I will preface this rant with a disclaimer: I'm a huge Law Review nerd. Many of my closest friends and most respected colleagues are members of the Law Review, and I'm generally a big, nerdy cheerleader for the journal and its members.
Now that I've gotten that out of the way. . .
The membership of the Law Review is supposed to be the "cream of the crop" of a law school and so, one would assume that people on the Law Review, being the "brightest and the best," would be able to read. And follow very simple, explicit instructions.
I know I'm anal-retentive. But I generally expect that people can follow instructions such as which footnotes they are assigned (it's a range of numbers, seriously) and what material needs to be turned in to accompany sources such as....law review articles (which are not uncommonly used sources).
What makes me even more annoyed is the fact that I repeatedly refer people to a hard-copy example that they can hold in their hot little hands to take a look at what I mean. And, I'm not immune to making mistakes. It happens. To me. With alarming frequency. It's when I specifically request a change, several times, and find that my words go in one ear and out the other that I get a little testy.
Of course, some would argue that I'm always a little testy. To use the more common phrase, I'm an "emotionally unstable bitch." (Thanks, gents. For the record, people at this school talk, a lot. Many of them to me.)
For what it's worth, I prefer "tempestuous."