Part of me is flattered to be in such lofty company as an established author with a well-regarded, popular, established blog. On the other hand, I consider it a grievous libel - not upon me, but upon Him. For example, this is from WTLS's blog current blog header:
There are many negative sites about law school and this blog's purpose is to be positive and show that law school can lead one to great success, far beyond merely monetary gains.
Sadly, I cannot take credit for that man's excellent scamwork. This blog readily admits that law school is a scam and regularly praises people for scamming law students. To the extent that this blog ever appears to participate in showing that "law school can lead one to great success," we're either being hideously sarcastic or attempting to show how easy it is to sucker naive prospective law students in a form of elaborate performance art. But the real deal? That's a higher form of life to which our sophomoric entity can only aspire.
In one of this WTLS most recent entries, he publishes what I will classify as excellent fiction. Do you see Dickensian fiction here? Do you ever see me claim with a straight face that lawyering will make anyone rich? Have you ever seen me claim, obviously falsely, that law school developed my own personal ability to write and handle stress?
Christ on a bloody tampon! To compare me with such excellence; I am honored and embarrassed for the reader at the same time, much as a student admirer of Rembrandt's would have felt shame in being mistaken for the Old Master.
For anyone who's read THAT and who's read THIS, the difference should be clear. Sadly, the inability of certain people to distinguish between them suggests a startling lack of the ability to think like a lawyer. As you might be aware, thinking like a lawyer means "reasoning and analysis that is exemplified in the law section of appellate briefs and in judicial opinions... It encompasses, for example, the use of analogical reasoning to distinguish precedents or propose extensions or developments of existing doctrine, but also involves techniques of statutory and constitutional construction, the use of arguments from authority, facility with the law/fact distinctions, and so on." (Leiter, Brian. "Letter to Thomas R. Grover, Esq." Brian Leiter Anthology Vol 5: Correspondence to Insolents).
Distinguishing the most excellent product designed to scam law students and serve as self-aggrandizement for the author from this meager exercise in admiration would similarly take such "analogical reasoning." To claim that I am him merely because we sit on the same side of the table and use one common word? Why, that's not "analogical reasoning" at all. In fact, you're not even close to the anus of the truth, much less analogical.
And if you so fail at the basic precepts of thinking like a lawyer, why in the world would anyone ever take you seriously as a scamblogger and/or commentator? Because you tell the truth and have morality on your side? Laugh. As-if that cuts it in a courtroom looking for proper "lawyer thinking" like "arguments from authority" or "facility with the law/fact distinctions" (sic). You can't even distinguish between this meager effort and the smooth prose of Mr. Infinity. How the hell are going to be able to tell the difference between law and fact?
So, no, I am not Mr. Infinity a/k/a WTLS. I only wish I could be. If y'all could recognize that, maybe you wouldn't so damned hopeless.