Working for the USPTO

[stuffball]

Oh, yeah... I meant to ask only about the experienced hires... are they still doing that?

[Examinerguy]

Oh, yeah... I meant to ask only about the experienced hires... are they still doing that?

I think I read somewhere that the deadline was a few days ago. Read above.

[fakeplastictree]

You seem to be having a great deal of trouble with this.  I'll try to slow it down.

The link wasn't provided as evidence of anything that contradicted your original post; rather, it showed that "hearsay" has a non-technical meaning, which you disputed in your subsequent post (and yet readily conceded directly above).

Sorry your reading comprehension problems precluded your cracking 158 on the LSAT, but I'm not really the guy you need to take this out on.

Whokebe, you are the one having trouble.  You responded to my original post by saying that hearsay has a "non-legal meaning."  However, this non-legal meaning is irrelevant because it does not rebut or otherwise affect my original post on hearsay.  Comprende?

It is understandable why someone with anxiety about a transition back to engineering would lash out with unwarranted and irrelevant hostility, especially in light of the fact that said transition is necessitated by a refusal to be licensed by the PTO.  I can hardly imagine the frustration at having wasted years obtaining a law degree that will not be utilized, not to mention the debt that was likely incurred in getting the degree.  But when you lash out at a professional who is licensed based on an assertion about a standardized test score which you clearly have no way of knowing, you look desparate and foolish.

[whokebe]

You seem to be having a great deal of trouble with this.  I'll try to slow it down.

The link wasn't provided as evidence of anything that contradicted your original post; rather, it showed that "hearsay" has a non-technical meaning, which you disputed in your subsequent post (and yet readily conceded directly above).

Sorry your reading comprehension problems precluded your cracking 158 on the LSAT, but I'm not really the guy you need to take this out on.

Whokebe, you are the one having trouble.  You responded to my original post by saying that hearsay has a "non-legal meaning."  However, this non-legal meaning is irrelevant because it does not rebut or otherwise affect my original post on hearsay.  Comprende?

It is understandable why someone with anxiety about a transition back to engineering would lash out with unwarranted and irrelevant hostility, especially in light of the fact that said transition is necessitated by a refusal to be licensed by the PTO.  I can hardly imagine the frustration at having wasted years obtaining a law degree that will not be utilized, not to mention the debt that was likely incurred in getting the degree.  But when you lash out at a professional who is licensed based on an assertion about a standardized test score which you clearly have no way of knowing, you look desparate and foolish.

Thanks again for proving that you are a hyper-literal moron. 

I never asserted that the definition I provided was the only non-legal meaning of that word.  http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/hearsay?view=uk  "Information which cannot be adequately substantiated" is a decent example of a non-technical meaning of the term that you clearly failed to contemplate in your original post.  You also made the assertion that divesting the term of its legal meaning would make it meaningless (lol!), which is clearly wrong.

Look, you are a gunner, but you're dumb.  There are worse things to be.  Not many, but some.

The last paragraph makes no sense.  I am licensed by the PTO, and I attended law school largely for free.  Again you make unwarranted assumptions, while my conclusion about your lsat score is, I would wager, almost certainly correct, especially given your manifest difficulties in reading comprehension and critical analysis. 

[fakeplastictree]

Thanks again for proving that you are a hyper-literal moron.  

"Hyper-literal?"  Sounds like a complaint from someone who doesn't like being reminded of what they have previously said.

I never asserted that the definition I provided was the only non-legal meaning of that word.

And I never asserted that you asserted as much.  I do, however, believe that responses carry with them the implicit assertion that they are responsive (hence the word "response.")  Yours is completely irrelevant, as explained above.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/hearsay?view=uk  "Information which cannot be adequately substantiated" is a decent example of a non-technical meaning of the term that you clearly failed to contemplate in your original post. 

Again, irrelevant.

The last paragraph makes no sense.  I am licensed by the PTO, and I attended law school largely for free.  Again you make unwarranted assumptions, while my conclusion about your lsat score is, I would wager, almost certainly correct, especially given your manifest difficulties in reading comprehension and critical analysis. 

Makes no sense?  You posted on 12/13/09 that you likely weren't going to be licensed because of youthful indiscretions, and thus were contemplating making a transition back to engineering.  That doesn't seem like something one would forget, unless of course your screen name is an elaborately set up alter ego for horsechute, who you go to great lengths to defend.

Standardized tests are merely a means to an end, the end being a prosperous and rewarding career.  Having already achieved the end, it seems a waste of time to continue to engage in a pissing contest over the means.  Do you also think yourself better than others based on your drivers license test?

[whokebe]

Where have I defended horsechute?  Although he is an asset to this message repository, he speaks for himself and needs no such defense.  Also, above you accused me of being horsechute, but now you refer to him in the third person--so which is it?  Your equivocation here as above is evidence of a mediocre mind. 

It's no secret that you have a semi-elaborate (relatively speaking) system of accounts and handles with which to harass horsechute.  In this economy I would suggest you log off this chat server and get back to your counts, as you are unlikely to find a "rewarding career" insulting people here once the PTO cans you for incompetence.

[xmnr]

hey fakeplastictree, when whokebe and/or horsechute stated  "At any rate, I guess your point is that nearly everything we hear, including what we read in this blog, is hearsay, so that we should just disregard it all.", the colloqial use of the term "hearsay" as meaning gossip or rumor was quite correct.  This is not a court of law, and we're not dealing with evidence.

hey whokebe (and horsechute?), I can't decide which is more foolish: the fool being foolish or the fool engaging in argument with the fool.

As for working at the USPTO, I just wanted to share this tidbit from the Federal CIO on how the USPTO receives applications:

Another example of an outdated and inefficient agency is the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which takes three years to process a patent, he said. "One reason is because the U.S. PTO receives these applications online, prints them out, and then someone manually rekeys the information into an antiquated system"

http://www.pcworld.com/article/190864/federal_cio_describes_problems_changes_in_it.html

[fakeplastictree]

Where have I defended horsechute?  Although he is an asset to this message repository, he speaks for himself and needs no such defense.  Also, above you accused me of being horsechute, but now you refer to him in the third person--so which is it?  Your equivocation here as above is evidence of a mediocre mind. 

It's no secret that you have a semi-elaborate (relatively speaking) system of accounts and handles with which to harass horsechute.  In this economy I would suggest you log off this chat server and get back to your counts, as you are unlikely to find a "rewarding career" insulting people here once the PTO cans you for incompetence.

That settles it - you are definitely horsechute.  You praise him as being an "asset" (possibly the first time such a negative person has received praise), describe him as being harassed, and accuse people (as he does) of working for the PTO without any evidence.

[DogDayPM 9er9er9er]

http://www.intelproplaw.com/ip_forum/index.php/topic,1421.msg57840/topicseen.html#msg57840

[fakeplastictree]

hey fakeplastictree, when whokebe and/or horsechute stated  "At any rate, I guess your point is that nearly everything we hear, including what we read in this blog, is hearsay, so that we should just disregard it all.", the colloqial use of the term "hearsay" as meaning gossip or rumor was quite correct.  This is not a court of law, and we're not dealing with evidence.

When a person purporting to be a legal professional uses a legal term, I think it is fair to assume that they assert the legal definition.

Regardless, the assertion "At any rate, I guess your point is that nearly everything we hear, including what we read in this blog, is [gossip/rumor/unsubstantiated/any other loose synonym for hearsay]" is still completely incorrect.  My original analysis applies.

[whokebe]

Where have I defended horsechute?  Although he is an asset to this message repository, he speaks for himself and needs no such defense.  Also, above you accused me of being horsechute, but now you refer to him in the third person--so which is it?  Your equivocation here as above is evidence of a mediocre mind. 

It's no secret that you have a semi-elaborate (relatively speaking) system of accounts and handles with which to harass horsechute.  In this economy I would suggest you log off this chat server and get back to your counts, as you are unlikely to find a "rewarding career" insulting people here once the PTO cans you for incompetence.

That settles it - you are definitely horsechute.  You praise him as being an "asset" (possibly the first time such a negative person has received praise), describe him as being harassed, and accuse people (as he does) of working for the PTO without any evidence.

Not horsechute (sp?).  And why the obsession?  Heterosexual crush?  Or more...? 

Now hurry up and issue that restriction requirement, boy.

[whokebe]

Another example of an outdated and inefficient agency is the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which takes three years to process a patent, he said. "One reason is because the U.S. PTO receives these applications online, prints them out, and then someone manually rekeys the information into an antiquated system"

http://www.pcworld.com/article/190864/federal_cio_describes_problems_changes_in_it.html

LOL

[fakeplastictree]

LOL

Any explanation for why you would forget posting less than 3 months ago that you wouldn't likely be licensed by the PTO on character grounds, and that you were transitioning back to engineering from law, other than the fact that whokebe is an elaborate alter?

[whokebe]

LOL

Any explanation for why you would forget posting less than 3 months ago that you wouldn't likely be licensed by the PTO on character grounds, and that you were transitioning back to engineering from law, other than the fact that whokebe is an elaborate alter?

Yes, there are multiple potential reasons beyond "the fact that whokebe is an elaborate alter" (sic).  I'll let you turn that over in your head a few times before giving you answer, Trig.  Or maybe one of your more astute monikers can give you a hand?

[whokabe]

"I'll let you turn that over in your head a few times before giving you answer" (sic).


When is you give me answer?