Comments on: It’s all fun and games until someone dreams about Orin Kerr.

By: Kate Litvak

Kate Litvak — Thu, 06 Jul 2006 01:16:33 +0000

Paul: we invoke Brian Leiter by thinking of Nietzsche three times.

By: Paul Gowder

Paul Gowder — Thu, 06 Jul 2006 01:15:11 +0000

Kate: Are you suggesting that Leiter is not God?

By: Kate Litvak

Kate Litvak — Thu, 06 Jul 2006 01:07:59 +0000

Bruce: Don’t confuse omniscient with omnipresent.

By: Paul Gowder

Paul Gowder — Thu, 06 Jul 2006 00:55:12 +0000

Don’t we invoke Brian Leiter by saying Nietzsche three times?

By: Bruce

Bruce — Thu, 06 Jul 2006 00:53:35 +0000

It’s been leashed?

By: Kate Litvak

Kate Litvak — Thu, 06 Jul 2006 00:51:39 +0000

Elizabeth: perhaps you should have informed this audience that your Florida postcard was a thank-you note for my generous contribution to the Elizabeth Nowicki Legal Defense Fund — which, contrary to your representations, turned out not to be tax-deductible! I don’t think I want to continue serving on its board anymore. And stop sending me your poetry. I’ve already faxed you my undergraduate transcript – what else do you want?

Also, if either of you ever mentions Sartre again, I will unleash the spirit of Brian Leiter.

By: Elizabeth Nowicki

Elizabeth Nowicki — Thu, 06 Jul 2006 00:12:51 +0000

Paul, I’m with you on the Sartre point, but I do not think that the self-deceiving aspect makes the discussion irrelevant. I think that that concept is can be super-imposed on the director-good-faith discussion.

By: Paul Gowder

Paul Gowder — Thu, 06 Jul 2006 00:06:51 +0000

Did Wendel write about Sartre somewhere?

Regardless, if my suspicion is correct that you’re going to pull from Sartre’s notion of “bad faith,” I’d seriously urge you to proceed with, uh, major caution. If nothing else, bad faith in the Sartrean context is manifestly self-deception, rather than deception of others. It’s a denial of the fact (to Sartre) that one possesses radical freedom of choice. It has jack-all to do with deceiving others, either deliberately or cluelessly.

By: Elizabeth Nowicki

Elizabeth Nowicki — Wed, 05 Jul 2006 18:39:38 +0000

Kate, I’m hurt. Really, really hurt. You say *nothing* in response to my thread pleading for help with data analysis, and you instead just lash out on me here. So sad.

And what makes it even worse is the fact that I sent you a postcard from my recent vacation to Disney World, which you never acknowledged, and you are still poking at me here. How many other of your abused colleagues send you postcards? Exactly. Next time I go away and send you a postcard, I will try to find one for you with personal affirmations on it (or something similarly designed to help you deal with your anger).

Paul, just watch me go. I am ready to enter the existentialist world. You can thank my repressed-philosopher qua research assistant for putting me on to the value of Sartre to this discussion. I intend to spend large amounts of time in the next week reading Brad Wendel’s work. . . . Stay posted.

By: Paul Gowder

Paul Gowder — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 22:28:23 +0000

The blogosphere is starting to remind me a little of law school itself in its Total Neurosis Environment characteristics. Dreaming about blogs and rant-fests can’t be healthy.

Speaking of unhealthy things… please don’t compare corporate bad faith to Sartre’s bad faith. I beg of you, on behalf of abused existentialists everywhere.

By: Kate Litvak

Kate Litvak — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 04:57:59 +0000

That’s because Orin Kerr is easy on the eyes. As to this deeply disturbing lack of appreciation for my appearances: I thereby unleash plague and heightened airport security searches on you. May your Excel spreadsheets uncontrollably switch to the “formula” format. May all your samples contain ten observations. May all proposals of using the difference in logs instead of ratios of absolute values come after the lapse in submission deadlines. May your Lexis password be deciphered by the Chinese. And may the DE legislature put the “not in good faith” clause out of its misery right before the law review submissions season. Amen.

By: Daniel J. Solove

Daniel J. Solove — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 04:13:12 +0000

Thanks Elizabeth. You were great.

By: Benjamin Nelson

Benjamin Nelson — Sat, 01 Jul 2006 03:32:21 +0000

If we were to take the beginning of that PrawfsBlog thread, and tie it to its end, so that it became a mobius strip composed of Blog, it would probably generate enough ranting power to provide energy for a medium-sized city. Oh, by the way, I replied to your reply (on Law and Society Blog) on the Good Faith issue. I believe that the ommissions-not-in-good-faith clause has the potential to play a big role in your future formulations (unless I misinterpreted).