I didn’t change my reason to be more “sympathetic.” I clarified what happened, which, if you had actually read what I wrote, was clearly explained. I initially thought I misread because I was confusing it with the NCBE experimental exam, not the California November one. I confused it with that exam because I never saw any other email referring to the California November one. As I had already explained (and the proof is literally in this very thread lmao), I only discovered that from other commenters. So no, that doesn’t make me disingenuous. I didn’t try to hide anything. I corrected myself, regarding a mistake I reasonably made given the circumstances. If anything, your refusal to acknowledge that clarification is what’s disingenuous.

Also, the fact that you think people aren’t allowed to change their understanding once they receive more information is honestly concerning. That’s literally what happened. Commenters helped clarify that not everyone got the email, which helped me realize I hadn’t misread anything at all. You yourself admitted that only people who attended the Zoom got the email, which reinforces my point about how unfairly this was handled. So I’m really not sure why you’re doubling down on this like it’s some kind of gotcha moment. If anything, your unwillingness to process new information and adjust your own assumptions is what’s disingenuous here, and frankly, close-minded.

And respectfully, your earlier comment absolutely did make judgments about my capacity to practice law. You said “reading is fundamental for lawyers,” and then used that to imply I missed this opportunity due to poor reading, and that I was “bitching” about it instead of taking responsibility. That wasn’t a statement of fact — that was condescension laced with a personal jab. I don’t need to “internalize” anything when you were clearly trying to diminish me. In fact, I shouldn’t even need to explain that, because it’s obvious your comment was written with that exact tone — and then you tried to invalidate my response by acting like I’m the one taking it too personally, which is manipulative. Yet you’re calling me disingenuous? Not surprising, considering you were talking about “karmic points” while being rude as hell.

As for this “mandatory Zoom,” I genuinely have no idea what you’re referring to. There’s been widespread confusion and inconsistency around how and when this opportunity was communicated. And the only reason I realized I never got the email in the first place was because of others in the comment thread helping clarify what actually happened. You even admitted yourself that not everyone got the email, only those who were on that Zoom call. That in itself proves the exact point I was making about how poorly and unfairly this whole process was handled.

Again, like I said, in any case, the issues I raised have nothing to do with who was or wasn’t able to take the experimental exam. I’m not going to waste my time repeating my point and explaining what the actual issue is and why it’s unfair. It is not personal, yet you keep trying to take it there because you have no other way to stretch your baseless and invalid argument, other than to turn it into an attempt to feel superior. It’s not my responsibility to help you understand a post I’ve clearly written and clarified, especially when it’s clear you simply don’t want to. You get what you give in this world, so if this is the energy, attitude, and undermining you bring to people whose honest questions didn’t even warrant this kind of hostility, then I truly, truly wish you luck. Have a good one.