UVA 3L v. Obama
(Or: Whose my.barackobama.com is it anyway?)
UVA 3L Mike Stark has not graced our pages since 2006, when he was violently ejected from a George Allen campaign event (see The Misadventures of a UVA Gunner). Stark is a staunch Democrat. When he’s not busy studyin’ the law, he runs the blog Calling All Wingnuts, whose tagline is “A never-ending battle against stupid, ugly, deceitful and corrupt right-wing water carriers…”
Those on the right are not the only ones to earn Stark’s ire. The New York Times reports on Stark turning the attack machine on Barack Obama, via Obama’s own social networking site, my.barackobama.com. Stark wants Obama to oppose legal immunity for the telecommunications companies that helped Bush with warrantless wiretapping.
“Obama is getting mad props for social networking,” Mr. Stark recalled arguing. “Why don’t we use social networking to let him know that he can’t keep elbowing his progressive base — the people who got him the nomination — away from the policy table?”A member of my.barackobama.com started the anti-FISA [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act] group, and Mr. Stark quickly signed on.
In those 10 days or so, the group, with its ever-so-polite name, “Senator Obama Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity — Get FISA Right,” has grown to more than 18,000 members and become the largest public group on the campaign site.
We’re not sure why Stark is getting all the credit for this, since he just “quickly signed on.” But good for him as it ties in well with his master plan. We also love that he still uses the expression “mad props.”
More on Stark v. Obama and Stark’s master plan, after the jump.
Obama responded to the group with an online statement, but the episode points to the larger issue of how much control candidates should exercise over campaign-sanctioned sites.
The in-house protest network has raised some intriguing questions for candidates who use social networking. Just how much dissent should be allowed on their Web sites? Can similar protests be mounted by opposing campaigns infiltrating the site?It is hard to read the fallout in terms of the Obama campaign. A spokesman said the campaign’s policy was to screen groups as they were proposed, and reject only those that advocated hate speech or made personal attacks.
Obama is just like the rest of us. What do you do when a “frenemy” adds you as a Facebook friend?
Stark’s not really an enemy, since he’s a supporter and plans to vote for Obama in November. He just wants to influence his policy, which is all part of his master plan, as revealed to the UVA law school blog TJ’s Double Play back in 2006. (Cue evil laugh— Bwa ha ha.)
TJ: Why’d you come to law school and are you worried the past week might get you in trouble during interview season?[Stark]: not worried about interviews - i want to get filthy rich being a plaintiff’s lawyer so that I can implement some innovative ways of impacting the political system as it stands - i want more people to participate, and i want to build infrastructure to make that happen
So, sadly, Stark will probably never be a summer associate of the day.
We like the meta-conclusion to the Times piece:
And, lately, the plot has thickened. Mr. Stark said the anti-FISA group now contains those who oppose its very existence. “Some people have joined the group to criticize — What are you doing, hurting the campaign like that?” he said. “They joined the group that I created to challenge me. I really like this means of communicating.”
People have joined Stark’s group on Obama’s site to protest Stark’s policy of starting a group on Obama’s site to protest Obama’s policies. Ain’t the Web grand?
A Political Agitator Finds a Double-Edged Weapon [New York Times]
Class of ‘09 [TJ’s Double Play]
Mike Stark [Lindsay Beyerstein / Flickr]
Earlier: The Misadventures of a UVA Gunner
(117) Comments
Comments
Comments hidden for your protection. Show them anyway!
he kinda sounds like a tool.
I love the "Ned Lamont" sticker on this douche bag's under-sized shirt. I suppose that backing losers is something of a right of passage for angry net-roots types
Looks "special"
Based on what I've seen of this guy here in Virginia, he is a left-wing nut douchebag of the highest caliber.
Mad props to Kash. Now and forever.
Do you really want this guy shaping the nation's policy?
That freak would fit in perfectly in San Francisco.
10:20. "kinda"?
WOW - Obama actually found someone he can "claim" to be right of.
That guy is staining UVA Law. What a picture...
If you thought Obama was going to implement a progressive revolution, you're just about as intelligent as those who think he's going to implement sharia. But I'll vote for him anyway, and if McCain wins, then I'm moving to Zimbabwe.
So he's a mini-John Edwards? What's he doing for his 2L summer?
He is a tool. What a self-righteous, self-centered prick! He claims to be all about Democratic politics, but he is more interested in his own self-aggrandizement.
(UVA 2L, Democrat).
Big time narcissistic personality issues here
God this guy makes UVA look bad. Can't we trade him to GULC for a d-bag to be named later?
Loser. . .Tool. . . Nutjob - Who IS this guy?
i cant wait to be on the opposite side of the depo table from this knuckle dragging troglodyte.
seriously though- "i want to get filthy rich being a plaintiff's lawyer SO THAT I can implement some innovative ways of impacting the political system as it stands"
what does he even mean by this? does he mean he wants to use the $ from being a plaintiff's lawyer to fund some whacko liberal think tank policy escapades? Or does he mean he just wants to be filthy rich and that public policy will be affected as a side effect?
Either way, "filthy rich" and "holier-than-thou leftiest intellectual-lawyer" don't seem to be the world's most compatible concepts.
Off-thread, but here's Alex Kozinkski on the dating game:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OdjCdbGucCU
He's married with kids -- I feel like I would have more accountability to how they might feel about having a dad who is a total kook. At least he knows he's a laughing stock -- he played himself in the Libel Show when he was a 1L.
don't touch his ears...and where the fuck is that baseball?
The face of the Democratic Party. Gaze upon its ugliness. See the anger and hate boiling behind the hooded, weasally eyes.
If I was a client with what I thought to be a pretty good case, I think I'd walk out of the intake interview if this guy was on the other side of the desk.
Wants to be a plaintiff's attorney, and opposes telecom immunity. I'm sure it's all in the name of progress. No self-interest here. Community, that's liberalism. For the little guy.
All hail Kash.
No more SEN.
Would love to see him in the octagonal cage with an equivalent tool from the Federalist Society and a large barrel of horse apples.
Right... guy with an interest in national politics participating enthusiastically in a discussion about policy with the campaign of a prominent presidential candidate... clearly a "nut job." We'd be better off if more people took matters of national policy as seriously as Mr. Stark clearly does.
Physically grotesque=liberal
God this guy is a black hole of suckage at life.
11:04 - that is EXACTLY what came to my mind when I saw his picture!
"How the hell did you get the beans above the frank!"
BEANS AND FRANK, BEANS AND FRANK, BEANS AND FRANK!!!!!!!
11:13
Hi Mrs. Stark!
11:06: "weasally"? Awesome.
do these people really think that they will make a difference. if he so worried about the world then start taking care of yourself! what a nutcase lib claiming obama is on the right
I agree with 11:13. This man-rodent deserves our respect for getting involved in the process.
This guy probably can't hit a softball for his life and he has probably never won a beer pong match.
Have you theen mah wiener???
- Dan Dority Out!
As a fellow UVA student, I can assure you that Mike has a lot of supporters at the law school. Diversity of viewpoints is respected and encouraged here, and Mike is considered to be the leader of the far left. Some people dislike him, but everyone respects him for standing up for his views and possibly sacrificing big law opportunities.
Turbodouche.
11:31 - I highly doubt even a law school can assemble a collection of tools such as you would have us believe inhabit UVA.
Obama Supporters = TTT
where is his popped collar?
"As a fellow UVA student, I can assure you that Mike" is one of the most ridiculed and reviled students at the law school. No one takes him or his politics seriously. He's seen more as a circus sideshow that detracts from the schools image than anything else. He forfeited any intellectual or political credibility long, long ago.
11:38 - can we assume 11:31 is Mike or does he in fact have a single supporter?
methinks some folks are a little upset at being described as "stupid, ugly, deceitful and corrupt right-wing water carriers"
eh. My heart goes out to you.
Not.
anyway, 11:29... I'm 39. With two kids. Great insight on the beer-pong observation.
but... I've always hit well. Very well.
I will never hire anyone that says "mad props". EVER.
I'm pretty sure that if the school knew he'd pull this garbage, they would never have admitted him in the first place. Dude needs to tone things down and realize what is and isn't effective in getting a point across. Nobody will seriously consider your ideas - no matter how legitimate they might be - if they think that you are a nut.
11:41,
There are some odd folks here, so he may have a single supporter, somewhere, anywhere, who's equally misguided. Every law school has its past-eaters. But all the liberal/democratic student that I know (and there are many here at UVA) despise the guy and consider him a disgrace to both their party and the school. He speaks for himself, and he does it as much for attention and vanity as he does for his "causes".
11:38
The thing I loved most about UVA Law was the ability of its students - from all different political stripes - to come together around their disdain for this asshat.
11:38: TITCP
can someone enlighten the rest of his on his "causes" and outbursts? no doubt he's a tool, but the only thing I see in the article seems pretty mild.
11:44 - not a bad point. Pretty good one, actually.
Except...
Rupert Murdoch was taking me seriously when he called Steve Capus at NBC begging him not to air footage of my visit to Bill O'Reilly's house: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4005359924897645686&q=falafel+bill&ei=0DpySLTMAYaCqwLU9IWiAw
The NYT took me seriously when I helped facilitate the flight of KSFO's advertisers in 2007: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/15/technology/15radio.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/C/Computers%20and%20the%20Internet&pagewanted=all
Bill O'Reilly took me seriously when I helped him to make the "Fox News Police" an object of ridicule: http://mediamatters.org/items/200603060009
George Allen came to take me seriously in 2006; John McCain probably hasn't yet, but that's only because he doesn't know that I was the catalyst that sent him to a market in Baghdad so that he could prove there were neighborhoods safe enough to stroll through (he was escorted through the market by 2 Apache helicopters and a battalion of Marines).
Anyway... the point is that activism is by definition going to be controversial. If nobody notices your work, you aren't effective at influencing the conversation (or events).
So maybe it's just incompatible with Big Law.
That's fine with me.
Anyone who says that even a small number of people respect or support Mike Stark at UVA Law have been drinking the Kool-Aid for way too long. Or else they're just morons. Or both.
Having just graduated from UVA Law, I had the occasion to hear this guy's bullshit for two years. He's an absolute joke, a complete ass clown, and probably under some form of mental disability. Everyone at school knew him and very, very few respected him. I'm truly embarassed at the thought that he'll graduate with the same degree on his wall (in some shitty plaintiff lawyer's office) that I'll have in mine.
Douchebag.
"There are some odd folks here, so he may have a single supporter, somewhere, anywhere, who's equally misguided. Every law school has its past-eaters. But all the liberal/democratic student that I know (and there are many here at UVA) despise the guy and consider him a disgrace to both their party and the school. He speaks for himself, and he does it as much for attention and vanity as he does for his "causes"."
I "support" Mike Stark insofar as I don't mind him and don't think he's a blot on the school or whatever - if anything I feel his behavior at the FedSoc thing where he took up a lot of time of AS and didn't give other people a chance to meet him would be the worst thing he's done, but I wasn't there for that so I don't know the full story. I heard he's a gunner too but so are a lot of people, w/e
Anyway, I think there are a lot of people at UVA law who share his politics. The school is probably more liberal than conservative.
-anon UVA 2L
10:20 ye whats up witht that ned lamont t-shirt?!
also where is edelmans monday morning sports
Who's more pathetic than Bill O'Reilly? The guy that stalks him at home and then brags about it on the internet.
11:55/Mike - You are the worst kind of a name-dropping hypocrite. Go on, tell us a bit more about how great you are.
Anyway, you are too unrefined, too kooky and too old to ever matter... Enjoy your 15 minutes of sub-fame.
I love how this guy uses "methinks" in his post. Are we sure he isn't just a parody?
if his post at 11:55 is serious, he is a sociopath. "I'm not a middle-aged law student loser - I shape world events". Scary stuff.
"People have joined Stark's group on Obama's site to protest Stark's policy of starting a group on Obama's site to protest Obama's policies. Ain't the Web grand?"
Nice.
As long as there are douchebags going to law school and becoming lawyers, there will be a niche for this site to fill... I don't see that changing during my lifetime.
Perhaps Mr. Stark is an anarchist. If criminal law and the Bill of Rights prevented George Allen's staff from tasering him within an inch of his life, then those laws can't be completely good.
Mike, there's a difference between being "taken seriously" for purposes of being the topic of a news story, and being "taken seriously" for purposes of actually convincing people of the ideas that you are advocating. Your ideas could be right on, but if you're the subject of an Abovethelaw post with people comparing you to the retarded guy from "There's Something About Mary," then your approach is probably not the best one you should be taking. Activism should be both controversial and convincing, but sometimes it's just controversial.
-11:44
11:55 - mike if thats really you, then i advise you to not comment. you sound even more ridiculous when you write about yourself. kash, went easy on you, probably because hong kong has gottten to her. incidentally, kash how is h.k. is it hot, we are waiting for pics!
no seriously you sound like a retard who actually thinks he is doing something to high powered pols. if you believe that mccain went to iraq because of you, a uva student, then all your credibility (doubtful if you ever had any) is lost!
Wow, are the conservatives out in full force this morning, or what?
What do you guys think about immunity for telecoms who handed out info. although their were no warrants?
But why discuss a tough legal question when you can insult someone. Somewhere in your little brains, you do know that ad homs don't count as reasoned discourse, don't you?
(The correct answer is yes. And although I too am sad to be back at work today, I'm not going to retaliate by ad-homming some far-rightie. Jeez.)
11:55 "too unrefined"
I could talk a lot about the latent fear issues hidden in that remark - it betrays a sense of inadequacy regarding your own social stature... but instead of focusing on that, I'll play defense a bit.
I was making a point; one that could not be made without "name-dropping". If the only thing I had ever done was seed this BarackObama.com group, it would be conceivable that I was "lucky".
By "dropping names" (and the list is by no means exhaustive), I mean to show that I take my work seriously and as a result, I get results. Again and again.
I am pretty sure that 95% of us who go to UVA are not affected, in any way, by the fact that mike stark also goes there.
12:11 - "Wow, are the conservatives out in full force this morning, or what?"
So you have to be a conservative to dislike douchebags? I thought that was near-universal...though most self-described "progressives" are douchebags, so maybe it isn't.
Nobody changes the world by being polite.
Sometimes, when they succeed, we rewrite history so that we won't be embarrassed by the anger and hatred we attacked these visionaries with.
Not saying this guy is some big deal, but those who are suggesting that "nice" activism works are morons. Big ones.
The ones who are slamming him as a nutjob are probably pretty conservative. Because to the rest of the political spectrum, "should the telecoms be held liable" was at least an open question.
If liberals were slamming him, they would probably say "guy's a douche, but he has a good point about this issue."
Dude is such a publicity whore he even has to chime in on the ATL thread that mostly bashes him. Classic.
@12:11, of course much of the criticism is ad hominem, but did you catch the tagline of this guy's blog? He titles it "Calling all Wingnuts: A never-ending battle against stupid, ugly, deceitful and corrupt right-wing water carriers. . . ."
That's what lawyers call "opening the door." If you are going to call conservatives "ugly" you can't really claim its unfair when they point out that you have a face better suited to radio. And if you think conservatives are "right-wing water carriers," then its not really unfair for people to call you a left-wing nut job.
And as for your claim that you are "not going to retaliate by ad-homming some far-rightie, jeez," your reference to "your little brains" in the previous paragraph might be taken this way.
This guy and you are not exactly encouraging "reasoned discourse," so don't be too shocked that you haven't produced any.
I'm a liberal, I more or less agree with his ideas about the Telecom companies, but I think his approach is terrible that will do more harm than good. For every person that he convinces, there will be 5 that he pushes the other way who might have gone our way but not for his approach. You can be an activist and push for change, but if you don't do it with some common sense you'll never succeed.
So, it is an ad-hom to call the use of ad-homs small minded?
Interesting.
12:09 It's me; I've got the email chain that provides overwhelming evidence that the claim it is true; and while your concerns are noted, you should know that I don't make the claim lightly.
11:44/12:08: You're right again, to an extent.
What you are missing though is this: the idea that I am looking to convince a bunch of immature commentors on ATL that my arguments/positions are superior is rank rubbish. I don't care what they think any more than they care what I think. They aren't any more reachable to me than I am to them.
But... As a result of this TImes article (and scores of others), some people that had not heard telecom companies are about to be given retroactive immunity are now informed. Honestly, the larger part of the debate was taking place on liberal blogs before we found a hook to propel it to the larger media.
The same goes for the McCain trip - if I hadn't caught his comment and sent it to some PR people that I know, I'm quite sure McCain would not have been so thoroughly embarrassed.
It's not always about media coverage; sometimes it is nothing more than providing some form of accountability for the vile. And for the most part, when people hear about what Bill O'Reilly did to his young female producer, well, they applaud what I did.
Thanks for considered comments.
No, it is ad-hom to say that the PEOPLE who make ad-hom remarks have small brains.
Criticising ideas = not ad hominem
Criticising people = ad hominem(hence the term)
Franks and Beans!! Franks and Beans!!
Using exclamation points in legal writing (motions, etc.)? Yea or nay?
12:14 - it's not a difference of "nice" and "not nice" activism, it's a difference of "effective" and "ineffective" activism. Whether you are being naughty or nice, if you're perceived as being looney or being a big joke, you're not going to accomplish your activist goals.
Look at Al Gore - there's a "nice" activist who has opened a lot of eyes with his work. Also consider Michael Moore - a "not nice" activist who has also opened a lot of eyes with his movies. The difference is, both of them have proceeded in a way where people will take them seriously and think about what they have to say.
I had a class with the guys, and he is obnoxious beyond belief. Every class period has to be about him. Exceedingly annoying.
This is exactly why I'm not a Democrat--because I would be associating myself with tool boxes like this. Point me to the nearest gun totin', tobacca smokin', bible thumpin' right winger and I would gladly associate with him over this Stark guy.
Biggest. Tool. Ever.
@12:35, your observation would fit in with his comments on here -- everything that happens in the world is all about him. Sounds like a case of narcissistic personality disorder, masquerading as political altruism. If he weren't a "progressive," he would have to be an extreme conservative so he could be the first to expose truths and offer his unique and fascinating insights from that perspective.
So 12:30, re: ad-homs, do you think that criticizing people for engaging in intellectually dishonest discourse isn't okay, instead I must merely criticize the discourse?
Allow me to rephrase then. People who engage in ad-homs are short-changing themselves by not fully engaging brains that, although I have no evidence other than the use of ad-homs, may be quite large and well-developed.
12:57, why not just say ad hominem is the lowest and least intellectual form of debate and leave it at that?
Good idea, 12:58.
12:34 - people taking Michael Moore seriously? Now I've heard everything...
12:58 is a poopyhead.
1:24, but thank God we took Al Gore seriously, otherwise we might never have learned of the true dangers of Manbearpig
12:57, you can make whatever arguments you want. 12:30 is just pointing out the hypocracy of your use of the phrases "somewhere in your little brains" and "ad-homs don't count as reasoned discourse" in the same sentence.
12:49 - why can't you people just admit... narcissist or not, I'm pretty effing awesome!
Sheesh.
Just say it and get it over with.
It won't kill ya.
11:58, I think that you misunderstand what 11:34 and 11:42(2) are trying to criticize about 10:52's response to 10:39.
1:47 - hilarious
Okay, so does anyone think the telecoms should have gotten immunity?
My instinct is no---they shouldn't be permitted to hand out info. without subpoenas (or some other legally-sanctioned request for information.)
What about the pro-side. Interested to hear your arguments.
1:29, that's not funny. MBP is totally serial!
Michael Moore won two oscars and Al Gore won a Nobel Prize. I think it's safe to say that many people took them seriously.
Mike, there is no reasoning with conservatives. They will stubbornly argue any position - no matter how shortsighted, selfish, or nonsensical it may be - to the death as long as it provides them with a pretense to either 1) pay less taxes, or 2) discriminate.
The poopyhead comment, though immature, was awesome.
Telecoms shouldn't have been granted immunity, but then again, it is fair compensation from the Executive Branch after helping out with surveillance that was illegal to begin with. Consider it an "in-kind" donation to the Republican party.
You go into some of these law firms in New York, and like a lot of law firms, the jobs have been gone now for six months and nothing's replaced them. And it's not surprising then the associates get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward . . .
ok, who am I kidding, this guy is a tool.
- BHO
In related news...UVA has confirmed the source of the pee-stench and accuses GULC of infiltrating.
Haha, 2:29, priceless!
The Dali Obama's Plane made and emergency landing - this man will stop at nothing to convince people He's a Kennedy
2:03,
It depends. If the telecoms had reason to believe that the President had the authority to request the information -- and it is alleged that the companies were told that this was the case under the Patriot Act -- then all they would have to do is produce the memo, and culpability falls entirely on the administration, and not at all on the companies. Even the ACLU admits this.
Think of it this way: a bunch of FBI agents show up at your business, flash their badges/ID cards, and tell you that they need to search your sales records in the interest of national security, and have the authority to do so pursuant to the XYZ Act of 2008. You have a right to demand that they provide you with the warrant, but are you really going to stand there and demand it? And my knowledge of criminal procedure is extremely limited, but once you acquiese to the search, don't they no longer need a warrant anyway?
"Michael Moore won two oscars and Al Gore won a Nobel Prize. I think it's safe to say that many people took them seriously."
cuz the respective nominating committees are clearly objective - dumbass
3:15,
If you consent to a search when they tell you they have legal authority, that is not valid consent.
Yeah, I would demand the warrant. Cops try to get stuff out of people all the time, and despite what Law & Order suggests, they don't get it without the warrant.
I guess you're right though, it is down to "show me the memo."
3:20,
I think the word you were looking for was "representative."
3:32 He used the right word
Look at context before making stupid comments
"As a fellow UVA student, I can assure you that Mike has a lot of supporters at the law school. Diversity of viewpoints is respected and encouraged here, and Mike is considered to be the leader of the far left. Some people dislike him, but everyone respects him for standing up for his views and possibly sacrificing big law opportunities. "
As a fellow UVA student, I can assure you that 'everyone' does not respect Mike Stark. It's hard to respect a guy who gets thrown out of campaign rallies and goes door to door harrassing Bill O'Reilly's neighbors. The guy is an ass; I may respect some of his views, but I don't respect him or his methods.
Mike Stark is 39??!!! I'm seriously floored.
I had heard about a number of Stark's complete garbage exploits and just assumed that he had to be a 20-year-old trust-fund punk who was going to seriously regret his choices after a couple of years when he grew up a little realized that he had sold any chance at credibility on the cheap. (This is from someone sympathetic to his political views.)
But he's a grown man. He's only three years younger than Paul Clement, seven years younger than Barack Obama (the presumptive President of the United States), and fourteen years younger than Chief Justice Roberts. These attitudes and behaviors are fully-formed. Seriously, go back, reread his comments above, read those links he posted about himself, and remind yourself that he is twice as old as the person you are imagining.
Hi Mike Stark! I had a class with you and you were great entertainment. A little egotistical sure, but how is that different or worse than any other collar-popping, BigLaw drone from UVA Law... Keep it up, at least you're a new breed of crazy! A lot smarter than some of the NGSLers, too.
3:32---Don't know how you know it is a he, but I will defer. In context, s/he was critiquing another poster who used the awards to reach the conclusion that "many people" took the pair seriously. The words "many people" suggest a representative sample, not objectivity. If the poster s/he critiqued had said "reasonable people" than objectivity would have been relevant.
Nice try, though.
well 4:47, you're still not making any sense. but what's a fact is that you should have used "then" instead of "than".
3:32/4:47 - the poster at 3:20 was responding to the statement "Michael Moore won two oscars and Al Gore won a Nobel Prize. I think it's safe to say that many people took them seriously."
3:20 said "cuz the respective nominating committees are clearly objective - dumbass" In other words, 3:20 was saying (sarcastically) "right, because the Oscar nominating committee and the Nobel Prize nominating committee are clearly objective." But 3:20 shortened that formulation by correctly by using "respective" in the sense of "as relates individually to each of two or more persons or things." Thus "respective nominating committees" is shorthand here for the nominating committees for each of those two prizes. 3:35 surmised that you had not understood the context; that may be true, but I think the fundamental problem is that you just didn't know what "respective" meant. And there is nothing sillier than knocking someone's correct use of a word you don't know.
Hey bro, just dropping in to give a bit of advice. Tone it down with this stuff and stop talking so loudly... you're scaring the girls. If you can't manage to chill on the Huffington tip, they're gonna have to kick you out of the party.
I know, I know, you're not interested in staying anyway... just be chill on your way out or the lax team might come after you. I'm just trying to give you a heads up so you can save a little face, bro... don't take it out on me.
there's nothing better than watching a post about an irrelevant moron turn into a post about irrelevant grammar and vocab usage.
More evidence that the UVA madras mafia is alive and well. Pop pop dat collar, y'all.
ummm, no, I was suggesting that the word "objective" be replaced with "representative." (Since the issue was what "many people" think.)
Which you might have figured out from the fact that I used the word "objectivity" twice.
And sorry about the typo.
ummm, no, I was suggesting that the word "objective" be replaced with "representative." (Since the issue was what "many people" think.)
Which you might have figured out from the fact that I used the word "objectivity" twice.
And sorry about the typo.
I only hit post once.
ummm, no, I was suggesting that the word "objective" be replaced with "representative." (Since the issue was what "many people" think.)
Which you might have figured out from the fact that I used the word "objectivity" twice.
And sorry about the typo.
umm no, the post I was responding to was at 3:32, which did not use the word objective or objectivity at all, but stated:
3:20,
I think the word you were looking for was "representative."
And sorry about the typo.
-5:29
The other UVA students are right that UVA is still more liberal than conservative - but almost no one here takes mike stark seriously. He is generally considered an embarrassment to the school.