He wants me to...
future POTUS and Senator in training
Retired Queen Troll of TUSCL...who will succeed my reign?
He wants me to take him to disney land for his bday bc he said he nvr got to go as a child. Im thinking abt it .what do yall think?
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
229 comments
Yeah you should probably just stay single...
Do you live near Disneyland? If you aren’t nearby, and you are going to travel together, it’s even more of a commitment.
My recommendation is to think about how serious you are about your relationship with this guy. If you are serious - and nearby - then go for it.
Just my dirty old opinion.
Nicole1994 - this account is almost certainly a troll, while harmless it is pretty annoying
Cashman - my [former] best friend is a virgin and she will be 26 this Fall. She would never say something like that. That is why it is so hard to believe the Nicole1994 account. Before I lost my virginity I definitely wasn't like, "ok anything besides missionary will be too crazy for me," and neither does my former best friend. She is open to trying many positions. She is also a stripper, so yes, virgin strippers in their mid 20s actually exist.
Fuck Disneyland.
The Disney wild animal park has an okapi and okapi's are brilliant!
I am actually being semi-serious. I've visited with extended family and they do have an okapi and okapis are really ace animals, so if you decide to go to Orlando you should check it out!
P.S. I know you said Disneyland and that is the one in SoCal. But I still recommend you go to Orlando and commune with the okapi and the other wildlife! ;)
LMAO @okapi. Brilliant!
Give me about 20 minutes - I’ll be back...
"Sirlapdancealot - I know, I was being sarcastic. I'm very good at being on top."
I'm shocked. Nina said she is very good at something. She is usually so modest.
Well she should go to a water park because I'm sure Nicole1994's pussy is dry and dusty.
I’m sure Nicole is very sexy in person. She looks great in the full body photos she’s posted.
I’m sure Nicole is very sexy in person. She looks great in the full body photos she’s posted."
Splash Mountain looks like great fun in pictures at first. Then you ride it and realize it is boring (and sometimes you don't even get wet!).
However, that would be foolish - as your Splash Mountain analogy is spot on!
And yes your naked pic that you just changed shows how SMALL and FLATTISH Nicole's tits are.
She's got small and flattish tits. The truth hurts sometimes.
I think Cashman is the only one.
I understand we have different standards -
I feel so alone...
Although my boobs are small lol they gice my chest nice curves soo again , we will have to agree to disagree.
LMAO Nicole your own posts in this thread about your small and FLATTISH tits definitely meet this definition. You keep trying to say they aren't FLAT which is exaggerating what I said. LOL I NEVER said that.
Also there's nothing in the definition saying an implied believe one is superior to others which is again an example of your arrogance in thinking you know grammar and word usage better than you actually do.
There's irony in your words and accusations. Every time you claim others are misconstruing your words you end up misconstruing your own. LMAO it's irony!
It's OK though, you'll just respond more and demonstrate it (your arrogance) more and more.
And LOL your tits are still small and FLATTISH.
And yes, you did change your pic RIGHT after you tried to argue with Sirlapdancealot about your "flattish" (his words) boobs, as if we couldn't look at them in that naked pic and see for ourselves. My boobs are nowhere near large, but I guarantee if Sirlapdancealot saw them he wouldn't call them "flattish."
And btw I'm not making fun of you, my boobs aren't big either.
Then I use arrogance in proper context and definition but then Nicole uses a definition of something else.
Then Nicole says others are overcomplicating her posts. LOL pure irony.
If a girl likes her boobs, great. Almost no woman is born with perfect natural boobs, and since beauty is subjective anyway, "perfect boobs" only exist in one's mind.
Nina meanwhile has nice shape and perkiness. That picture she has up right now is pretty damn nice. Yeah I love some huge fake boobs but it's still nice when a girl has an all around great shape. I've only seen two pics of Nina but judging by those her skin tone and proportions are definitely appealing.
My bad they changed the name to fritz That’s it but seriously I like that hotel and club.. and now I want a fuckin Disneyland corn dog damnit Nicole
And yeah, we all knew there was no man wanting you to take him to Disneyland.
If you want a fair judgement, either make it exposed or go to the fabric paint section of Walmart and paint it on top. :p
And interesting insight! We should totally fight the patriarchy and make more men hang out at Disneyworld. Hopefully they won’t be creeping out the princesses.
It's because no one takes you seriously.
Baller_Biggie_Playa_69... um... are you joking? I was the puppet master of that thread. I am the reason it got so many replies and I had everyone mindfucked. Some people still are. It was a masterpiece. I literally trolled a troll. No one on tuscl has ever pretended to be a troll that they are not, and created a thread about it. No one here thinks Nicole1994 is the least bit interesting, except maybe cashman. You seem to be angry that I made such a thread. Is it because you created Nicole1994 and are mad that someone stole your troll spotlight? Because trust me, threads like "should I take a him to Disneyland" and "OMG I wore a crop top today" are boring as hell, and only become entertaining when other people besides Nicole1994 comment on it. A great example is this current thread right here.
And you asked me "didn't it turn out to be way more popular than any of your own posts?" ...It WAS one of my own posts, lol. So thank you.
And nicespice can't post a bad post. Not with her avatar she can't.
As a male Disneyland would be an awesome time if you could go with a group of strippers in bikinis. Also be able to smoke blunts with them and watch them eat corn dogs. I say good times at Disney under these conditions.
I also hears rumors at that club they once had Mickey Mouse come in and get hammered drunk after being fired from D-land but I feel like someone made that up, lol.
Aww, don't be so hard on flagooner - he's old and nearly senile.
And I never said you needed a job in undergrad you illiterate dumbass, I was talking about upon graduation from law school just like you were until you had to backpedal because I was absolutely right and quote you verbatim. I did not have to put words in your mouth like you are doing. As a matter of fact, I will quote you again.
Said the Nicole1994 account:
"while these markets are saturated, students from the top 14 or so ranked programs do not face the dismal job market prospects which the majority of students do, and you can check for yourself. the employment rate with a good salary for students coming out of these schools is very high, at least 93 % or so..check the stats if you don't know."
Again, you were wrong. And it doesn't matter what txttyfag or bigballaplaya69 or whatever the fuck his name is says, those trolls are saying more about you than me, since you are now actively posting again around the exact same time they are. You're a troll you got trolled, take your dumbass on and keep snorting your lines and getting so blitzed that people can't even understand what you're saying, cokey. Go share a crack rock with txttyfag.
^You said it, not me.
And if you troll ass knew anything whatsoever about law school you'd know I clearly am not in community college. Community colleges don't hand out law degrees. Lmao. Butthurt troll.
What you said doesn't need to be interpreted and read between the lines, it's not a serenade. You said what you said, and you said wrong. Continue to backpedal, though. Backpedal your troll ass on off of tuscl.
you are the.one backpedaling, not me.
Also , why call out someone for gettin mad when you yourself state language so as to show more significant degrees of anger?
I just have to reallllllt say this before I leave bc it had been on my mind for a while: You're like the epitome of some girls who want to be lawyers..not those serious about performing well and killing it in front of state and federal judges, but rather the ones content with going to a school below tier 1 just to say they got into law school and having to live with the consequence of working at a mid size firm at best(big law aint even my goal) at best
..you know..those.girls who tell frat think.theyre better than girls who don't get into law school and hence assume that law school.is a "status symbol" rather than an intellectual.chellenge to be conquered...But then again, i guess that.explains why they'll never work for firms like Skadden.
You're supposedly a sophomore in undergrad, whereas I already have experience with an actual job in a legal field. You, however, are an unemployed bum who tries to troll but gets trolled by me instead. Like earlier, when I told you to change your avatar pic, what did your dumb ass do? Changed it within minutes. You do what *I* say. Comparing you to me is like comparing apples to avocados. You're at the kiddie table here.
even though paralegal is great experience..again, my conclusion is that you might be qualified but you are not worth more than I am to big law employers.
why? Bc they aren't going to guarantee you a full time job as an attorney unless you are in a top law school right now.since you are not, ur skills dont mean shit.
If they did, then why would i only need to have less than a bachelors to obtain ur job Lmao.
....yet you continue to taunt a job that someone with only an associate's degree could apply to?Hmm ok.real qualified.
I get that your head doesn't retain and process info like a regular person's, Cokey, so let me dumb it down for you first:
A person wants to taste a yummy apple. They go to the apple tree and pick two apples. One is unripe; this doesn't mean it has to be thrown away, but at the very best it can perhaps be used as a decoration. It is not ready to be eaten. The other apple, however, is perfectly ripe; the apple picker can munch on the apple immediately, and enjoy all it's ripe goodness as it is ready to be eaten.
Now let's think of this in legal terms. Two people just graduated from the same law school. Let's say Harvard, just to make it easier. They are both applying for a job at a law firm and both graduated around the same spot in their class. The first applicant has no job experience whatsoever; the second applicant was a law clerk for a year and then a paralegal for a year and a half, thus having 2.5 years of legal experience. Who will get the job? The one with no legal job experience or the one with 2.5 years of experience? Rhetorical question, the answer is obvious.
At the end of the day, you're a jobless space cadet bum who has to troll websites with a subject matter that has nothing to do with you.
You want to know how else I know you're a troll? You claim to "know" that I supposedly am not in law school and/or have not been accepted to any. For that to be true, you would have had to have been a regular poster here to know that I do not talk about what law school I am attending or where I applied. But, I am not one to be a bitch 100% of the time so hint hint... every law school I ever gave any consideration to was tier 1.
...could ur question have been a more easier one to resolve than it already was?lol
There's nothing going on between your ears. Except a Pinocchio nose.
But again, you are incorrect in tryin to prove ur point because your scenario has nothing to do with the point you are trying to argue against , and therefore compare apples and oranges .
You're comparing apples and oranges bc the scenario u provided is irrelevant as it has nothing to do with what the person you are arguing against claims, which pertained to the employment outcomes of people with different rather than similar academic outcomes..i.e bachelor's degree from different caliber of undergrad schools.
In conclusion .you have successfully demonstrated that only do.you fail to comprehend arguments, but also that i am right in saying "you being more qualified " is a predetermined statement since your paralegal experience alone without knowing how your academic qualifications comparde to mine means Jack shit in terms of securing big law employment as an ATTORNEY. If this was not the case you would not have created a hypothetical situation in which our academic qualifications were comparable.
To further conclude, your PRETEND situation is about people with similar academic qualifications.but since that is not the reality since we don't have the same academic qualifications, why the fuck are you bringing up an irrelevant example....?
LMAo next time..maybe try to come up with a more realistic situation to prove ur conclusion as opposed to a pretend scenario? Ok cool.
First of all, your posts are barely written in English so they're easy to misread, yet I misread nothing. In fact I QUOTED what you said, twice now here, to show you I was correct and you were not. I didn't misread, misinterpret, (etc). You simply are incapable of sensical dialogue.
*I* fail to comprehend arguments, yet you failed to comprehend a scenario that I specifically dumbed down for you. You are illerate.
You've have way too much coke tonight, Pinocchio.
-oh your point was that experience matters? Great. I wasn't arguing against that..thanks for showing me.you can't even understand what the fuck ur opponent is saying. lmao good luck in Court though.
- You seem to have forgotten the issue at dispute, which was not that.experience does not matter since none of us said that. Rather. I stated how you merely saying you had paralegal expereince was insufficient to say you were more qualified than me which is pretty much what u said.
- you need more than just paralegal work to be more qualified than an undergrad since an undergrad could get the same job.
- you realized this, so you tried to fill the gap that i saw by creating a hypothetical situation with harvard law students
-Your situation proved nothing in regards to the issue at dispute(see above) since the similarities and differences between the academic qualifications of candidates in the fake.scenario are different than those of the candidates at hand(you and i)
- = nina likes 2 compare apples and oranges . Lolol.
- nina likes to make a conclusion with mismstching evidence. Lool.
- Nina has proved she Can't outsmart me.
- Nina wants to.ignore the fact that she Can't outsmart me by committing more logical fallacies such as attacking personal characteristics instead of explaining what harvard scenario has anything to with whay ANY of us were discussing for the past hour?
-lmao nina is another dumbass wannabe lawyer.
- nina likes to use evidence that also has nothing to do with the current realistic situation at hand
-bye nina bambina.
You admittedly are a college sophomore, or at least that is your "troll persona" so let's rock & roll with it. That means you have less than 60 college credits. Someone with less than 60 college credits and no jobs or job prospects and therefore no skills, has no business comparing themselves with a person of my aptitude and caliber. You are a jobless bum with dirty sheets, dirty feet, and a bad cocaine habit. You claim to have started at Cornell then transferred to UT but you're a 23 year old sophomore? That's pretty rare for ivy league. I'm sure you'll have an excuse for why that is, too. It sure isn't your parents' finances, since you say they supposedly forced you into Cornell in the first place. You don't even have the credit equivalent of an associate's degree. Lol!
And the fact that you 1) didn't catch the very obvious scenario of Harvard grads EVEN though I dumbed it down specifically for you, and 2) still don't understand why it's relevant to you thinking that job experience is not important for a law grad, shows that the only thing your brain is capable of wrapping itself around is cocaine.
You are a bum and a loser who has no skills. Spend less time fixating on strippers and powdering your nose, and more time on figuring out why you're still a virgin who no one has ever loved.
If youre so focused on 60 hrs(associate's degree level) ..why .are u bragging abt a job that someone with less than associate's could.obtain?
- again, u fail to understand my point , and ultimately ur opponent so i know.youll be a great big flop in court.
My point wasnt so much harvard specfically, but that your situation is about two candidates with similar academic qualifications from.similar schools etc, which is different from. Not only the reality between us but also from what i was arguing which was
The outcomes of.ppl with different qualifications. I also stated this.
-ms wanna be lawyer over here not only failing to understand her opponent but also failing to support her own stance and bragging about a job that someone who is less qualified than herself.educationally could easily obtain! So you made it harder on yourself and got a paralegal job the hard way by sacrificing more yrs of education! Totally something to brag about !
Nice nice nice This bitch is dumb.
LMAO PINOCCHIOOO! No, that is not what a sophomore means.
If you're going to lie about being a sophomore at least know how many credits one has to be labeled a sophomore. A bachelor's degree is 120 credit hours. A person is a sophomore when they have between 30-59 credits. How are people supposed to believe that you're a sophomore when 1) you can't even spell "sophomore" correctly, and 2) YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW MANY COLLEGE CREDITS CONSTITUTES A SOPHOMORE STATUS. Capitalized for emphasis in the hopes that your dumb ass can understand that. If you were really a sophomore, you would have between 30-59 credits like I just said; you are either lying about being a sophomore, or someone lied to you. Maybe your coke dealer did to pump your head up so you'd continue to be his custo.
BUT WAIT. You just said you did 30 credits at Cornell, and are doing 12 now. Therefore, you currently have completed a whopping THIRTY (30!) credit hours which is HALF of an ASSOCIATE'S degree! This is hilarious. I've never come across a troll so easy to manipulate. You're a "23 year old" with 30 college credits. IMPRESSIVE.
I made it harder on myself by becoming a paralegal? Gee thanks, that's exactly what I want employers to think when I'm pursuing a job as an actual lawyer. They would much rather hire a person who made it "hard on themselves" by getting real job experience than someone who was a lazy bum. It's a called being competitive.
Wtf happened?! There’s like 50 lengthy posts since yesterday - omg!
Alternately, Nina is at war with herself.
......the issue is with ninas's logic in trying to an assert an argument: you dont brag about how having a job makes you more qualified for an attorney's job when such a job could be obtained by someone significantly less qualified educationally than nina herself while having spent less time and money to secure that job ..thats just embarrassing.
No Nictrole... acting like you know anything about law when your dumb ass is a 23 year old with 30 college credits is dumb. Saying it is "stupid" to get a job in the legal field thus having years of experience upon graduation is stupid. About 3/4 of every law graduate has job experience. It's called being competitive, as I already told you.
You have complete two semesters of college by age 23. Two semesters. I'd be embarrassed to be bragging about that.
So - you pass freshman comp - and take another class - and you are good to go! Standards seem low at best.
Lol if 60 credits equals sophomore, what constitutes a junior? 90 credits, even though that would be their last year? Do seniors not exist? Does the troll account even know that the order goes: freshman, sophomore, junior, senior? Lol I guess not.
^And by her own admission she has only completed TWO semesters of undergrad.
I use the term "she" loosely, as "her" Pinocchio nose is getting bigger and bigger.
Lol I'm suuure Pinocchio will come ready with the excuses but (s)he has already dug himself into such a hole with the inconsistencies and outright lies.
Credit requirements have changed since my days as an undergrad - but 60 credits should put her at the end of her Sophomore year - correct?
She, however, has only completed 30 credits, so she just recently transcended into sophomore status. By her own admission, she has only completed two semester of undergraduate school at age 23. Ivy law schools will love that.
Also here is an article explaining why writing for an undergraduate law review is "the dumbest thing a prospective law student can do." Lol. (And she says it is dumb for me to get legal job experience before I become a lawyer). Lmao. Too much coke for Pinocciojoke.
https://abovethelaw.com/2015/01/the-dumb…
23 is a bit older than most freshmen. But, if she is working her way through school, it can slow her ability to complete her courses. But, she’s not working.
She’s not ivy - as she’s at UT. Ivy is a very small group of schools - and none are in Texas.
I’m not judging - just determining the facts. Hopefully, she will be able to get her act together, and begin to move forward with her studies.
Something is off - in my view. If a person is not working, and is unable to take enough classes to complete their freshman college year until 5 years after graduating high school - they are either wasting time on many extraneous activities - or they are having a good time while their parents pay for their fun.
The Nicole1994 count is not truthful. It is a troll.
It IS funny that (s)he does what I tell him/her to do though. When I told her to change her profile avatar, she did it within minutes. I told her to wash her sheets and she did that too.
I use the term "her" loosely. If it is a "her," it's still a troll.
If she finds a real romantic - rubber sheets or a tarp will do the trick too!
"LOL it's embarrassing to brag about having a top tier school law degree before you actually have it. And then to further brag about the jobs you will get but also don't actually have is further embarrassment."
.. I never said that I HAVE A DEgree from a top law school .While i discuss cornell, i do not make this the focal point (and thus something worthy of being talked about) to draw a substantive argument regarding the relative superiority of my qualifications, unlike how "nina bambina" prematurely assumes she is more qualified by nature of her acquired paralegal experience. While I do not talk about top law school admissions to argue how i am more qualified, I do discuss the admissions process precisely because without it, nina cannot prove she is more advantaged to become an attorney since one will need to get into law school to receive the education that employers (the legitimate ones, at least) will require.
-side note: I am not the one bragging here about anything, or how my 60 plus credit hours(i just finished my last semester as a sophomore, and don't start my junior semester until next fall) make me any more qualified. OR how writing for law review makes me more qualified. Yes, writing for law review is stupid to dedicate energy to at the expense of money (if you . need it) or studying for the LSAT. But, if one is using undergrad law review as a small portion of their time for extracurricular activities as required by law schools if one does not work, then it is ok. Coupled with my senate internship and research experience , writing for law review is not only acceptable to working , but is is not even viewed as inferior to admissions officers(xplained below) :
- nina overestimates the significance of her experiences which would be perceived by law school admissions officers AND BIG LAW EMPLOYERS relative to someone who had work no legal work experience BEFORE LAW SCHOOL(not zero work experience before law school graduation).
- Let's say we have a case of two applicants sharing the same top scores , with student 1 having worked as a paralegal and student 2 having worked as intern for the Chairman of a Senate committee/writing for an undergrad law review belonging to an elite law school lol among others.
- while it is true that paralegal will gain admission, this does not disqualify student 2 (even if student just participated as an officer for several student organizations instead of interning, etc) from being admitted to the same school , because admissions officers would rather a student talk about the skills acquired/impact made rather merely state the name of the inferior position (i.e intern or paralegal). While this does imply that a paralegal could have experiences which a student officer does not, this does not take away from the fact a student officer can also gain admission by writing about his experiences and skills learned. This is exactly why it is no surprise that there are many students who gain admissions into the best law schools without having worked as a paralegal before getting in, such as in the case of Michelle Obama, a Harvard Law grad and and a large proportion of prominent Supreme Court Justices (antonin scalia, ruth ginsburg, clarence thomas..etc).
-Not only is the fact that not being paralegal does not diminish an applicant's chances of getting and is therefore no more valuable(in itself) than an extracurricular activity in practice as just now shown, this fact is strengthened by the fact that an admissions officer from Virginia Law who spoke to a panel at our school stated to us that name of the internship/work experience does not matter, because it is more important that a student persuasively write about how the experiences gained have provided insightful analytical skills.
-Because analytical and writing skills which admissions look for when reading about work experiences can alternatively be obtained through research and political internships , you being a paralegal in itself means jack shit in terms of you being more qualified than me for getting into law school despite you have may have getting in with it. Getting in with it only shows that ur paralegal experience helped you, but to show that you were .more advantaged in the process because of it would require you to show that I couldn't have gotten in without doing the same thing which not only is false based on the testimony of officers themselves, but also because I all I would need to do is write about how I acquired equally valuable analytical and writing skills throughout my activities of non employment which I can do and is therefore something that many other first year students who weren't paralegals before applying also did in their other jobs or just through internships.
In order to show that you are more qualified to become an attorney, you would either have to show how your paralegal work gives you MORE LEVERAGE than someone without the same work experience in the admissions process or through the eyes of big law employers. since i showed you don't have more leverage than me just by being a damn paralegal in admissions, your don't even have more advantage than me in terms of getting hired as a lawyer for big law:
..now about the employers themselves. if admissions officers look the title of "paralegal" as it stands itself with no greater affinity than they do "treasurer of student government", being a paralegal BEFORE YOUR FIRST YEAR OF LAW SCHOOL will matter LESS to the lawyers who will HIRE YOU AS AN ATTORNEY. Because these lawyers recruit you once you graduate from law school, they only care about the work experience AFTER YOUR FIRST YEAR OF LAW SCHOOL, not before it . While paralegal experience obtained before law school can help find internships in law school, this benefit is marginal since you shouldn't even have to rely on "your paralegal " connections before law school to get a job once admitted if you get into the right school.
-Which brings me to my next point. you said 3/4 of LAW GRADUATES have experience. using this piece of evidence not only makes my job easier in what im about to say next, but it also shows you can't even successfully argue against a point even when you try to simplify the evidence and thereby level the playing field. Therefore, I hope you acquire the intellectual capacity necessary to become an attorney which you so obviously currently lack.
BACK TO MY POINT: YOU said " 3/4 OF LAW GRADUATES HAVE JOBS" ..yeah bitch. tell me something i don't know. you talked about LAW GRADUATES, which comprise an irrelevant population to look at in trying to say that you are more qualified than I to become an attorney BY NATURE OF YOUR PARALEGAL EXPERIENCE. why do i say such a population is irrelevant? UMM because I never said work experience isn't necessary to acquire a legal job, but just that I don't need to waste my time and energy to acquire "paralegal experience" before my first year of law school in order to get a job after graduating law school.
To dumb this down for you, the significance of your current experience as a paralegal in securing a job as an attorney is severely and UNDOUBTEDLY undermined, given that someone could get become an attorney without having worked a paralegal a day in his life BEFORE LAW SCHOOL(thus saving a shit ton of energy and time), by applying to become " a paralegal" IN LAW SCHOOL and GRADUATE with "legal experience" and therefore be part of the 3/4 of students who graduate law school with experience.
-In conclusion , everyone one of us, even these members who don't even want to be lawyers, know that work experience is required to apply for any job. whether or not work experience is required is not at dispute, but rather I was saying that you are not more qualified than I am to become an attorney solely by nature of your paralegal experience per your claims. This is demonstrated by the fact that while it is true that 3/4 of law grads have work experience, a person such as myself who currently has no experience as a paralegal could very well be part of that 3/4 population simply by applying to become a paralegal once in law school.
-Consequently, you have shown how ppl with no work experience before law school a part of , rather than different from, the population of students who come into law school having worked as a paralegal.....nice job :) Not only could I become a paralegal in law school and have the same job outcomes, I don't even need to go that far, since being a paralegal is viewed as no more functionally valuable than an extracurricular activity in the eyes of law school admissions officers, the people you have to bypass in order to secure a well paying attorney job.
This is the last thing I have to say about this post today. I will respond to your shitty analogies and your continual unsuccessful attempts to prove ur point on friday.
Idk i feel like every time nina tries to stand back on her feet , i shut her down by showing what she misunderstands, oversimplifies, or exaggerates.. as a result, bitch doesn't have the intellectual capacity to prove her own argument, let alone help other attorneys with theirs by being a paralegal? send help, plz.
-showing ninas blind spots and thus how she contributed to the over implication(i.e by trying to highlight the work experience of law graduates to argue she is more qualified AS IF I could not obtain the same experience in law school right before talking to emplpuers) has made me tired so ill respond to anything Friday at the earliest
- nina can hide behind the unintelligible language and use of threats she has used more than i have, but it won't hide the logical holes she needs to cover to win this argument.
^^This is analogous to how an injured female dog may bark loudly despite her teeth and claws(and in nina's case her brain) not functioning properly to defend herself or attack.
-i might also be too tired to respond friday. I can't keep filling in holes lol..whats the point of arguing if there is no strong argument put forth as a result of having so many obvious logical gaps missing ?
You are now saying, "I just finished my last semester as a sophomore," yet you were STILL A SOPHOMORE last night, and the days prior. You also only had 30 credit hours completed last night. You don't gain another 30+ overnight.
You are a liar, I caught you, now you're caught up in your lies like a damn spider web. There's no coming back from this. You got caught up, troll.
forgive me.for having to clarify the INCOHERENT assumptions and logical inconsistencies made by nina hence making my job easier.
Lol.. Just like you caught by by pointing out the fucking obvious fact that law graduates have work experience which only further proved my point?
Lol...just like how you caught me trying to change my nude pics yesterday in what u thought was my attempt to prevent anyone from seeing my tits when I reposted the nude pic so everyone including urself could see my small tits as much as they wanted, and I can do that again??
Ya bitch.you caught me.keep.hiding behind that bark and exposing ur knowledge gaps. Nicole out (on this post bc of its relatively more time consuming nature) till Friday.
Because you also were claiming to be a sophomore until I pointed out to you that your definition of a sophomore was in itself incorrect. Then you magically became a junior overnight.
Because NOW all the sudden you have a Senate internship (lmao) when before today you hadn't worked a day in your life. Yeah right.
Pinocchio, your nose is getting bigger. HUGE.
Again, you were a sophomore two days ago. You were a sophomore last night. You had 30 credit hours completed LAST NIGHT. Now, since I pointed out to you that your definition (and spelling) of "sophomore" was incorrect, you transformed into a junior and doubled your credit hours overnight. Very believable, happens all the time, right? Oh and you started and finished a Senate internship overnight, too. Wow. Very impressive, Pinocchio.
Is Pinocchio out, or is Pinocchio sticking around to tell more lies?
Can't wait to hear you explain how you became a junior with over 60 credits when you were a sophomore with just 30 credits the night before. I'm excited. Let's also find out how your University dishes out an overnight internship, too.
Not sure if it’s worth putting on a resume - but it won’t be forgettable...
^ Your first sentence is a clear example of you bragging about the future of you HAVING a degree from a top tier law school. Of which, we now agree that you do NOT have. Hence my point about you being a wannabe braggart.
The more I read about Nicole’s “qualifications” - the less useful they seem.
If she’s not working - she’s not making money. Since she’s not making money - she isn’t paying for school. She’s not concerned about getting out and making money - to take care of herself or her family - so I can’t identify with her motivations at all.
It seems that she’s a very privileged girl, with a desire to flaunt her privilege, and not move beyond the sheltered world of educating her wealthy ass. I dislike harshly judging people - but I find this type detestable. I worked through high school and college - and grad school - to pay for my education. I didn’t have time to flaunt my status, and folks who flaunt it seem to carry an air of superiority over the silly peasants who must work for their education.
Sadly, folks like Nicole are the ones who think more about status than actually supporting themselves or a family. It’s one of the few things that sets me off like a lunatic - as they never get the reasons folks resent them!
Nicole1994 was a sophomore with 30 completed credits, by "her" own admission, last night. Today, she is a junior with over 60 credits. She is living in a fantasy land. You don't magically get 30+ credit hours AND a "Senate internship" finished overnight. That is just not something that happens.
I also found it interesting how much she had to clarify and nitpick about her breasts. It showed me her insecurities and obsession with her image.
However, what’s up with txtittyfag trolling Nina? I’m interested to hear why she’s deservent of this level of trolling?
I know txtittyfag didn’t approve of my defense of PoleDancer83.
Why bother replying to any thing it has to say, its never made a positive post in his whole time here.
It was easier to ignore his posts when they were primarily in vm’s discussions of his navy seal exploits.