Not sure if that counts as a real word but I'm going with it so suffer in silence.
A link to a post at Waddling Thunder, mach 2.0 about the author's experience over the Summer and his take on "BigLaw." (I love capitalizing that word and putting it in quotation marks.) It parallels my thoughts and sums it up in a very compelling anecdote.
A link to a post at Falling Grace wherein the author, Neil, provides a paragraph-by-paragraph critique/commentary on a keynote address presented by Rob Enderle on August 3, 2004 at SCO Forum entitled "Free Software and the Idiots Who Buy It."
I link to and mention the latter not because I necessarily think it's a worthwhile read, either the keynote address or the commentary/critique, but rather because I think the critique is ill-formed. The author comments on almost every paragraph in the address, including those paragraphs that obviously mean nothing. Why does this bother me? Because if the author of the critique were interested in critiquing the speech and making some points about the logical errors and inherent fallacies being spoken, he should have concentrated on the quasi-substantive matter of the address and ignored those portions which neither help him nor aid Mr. Enderle.
It would be akin to commenting on: "Hello, my name is Alan. I'm an Aries, 5' 7" tall and 175 lbs." by saying: "Well, his full name is X and although he claims to be an Aries, his birthday is right on the line and he's not really 5' 7", he's actually right at 5' 6" and he's now up to 180 lbs. wlthough he used to be at 175." It adds nothing!!!! It actually detracts from his otherwise meaningful critique!!!!!
Sorry, but sometimes it just pains me to see good ideas poorly implemented, containing obviously avoidable faults. ::Sigh::