for the past 16 years. Over the years, I have observed that students writing has become increasingly difficult to grasp. Today the students -- many are graduates of top colleges too -- tend to produce sloppy, dense, and ambiguous writing. Often they use words like "thru" and "nite" as if texting shorthand is acceptable English. There is no excuse for this, especially since these assignments are take-home. The students have as much time as they need to re-write their papers.

I return many of the students' first papers ungraded. I tell them I have no idea what they have written and I need them to re-work their assignment. Sure, many of them are pissed and think I'm arrogant. No one has ever told them they write badly before.

Truthfully, they are not bad writers but they simply have never been told before that they need to work harder to refine their writing. They have grown up using forms of written expression which value immediacy over careful expression, and this mentality has worked its way into their formal writing.

They are going to be lawyers. No judge is going to cut them a break. If a judge doesn't understand what they have written, he or she is going to give my student a second chance.

What I get back is usually a much better product. Eventually the students understand that no judge is going to give them the pass that many of their undergraduate professors did. I hear often something like, "You know, I thought you were a jerk for giving my paper back to me, but now I'm happy that you did.

I totally get what you're saying.

I had to answer a writ of garnishment for one of my employees. The damn thing was poorly written and full of legalese and I was having trouble completing it. I called the attorney's office who issued the writ for some help and was initially told they could not provide legal advice. I replied that it's not my fault they can't write in plain English and that if they didn't want to help me I would be unable to answer the writ. There was a long pause so I just started in with 'take section 2 for example..." and ended up getting the help I needed.

The author was probably a product of Gonzaga Law too. Semi-literate, pompous, douchebag private school attorneys.

[D1B]

I pointed out that someone wrote the most crucial component of their thought in a confusing, run-on sentence. If that makes me pompous and arrogant, then I'm pompous and arrogant. I had to re-read that sentence several times, reconstructing it in my mind to conform with written English, before I completely understood what he wrote.

Candidly I thought I was doing him a favor. I've taught law school classes for the past 16 years. Over the years, I have observed that students writing has become increasingly difficult to grasp. Today the students -- many are graduates of top colleges too -- tend to produce sloppy, dense, and ambiguous writing. Often they use words like "thru" and "nite" as if texting shorthand is acceptable English. There is no excuse for this, especially since these assignments are take-home. The students have as much time as they need to re-write their papers.

I return many of the students' first papers ungraded. I tell them I have no idea what they have written and I need them to re-work their assignment. Sure, many of them are pissed and think I'm arrogant. No one has ever told them they write badly before.

Truthfully, they are not bad writers but they simply have never been told before that they need to work harder to refine their writing. They have grown up using forms of written expression which value immediacy over careful expression, and this mentality has worked its way into their formal writing.

They are going to be lawyers. No judge is going to cut them a break. If a judge doesn't understand what they have written, he or she is going to give my student a second chance.

What I get back is usually a much better product. Eventually the students understand that no judge is going to give them the pass that many of their undergraduate professors did. I hear often something like, "You know, I thought you were a jerk for giving my paper back to me, but now I'm happy that you did.

I totally get what you're saying.

I had to answer a writ of garnishment for one of my employees. The damn thing was poorly written and full of legalese and I was having trouble completing it. I called the attorney's office who issued the writ for some help and was initially told they could not provide legal advice. I replied that it's not my fault they can't write in plain English and that if they didn't want to help me I would be unable to answer the writ. There was a long pause so I just started in with 'take section 2 for example..." and ended up getting the help I needed.

The author was probably a product of Gonzaga Law too. Semi-literate, pompous, douchebag private school attorneys.

First Young Smartass falls for it, now Klam.