This entire sub-thread started when someone suggested that a JCL/Tracy split at the 2 was something "you can't argue." I'm not arguing for the sake of argument, I'm arguing because I vehemently disagreed with someone's take.
I'm glad there are some people who can objectively enjoy a lively disagreement and all of the light-hearted jabs that come with it.
Do I really telegraph it that much? Second year law-student.
The initial poster's take with which you vehemently disagree was in a sentence which contained the two words "right now". The poster was not arguing that Abrams should be the starting 2 the rest of the year; he was saying that based on TA's shooting so well and JCL's shaky performances, you can't argue with the way things have transpired to date -- Abrams logging a lot of minutes at the 2. The argument needn't have devolved into whether TA's shooting percentage will revert back to the mean, whether Abrams has or hasn't improved his shooting from practicing it in extended downtime, whether Ray Rice did or didn't improve his percentage and why or why not, etc.
You might have responded to the original poster that yes, TA's shooting well now but in your opinion he'll get increasingly more difficult looks and the percentage will likely go down, and that JCL is therefore the guy who should be our starting 2. But you said "I can", then created a different argument. The next guy's unfortunate "obviously mediocre" post wouldn't have been made to set you off on what, in my opinion, was a series of well-stated arguments on your part that unfortunately and unnecessarily each ended with snark. The response to the "obviously mediocre" poster could have been to clarify the discussion but the "go read a book" add-on got the snark show going until 3 or 4 pages later, when most posters were able to identify (and pretty much agree with) your actual position.
That's my take on today's digression anyway. Congrats on being in your 2nd year, exactly 40 years after my 2nd year there. You're halfway home. Don't take the following as a lecture; you may in fact already know this just as well as I do. You will find when you get out that, no matter how much you're tempted to drop snark, sarcasm, etc. into written legal arguments, you will be much better-served by training yourself to avoid doing so. I'd posit that our forum might be a good place to start, but that's obviously your call. Maybe develop a rule that you take one unwarranted dig for free, and don't respond with your own until the same guy does it a second time?