seething.

i was just reamed out in my small section for supposedly unfairly attaching holmes' theory of judicial decisionmaking to a majority opinion he wrote because the nature of majority opinions require compromise, so it's unfair to accuse him of social darwinism when the professor had just pointed out the formalistic tendencies of the opinion in question regarding classical liberal thought. the professor gave quite a lengthy response, to which i respond, yeah, but holmes wrote it, and he wouldn't attach his name to it if he disagreed - obviously he agreed with the opinion presented in the opinion. to which the professor replies, yes, but they're not necessarily his ideas. and the professor elaborates further, do i know that majority opinions require compromise in order to maintain majorities and blah blah blah, after which he looks at me and says, does that makes sense, and i say, well, sure, but you're arguing that there is a distinction to be made between social darwinism and classical liberal theory - i don't think there is in this particular application. to which he says, oh, right, ok.

and then moves on.

that's absolutely ridiculous. you ask for a goddamn opinion and then rip me up and then give me a backhanded concession? fuck you. if your name is on the goddamn opinion, it's your fucking opinion.

i haven't figured out if this guy thinks i'm crazy or combative or what, but what the hell is up with letting people slide with ridiculous commentary and choosing to critique me for a good five minutes?

a big fuck you to classes today. and no, i won't be going to the dinner you're hosting tomorrow night, thanks.