This is real.

Who wants to have a little LSAT fun?

I’m sure you don’t, but this is the topic of the day so deal with it.

I took the October 2003 LSAT and had a pretty difficult time despite the $1200′s worth of prep classes I took. It must have been the shock of opening my test booklet and seeing, to my absolute horror and disgust, that the Logical Reasoning section (known as the “Games” section—I don’t understand where that nickname came from because there is nothing fun about these games) was the first section of my exam.

Bad enough that I was weak in the Games department, but it also just so happened that one of the fact patterns in my test was a type that had not appeared in any LSAT since 1991. I mean, it was such an outdated type of Game that most of the test prep courses and books didn’t feature any lessons on how to tackle it. So, for those of you who were sitting in a classroom on October 3, 2003, staring at this problem and wishing you were never born–I feel your anguish.

…But I don’t feel it enough to spare you from reliving it again! Here is part of the question (too lazy to type the rest). It’s a “Circular Linearity” problem–but you can just call it the “People Sitting Around a Round Table” game.

Eight people–Fiona, George, Harriet, Ingrid, Karl, Manuel, Olivia, and Peter–are sitting, evenly spaced, around a circular picnic table. Any two of them are said to be sitting directly across from one another if any only if there are exactly three other people sitting between them, counting in either direction around the table. The following conditions apply:

    Fiona sits directly across from George.

    Harriet sits immediately next to neither Fiona nor Karl.

    Ingrid sits immediately next to, and immediately clockwise from, Olivia.

Which one of the following could be the order in which four of the people are seated, with no one else seated between them, counting clockwise around the table?

(A) George, Peter, Karl, Fiona

(B) Harriet, Olivia, Ingrid, Karl

(C) Ingrid, Fiona, Peter, Manuel

(D) Olivia, Manuel, Karl, George

(E) Peter, Harriet, Karl, Fiona

My [Overdue] Christmas Gift to You: A Grammar Lesson

I.E. and E.G.–what do they mean?

We’ve all seen them being used in some context or another—but most of us don’t know exactly what the abbreviations actually stand for. However, our lack of knowledge in the department of grammatical shortcuts does not prevent us from using these terms in our own writings–we just assume that we’re using them correctly based on how we’ve seen others use them in the past.

Right?

I.E. and E.G. are usually seen in parenthesis to denote lists or examples of whatever the subject of the sentence is referring to. They seem to have the same purposes, and thus we’ve probably used them interchangeably…an innocent mistake…

…that you should stop right now!

(Sorry, I didn’t have a better transitional phrase.)

Unfortunately, I.E. and E.G. are two separate tools with very different purposes–meaning, you’re not helping yourself if you’re using them interchangeably. In fact, if you’re like me–and you know what I.E. and E.G. stand for–you get a good laugh out of seeing them used incorrectly (albeit, a nerdy laugh…but a laugh nonetheless.) And hopefully, My [Overdue] Christmas Gift to You will help you all find more amusement in your daily lives—especially when you read newspapers, magazines, or any other form of literature that uses an over-paid editor.

I.E. and E.G. are actually Latin words. I guess the best way to explain how to correctly use them is to define them:

I.E. is the abbreviation of the Latin phrase, id est–which means “in other words.” Thus, you would use I.E. as an indication that you are clarifying a particular term.

I spent my entire morning playing a video game, i.e. Final Fantasy XII.

I was playing a video game, i.e. Final Fantasy XII, all morning.

As you can see, the I.E. was used to specify the video game that I spent my morning playing–and which I have spent all my other mornings, afternoons, and evenings playing as well (because it’s awesome.) But I digress…

I haven’t seen I.E. used a whole lot–and you might agree that it’s not as common as E.G.–which is why I think people have a tendency to use it incorrectly because there aren’t a whole lot of examples of how to use it properly. Not that I blame people for choosing to ignore I.E.–it’s actually kind of a waste of time because you’re essentially writing the subject matter twice.

Moving on…

E.G. is the abbreviation of the Latin phrase, exempli gratia–which is our “for example.” I think this is the shortcut we are most familiar with—and chances are you’re using it correctly unless you’re the type who likes to waste time (see above). E.G. is used to denote a few examples of the sentence’s subject matter–which is not the same as I.E. since I.E. is used to specify the actual subject matter; E.G. is for examples of what the subject matter could be.

If I weren’t so lazy, I could be doing other things, e.g. watching television, napping, updating my Xanga.

Turnip and Pepper enjoy sleeping in different spots. E.g., my stomach, my text books, and my desk chair are some of the places they like to nap on.

Anyway, that’s my gift to you.

Tara Connor got her Christmas gift early: She gets to keep her crown.

It’s old news by now that, despite allegations of under-aged drinking, drug use, whoring, faking homosexuality for attention by making out in public with Miss Teen USA, and testing positive for cocaine, Donald Trump didn’t say “you’re fired” to Miss USA Tara Connor–thus allowing her to continue to be “savvy, goal-oriented and aware…with the hope of advancing [her] careers, personal and humanitarian goals” in order to “improve the lives of others.” Yes, the Miss America Pageant’s tradition of providing opportunities for these female “role models” lives on!

And why not? As Donald Trump said:

“Tara can serve as somebody more important than Miss USA. She is a great example for troubled people throughout this country…that have problems with alcohol…problems with life.”

…Oh please–dump that bucket o’ sh*t elsewhere, Donald. Tara Connor is only a “great example” of a troubled person who got caught–she’s not an example of a woman who is intelligent enough to protect herself from making serious errors of judgment, nor is her experience something that will help other “troubled people” because the message she is sending is: It’s okay do compromise your dignity and morals as long as no one finds out.

And no, I’m not going to consider the fact that a lot of girls have probably done the same, or worse, things. Those girls are in the wrong as well, but they’re not recognized on a national level as being the epitome of a strong, intelligent woman. When Tara Connor entered the Miss USA Pageant, she was accepting the possibility that she would win the title and all the responsibilities that came with it—the most obvious and important one being that she would be a role model for girls everywhere, and give them the belief that they could someday be like her. And having that knowledge meant that she could not do things that would compromise her image—even if those activities are done regularly by people just like her. She lost her anonymity, her right to be scrutinized equally, when she accepted her crown—and thus she shouldn’t have been given a second chance.

Plus, I’m sure there were runners-up who do have a sense of dignity and morals, and who would have better respected the Miss USA title. Those are the types of women I would want my daughter (if I had one) to look up too—not some crack head slut who wasn’t capable of taking care of herself.

    I know 2006 has a few days left before it ends (13 days, 11 hours, and 19 minutes, standard Hawaii time, to be precise), but I think now would be a good time to reflect on some of the notable personalities that broke out over the past 12 months, garnering all sorts of fame and notoriety for being perfect examples of what to do if you want to ruin your life. These infamous individuals have resumes built from sin and shame, with objectives and achievements that are offensive enough that we are both disgusted and amused. And while Hollywood has celebrities, Loserville has these few unlucky individuals whose slow downfall into Sponge Bob Square Pants’ domain has been relished by us all.

New Residents of Loserville 2006

  Ted Haggard: If you are like me, purposely ig’nant of current events, then you wouldn’t have known who this man was until around November 2006. But when you learned about him, I bet you probably couldn’t wait to hear how his drama was going to unfold.

    Ted Haggard is–no, correction, was–best known for his work in the Evangelical circuit. He had founded the New Life Church back in the 1980s from his basement (which now has about 14,000 members), and worked his way into becoming one of the most prominent religious figures in the country. He took part in White House conference calls, was president of the National Association of Evangelicals, was named one of Time Magazine’s “Most Influential People,” and was famous for his staunch stance on banning same-sex marriage.

    Too bad this made a certain Mike Jones (no, not the rapper), upset. Mike Jones, you see, was a [former] gay prostitute/masseuse who claimed to have had sex with Ted Haggard for 3 years. He claimed that Haggard, using the alias “Art”–which doesn’t really do much to hide his identity since his middle name is “Arthur”–would call and leave messages asking for sex and crystal meth. When Jones “discovered” one day that Haggard was a religious leader who was actively opposing same-sex marriage, he decided to inform the public that Haggard was nothing more than a homosexual man who was using religion as his closet.

    And it kind of went downhill from there: Haggard at first denied the allegations, then admitted that he did call Jones, but only for massages and not sex, and that he did buy meth from him but threw it away because he realized that drugs were bad, mmmkay? Finally, he was fired from the very church that he had founded after an independent investigation found him guilty of  “immoral sexual misconduct.”

    With all that said, you can see why the Ted Haggard is no longer a man of the cloth (or whatever fabric Evangelicals refer to)–he is now a man of Loserville.

Senator Mark Foley (R-FL): He had been on the House of Representatives for 11 years, served as chairman of the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, and introduced a bill in 2002 that would make it illegal for websites to have sexually suggestive images of children. His position to change federal sex offender laws was supported by victims’ rights groups such as the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and also John Walsh from America’s Most Wanted. Having done all this and more in the fight against child pornography and sexual predators, it turned out that Foley himself would have been prosecuted under the bills he had tried to get enacted. In September 2006, it was reported that Foley had been sending “sexually explicit” instant messages and emails to a 16 year-old boy who was taking part in the United State House of Representatives Page Program–which is basically an opportunity for high school boys to be secretaries.  (Sidebar: Young boys as secretaries? That’s pedophile fodder right there.) In October, Foley checked into rehab for alcoholism and issued a statement that his behavior was the result of alcohol abuse, his homosexuality, and a childhood experience where he had been sexually assault by a clergyman.

    Honestly, can you think of anything less original than “alcoholism” and “touched by a priest”? That’s probably every pedophile’s Golden Rule: Do to children what you can get the public to excuse under the cover of drinking and perverted religious figures. And I’ve watched NBC’s “To Catch a Predator” series long enough to know that Foley’s excuses are not enough to protect him from the stigma of being a child predator–or from being Loserville’s newest resident (he and Ted Haggard are roommates.)

Terrell Owens: Most of you probably are not surprised that Terrell Owens moved to Loserville–but I am! I have neither the interest to play sports or watch it on television. I am completely, and happily, retarded when it comes to athletics. Despite all that ig’nance, I do know who Terrell Owens is–and any sports player that makes me aware of his existence means he’s not a famous sports person…he’s a Drama Queen.

    From what little I know of him, Owens is apparently a talented football player–but I am not going describe his skills because, as I said, I have no sports knowledge and whatever I type about him will probably sound stupid or even be incorrect. So I will not go there to protect my perfect image (laughing hysterically).

    Now, I only know him from that Desperate Housewives commercial he did in 2004 (which, by the way, I don’t see the controversy in it because it involves old ass Nicolette Sheridan and can’t-act-for-crap Terrell Owens), but apparently he’s been a problem for the football teams he played for: he did not get along with the team quarterback, Jeff Garcia, or his head coach Steve Mariucci, then he went on to play for the Philadelphia Eagles in 2004, during which he criticized one of him teammates, Donovan McNabb, and again did not get along with the team’s upper management. In 2005 he wanted to renegotiate his $49 million, 7-year contract, and when no agreement was reached, he threatened not to participate in training camp. Then he was suspended for 4 weeks for arguing with the head coach, then suspended for 4 games because he wouldn’t shut up, and finally he was “deactivated” for the rest of the season. Two years after he had signed with the Eagles, he was released from the contract and signed to play for the Dallas Cowboys in 2006.

    Okay wait, there is more–probably a lot more than I even wrote up there, but to include it all would be turn my entry into a Terrell Owens biography or something. In 2006 Owens had reportedly tried to commit suicide by overdosing on pain medication–but he has denied that he tried to kill himself, instead preferring the public to believe the incident was some sort of allergic reaction.

    I don’t know what Terrell Owens is going to be in the news for next (today’s MSN sports headlines says something about a spitting situation), but I predict he’ll be playing for the Loserville Whiners soon.

John Mark Karr: There are very few things in this world that can be considered worse than killer pedophiles–but one such exception is the pretend killer pedophilia. Yes, that exists–because of John Mark Karr. 10 years after the murder of JonBenet Ramsey, this random man teaching children in Thailand ends up confessing to the crime and is extradited in first a class plane seat to the United States. Commence media frenzy and talking heads on every cable news network to begin analyzing and debating Karr’s past and personality, and whether he could actually be the murderer. But, after he is questioned and investigated, it turns out that he was not the killer because the details in his confession did not match the details found in the crime scene. Instead, Karr is just some nobody who was obsessed with the JonBenet murder, and fantasized that he was the actual killer. When that case fell through, the California court system decided to try him for a 2001 charge for possessing child pornography on his computer (which was the reason why he had fled off to Thailand)–and then that case fell through because the Sheriff’s department had trashed the computer. Whoops.

    John Mark Karr gets to move into Loserville because all other regular residential areas do not deserve to have a crazy ass who lies about raping and murdering a child. His shack is far away from Tom Foley’s because he thinks he is at risk of being prosecuted under Foley’s proposed anti-child pornography bills–when really it is more likely that he will be arrested for being pasty.

Britney Spears Version 2004-Current: Finally! A female! Despite what appearances, I’m not purposely picking on men in this entry–it was just coincidence that most of this year’s recipients of Loserville’s Welcome Wagon were men. However, women sometimes falter and end up rolling down a hill, into crevasse filled with dried out feces, and poor Britney Spears Version 2004-Current is a woman corned (Get it? Feces? Corn?)

    Now, I say “2004-Current” because I view the Britney Spears of the past as an entirely different person than the Britney Spears of today. While I was never much of a fan, I could understand how she was appealing to men and women back in the day–which is nothing to hold against her. What woman doesn’t want perfect abs cemented on her body? However, she has since transformed into a Jubba-like mass over the past two years, and seems to be having trouble remembering to wear underwear while in the midst of divorce and child custody proceedings with her douche-bag ex-husband/cash siphon, Kevin Federline.

    Putting Britney up on the list was a no-brainer, even though my first instinct was to list Kevin Federline instead because he could be the Governor of Loserville if he wanted. But, I think we all have to remember that while K-Fed was the ultimate waste of skin who failed at everything, he did so while spending Britney’s money. He didn’t have to put up anything to go from Start to Nowhere–it was all his wife’s cash, and she let him spend it. So I can’t really hate on a douche bag when the root of the problem is an unfresh vagina.

    And honestly, if you’re fighting for custody of your children, the last thing you want to do is be photographed with an exposed birthing hole. Then again, her children probably hid you underwear so that child services would place them in a more stable environment.

Brett Ratner: He may have directed the Rush Hour films, and he may have worked with Jackie Chan–who I find super terrific–but that does not mean he didn’t butcher the X-Men franchise with The Last Stand. Brett Ratner directed the third and final X-Men movie which came out this year because the original director of installments one and two, Bryan Singer, decided to take on Superman: Returns instead. My opinion of this announcement back before the movie was released was that directors direct, actors act, writers write, etc., and no one crossed-over into other positions. Thus, if stupidly believed that as long as most of the components that made X-Men 1 and 2 good were still in place, X-Men 3 should have no problem.

    But I was wrong, wrong, wrong. Very wrong. Some sort of disaster must have happened during production because X-Men 3 was terrible. And I say that as someone who loved the FOX cartoons back in the day and who thoroughly enjoyed the first two movies–my loyalty is deep (ask my Sony Playstations) and it takes a lot for me to say anything that would contradict this loyalty. And by “a lot” I mean Angel, a random Sentinel, cutting out Cyclops, suddenly making Shadow Cat and Colossus members of the X-Men for no reason, a human/porcupine hybrid, Calisto, and turning Rogue into a feminist’s nightmare.

***

    The list doesn’t end here–but my focus does. Stay tuned for Part II (if I feel like it)!

My last entry was in November? How long ago was that? What is today’s date? The 12th?! I think this is a new record for the longest time I’ve been away from my Xanga–which is nothing to be proud of.

Sometime during my 12-day break from blogging I studied for two finals, took them last week, and then celebrated my freedom by sleeping a lot and playing many, many hours of Final Fantasy 12. I admit that my way of kicking off Winter Break might not sound very exciting because it doesn’t involve any alcohol or drugs–but I’m not so easily bored that I have to resort to such methods of entertainment.

Anyway, my “busy” schedule means I’ve got nothing to complain about nowadays. But I feel pretty bad for neglecting my Xanga, so I’ll just use the rest of my energy to answer a question:

Why Do Nice Guys Finish Last?

Nice guys finish last because, surprise, they’re not nice. They’re actually egotistical, inconsiderate jerks who have a mistaken perception of their “niceness” because they have a warped idea of what it takes to be a truly nice guy.

A”real” nice guy is a sophisticated gentleman who is well-learned in all the rules of good social behavior–you won’t find him cheering on the side as two straight girls kiss each other just to get attention, he is never labeled as someone his friends cannot lean on for support, he knows how to use foresight to measure the different possible outcomes of his actions and thus will avoid doing things that can end up hurting others, etc. A “real” nice guy gets noticed for his goodness and probably never finishes last–but he wouldn’t know if he was in first or last place since he is being generous for the sake of helping those who need him.

The “fake” nice guy does not have any of those aforementioned characteristics. He’s just a guy trying to do things to get a benefit in return–and his motives are obvious. Thus, when he tries to do nice things for others, people around him realize right away that he’s just being fake and will instead turn that against him by taking advantage of the favors he offers while never giving him anything back in return. Thus, the “fake” nice guy always finishes last.