Llisbon, in one thread you commented that LSE ranks in at 56, whereas UCL KCL ranks in at the top 25 in the world.

Rankings are the interest of many but they should be read correctly. The rankings you mention are "cumultative rankings"; hence, if a school does not have a medical school, for example, it will not fair well in such overall rankings, and this could lead to a school very strong in certain fields (ie LSE) to be misrepresented.

yes Tinkerbell, getting your facts wrong is certainly frowned upon in the legal profession so iI will gladly direct you to an earlier post of yours (above) which summarises and comments on what I wrote on an earlier occassion and hope you will get it right the next time

Cann, I think you're having an exceedingly difficult time registering this but, my comment about rankings was not intended solely for you; as stated several times before, it was directed to all those on this blog for this is NOT the first time this issue has appeared.

The first time I directed a comment to you and SOLELY you was when I pointed out how you got your facts wrong when stating the LSE has a Law School.

I hope you get this right the next time.

for future reference, if you comment on what I wrote (I believe I am the one that wrote LSE was ranked 56) then expect a reply. further, I merely replied to your comment because you commented on what I wrote in a context that had already been established (that a general ranking does not reflect the expertise of specific subjects) which consequently lead me to believe you had not understood the gist of my earlier post, feeling the need to repeat something stated and discussed weeks ago.

Ok so maybe you might want to reply to my DELIBERATE comment to your erroneous remark about LSE having a Law School.

You said I should expect a reply to comments on what you write-no?

sure, it was a petty remark in regards to an irrelevant fact, however I have come to expect that from you now; a common trait for people who lack arguments yet feel the need to argue - terrible combination.

Please let me know if you spotted any spelling mistakes on my part, I embrace your pettiness.

If a remark serves the purpose of setting an error right, it can not be regarded as being petty. I believe what can be regarded as being petty, however, is he or she who says otherwise (and particularly so if they have nothing better to say).

cann: no spelling mistakesbut then again I'm sure you're using Words too bad it cant bring some sense into what youre writing!

Tinkerbell, it is rather funny how you repreat everything I write, in a poor attempt to make it work in your favour, but it does not. Have you got any punch lines of your own?

and yes, it is petty as it was a sad remark about something that made no difference, simply you trying to score points, whilst my initial comment to you was in regards to you re-stating something I had already written, hence indicating that you had not understood what I meant.

Lisbon, there are plenty of spelling mistakes. Ii would have made sense had you actually bothered reading what I wrote, however as I pointed out in our earlier conversation, you don't, hence understandably which things might seem confusing to you.

Cann,

Is it your urge to argue or your (poor) attempt to reply to my arguments that goads you to respond?

If a remark corrects an erroneous statement it can not be regarded as being petty (or sad), what can be regarded as being petty or sad, however, is her or she who says otherwise. This of course, is my opinion (that is, punch line).

I only have an urge to set people right when they clearly have not grapsed something significant in the conversation, particularly if it so happens to be a comment by myself. I am sure you can relate?

Ok, agree to disagree, personally I would not waste my time commenting on something that makes no difference and was not essential to what was said hence the reason why I did not bother commenting on it when you wrote it the first time. However if you feel it is crucial to do so I respect that.

You agreed on the importance of getting facts right. Hence, if someone does this by setting an error straight, and you call this petty (simply because you are the one that made the error) this only translates into you contradicting yourself.

read what I wrote please; if it is something important to the conversation that actually makes a difference yes I would, if it is in regards to your remark, then no I would not.

I recall writing in my last post that I respect your opinion, yet you feel the need to continue argue, which is perfectly fine by me and also confirms what I wrote earlier; you grab onto anything simply to have say without considering the stupidity of your comments. Please do continue, but please, read what I write before you make assumptions, firstly because if you don't you look ignorant and secondly, I don't feel like wasting my time repeating what I have said earlier due to your incapabilities to read.

Cann,
I believe the one advancing remarks about the LSE without knowing that it has a Law Department as opposed to a Law School is the ignornant one.

Thank-you for respecting my opinion.

no, that reflects my lack of interest in LSE.

I am glad you got that, I only had to write it twice

cann: you've lost me... you write in such a chic and sophisticated way that us commoners are not able to grasp the complexities of your speech. Good for you!

Is it not a contradiciton that someone would argue they lack an interest in an issue they go out of their why to discuss and ask questions about?

No matter how many times a certain remark is written, it will be understood only if it makes sense.

Thank you Llisbon, though utterly irrelevant though I suspect it might be your desire to join the conversation though lacking anyting contructive to contribute with, maybe it is something you might want to work on. I must say I am surpised how I went from not making sense in your mind to being sophisticated.

Tinkerbell, hm go out of their way? Hardly, simply because I have no interest in attending LSE does not prevent me from commenting on matters I know. If there was a thread on particular issues that I had no knowledge nor information about I certainly would not bother, hence why (though I think your comment was petty) I respect it was I am sure you were correct.

Yes, I can understand why "I respect your opinion" does not make sense and why that would urge you to continue arguing the same point; it is certainly a hard concept to grasp.

More refined poetry from cannstrange... 

commoners usually have that effect on me

Cann,
Its a pity that you get the basics wrong of those matters you state you "know" (as I have pointed out). I believe this trait qualifies you (and not me) as being ignorant.

Clearly, what doesnt make sense are your contradictory remarks. However, I am not surprised you have a difficult time grasping this.