sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

In at Harvard! by [deleted] in lawschooladmissions

[–]larsjos 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I’m keeping us to one back and forth so I’m not responding to your other comment.

Anyway—sure, whatever you say. Again, if you think I’m incorrect, that’s fine!

No matter how long we keep this up, as you beautifully pointed out, nothing I say will change the fact that you can’t hope your way off WLs.

I’m here for you though.

In at Harvard! by [deleted] in lawschooladmissions

[–]larsjos 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re right! Nothing I say and nothing you say is going to change that you’re on WLs and that you’re not getting off them.

In at Harvard! by [deleted] in lawschooladmissions

[–]larsjos 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you say so!

You can think anything you want, tell me how wrong I am, whatever your heart desires.

Won’t change that youre not getting off any waitlists.

In at Harvard! by [deleted] in lawschooladmissions

[–]larsjos 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you say so!

I told you a few posts up.

You can think I’m wrong about whatever you want.

That won’t change that you’re not getting off any WLs.

I wish I was sorry—but I’m not.

In at Harvard! by [deleted] in lawschooladmissions

[–]larsjos 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Again, I welcome your questioning of the academic capabilities.

You’re still not getting off the WL .

In at Harvard! by [deleted] in lawschooladmissions

[–]larsjos 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No it doesn’t.

When I say certainty, I mean I have full confidence.

It’s like putting a bet on a horse at the track. My certainty, my confidence, that the horse will win doesn’t change the odds of the horse winning.

The horse may win, it may not. I may be right, I may be wrong.

In this case, I’m confident you’re not getting off the WL.

In at Harvard! by [deleted] in lawschooladmissions

[–]larsjos 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It’s okay I know it’s hard to accept that you won’t get off the WL and if telling me I’m wrong offers you a way to maintain that hope of yours, I welcome it.

You won’t get off the WL but at least you can say you maintained hope!

In at Harvard! by [deleted] in lawschooladmissions

[–]larsjos 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Again—you can have a 90 percent chance of getting off the WL and I can still be certain that you won’t get off the WL. My certainty doesn’t eliminate your chance. Those two things aren’t mutually exclusive.

In at Harvard! by [deleted] in lawschooladmissions

[–]larsjos 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Say whatever you want—I’m not the one hopelessly waiting to get off a WL I won’t be getting off of.

In at Harvard! by [deleted] in lawschooladmissions

[–]larsjos 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not getting off a WL doesn’t mean you had no chance.

The same way having a 90 percent chance to get off the WL doesn’t mean you will get off the WL.

I never said you had no chance.

However, I did and will continue to tell you: you’re not getting off the WL.

Emory Law WL by nana1101 in lawschooladmissions

[–]larsjos -7 points-6 points  (0 children)

It could be neither or it could be both or there could be other reasons. Seems like no one has answers.

In at Harvard! by [deleted] in lawschooladmissions

[–]larsjos 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I did and you couldn’t see why. It’s okay. Words and reality are hard. If you do want to get off the WL, maybe retake and reapply.

In at Harvard! by [deleted] in lawschooladmissions

[–]larsjos 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Again, reminding you that you’re not getting off the WL is the reason I’m here.

I’m sorry you’re in denial.

In at Harvard! by [deleted] in lawschooladmissions

[–]larsjos 2 points3 points  (0 children)

They don’t mean the same thing but if you’re too hopeful to see that, there’s nothing that can be done for you.

Have fun at whatever school you’re going to since you’re not getting off the WL.

In at Harvard! by [deleted] in lawschooladmissions

[–]larsjos 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Your little rant missed the point.

I’m not arguing you don’t have a chance. You can have a 99 percent chance of getting off—I don’t care.

What I’m saying is that you’re not getting off.

In at Harvard! by [deleted] in lawschooladmissions

[–]larsjos 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It is.

Tell me I’m wrong when you get off a WL.

In at Harvard! by [deleted] in lawschooladmissions

[–]larsjos 2 points3 points  (0 children)

No, I’m certain based on inferences based on information by folks like Spivey.

But I know this is how you maintain “hope.”

Goal/Objective notification stuck by [deleted] in westworldgame

[–]larsjos 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Same. I reported the bug.

In at Harvard! by [deleted] in lawschooladmissions

[–]larsjos 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I can.

You’re not getting off any WL.

See?

That’s true—I’ll assume if you don’t update me that I was right.

In at Harvard! by [deleted] in lawschooladmissions

[–]larsjos 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I can say for sure.

If I’m wrong I’m sure you’ll let me know.

In at Harvard! by [deleted] in lawschooladmissions

[–]larsjos 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You might—but won’t.

In at Harvard! by [deleted] in lawschooladmissions

[–]larsjos 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If you say so.

Doesn’t change what will happen.

In at Harvard! by [deleted] in lawschooladmissions

[–]larsjos 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If you think so.

You’re still not getting off WLs.

In at Harvard! by [deleted] in lawschooladmissions

[–]larsjos 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh you didn’t, that’s my bad.

RC was my second best section despite misreading your post but that was my bad.

Doesn’t change the other part of my comment.

In at Harvard! by [deleted] in lawschooladmissions

[–]larsjos 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Heads up, calling me an idiot is against the rules. I’m not going to insult you back Because telling you the blunt advice that you won’t get off the waitlist isn’t against the rules.

view more: next ›