<p>Wow, and you are a lawyer? The clear direction of of the definitions involves an intent to deceive, do evil, or cause harm, and both parties do it knowingly. That is not the case of an employee handbook or a customer service script in most cases. True, there is a benign definition of “conspiring”, but it was extremely clear that was not what was being discussed here.</p>
<p>And please, spare us all the pop psychology.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Nonsense, the third definition you quoted contains no such requirement. You yourself chose this definition and claimed that it fit my scenario “best.”</p>
<p>I’m surprised no one here brought up the concept of puffery which is legally allowed in much commercial and other forms of marketing. </p>
<p>That concept is what marketers hide behind to avoid being civilly or criminally liable for fraud or intent to deceive for the many exaggerations and potentially misleading statements they make in their efforts to reach the greater public. </p>
<p>It is also why a consumer who takes a facile view of such marketing efforts are almost always laughed out of court when they attempt to bring a civil or criminal suit against the marketers and their employers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, it’s not clear at all. You chose an extremely broad definition of “conspiracy” in order to suit your purposes. Now that you’ve been hoist by your own petard, you are trying to narrow it again.</p>
<p>Let’s do this:</p>
<p>Please explain what you meant by the phrase “conspiracy theories” when you said the following:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In particular, would this include the use of a marketing script which spins and puffs in order to give a more favorable impression of the product than it objectively deserves?</p>
<p>I obviously meant it in the sense of including intent to deceive, since it was tied to conspiracy theory which has a well accepted shading to it. As I said before, this is way off point now, and you are not at all helpful.</p>
<p>Puffery does not apply here because that goes to descriptors such as “best ever” or “get’s spots out like magic”. These were concrete results for a well defined set of people. It was possible to do this because as opposed to a law class of hundreds, we are looking at a very small group of people every year per school. It does not guarantee anything for anyone else, of course. Like I said, though, I like the odds based on these past results. It has nothing to do with them being wonderful jobs, because I don’t even know what that means. What is wonderful for you might be awful for me. I only know at this point that every person in those programs that wanted a job when they finished got one, and the firms/hiring entities and positions they related to me sounded very solid. There really isn’t much more to be said. I am sorry you are so miserable with your life choices, Mr. Skinner.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And does the well accepted meaning of the phrase “conspiracy theory” include the use of a marketing script which spins and puffs in order to give a more favorable impression of the product than it objectively deserves?</p>
<p>It’s a simple yes or no question.</p>
<p>No, it really isn’t. Bye.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Lol, of course it is. Because you know perfectly well that if I suspect a law school representative of reading off a prepared marketing document, it’s not anywhere near a “conspiracy theory” as that phrase is commonly used.</p>
<p>To be sure, you can redefine the phrase “conspiracy theory” to make it a lot broader. But once you do that, you no longer can say “oh come on, you know what I mean.” Because you are using a non-standard definition.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Lol, goodbye. I really hope things work out okay for your son.</p>
<p>As I said, it wasn’t just the law school, and that is why it is not yes/no. You were changing the scenario. For the 4th time, I think, I called first the law school and then the Center for Russian/Eastern European Studies (which I did based on your skepticism, since you clearly did not believe what the law school was telling me alone) and they gave me virtually identical information, but not at all in the same order or using the same phrases. That seems most unlikely unless you believe that they really got together to sell this. Which also seems unlikely for a program that only enrolls 3-6 students a year per school. And even at just the law school, a prepared document for the specific question of the dual degree program, as opposed to the more usual general hiring after graduation question? Also seems unlikely, but certainly both departments having done that is where we start talking grassy knoll stuff.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t understand this, but let me ask you a question:</p>
<p>Did you take detailed notes of these phone calls? If so, how about posting the information here. Then, anyone who wants to verify it themselves can do so.</p>
<p>Why are you guys still arguing? If fallenchemist believes her son is more marketable if he has a dual degree, then that’s her issue. If lskinner believes they’re useless…then, that’s his issue. Dual degrees are pretty popular and if you can do them for no extra money, then in terms of opportunity cost, you’re not losing anything. I have never understood people willing to pay money for useless masters degrees, but that’s their issue not mine. I also don’t understand people who want to go to law school outside of the T-10 in this legal economy, but that’s their issue, not mine. That is why there are so many unemployed lawyers in this country–if the ABA actually cared about legal education, they wouldn’t open useless law schools yearly and we wouldn’t have 180 law schools, but 20 or so. Anyway, good luck sorting things out guys!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Why does anyone argue online? As for me, I do it for fun. There is also a remote possibility I will educate some lurker.</p>
<p>What about you – why are you arguing in this thread? For example, Post #67.</p>