Bloody awesome. Woahhhhhhh. I am a fan of yours.

Wait dude dilligence....U are a bad man. U treat women like they are objects of craving. If a woman reads this she will give sick looks to the laptop, if a feminist read this the puke would rise so quickly that she will spew it on her lappy
I am none of the aabove and infact I am as people like to call me a 'male chauvinist pig' so I like it. Infact I love it!!!

Hilarious indeed! :):D

ne of the essential parts of being good at satirical or amusing writing is possessing wit. You don't. It also interrupts the flow when you spell things wrong. I don't know of a single person on earth who possesses a "weaner", though your usage has appalling Freudian connotations we'd all prefer not to think about. Consider this: a guy who trashes all the women he doesn't have a chance with, still won't get laid. Assuming you had chances to begin with, you just lost them all. Comprehensively. Maybe your next post can be about the delights of engineering college women?

ROFLMAO.

Good shit.

@4- you know u jst made a boo boo in front of everyone.

Dd- we love u. Muuuah

Should the GNLU ppl be pleased or offended?

@ Kian / moderator: if you could allow this post (very surprised by that), you can surely allow my comment. Res ipsa loquitur.

------------------------
 
Hey, a$$h*le from BigLaw, a$$h*le you are (we all are, but you stand out because you $tink). Funnily, you claim to work in "BigLaw" although you are guzzling beers at NFC ... I mean, what a wannabe. Fyi, Wiki says, biglaw refers to the largest law firms having more than 1,000 lawyers and offices across continents, billing US$750 per hour or higher, and having a high ratio of support staff per attorney (things you haven't seen or experienced).

 
I guess this post is full of fallacies and that's why I wanted to comment (and also because I don't have anything better to do atm). Unless you are AMSS, you won't really be seeing scores of lawschoolites and if you are AMSS or "BigLaw", you really won't meet the hotties who either don't cut your firm's grade (inverse relation between beauty and brains and the law of averages) or prefer to spend their vacation doing better things (maybe enjoying fellatios - minus the Hart-Fuller flavour - which you are dying for).

 
Some gifts for you -
- NUJS girls don't go on a bong diet which you described (sorry that you met the wrong ones who almost rode you to death, though why you chose to get into bed with a big girl you couldn't handle is another matter ... alcohol induced error of judgement?);

- NALSAR girls undoubtedly have better things for their foreplay than sambhar (sorry about your bad experience ... yuck);

- NLUJ / NLIU girls hardly find themselves out of their league in a pub, considering only the rich urban ones opt for these so-called 2nd tier lawschools which law aspirants arguably consider as lesser value for money (sorry about the rural girl who spoiled you pillow and fell asleep before 'phaaking' you ... clearly you have bad luck when it comes to girls ... even in NFC, you won the girl who was "exshited" to know that you are a caarparate laayaar, didn't you? ... a bird of your feather Mr. BeegLaa? :P);

- Lucknow / Patna: Ha ha ha ... must have been a real bad experience with one of them threatening your small limb after the lousy sex and then going on to publicly condemn you and your weaner;

- RGNLU almost has a batch in the market and you may be missing some real hotties (remember the inverse relationship between beauty and brains and the law of averages?) .... oops, they must be all taken by now (also surprised that a big lawyer is scared of cops ... a few soiled 100 rupee notes still work when dealing with the cops if you didn’t manage to figure that yet).

 
But I must say, your posts are a good time-pass. Keep at it a$$hole.
 
P.S. - I know you (and your fans) would want us to be a sport and ask us to take this as a joke ... so I guess you must take a few jokes on yourself Mr. LittleWeaner / BigLaw.

Tip: to grow up, grow some balls and talk to the hotties instead of calling grapes sour.
 

Legally India Terms and Conditions (2.5) "You will not not publish or cause to be published any unlawful, defamatory, obscene, threatening, offensive, harmful or otherwise objectionable content."
So I'm curious - exactly what amounts to offensive/ otherwise objectionable?

Kian,

This post is downright offensive and violent. One could try and justify this trash in the name of the 'free speech' but all it does is promote a narrow and abhorrent view of women.

I hope you will have a nuanced take on 'free speech' that goes beyond 'we should try and protect everything'.

If you are going to allow such posts, you should perhaps rethink running stories like this: http://www.legallyindia.com/201103081892/Analysis/exclusive-only-6-women-became-senior-counsel-in-two-decades-but-odds-slim-for-all

Even if you decide not to take this post down, equal respect for your readers (one assumes you just dont want men to be visiting your site!) demands that you provide an explanation.

One hopes you wont exercise the convenient option of maintaining a studied silence on it.

Interesting legal question #9.

I agree this post is strongly bordering on at least the objectionable, offensive and obscene, so technically dudediligence may be in violation of our T&Cs.

However, we also believe in 'artistic' or 'creative' (in the loosest sense of the word) expression, and this post is clearly a work of fiction/parody so in the interests of freedom of expression we probably would not enforce the Terms & Conditions in this case.

I agree it is a fine line. The problem is, that just because something is offensive to someone, that in itself should not be sufficient to censor it (although law firms constantly try to do so in respect of comments or articles on Legally India where they deem the slightest criticism to be offensive or defamatory, unjustly so, and to be taken down).

I regret any offence that has been caused by this blog to any of Legally India's readers and would like to reiterate that Legally India believes strongly in equal opportunities and will fight for women's rights in the profession where we can.

But we also defend the rights of readers to air their opinions or express themselves, even if they may be despicable at times.

As an aside, notwithstanding DudeDiligence being a self-professed bastard, I believe that at the very least he should also provide his take on the men at the National Law Schools for the sake of balance - surely he must have heard some feedback and tales about most if he is as successful with the opposite sex as he claims he is?

Best wishes,
Kian

Ps: #10, apologies for the late response - my post was almost ready but I was momentarily distracted by a phone call.

After a lot of deliberation and consultation, also with the post's author, we have decided to unpublish the majority of this post.

We regret any offence caused and we also regret any disappointment caused to dudediligence fans and readers who enjoyed the post, notwithstanding it being in bad taste.

DudeDiligence has promised he'll be back and we will generally continue not to interfere in reader blogs unless there are exceptional circumstances.

Please let us have your feedback on whether you believe this was heavy-handed or the right approach, as we'd ultimately like to find a happy medium on the moderation front.

Best wishes,
Kian

It'a blog for god's sake. It isn't anything you endorse. The internet should not be a place where there is no free speech.

Thanks Kian. Much appreciated.

After reading Legally India for these last two years, this is the first decision in re content that you've taken, that I respect. Dudediligence is neither funny, nor witty, nor entertaining. Posts like this embarrass you. I'm glad you're removing this.