school, etc.
written: 5:23 p.m. on Thursday, Feb. 15, 2007

That was the assumption I made. I typed a line or two for the first few questions explaining my answer, until the AG statutes site refused to load the Companies Act and another Act (I forgot what it was) and I gave up on waiting after spending like at least five minutes waiting for it to load, hence wasting a lot of time, hence panicking when I realised I only had ten minutes or so to do the remaining 14, 15 questions. That, coupled with my inherent laziness, on top of the fact that it was 9.30 in the morning and I really wanted to sleep, failing which shopping would be a much preferable and alluring option, led to me staring blankly at my laptop screen, mindlessly choosing my answers, and deciding, "Fuck this explain your rationale shit. I'm too lazy to think and I don't have much time left anyway."

Therefore, I completed the quiz with a 70/100. I thought that'd like, the mean and the mode of the distribution of the LCS quiz marks across the board or something. But I went to school today and heard people bitching about how they couldn't finish it 'cause they were spending a lot of time explaining their answers and how they were damn pissed when the quiz ended and they found out that the explanations weren't taken into consideration.

That really sucks for them, but I have to say: For once, I'm really quite glad I'm as lazy and apathetic as I am. Just this once.

That aside, the whole execution of the quiz left quite a bit to be desired. The lecturer only announced it at 6.35 p.m. the day before the quiz, and I wouldn't have known about it if I weren't so bored that I had nothing to do online but log on to IVLE. What the hell, right? Apparently, there were people who didn't even know about the quiz. How lovely.

Not only that: It was never clearly stated whether or not your explanations would count. You just assumed they would because each question is five marks, and you thought, The quality of your explanation would probably determine the number of marks you get. That only makes sense, right? So yes, I was quite surprised and on the verge of "what the fuck?"ing when the quiz ended and I saw my score, like, immediately.

Also: A couple of questions towards the end really annoyed me. An example: It is a must to use CRuPAC in the client advice letter - true or false?

I chose 'false'. In the 'explain your rationale' box I wrote, "It's not a must; it's only a viable option." Because the way I saw it, "must" indicates something mandatory, something do-or-die. In the context of the client advice letter, it gives the impression that you'd be treading in malpractice territory if you don't CRuPAC your client advice letter, as if it were a law school assignment for which you'd be marked down due to your failure to CRuPAC. Yes, it IS a law school assignment, but I was under the impression that the question related to what you'd do in practice, in a real-life situation - which is exactly what LCS is attempting to simulate. And I highly, HIGHLY doubt that a real-life client would be looking out for CRuPAC when he receives his advice from his lawyer. Like, in the first place? The dude wouldn't even bloody know what a fucking CRuPAC is.

The other question had something to do with whether or not one needs to cite crucial authorities in a client advice letter. I said no, it's not a moot memorial. Apparently the correct answer was, you're supposed to cite statutes and absolutely relevant and crucial case law.

The statutes part I can kinda get, but case law? If it were me, I don't care that Donoghue v Stevenson laid down the neighbour principle; all I want to know is that I can sue the manufacturer if I found the decomposed remains of a snail at the bottom of my bottle of ginger ale.

But this didn't annoy me as much as the CRuPAC did. I kinda get where the CRuPAC question was coming from, but the usage of the word "must" was just...uninspired and, well, wrong.

But hey, who cares. I'm apathetic towards school, now and forever.

**

The lecturer wrote another rant-y announcement on IVLE that basically attacked the honour and integrity of law students, something along the lines of how she thought we (I hate to use this pronoun but well) lacked the honour to not cheat for the quiz, and that whoever thinks it's okay to cheat should just leave law school.

Interesting. I guess if I ever need to justify to my parents why I want to leave law school, the best way to go about doing so is to cheat on an online LCS quiz and be all, "Daddy, my teacher say I cannot stay in law school because I cheated on my test."

Uh, this is a good point to stop typing and move on to something else.

**

I just realised that my Public Law assignment is due immediately after the mid-sem break and the furthest I've gone in doing it is reading the question. FUUUCK I'M DEAD.

**

So there's this Korean American Americal Idol contestant with whom I'm completely in love because his voice is sooooo sexaay! He sounded like Rain, but much better. In an American pop culture situation where contestants of all creed and races and religions and whatever congregate to fight for one grand prize that will, like, so totally change your life, I tend to lend my support to the Asian. The exception being, of course, the Asian in question is 1) retarded (see Gina of one of the America's Next Top Model cycles); 2) NOT TALENTED (see Jasmine whatever from one of the American Idol seasons); and/or 3) all of the above. It doesn't matter if the Asian is Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Indian, Malay, whatever; as long as the Asian is Asian and competent in the arena in which he's competing for that totally awesome grand prize that will totally like so completely change your life, my bias rears its head fully and wholly and without reservation.

Yeah I guess I'm racist, somewhat, but hey. At least I'm man enough to admit to it. And I honestly don't think there's anything wrong with that, though I don't mind attempts to prove me wrong on that.

There's another Asian AI contestant, this Indian boy, but he's, like, a boy. He has a nice voice and everything but he's still a boy. At least the Korean is not a boy and I totally have a thing for voices like his. So sexy OMG!!!1!111!!oneone!!1!! If the Korean gets kicked out before the top 24 rounds and the Indian stays, I'm so supporting the Indian, man.

Uh, yeah.

**

Public Law lecture was good. I was lost 15 minutes towards the end of the lecture though. Super bloody sleepy. Should start sleeping earlier on Wednesday and Thursday nights.

Knowing myself, that won't happen.

before sunrise // before sunset

Previously:
- - Tuesday, Aug. 29, 2017
I'm moving. - Sunday, Jul. 11, 2010
In all honesty - Tuesday, Jul. 06, 2010
What I want for my birthday... - Sunday, Jul. 04, 2010
On Roger's behalf. - Friday, Jul. 02, 2010