TheRPGSite

The Lounge => Media and Inspiration => Topic started by: Blue Devil on May 03, 2007, 03:21:13 pm

Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: Blue Devil on May 03, 2007, 03:21:13 pm
There is a lawyer who took his pants to the cleaners and they lost them.

Ok, I can understand being upset.  They offered him money up to $12,000 and he refused.

Now he is taking the couple to court for $67 Million dollars over his pants being lost.

http://blog.case.edu/james.chang/2007/05/02/the_67_million_dollar_pants

Am I the only one who thinks this is stupid?
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: Sosthenes on May 03, 2007, 03:25:22 pm
Well, maybe he had $ 66999000 worth of cash in his pockets? Might be possible with canadian dollars...
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: pathfinderap on May 03, 2007, 03:35:03 pm
No thats a greedy bastard, but the judge would have to be stupid to even think of allowing it

in fact if it was me I'd go with the cleans, $12,000 is enough to gold plate your butt if you wanted to, and much more than reasonable,

and whack that greedy bastard with the court costs,

what was that? $12,000?, that will do nicely :)
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: Blue Devil on May 03, 2007, 11:01:41 pm
Quote from: pathfinderap
No thats a greedy bastard, but the judge would have to be stupid to even think of allowing it

in fact if it was me I'd go with the cleans, $12,000 is enough to gold plate your butt if you wanted to, and much more than reasonable,

and whack that greedy bastard with the court costs,

what was that? $12,000?, that will do nicely :)


I agree.  It should be thrown out.  They offered him a fair amount of money and he turned it down.

Worse yet they found the pants a month later, matched it with a tag and the guy denied it.

He is a scumbag
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: James McMurray on May 03, 2007, 11:38:55 pm
Quote
The ABC News Law & Justice Unit has calculated that for $67 million Pearson could buy 84,115 new pairs of pants at the $800 value he placed on the missing trousers in court documents. If you stacked those pants up, they would be taller than eight Mount Everests. If you laid them side by side, they would stretch for 48 miles.


Dems a lotta pantses.

Quote
He also wants $500,000 in emotional damages and $542, 500 in legal fees, even though he is representing himself in court.


Cripes. If he charges himself that much, how much does he charge real clients?
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: Koltar on May 04, 2007, 01:27:41 am
For 67 million dollars - that pair of pants must be magical or give the guy "special massages" .

 That price tag is just unreal.

 Judge should say $200 tops and be done with it. This is a glorified small claims issue blown out of porportion.

- Ed C.
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: Blue Devil on May 04, 2007, 07:39:46 am
Quote from: Koltar
For 67 million dollars - that pair of pants must be magical or give the guy "special massages" .

 That price tag is just unreal.

 Judge should say $200 tops and be done with it. This is a glorified small claims issue blown out of porportion.

- Ed C.


Oh yeah, it's crazy.

It's just greed pure and simple.  I heard there have been calls to have him disbarred and I hope it works.  This is an abuse of the legal system and people like him need to get disbarred and and made an example of.
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: Ronin on May 04, 2007, 09:22:41 am
I read this article somewhere elese. The guy justified the amount he was asking by saying that. he had to travel out side the city for like four years or some stupid like that. The amount covered the cost of gas and, wear and tear on his car. Its still ignorant, but thats the morons reasoning.
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: ElectroKitty on May 04, 2007, 11:47:42 am
Quote from: James McMurray

Quote
He also wants $500,000 in emotional damages and $542, 500 in legal fees, even though he is representing himself in court.


Cripes. If he charges himself that much, how much does he charge real clients?


The phrase "fool for a client" comes to mind for some reason....
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: Pete on May 04, 2007, 02:24:34 pm
Normally when I read these stories about lawyers and frivolous lawsuits, I just shrug my shoulders mutter something about leopards and spots or frogs and scorpions and move on.  But this guy is a fucking JUDGE!

Part of me hopes this case does take a while to resolve so the spotlight on this idiot shines longer.
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: Spike on May 04, 2007, 03:58:24 pm
Me, I hope that this is the straw that breaks the back of the current litagative culture that has come about in the US within my own lifetime.  Of course, I hoped that about the McDonalds Coffee Case as well. :rolleyes:

I foresee riots and massive, sweeping legal reform. Lawyer lynchings, Cats and Dogs sleeping together... Mass Hysteria!


And it will be GLORIOUS!!!









At least... I can dream, can't I?
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: Sosthenes on May 04, 2007, 04:06:57 pm
Erm, the McDonalds coffee case was pretty reasonable.
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: Blue Devil on May 04, 2007, 04:27:49 pm
Quote from: Moriarty
Normally when I read these stories about lawyers and frivolous lawsuits, I just shrug my shoulders mutter something about leopards and spots or frogs and scorpions and move on.  But this guy is a fucking JUDGE!

Part of me hopes this case does take a while to resolve so the spotlight on this idiot shines longer.


I hope it gets dropped and I hope he has to pay the couples legal bills.   Hell, I think they should counter sue the asshole.
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: Spike on May 04, 2007, 04:34:45 pm
Quote from: Sosthenes
Erm, the McDonalds coffee case was pretty reasonable.



Five million dollars because a cup of coffee wasn't labled 'Hot'?

Not buying it, not for five million shmackeroos.
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: J Arcane on May 04, 2007, 04:36:51 pm
Quote from: Spike
Five million dollars because a cup of coffee wasn't labled 'Hot'?

Not buying it, not for five million shmackeroos.
5 million dollars for 220 degrees F coffe that permanently damaged a woman's genitalia seems pretty goddamn reasonable to me.
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: Werekoala on May 04, 2007, 04:44:21 pm
Lawyers have single-handedly laid the foundations of our destruction. I really, REALLY have heaping buckets of contempt for all of them, without exception, especially the ones who end up running our country.
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: RedFox on May 04, 2007, 04:49:24 pm
Quote from: J Arcane
5 million dollars for 220 degrees F coffe that permanently damaged a woman's genitalia seems pretty goddamn reasonable to me.

Yup, same here.  There's a problem with frivolous litigation in this country, but that case keeps getting bandied about and it is far from a poster child.

The problem was less about the label itself, and more about improperly seated lids and coffee that was served at such high temperature so as to cause third degree burns and permanent damage if exposed to human skin.  That the coffee containers had little warning about the nature of the java lava was just part of it.
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: Werekoala on May 04, 2007, 04:52:33 pm
http://www.overlawyered.com/2005/10/urban_legends_and_stella_liebe.html

It wasn't $5 million, either the initial suit or the settlement.
It wasn't 220 degrees.
There was a warning on the cup.
The lid was wasn't to blame, it was secure. She opened it towards her (who the hell does that?!) and spilled the whole thing.
It burned her because she sat in it for 90 seconds instead of getting out of the car.
She was 79 years old and unlikely to use her genetalia again anyway (snark).
Coffee from many other places are served as hot or hotter than the average McDonald's coffee.


It was stupid, and excessive, and another brick in the wall that'll crash on all our asses one day. Do something stupid and get paid for it! What a concept! What's next, reality TV shows?

Oh... well...
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: RedFox on May 04, 2007, 05:05:41 pm
Ah, well...  I certainly can't argue with facts taken from overlawyered.com about that case.
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: James McMurray on May 04, 2007, 05:09:37 pm
Now that I think about it, I think I've had Pants Guy in an arena game once. That sort of extreme lawyering seems incredibly familiar.
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: Werekoala on May 04, 2007, 05:11:37 pm
Quote from: RedFox
Ah, well...  I certainly can't argue with facts taken from overlawyered.com about that case.


If they're wrong, how about showing us a set of accurate facts? Or is it just easier to hand-wave because it dosn't fit your preconceived notions? Also, some explaination as to why you feel they are inaccurate in their facts would help us understand the dismissiveness of your statement.

I can wait - this is the intarweb. We've got all day.
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: RedFox on May 04, 2007, 05:13:35 pm
Quote from: Werekoala
If they're wrong, how about showing us another set of accurate facts? Or is it just easier to hand-wave because it dosn't fit your preconceived notions?

I can wait - this is the intarweb. We've got all day.


It's more entertaining just staring at your dick slapped out on the table there than to pull mine out, too.
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: Werekoala on May 04, 2007, 05:14:53 pm
Quote from: RedFox
It's more entertaining just staring at your dick slapped out on the table there than to pull mine out, too.


Mmm... kay. Glad to see you've got a solid basis for dismissing the facts of the case, then.
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: Sosthenes on May 04, 2007, 05:15:34 pm
Yeah, clearly no bias...
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: Werekoala on May 04, 2007, 05:17:04 pm
Quote from: Sosthenes
Yeah, clearly no bias...


If the information presented is, in fact, accurate, then what's the bias? If the information is not factual, prove it. Simple. I fail to see what difference the source of factual information has to do with the merits of the case.
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: RedFox on May 04, 2007, 05:18:19 pm
Quote from: Werekoala
Mmm... kay. Glad to see you've got a solid basis for dismissing the facts of the case, then.


If it makes you happy.
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: Sosthenes on May 04, 2007, 05:24:00 pm
Quote from: Werekoala
If the information presented is, in fact, accurate, then what's the bias? If the information is not factual, prove it. Simple. I fail to see what difference the source of factual information has to do with the merits of the case.


As if the web site proved it. I can quickly come up with another web site "debunking" that. Prove they're wrong...

This is rather complicated and I neither got the training nor the time to sift through case files or law journal articles. McDonalds using a unreasonable high temperature so that they can save money doesn't sound to unbeliavable. Snarky remarks about Mrs Liebecks privates certainly don't get us far in this discussion...
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: Werekoala on May 04, 2007, 05:26:15 pm
How does serving extra-hot coffee save money? Seems if it got cold faster, people might need more refills, so it'd make more sense to serve it colder, eh?

As to the snarky comment, it was identified by ME as being snarky, so it could safely be ignored. Ignoring the facts of the case because they don't fit your preconceived notions, however, can't. There IS no "debunking" of a court case. Facts are facts, and they're the same no matter what side you're on - or that's how its supposed to work, at least. The coffee either WAS or WAS NOT 220 degrees. The settlement either WAS or WAS NOT $5 million dollars. There either WAS or WAS NOT a warning on the lid. These are verifable facts. If they're in dispute, then the people disputing them are tasked with providing the actual facts.

So again, if the information presented from the website is inaccurate, then present the actual facts of the case that "debunk" the information presented.
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: RedFox on May 04, 2007, 05:35:21 pm
You're getting awfully worked up over this.  It's safe to say that few posters here are interested in digging up information to refute some "facts" reported by your laughably biased website.  It's not even worth refuting, and nobody seems to have as much investment in this as you do. Why're you grinding such a big axe here?

Can you show us on the doll where the bad lawyers touched you?
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: Werekoala on May 04, 2007, 05:38:53 pm
Quote from: RedFox
You're getting awfully worked up over this.  It's safe to say that few posters here are interested in digging up information to refute some "facts" reported by your laughably biased website.  It's not even worth refuting, and nobody seems to have as much investment in this as you do. Why're you grinding such a big axe here?

Can you show us on the doll where the bad lawyers touched you?


My axe is people making unsupported assertions and then dragging out a big bag of ennui when they can't be bothered to support their claims.

You again say its a biased website. Why?
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: RedFox on May 04, 2007, 05:40:25 pm
Quote from: Werekoala
My axe is people making unsupported assertions and then dragging out a big bag of ennui when they can't be bothered to support their claims.

You again say its a biased website. Why?


Eh, I don't care enough to say.
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: Werekoala on May 04, 2007, 05:41:03 pm
Quote from: RedFox
Eh, I don't care enough to say.


Fair enough.
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: Sosthenes on May 04, 2007, 05:42:19 pm
Quote from: Werekoala
So again, if the information presented from the website is inaccurate, then present the actual facts of the case that "debunk" the information presented.

http://www.atla.org/pressroom/FACTS/frivolous/McdonaldsCoffeecase.aspx (http://www.atla.org/pressroom/FACTS/frivolous/McdonaldsCoffeecase.aspx)
http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm (http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm)
and lots of sites more if you care to google for it.

But as if it would matter. This case (and stuff like BMW vs. Gore) has become the poster child for the tort reform movement. So this whole issue is laden with political statements.

Granted, I think that the culture of ambulance chasers has to bee weeded out (this is an artifact of the American trial system, mostly). But in debates like this, stuff like the difference between punitive and compensator damages are often overlooked, and the numbers reported are usually the highest one, the reality looks a bit different.

Having said that, $ 67 million for pants seems a _tad_ bit over the top. Everyone knows that we have the technology to make better, stronger ones for, well, under a tenth of that amount...
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: Spike on May 04, 2007, 06:11:18 pm
Having read all three sites in their entirety let me say this:


They are all in agreement with the essential facts of the case. The only difference is that Werekoala's link actually discusses the specific points rather than just saying:

This is how it is, we're right because we're more accurate....


You can chose to disagree with Overlawyer's interpretation of the numbers and events, but in the other two cases you just get the hard number (not actually in dispute here) and a one sided judgement with no discussion.



Of the three, that makes Werekoala's post not only irrefutably correct on teh facts of the case, but actually more informative if you wish to agree OR disagree with its relevance to Tort reform.
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: Sosthenes on May 04, 2007, 06:26:06 pm
Their points about most issues are pretty short and vague. I don't consider that  reasonably better than the other articles. It's a friggin' blog post... And I don't particularly like the style where they take the most superlative statements and "rebut" them. Oh my, no instantaneous destruction of flesh, but just third degree burns...
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: Sosthenes on May 04, 2007, 06:29:10 pm
Oh, and I'd like to make one last point: In both cases, the true culprit is clearly identified: Our society's sick dependency on pants.
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: Werekoala on May 04, 2007, 06:33:12 pm
Quote from: Sosthenes
http://www.atla.org/pressroom/FACTS/frivolous/McdonaldsCoffeecase.aspx (http://www.atla.org/pressroom/FACTS/frivolous/McdonaldsCoffeecase.aspx)

"The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin."

One wonders why they didn't sue the sweatpants manufacturers as well.

(edit: Damn you, Sosthenes, ya beat me to it!)
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: Spike on May 04, 2007, 06:38:54 pm
Quote from: Sosthenes
Oh, and I'd like to make one last point: In both cases, the true culprit is clearly identified: Our society's sick dependency on pants.



That's why I don't wear any...;)
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: J Arcane on May 04, 2007, 06:42:56 pm
Quote from: Sosthenes
Oh, and I'd like to make one last point: In both cases, the true culprit is clearly identified: Our society's sick dependency on pants.
so you're saying you want to see me naked?
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: Blue Devil on May 04, 2007, 09:24:38 pm
Quote from: Werekoala
Lawyers have single-handedly laid the foundations of our destruction. I really, REALLY have heaping buckets of contempt for all of them, without exception, especially the ones who end up running our country.


I agree.   The abuse has gotten bad and the law needs to really make an example of some of these lawyers.

Courts congested with pointless lawsuits.  It's disgusting
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: Koltar on May 04, 2007, 09:40:33 pm
Quote from: Sosthenes
Oh, and I'd like to make one last point: In both cases, the true culprit is clearly identified: Our society's sick dependency on pants.



 Kilts for everyone then ??

- Ed Charlton
 (gotta be Scottish somewhere in my ancestry...)
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: Sosthenes on May 04, 2007, 09:56:13 pm
Well, kilts are just one step away from a schol girl fetish...
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: ElectroKitty on May 05, 2007, 10:58:36 am
Quote from: Sosthenes
Well, kilts are just one step away from a schol girl fetish...
mmmmm.... skoolgrls in kilts.....


It's faptastic!
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: Sosthenes on May 05, 2007, 11:36:52 am
Quote from: ElectroKitty
mmmmm.... skoolgrls in kilts.....

It's better than the other way round.

Seriously, for some kind of fucked up Mel-Gibson-fetish reason, there seems to be some kind of goth sub-culture where people dress faux-scottish. In Germany. And I could _swear_ that some of those 'kilts' are school girl skirts.

_They_ should pay me millions for having to see that.
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: pathfinderap on May 05, 2007, 11:52:20 am
Quote from: Sosthenes
It's better than the other way round.

Seriously, for some kind of fucked up Mel-Gibson-fetish reason, there seems to be some kind of goth sub-culture where people dress faux-scottish. In Germany. And I could _swear_ that some of those 'kilts' are school girl skirts.

_They_ should pay me millions for having to see that.


Weren't Kilt's originally from Greece?, along with the bagpipes
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: Sosthenes on May 05, 2007, 02:23:46 pm
Quote from: pathfinderap
Weren't Kilt's originally from Greece?, along with the bagpipes

Rectangular pieces of cloth and reed instruments aren't exactly top technology. Lots of cultures developed them individually. If I'm not mistaken, the scottish kilts developed out of cloaks, worn a bit lower. Basically, their equivalent to low-riding jeans.
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: pathfinderap on May 05, 2007, 02:58:45 pm
Quote from: Sosthenes
Rectangular pieces of cloth and reed instruments aren't exactly top technology. Lots of cultures developed them individually. If I'm not mistaken, the scottish kilts developed out of cloaks, worn a bit lower. Basically, their equivalent to low-riding jeans.


Nooo lol, they are from Greece (do ya home work)

The first Kilts were huge lengths of cloth (that could be used in a way not unlike a sleeping bag, if needed) that were sorta worn sari style, around the waist then over the shoulder, with a large pin to hold it being common in this case,
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: Sosthenes on May 05, 2007, 03:53:26 pm
Quote from: pathfinderap
Nooo lol, they are from Greece (do ya home work)


Is it national drug testing day again? Or is this an inept reference to the Dad from "My big fat greek wedding"?
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: pathfinderap on May 06, 2007, 03:51:54 am
Quote from: Sosthenes
Is it national drug testing day again? Or is this an inept reference to the Dad from "My big fat greek wedding"?


I don't think I like what your impling,

I've never see "My big fat greek wedding" but feel free to explain,


(I thought you may have know about Kilts, being in to Greek lit,)

Ho, and btw, I've never done any type of drugs, and never will thanks
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: Sosthenes on May 06, 2007, 06:10:07 am
Greek Lit? Me? Erm, nope, I just mentioned it once that if you want a definition of "epic", you should _ask_ a Greek Lit major, not an English major.

The dad in MBFGW was always insisting that everything was invented in (Ancient) Greece. And while the Greek, amongst countless others, have worn skirt-like clothing -- and still do --, this hasn't exactly influenced the belted plaid of the Scots. Like I said before, there's only so much ways to wear a blanket. Not that it wouldn't have been possible, as the kilt is a pretty late invention. So much about Gibsons WWW, once again...
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: pathfinderap on May 06, 2007, 07:18:29 am
Quote from: Sosthenes
Greek Lit? Me? Erm, nope, I just mentioned it once that if you want a definition of "epic", you should _ask_ a Greek Lit major, not an English major.


Okay, that explains alot then doesn't it,

Quote from: Sosthenes

The dad in MBFGW was always insisting that everything was invented in (Ancient) Greece. And while the Greek, amongst countless others, have worn skirt-like clothing -- and still do --, this hasn't exactly influenced the belted plaid of the Scots. Like I said before, there's only so much ways to wear a blanket. Not that it wouldn't have been possible, as the kilt is a pretty late invention. So much about Gibsons WWW, once again...


Thats total bullshit, lol

The Kilt came over from Greece the same time the bagpipes did,

The version you see now IS the later version of the (skirt like) kilt,
the orignal kilts were massive in comparison to the skirts of today

in fact, the way you would put on the first kilt was like this...
You would lay out on the floor the entire lenght of the kilt one long strip,
you would then get down and roll yourself in it (think cleopatra and carpet style) once rolled up in your kilt you then stood up and fasten a belt around your waist, then pushed down the rest of the top half of the kilt over the belt, bringing up the tail part over your shoulder, and fastened with a large pin, (this is all alot easier if you have a friend to help out)  

I've seen this done,
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: James McMurray on May 06, 2007, 10:04:32 am
The wikiality is that kilts originated with the Norse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_kilt).
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: Sosthenes on May 06, 2007, 02:32:10 pm
Quote from: pathfinderap

The Kilt came over from Greece the same time the bagpipes did,

Sources?

Quote from: pathfinderap

The version you see now IS the later version of the (skirt like) kilt,
the orignal kilts were massive in comparison to the skirts of today

I'm familiar with the breacan an fheilidh. That doesn't make it greek.
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: pathfinderap on May 07, 2007, 10:17:57 am
Quote from: Sosthenes
Sources?.


Well if I had the sources on the net I would have pointed it out to you

But I was told by a Scottsman, and also saw in a documentry, (yeah I know what that sounds like, but it's true all the same)
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: pathfinderap on May 07, 2007, 10:19:38 am
Quote from: James McMurray
The wikiality is that kilts originated with the Norse (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_kilt).


I can't dispute that, I don't know the source of that infomation,
but needless to say it doesn't match what I've been told,
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: ElectroKitty on May 07, 2007, 02:26:40 pm
Quote from: pathfinderap
I can't dispute that, I don't know the source of that infomation,
but needless to say it doesn't match what I've been told,
Well, I've seen kilts (or at least some part of them) pinned up like a toga, so I was willing to at least believe the possibility of a classical origin. *shrug* Truth is stranger than fiction, sometimes.
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: Spike on May 07, 2007, 02:31:36 pm
It could just be that wearing blankets comes naturally to people, and that there are only so many ways to wrap a blanket around yourself and still be able to handle the average day's business...


:what:
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: James McMurray on May 07, 2007, 03:03:17 pm
Quote from: pathfinderap
I can't dispute that, I don't know the source of that infomation,
but needless to say it doesn't match what I've been told,


That's why I called it wikiality (http://www.wordspy.com/words/wikiality.asp). I have no idea whether it's true or not, only that nobody has yet edited it away and changed the course of human pseudo-history. :)
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: Sosthenes on May 07, 2007, 05:30:48 pm
Quote from: Spike
It could just be that wearing blankets comes naturally to people, and that there are only so many ways to wrap a blanket around yourself and still be able to handle the average day's business...

Scots able to handle business? Have I entered bizarro world?

I keed, I keed...
Still, the "greece kilt" story sounds rather wonky. The Scots started wearing the belted plaid pretty late, so clothing from ancient Greece seems a bit ludicrous (I might as well say it's descended from the Roman toga). And the "modern" foustanela doesn't exactly look similar.

I'm very wary of all those pseudo-historic connections. It's very easy to enter Daniken-like territory with that.
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: Spike on May 07, 2007, 06:49:30 pm
Quote from: Sosthenes
Scots able to handle business? Have I entered bizarro world?

I keed, I keed...
Still, the "greece kilt" story sounds rather wonky. The Scots started wearing the belted plaid pretty late, so clothing from ancient Greece seems a bit ludicrous (I might as well say it's descended from the Roman toga). And the "modern" foustanela doesn't exactly look similar.

I'm very wary of all those pseudo-historic connections. It's very easy to enter Daniken-like territory with that.



Actually. I invented the Kilt. Tomorrow of course. Then I gave it to the Greeks in ancient times, even going so far as to set up a secret society of blanket wearers, who's sole purpose was to diseminate the wearing of blankets as far and wide as possible. Of course, everyone blames the Greeks, 'cause they were first, and thus remained the political center of the society of the Sacred Blanket.

My finest hour was when the Indians started wearing ponchos... Yup, the greeks did that too.


EDIT:::: I missed my chance to use unusual tenses in this. It should read 'I will have had invented the kilt. Then I will have given it, having gone so far... etc. Take not, future posters: Don't miss your opportunity to drive english teachers mad. Pay attention to the weird shit you want to say... it might have a cthuloid linquistic monstrosity waiting in the wings....
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: Sosthenes on May 08, 2007, 01:14:28 am
Well, the biggest benefit of wearing kilt-like garments is that it's easier to show other people  your behind. Now, the reason why the Greek do it is different than why the Scots do it, though.
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: ElectroKitty on May 09, 2007, 10:53:59 am
Quote from: James McMurray
That's why I called it wikiality (http://www.wordspy.com/words/wikiality.asp).


I'm probably dating myself here, but I saw wikiality and thought about Mortal Kombat 2....


P.S. No, not the movie.
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: Grimjack on May 09, 2007, 01:53:41 pm
Okay, risking the collective disdain of Werekoala, Spike, and Blue Devil I'm going to admit that I'm a lawyer just for purposes of adding a few minor details to the debate.  You are right that both ATLA and Overlawyer have agendas in their respective reporting.  ATLA is a club of trial lawyers, the vast majority of which are plaintiff lawyers, and Overlawyer is obviously on the tort reform side (as am I actually).  Still, the facts they presented were taken from court documents and were generally accurate.

The problem in these lawsuits IMO is that juries look at a sympathetic and badly injured older woman and then figure that McDonald's is a big evil corporation that can afford to give her money.  The decision shouldn't have been who has the most money, it should have been who was negligent.  Personally, having read the briefs on this case I think that McDonald's was only slightly negligent at best but unfortunately even 1% negligence will get you an award under New Mexico law.   Fortunately in this case at least the jury did acknowledge that she was partially at fault (20%) and the court further reduced the damages awarded on post trial motion.  All in all, she ended up with $640,000, of which half went to attorneys fees and costs.

The pants case on the other hand is ludicrous.  This clown isn't going to get emotional damages on a simple property damage claim and he is perverting the whole intent of the consumer protection laws and IMO should be sanctioned by the bar for filing a frivilous claim.

As for Werekoala's contempt for all lawyers, please keep in mind that there are probably only the same percentage of fucktards in the legal profession as in other lines of work, the only difference is that the bad lawyers can do more damage and unfortunately the greedy idiots get more press.  To be fair I know many good lawyers who would never file a frivilous claim and have turned down such cases.  Sadly, I've defended against cases that are worse than both of these.

Sorry for interrupting the kilt and schoolgirl chat for a boring legal monologue, please continue.
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: James J Skach on May 09, 2007, 02:14:52 pm
See?  See?  Fucking bastard lawyers interrupting out schoolgirl/kilt discussion...
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: Spike on May 09, 2007, 02:27:48 pm
Well Grimjack, as long as you aren't a RULES lawyer I guess I can forgive you... this time. ;)
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: Grimjack on May 09, 2007, 02:47:24 pm
No rules lawyerin here.  Just Runequest...houseruled as God intended.

To be honest, I hate lawyers too.  That is why I became one...I got pissed off at the "I'm better than you because I went to law school" attitude.

And by all means, let's go back to the school girl/kilt discussion.
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: Werekoala on May 09, 2007, 03:45:28 pm
No personal animosity, Grim. I only hate you when you're at work. :)

Thank you for confirming the facts I linked to were accurate, despite the "bias" of the source.
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: Grimjack on May 10, 2007, 08:07:22 am
Quote from: Werekoala
No personal animosity, Grim. I only hate you when you're at work. :)

Thank you for confirming the facts I linked to were accurate, despite the "bias" of the source.


I only hate me when I'm at work too. :mad: I would rather be gaming.  No offense taken, I wouldn't even have reported you for a personal attack over at TBP. :D  Besides, your avatar reminds me of my son's favorite stuffed Koala.....

As far as confirming the accuracy of your facts, my pleasure. Both sites quoted were accurate, they just argued the same facts from two different sides and there is nothing wrong with that.
Title: $67 Million Dollars Pants
Post by: Grimjack on June 19, 2007, 08:16:24 am
Apologies for the thread necro but in case you missed the update on this clusterfuck of a case, the embarrassment to the legal community of a "Judge" who filed this bogus suit (no pun intended) may be out of a job soon.  I'm not good at linking so I just copied part of the story below:

WASHINGTON (Map, News) - The boss of Roy L. Pearson Jr., the administrative law judge whose $54 million pants lawsuit has turned the D.C. legal system into a punch line on late-night talk shows, has recommended that the city deny Pearson another term on the bench, D.C. government sources said Thursday.

In a letter to the three-person commission that will decide whether Pearson gets reappointed, District of Columbia Chief Administrative Judge Tyrone T. Butler said Pearson does not deserve a 10-year term to the post, which pays more than $100,000 a year.

“My sense is that the commission will not reappoint him,” a D.C. government source said.

Butler’s letter reverses his previous recommendation in support of Pearson that he sent to the commission before the pants suit case gained worldwide notoriety.