Interlude #1: Does Anyone Have a Question? Anyone?

The most basic ammunition for a law school professor or law school student is the hypothetical question. Armed with a supply of hypothetical questions, the master law school professor can lay waste to the minds of countless law school students. Questions like "What is the holding of Roe v. Wade" or "What is the dissent's main argument in Plessy v. Ferguson" aren't that scary to the veteran law school student. Thanks to commercial outlines like Gilberts and websites like Lexis-Nexis, a time-crunched student can get the basics in five minutes, all without breaking open the covers of a typical casebook.
Hypothetical questions, despite their innocent looks, can be evil. Professors can come up with a thousand variations on a basic fact pattern. Some professors can devise hypothetical questions that will tax the mind, making a law school student agonize over the answer. It's like sticking a knife in the stomach of a person and slowly twisting it., watching the unfortunate victim squirm and gasp in agony like a fish being gutted. The student can use the hypothetical question effectively also. By coming up with a convoluted hypothetical question, the law school student can effectively waste time for other pursuits like playing Bejeweled Deluxe or looking at Facebook profiles. One, however, must be careful in the use of hypothetical questions. If the question is too convoluted or too inane, it can turn students against the professor or the student who asked it.
The following is a selection of the best, possibly worst, hypothetical questions asked by professors and students. Names have been changed or eliminated for obvious reasons. These are actual questions. After reading these hypothetical questions, one may question the mental state of law school students and law school professors.

Professor: "Let's assume the following. O sends an offer. The next day, O sends a revocation. The offer is received by B. B sends a rejection. Then B sends an acceptance. B receives the revocation. Then O receives the rejection and finally, the acceptance. Under the Restatement on Contracts, is there a contract? Wait, I made a mistake. Instead of O receiving the rejection first, O receives the acceptance first. OK, now under these facts, is there a contract?"
Student: (After Professor states that the declarant must be a human to fall under the hearsay rule): "In the real world, you know, at a trial, and not in law school, what if the following happens? There's a talking radar gun and it says a person drove at 55 MPH in a 30 MPH zone, utters, whatever. The
police officer, at trial says that he heard the gun say the driver was going at 55 MPH. Does that make a difference legally?"
Professor: "Let's say the state has a rule stating that it is mandatory for all citizens to donate blood and bone marrow. They will use force on people to donate these things. If this ended up in the United States Supreme Court, what level of scrutiny would the Court use based upon these facts?"
Student: "Under agency theory, you stated that the agent needs actual as well as constructive notice to make the principal's revocation of agent's power official?" (Professor nods.) "OK, hypothetically
speaking, what if the principal sends an e-mail to the agent saying that the agent is no longer an agent and the agent makes a contract with a third party while the agent is busy making this contract. The contract isn't completed until after the e-mail is sent and received. What happens then?"*

*A quick note about Hypothetical Question #4. The professor, a well known Business Associations professor, got angry (maybe he was acting) and said, "OK, that requires stuff from Contracts I and the Mailbox Rule and does anyone know what that says and what Restatement section that is? I don't remember what that is. Does anyone remember what that said? Damn it *****! Why did you have to ask that question? It may look like I'm being unfair to *****, but I'm not. He used to be on an academic committee as a 1L, and I was the academic chair. He used to ask convoluted questions like this."
The other basic type of ammunition used by professors and students is the open-ended question. Professors enjoy usings these questions as they supposedly lead to free and open discussion. Note the word "supposedly" in the previous sentence. In general, open-ended questions lead to awkward and embarassing painful silence, sort of like when two people are on a first date and they're trying to build up to the conversation stage. Or, when you're at a social event like a dinner party and a drunk guest says something about the skeletons in someone's closet like their alcohol problem or drug rehabilitation stint. One can easily substitute any other topic they find suitable. Yeah. Not that good. Some of the more "interesting" questions.

Professor: (After quoting some raunchy lyrics from 2 Live Crew and showing a PowerPoint slide with song titles that bordered on the explicit. The person he was asking these questions happened to be a Mormon.) "In your personal opinion, do you think this is obscenity? Does it have any redeeming artistic merit?"
Professor: "What's your opinion on healthcare law and the rules governing personal injury?"
Professor: (After being told by student that they did not know enough about the subject to give any sort of opinion) "So what? Everybody has an opinion! Surely, you have an opinion. What is it?"
Professor: "Quick. What equipment is needed to manufacture methamphetamines?"

Someone once said that there are no stupid questions. They were right. There are no stupid questions, but a whole lot of people asking a whole lot of questions. There is a good piece of advice that one should follow. To sound wise, sometimes it is best to stay silent. Does anyone have a question? Anyone?