Third party software requested a higher tuition deposit than one had been accustomed to
Most people paid and went on with their lives
Some contacted admin, received an apology and a full refund
Despite that, they went on dcum to decimate the school their own children attend, the hard-working admin staff, and the HoS
When challenged, they refused to name any grievances in any specificity and just kept saying that communication is bad and the proof is that they received an apology
And then people laughed, so they spouted American-Latin, lame-duplicated clever jokes at their expense to taunt the other side trying to talk some reason into them, and then launched into a full braggadocio about their “7 figure salary”
Still no facts

That about sums it up? Go to bed.

Anonymous wrote:Oy vey. Hit a raw nerve.

Ipse FixIt. OP get some therapy. It’s a long drive into the city for ya in the am. Chill. I’ll be rolling in on foot like

I am certain I live closer to school than you, sweetheart.

But anyway, if you are “rolling in on foot” why do you have to go at all? Are you so overprotective of little Larlo that you don’t let him walk in the big city by his itty bitty lonesome? How sad.

Oy vey. Hit a raw nerve.

Ipse FixIt. OP get some therapy. It’s a long drive into the city for ya in the am. Chill. I’ll be rolling in on foot like

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1

It’s a lawyer who’s likely not practicing but with no grounding in linguistics or philosophy, or in layman’s terms: who cares?!

Classics scholar here. It is not just a phrase in tort law. It was used correctly by pp.

Hi, classics scholar. (Good Lord, help me not to laugh)
You think the appropriate usage is about the implied negligence?
The point is that the tautology was a fallacy because it’s a circular argument.
I just can’t. What are you guys on?!

You have no idea what tautology means. Do better. For the sake of all stupid drunk housewives who have nothing to do with their fancy degrees than troll message boards, do better.

Ok, next time you want to offend someone? Find your own thing, don’t take our thing (like when we realized you drank wine and stayed home and dcumed obsessively). If you had a fancy degree where they taught Latin before you even got to the fancy college, maybe ... No? Anyway, OP? Take a break. Please. It’s better for the humanity. We have the Chinese balloons. The Russian tycoons. Etc. don’t need the buffoons. Give it a rest.

Not OP, don’t stay home, pull down 7 figures a year. Six years of Latin before getting to college, at a school way better than Sidwell. Tired of you nasty ladies trying to bully people on this message board.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1

It’s a lawyer who’s likely not practicing but with no grounding in linguistics or philosophy, or in layman’s terms: who cares?!

Classics scholar here. It is not just a phrase in tort law. It was used correctly by pp.

Hi, classics scholar. (Good Lord, help me not to laugh)
You think the appropriate usage is about the implied negligence?
The point is that the tautology was a fallacy because it’s a circular argument.
I just can’t. What are you guys on?!

You have no idea what tautology means. Do better. For the sake of all stupid drunk housewives who have nothing to do with their fancy degrees than troll message boards, do better.

Ok, next time you want to offend someone? Find your own thing, don’t take our thing (like when we realized you drank wine and stayed home and dcumed obsessively). If you had a fancy degree where they taught Latin before you even got to the fancy college, maybe ... No? Anyway, OP? Take a break. Please. It’s better for the humanity. We have the Chinese balloons. The Russian tycoons. Etc. don’t need the buffoons. Give it a rest.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1

It’s a lawyer who’s likely not practicing but with no grounding in linguistics or philosophy, or in layman’s terms: who cares?!

Classics scholar here. It is not just a phrase in tort law. It was used correctly by pp.

Hi, classics scholar. (Good Lord, help me not to laugh)
You think the appropriate usage is about the implied negligence?
The point is that the tautology was a fallacy because it’s a circular argument.
I just can’t. What are you guys on?!

No. It is also a Latin phrase that has nothing to do with modern legal concepts. It was used correctly, nothing circular about it. PP was correctly making the point that Mr. Garman’s admissions speak for themself.

Quit while you’re behind. 😂

Bare assertion fallacy. Ipse dixit. Feel free to try to explain yourself. Which you can’t do.

Anonymous wrote:OMG. You are way dumber than we (yes, we) thought. I’m too sexy for this thread, yeah…, you know what I mean…
ps Put the Chardonnay down. In the am, realize that we didn’t have to even google anything like how to write tautology or how to read Latin. And we still think the OP is a tattletale without a cause

OMG. You are way more of a stupid alcoholic than we (yes, we) thought. You have no idea what tautology means and you’re so stupid that you can’t even begin to understand much less explain. Do you know what ipse dixit means? I doubt it, but perhaps you should try to understand it as it is a concept that should be very familiar to you.

I mean! A girl can’t go out with a boy, and have a dinner, and some aperol, and come back, and go to bed without dealing with the OP’s ego… don’t you all have to get up early to drive in and drop off and… yawn….

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1

It’s a lawyer who’s likely not practicing but with no grounding in linguistics or philosophy, or in layman’s terms: who cares?!

Classics scholar here. It is not just a phrase in tort law. It was used correctly by pp.

Hi, classics scholar. (Good Lord, help me not to laugh)
You think the appropriate usage is about the implied negligence?
The point is that the tautology was a fallacy because it’s a circular argument.
I just can’t. What are you guys on?!

No. It is also a Latin phrase that has nothing to do with modern legal concepts. It was used correctly, nothing circular about it. PP was correctly making the point that Mr. Garman’s admissions speak for themself.

Quit while you’re behind. 😂

OMG. You are way dumber than we (yes, we) thought. I’m too sexy for this thread, yeah…, you know what I mean…
ps Put the Chardonnay down. In the am, realize that we didn’t have to even google anything like how to write tautology or how to read Latin. And we still think the OP is a tattletale without a cause

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1

It’s a lawyer who’s likely not practicing but with no grounding in linguistics or philosophy, or in layman’s terms: who cares?!

Classics scholar here. It is not just a phrase in tort law. It was used correctly by pp.

Hi, classics scholar. (Good Lord, help me not to laugh)
You think the appropriate usage is about the implied negligence?
The point is that the tautology was a fallacy because it’s a circular argument.
I just can’t. What are you guys on?!

You have no idea what tautology means. Do better. For the sake of all stupid drunk housewives who have nothing to do with their fancy degrees than troll message boards, do better.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1

It’s a lawyer who’s likely not practicing but with no grounding in linguistics or philosophy, or in layman’s terms: who cares?!

Classics scholar here. It is not just a phrase in tort law. It was used correctly by pp.

Hi, classics scholar. (Good Lord, help me not to laugh)
You think the appropriate usage is about the implied negligence?
The point is that the tautology was a fallacy because it’s a circular argument.
I just can’t. What are you guys on?!

No. It is also a Latin phrase that has nothing to do with modern legal concepts. It was used correctly, nothing circular about it. PP was correctly making the point that Mr. Garman’s admissions speak for themself.

Anyway, I’m lost, and am the immediate PP and will say that OP has lost and the students have won and the classics scholar is dead wrong and do put down ze wine.

To be fair, I think the PP before the PP meant to side with the OP. But the Chardonnay and the careful electives (Jane Austin!) conspired to make her actually score an auto-goal!
The scholars win!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:+1

It’s a lawyer who’s likely not practicing but with no grounding in linguistics or philosophy, or in layman’s terms: who cares?!

Classics scholar here. It is not just a phrase in tort law. It was used correctly by pp.

Hi, classics scholar. (Good Lord, help me not to laugh)
You think the appropriate usage is about the implied negligence?
The point is that the tautology was a fallacy because it’s a circular argument.
I just can’t. What are you guys on?!