SUCK FADDEN

Note the express descriptions of the email distribution lists ("EVERYONE EUROPE DL; EVERYONE NORTH AMERICA DL; EVERYONE PACIFIC RIM DL").

Perhaps a response to mistaken DL use by Jonas Blank? Can anyone at Skadden confirm?

SKUCK FADDEN?

Joe Flom is my hero! I want to be a skaddenite.

2000 aren't being fed into the machine, Lat. Some of those are doing the feeding, and others yet are standing by with shovels.

Please excuse me, I have 2,000 calls to make.

But with the attrition at that place, I'm pretty sure the number will drop below 2,000 tomorrow afternoon when a bunch of associates give notice. Will he send another email when they top 2k again?

Wish I could get a job @ SKADDEN, the name that inspires fear in adversaries...

Skadden - high priced crappy work.

I do business with a number of Skaddenites...

No mention of Bill Meagher?

Regis, Lat? First off, are you even Catholic? Second, guess you couldn't get into Stuyvesant?

12:18, that's great!

Stuyvesant, 12:42? I guess you couldn't get into Horace Mann?

Horace Mann sucks. It's Stuy or Science.

bragging about high schools sucks.

Of course Lat is Catholic -- he's Filipino.

Also, he wasn't eligible for Stuyvesant, since he grew up in New Jersey:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/22/technology/22njCOVER.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

12:57, it sucks no more than bragging generally. If you allow *some* bragging, then there is nothing wrong with bragging about high school, assuming there is something to brag about, which, with respect to the three schools thus far mentioned, there clearly is.

12:59--The pre-school you went to sucks ass, which is obviously why you are the way you are today.

C'mon 12:18...its October, that 2000 will stick until after bonuses.

1:05, judging by the lack of imagination in your trolling, I don't suppose that pre-school is that distant of a memory for you.

12:51, Horace Mann sucks? Are you kidding me? That is the most ridiculous statement I have heard all week. Well done.

I hope when you finish your 1L year, and eventually move on to practice, you don't make such baseless assertions in a court of law, or in front of clients or co-workers for that matter. It probably won't bode well for your career.

Soon to be 2001...

Where's the celebratory lemonade?

1:26, Come your stomach. First, Horace Mann does not suck. The anger and sincerity I did not feel while writing no doubt appeared while you were reading. So, I repeat, Horace Mann does not suck. I am merely playing public school advocate, tongue firmly in cheek. (I'm a Science grad myself).

Second, I'm not an 1L. Nor am I a 2L or a 3L. I'm an associate at a V50, and my career is going along pretty good so far, due perhaps, in no small part, that I haven't yet uttered the word "sucks" in any professional situation. That's what blog comments are for.

Sorry, that should read "calm"

Well done, Skadden. Maybe soon you'll have enough money to teach your executive partners what "e.g." means and why its use here was incorrect.

When I mention Skadden Arp, I like to pronounce the second name as if I were a seal. Aaarrp aaaarp aaaarp.

1:43 ... the use of e.g. here is correct (i.e., you are incorrect).

I love it that he said the milestone was reached "sometime in the last few days," suggesting that with all the comings and goings they can't be exactly sure whose arrival got them to 2,000.

fair enough, 12:59!

my dad can beat up your dad.

i have 20/10 vision.

at home, i have an atomic clock that i'll bet keeps better time than any of your chintzy timepieces.

1:50 is right re the usage of e.g. Although the usage in this email is a bit awkward (I had to do a double-take), it's grammatically sound.

Ok, everyone get the e.g., i.e., QED, IUD, and LMNOP stuff out of the way.

Personally, I say e.g. is more appropriate than i.e. here, but the use of e.g. still makes me feel a little "icky" for some reason. That is a technical term in the usage world, I believe.

12:57,

(1) Your dad can almost certainly beat my dad, since my dad smokes 3 packs and has a foot in the grave.

(2) I also have 20/10 vision, or, in any case, I had it before law school.

(3) My wife got me a sick Movado desk clock, eat your heart out.

/what's an atomic clock?

A little grammer lesson...

When you mean “for example,” use e.g. It is an abbreviation for the Latin phrase exempli gratia. When you mean “that is,” use “i.e.” It is an abbreviation for the Latin phrase id est. Either can be used to clarify a preceding statement, the first by example, the second by restating the idea more clearly or expanding upon it. Because these uses are so similar, the two abbreviations are easily confused. If you just stick with good old English “for example” and “that is” you won’t give anyone a chance to sneer at you. If you insist on using the abbreviation, perhaps “example given” will remind you to use “e.g.,” while “in effect” suggests “I.E.”

Since e.g. indicates a partial list, it is redundant to add “etc.” at the end of a list introduced by this abbreviation

~Holar!

Thanks for the grammar lesson "Fed Law Clerk." I think of most of us already knew that.

a little spelling lesson: there is no "e" in "grammar."

And please don't point out the typos is that last post. I acknowledge them, and I offer the excuse of typing quickly.

a little spelling lesson: there is no "e" in "grammar."

Thanks for the grammar lesson "Fed Law Clerk." I think of most of us already knew that.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 11, 2007 02:07 PM

Well, 1:43pm got it wrong.

You all are idiots

One mistake does not justify a treatise.

Instead of fighting over e.g., I would say the entire parenthetical is unnecessary, since in the next paragraph he gives the date (April Fools Day -- ha) the firm was established.

2:27 - I have that embroidered on a pillow.

Lat, thanks for the worthwhile update!

12:51:

You would think that, as a Science grad, you would know the difference between "good" and "well." Guess that's why you're only V50, huh?

V5, I know the difference well enough, but I choose not to employ it in colloquial writing.

Second, when folks who are not aceholes go out to look for jobs, they consider factors other than how high on the V their job will put them.

And to quote Eco, "Ma gavte la nata."

You go, 3:29.

Horace Mann does suck. Just face it, HM is the ass crack of the Hill-Top Schools. It is not even on the hill top.

I think they should have showered the 2,000th person with a balloon drop when they walked in the door. Or maybe a two minute shopping spree frenzy like for the millionth shopper through the checkout line at Piggly Wiggly.

Latham has 2100 now.
http://www.lw.com/AboutLatham.aspx?page=About

1:50, your command of "e.g." and "i.e." is nearly complete, you just need to learn when neither is necessary. Consider the options: "This is a remarkable achievement for any firm, but for one established not so very long ago (e.g., I was the 30th attorney here when I arrived in 1969)." This is saying that an example of the firm's youth is that he was the 30th attorney. It's not an example of it, but rather directly saying how young the firm is. So how about: "This is a remarkable achievement for any firm, but for one established not so very long ago (I was the 30th attorney here when I arrived in 1969)." Much better, huh? In other words, you don't need Latin terms in every other sentence to be a good writer. Hope this helps.

Still laughing at 1:49 . . . .

Dear 6:00, Not to flagellate a deceased equine but you have missed the point of my comment (i.e., you are wrong again). You stated that the use of "e.g." was 'incorrect'. Thus, the issue is whether the use of "e.g." was "incorrect" and not whether it was "necessary." I do not dispute that there are stylistic choices that may be made in forming a sentence. Instead, as I correctly stated earlier, the author's use of "e.g." was technically correct.

Some of you people could spend days nitpicking the number of hairs on a gnat's ass.

Forget missing the forest for the trees; you’ve missed the trees for the leaves.

I am sure it beats drafting special interrogatories and motions to compel, though.

BOTh Stuyvesant and Bronx Science are free. Comparing them to Horace Mann is ridulous. However, lets compare. They're both better than Horace Mann and the only reason a kid would go to Horace Mann, other than being a snobby prick is that he/she couldn't get in to Suy or Bronx Science. And by the way, when I attended Bronx Science, many kids there chose Science over Stuyvesant (even though they got in to both)--however, this was more likely based on geographical reasons plus the old Stuyvesant building was a shithole (not that Science is wonderful or in a wonderful area). Bronx Science is certainly on a par with Stuyvesant and both are superior to Horace Mann. Ask any admission officer at any leading university.

But now that Stuyvesant has its beautiful new building, I'd think that more people pick Stuy over Bronx Science. Isn't the cutoff score to go to Stuy higher than it is for Bronx?

No love for Brooklyn Tech?