Wednesday, April 05, 2006

Ooops

So I was premature with this announcement. The speaker instead will be Grayden Charles.

Poor choice in my opinion.

31 comments:

Anonymous said...

agreed

Anonymous said...

yeah I groaned too.
--Boargart

Anonymous said...

oh come on, how many people can get to say they got a real live dungeonmaster to be a speaker at thier commencement?

Wayne said...

Allegedly, a real live dugeonmaster. Let's not get me into trouble again people.

But seriously, he's a dungeonmaster?

Anonymous said...

Seriously, any of you think you could do a better job than Graydon? And yes, it's not spelled with an "e". I can only imagine you up there.

Wayne said...

I could think of a few others I'd rather hear up there, but you're right, I wouldn't be one of them. Does that mean though I'm not allowed to criticize the selection?

Anonymous said...

the issue is not whether we think we can do better than Graydon, but rather that we have heard enough of him during our time in law school. this is the same kid that professors will skip over calling on because he already talks too damn much. Don't get me wrong, he is a very nice guy and I have nothing against him personally, I would just rather have someone a little less...what's the word...lame. That's all I'm saying. Enough from Graydon Schlicter the third already. We get it, you're smart, you're on law review and you wear the same spiderman t-shirt to your final exams.

The students should have been able to choose their student speaker. And I can guarantee that had the students been left with the decision, Graydon Schlicter would not even be up for consideration.

Anonymous said...

I thought y'all were given the chance. No one else stepped up. I don't remember seeing a vote, but then I do remember a sign soliciting speakers.

There's nothing wrong with dungeonmasters. There's more of us than you think. ;-)
--Boargart

Anonymous said...

There has been a lot of dumb bickering on this blog before, but I think this one takes the cake. It is like a three minute speech so regardless of how lame and boring and lame his speech will be, it will all be over quickly. And as someone else put it to me, "who cares it will be funny either way, either the speech will be funny or we will all just be laughing at him." Granted I would have loved to have seen someone else give the speech. I knew I should have gone to that meeting where they made that decision. My laziness biting me in the ass again.

Wayne said...

I guess it's kind of ironic in a way - well maybe not ironic, but it's something. The only reason there are gunners in law school like Graydon is because not enough of us are willing to participate in class. And for that same reason, after three years bitching about it when it was our own damn fault, we are having Graydon as one of our graduation speakers. So I suppose we deserve to have one of our last impressions of law school come from a gunner.

We really should have seen this coming before petitioning the administration for a student speaker.

Anonymous said...

Wow, I thought that we were out of high school, with cliques and the "cool kids" bashing the less cool. Who gives a shit if he's a dungeonmaster, who cares if he raises his hand too much? He's a good guy, and I'd say probably a much better speaker than any of you who are bitching about him. You are all adults, get over it! And, as someone already posted, if you were so concerned with who would speak at graduation, then maybe you should have applied. You are all becoming LAWYERS, people who will represent the less fortunate, the less knowledgeable, and yes, even the less cool. If you can't even respect your fellow law students, then how are you going to respect your clients?

Anonymous said...

Haha, this is funny. So very funny. All this over a graduation speaker. I wonder if President Bush would have been less controversial. Oh and by the way, what the fuck is a dungeonmaster? And what client wouldnt want a spiderman 2 t-shirt wearing, dungeonmaster as their lawyer? I hear those kids in ITAP are pretty good speakers, one of them should have done it.

Anonymous said...

A good guy??? Isn't this the same person that submitted a dummy brief for Moot Court when we were ILs????

Anonymous said...

Please educate us nonextracurricular types: What is a dummy brief and what is the problem w/submitting it as a 1L? (Perhaps the answer to the first question will make the second unnecessary?)

Jenn said...

I love that everyone who's talking shit doesn't have the guts to post their names. C'mon guys, grow a pair :)

jdolan said...

Wow. Graydon gets on my nerves as much as the next guy, but he's a fantastic person, willing to help out anyone who asks. He's not as nifty as some, and a much better person than most. Leave him be.

Cynthia Moj said...

What is a "dummy brief?"

Wayne said...

It's any brief written by me.

Anonymous said...

Part of the 1L (first year of law school) experience is writing a brief (a memo detailing some legal argument or case). That brief is to be used to craft an argument to be presented in front of judges against another student (moot court). One week the argument is presented as you've prepared it on your brief and the following week you present the opposite side (off brief). Part of the process includes filing the brief in the law library so that your opponent can see how you crafted your brief and what sort of argument you made the week prior. And, most importantly, help each other prepare for arguing off brief. Your opponent only sees your brief during the week that everyone is arguing the opposite side (off brief). A dummy brief is one that purports to be your arguments but instead is a sham meant to lead your opponent astray.
A dungeon master is a referee for the pen and paper roleplaying game Dungeons and Dragons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dungeon_master)
--Boargart

jdolan said...

It wasn't a dummy brief either. It was just that bad. (I confronted Graydon w/ the accusation during first year and believe he did not act unethically.) Just because he's smart doesn't mean he is a good writer. You'd be surprised by some of the crap that Moot Court has to read when 1L's turn in their brief.

Anonymous said...

I have a question. How does someone who is "not a good writer" get onto Moot Court AND Law Review? Isn't writing a huge component of both of those programs. And if the brief was "that bad" how could he make moot court?

Anonymous said...

Good point. So which is it: a person was a shitty writer, moot court/law review doesn't have as high standards as they would want you to believe or, it was an unethical dummy brief? Methinks you cannot have it both ways...

Branders said...

Methinks you guys are spending too much time on this topic...and Wayne, more blogging please, I'm bored :)

Anonymous said...

Getting on to Law Review has nothing to do with your skill as a writer except to say that you must be good at writing exams...where your structure and grammar are less important that the amount of stuff you get on the page.

Moot Court has a writing component factored in to the scoring process for 1L's but with high oral argument scores in the 1L Competition, the brief writing becomes less important. Graydon excels in oral argument and his scores in that arena were enough to place him on the "Alternate Oralists" lists. The only reason that he moved into the advanced rounds during intramurals was because one of the finalists was unable to compete on a Saturday.

Hope this clears up any confusion. You can be a terrible writer and be on both Law Review and Moot Court.

kinkyrhombus said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
kinkyrhombus said...

as the person who was on the receiving end of his so called "brief" i can tell you there is WITHOUT A DOUBT IN MY MIND that it was in fact a dummy brief. his partner's brief consisted of sentences that had been hacked apart so that periods didn't even exist in the paper. his tried to confuse dumb law students about "strict liability innocence" and the like. and his method of lifting direct quotes from my own paper would suggest that he was intending for (me) to do the same. hmm.

and for the record, his position when confronted by me was that it wasn't his brief. yeah. sure.

Sarah W. said...

I think Graydon's a nice guy and I just want to say that.

Anonymous said...

Um...someone actually referred to you and your friends as being the "cool kids." I'd think you'd be a lot cooler if you learned to stop projecting your massive insecurities on other people...especially those who have done nothing wrong--like Graydon- dungeon master or no. (Although if that's true...I'll have to have a talk with him).

Todd said...

I second that! C. Graydon Schlichter III rocks! This is a nice set of comments to read considering that I'm thinking of applying to be our graduation speaker next year. I talk in class, dress up for finals, and have belted out musical ensembles with Graydon before. I wonder if 1) you all secretly find me annoying, 2) if anyone else will apply to speak next year, and 3) if not, what my dungeonmaster-esque nickname will be.

Wayne said...

I'm pretty sure the cool kids reference was supposed to be taken as a biting bit of sarcasm. Not only by its context, but to remove all doubt that it was sarcasm, the commentator also put the phrase in quotation marks. Thankfully so, because I'm really slow when it comes to recognizing a good bit of sarcasm. Really slow.

Anonymous said...

just so we're clear about this, and i'm neutral and apathetic to graydon's selection as speaker but the speaker was chosen not on a vote of the students but by a vote of the administrative board based on GPA. many people did apply who would have been just as good, better, or worse.

my only comment with this situation is that the student speaker is supposed to represent the student body. it does not mean that we select the elite to represent the student body because law review really is only a small fraction of the student body unless that member of the law review in fact has the backing of the larger portion of the student body.

but then again, that brings us back to the fact that we didn't vote.