11/05/24
September 30, 2007
And now come the lawyers ...: Two New York lawyers have filed a class-action suit against Bill Belichick and the New England Patriots in the wake of CameraGate. Claiming consumer fraud, the suit seeks more than $184M in damages.
dyams, you beat me to the exact same pull-quote.
posted by yerfatma at 11:52 AM on September 30, 2007
Shakespeare said it best. From Henry VI PART II "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." Why does New Jersey have the most toxic waste dumps, and California the most lawyers? New Jersey got first choice.
posted by tommybiden at 12:03 PM on September 30, 2007
C'mon now. Just because a couple of publicity-starved public pains in the ass bring about a destined-to-fail nuisance suit doesn't make all attorneys inherently evil, does it? This reaction is like judging Michael Vick's actions and determining all quarterbacks are wretched scum and should be incarcerated. There's a thousand good lawyer jokes out there, and in a case like this, I know they seem appropriate, but damn. I'm sure that there are douchebags in each one of your respective lines of work. Does that make you also a douchebag?
posted by tahoemoj at 12:56 PM on September 30, 2007
kill all the lawyers except mine
posted by deli lama at 03:22 PM on September 30, 2007
When Shakespeare wrote the kill the lawyers line, he was referring to what we call senators and congressmen today, the "lawmakers" of bygone times. If he wanted to do in today's layers he would have called them barristers. 400 years later, the terms have evolved.
posted by stonz&bonz at 05:00 PM on September 30, 2007
While we're meandering off topic: Q: What's the difference between a lawyer and a tick? A: The tick falls off when you die.
posted by owlhouse at 05:21 PM on September 30, 2007
The two calculated that because customers paid $61.6 million to watch eight "fraudulent" games You want to go after someone for fraudulent football games, how 'bout suing the Jets? The Bills seemed able to handle them sans signal stealing.
posted by yerfatma at 06:15 PM on September 30, 2007
This reminds me of this one while we're at it. Q)What is the difference between a BMW full of lawyers and a porcupine? A)The pricks are on the outside of the porcupine! This reaction is like judging Michael Vick's actions and determining all quarterbacks are wretched scum and should be incarcerated. How about overprotected pansy's, and whiners that don't want to take a hit?
posted by jojomfd1 at 09:06 PM on September 30, 2007
Personally, I hate people who categorize and stereotype. Several of the comments in this thread make me sick. Dyams, would it be so difficult to modify your statement to, "God, I despise lawyers that pursue frivilous cases like this." Or are you really such a jerk that you can't conceive of a single lawyer doing a positive thing through his profession? People like you deserve to need an attorney and not get one. Reminds me of when people deride police officers. Who are they going to call when they need help? Be careful when you generalize. You are likely hurting someone because of someone else's wrongdoing.
posted by DudeDykstra at 09:22 PM on September 30, 2007
Sorta singled me out there, didn't you "Dude"? Did you notice a few other sentiments that resembled mine in the other posts? Actually, I stand by what I say, be it a generalization or not. There's presently a lawyer trying to fuck me over every way possible, just because he thinks he can. He's trying to ruin my family and take away my living, all the while knowing I can't possibly fight against all his shit because that would mean putting my future in the hands of another lawyer who I wouldn't trust and I, in turn, could lose everything. That's how the real world works with a lot of these legal cases, not like some Lifetime Channel movie. So go screw yourself and the "jerk" shit.
posted by dyams at 09:39 PM on September 30, 2007
dyams -- glad to know you despise both lawyers and attorneys. Me, I hate Holland and the Netherlands. You got singled out because you were the first in the thread to start bashing lawyers, which is your right. I personally think it's pretty played out and intellectually lazy, and your current predicament doesn't excuse that. As DudeDykstra suggested, lawyers have done a lot of good in our culture, including taking an instrumental role in challenging and overturning some of the most odious laws and social practices on the books. Some of us lawyers make our livings doing things other than suing other parties, such as helping clients buy, sell and license things. There are certainly problems with our legal system and with less than scrupulous lawyers, but you are painting with a pretty broad brush.
posted by holden at 10:05 PM on September 30, 2007
dyams -- glad to know you despise both lawyers and attorneys. Me, I hate Holland and the Netherlands. As for me, I hate Holland, The Netherlands, and old deaf Dutch people.
posted by tommybiden at 10:25 PM on September 30, 2007
Hey, that's great! Probably the only thing that can make the rest of the country actually rally round the Pats. Patriots vs. the Sharks. What's the spread? I wonder if this is an undercover ploy by Patriots PR department to rehabilitate their public image?
posted by endorfin at 10:30 PM on September 30, 2007
Errr, I plead guilty as charged, Your Worship. But the mitigating circumstances are that one of my friends, who is a lawyer, originally told me the joke. He does a lot of pro-bono work with refugees, and has worked in developing countries training young lawyers for most of his career. But he likes a good laugh, even at the profession's expense.
posted by owlhouse at 02:50 AM on October 01, 2007
Ha ha ha ha ha ha -- wait, could I stand to see any money from this? No? You sure? Okay. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
posted by chicobangs at 03:17 AM on October 01, 2007
There are certainly problems with our legal system and with less than scrupulous lawyers, but you are painting with a pretty broad brush. Yeah, but lawyers should be working hard to correct this view of themselves, and I don't think they do. They need to work harder to penalize the lawyers that file frivolous lawsuits, or those personal injury lawyers who will get you the same $10,000 for a fake injury or for a serious, lifelong injury. The legal profession doesn't do enough to rid the profession of these people. In fact, I think unscrupulous people are attracted to the profession. It's a problem that lawyers are responsible for fixing, and until we do, we can't go around complaining about the bad lawyer jokes. I am a lawyer as well.
posted by bperk at 08:54 AM on October 01, 2007
Personally, I hate people who categorize and stereotype. I hate people who hate people who categorize and stereotype. I don't think you should lump all people who categorize and stereotype into the same group. There are people out there stereotyping for the better good of humankind and they probably don't appreciate being put in with the ones who do it maliciously. And I Don't Know's on third base.
posted by Ricardo at 09:36 AM on October 01, 2007
Holland and The Netherlands are not the same thing. Holland is a province.
posted by Steel_Town at 10:48 AM on October 01, 2007
You're right, bperk. Very well said. Of course I realize my comments were generalizations, but what you said is definitely the cause of anti-lawyer and legal system sentiments. It's like the lawsuit filed against the dry cleaner who lost a pair of pants that belonged to the guy. The defense this guy had to wind up paying wound up being hundreds of thousands of dollars, all over something relatively petty and ridiculous. Instead of working to come to a common-sense solution (like full-replacement of the entire suit that was lost, which was proposed and turned down), courts are made to waste time and money on (often) stupid demands. And the next time a rapist or drug dealer, etc. is allowed to walk free due to a technicality, remember to praise the legal profession. My apologies to all lawyers who work to protect those who absolutely need protection. But remember when all the jokes came out about Catholic priests when several inappropriate-type charges came to light? I'm sure those jokes and feelings didn't reflect every single priest, but it was a huge problem for them as a whole. That's the way it goes.
posted by dyams at 11:19 AM on October 01, 2007
Whats the difference between a lawyer and a hooker. The hooker stops screwing you when you die.
posted by Debo270 at 12:02 PM on October 01, 2007
Thats pretty funny owlhouse, a lawyer I hired to handle a motorcycle wreck I had, told me the one I posted also. Right before he took his 33 1/3% and then didn't even pay all of the medical bills. I'll give ya 3 guesses who got screwed on those, even though he took the money out of the settlement for all of the medical bills. I got sued by the hospital for over $3,500 for my shoulder surgery. That lawyer got a good bonus, and no lawyer will sue another lawyer for that little money or any amount for that matter.
posted by jojomfd1 at 12:52 PM on October 01, 2007
Is this a contest? Can anyone play? Because I'm sure we all can come up with some really great stories about how members of a given profession/ethnic group/gender/political affiliation have dicked us over. Okay, maybe fraze could have chosen a better title for the fpp, which is about a couple of ambulance chasers, but it wasn't a blanket invitation to drag out every dumb lawyer joke in creation and tell our campfire stories of being screwed by lawyers. There's some substance here worthy of discussion, I'm sure...but maybe not so much if we can't keep from turning this into a "how I was hurt" fest.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 01:57 PM on October 01, 2007
I'm not sure there's anything of substance to be found anywhere here. It's clearly a frivolous suit with no merit being shepparded by a couple cats out for a "go away" settlement. Filed on behalf of cheated fans... Filed on behalf of semi-literate douchebags, more like it. "And then God did take his wrath, and visited it upon all thine Asshamers milling about his garden." Over to you, Becky.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 02:04 PM on October 01, 2007
It's clearly a frivolous suit with no merit being shepparded by a couple cats out for a "go away" settlement. Apparently these guys do this for a living. Or at least for a lark. See also their suit against the makers of "The Never-Ending Story".
posted by yerfatma at 02:49 PM on October 01, 2007
You're correct, lbb, you can have this sort of bashing session about a lot of groups. It's only frivolous, however, until it happens to you and you're the one dicked out of huge sums of money. I go back to what bperk said, and when some of these cases start being deemed ridiculous from the start, and the attorneys (and clients) who bring them forth are penalized, it will only get worse and worse. So many suits are only brought forth because the suing party knows the other party can't afford to fight the charge and will end up settling out of court for a lesser amount. It's basically robbery that goes unpunished.
posted by dyams at 03:09 PM on October 01, 2007
You're correct, lbb, you can have this sort of bashing session about a lot of groups. It's only frivolous, however, until it happens to you and you're the one dicked out of huge sums of money. dyams, I'm really not discrediting anyone's pain and suffering...just not sure this fpp ought to prompt a thread about everyone's personal gripes with the legal profession, is all.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 03:19 PM on October 01, 2007
I'm really shocked. How can any sane and reasonable person have an issue with bashing lawyers? Especially lawyers who have sued "The Never Ending Story". Sure, we can have a conversation about any profession that dicks us over, this one just happens to be about lawyers. Doctors, plumbers, tax collectors, and pole strippers can get their own damn threads.
posted by irunfromclones at 03:35 PM on October 01, 2007
Damn, I was trying to keep score on who had the most support, lawyers, or lawyer haters...too many wafflers. Anyway, put me in the group that bashes them, and uses generalizations against them. A couple of points, I'll start with this one. lawyers have done a lot of good in our culture, including taking an instrumental role in challenging and overturning some of the most odious laws and social practices on the books So, who exactly put those odius laws on the books? Lawyers, of course. Who will most certainly benefit from these current lawsuits? Lawyers, of course. Keep in mind that we all pay dearly for this crap. We have all probably been a member of some class action lawsuit brought on by someone that was cheated out of $12.00 by a company. Lawyers take it over, and in the end everyone that bought something from the company gets a gift certificate for $5.00 good on a future purchase, and the lawyers get millions. Happened to me with contacts, tires, life insurance, real estate, electronics. Funny part is that I never felt harmed by any of the companies. And before anyone suggests that I could have opted out...yes, but the lawyers still would have received their millions. BTW, every penny of those lawsuits were financed with higher prices for all of us. Why don't sharks eat lawyers? Professional courtesy
posted by dviking at 05:21 PM on October 01, 2007
How about overprotected pansy's, and whiners that don't want to take a hit? Closer to an accurate generalization, but the few exceptions invalidate the rule!
posted by tahoemoj at 05:36 PM on October 01, 2007
So, who exactly put those odius laws on the books? Lawyers, of course. Um...right. Well, you go ahead and believe that that's how it works if you want. I've said my piece, I'm done with this silliness.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 05:38 PM on October 01, 2007
Um...right. Well, you go ahead and believe that that's how it works if you want. I've said my piece, I'm done with this silliness. Um...right, then why did you add that little bit of insight if you were done with this silliness? Wait, are you my wife just infiltrating another part of my life? She likes to end discussions with "I'm done with this" as if that somehow ends the discussion. BTW, in your mind who did put the odious laws on the books? Butchers, bakers, candlestick makers? Nope, I'm pretty sure it was the lawyers.
posted by dviking at 06:51 PM on October 01, 2007
BTW, in your mind who did put the odious laws on the books? Butchers, bakers, candlestick makers? Nope, I'm pretty sure it was the lawyers. You're incorrect. The people who make the laws are called legislators.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:07 PM on October 01, 2007
BTW, in your mind who did put the odious laws on the books? Butchers, bakers, candlestick makers? Nope, I'm pretty sure it was the lawyers. My best guess would be the lawmakers, otherwise known as legislators: senators, congressmen, congresswomen, members of parliment, depending on the country. On edit, what l_b_b said.
posted by tommybiden at 07:09 PM on October 01, 2007
Just to clarify the way the government works, it is not senators, congressmen, congresswomen, members of parliment...blah, blah, blah that write the laws. It is lawyers. The aforementioned politicians often debate what should be made into law, they just don't write the laws. They have tons of lawyers on staff to actually write the laws. That is why we often get troublesome laws. The politicians had noble intentions, however, in the writing of the law things got complicated, and perhaps twisted. Thus the arguments over the intent vs. the letter of the law. However, do keep in mind that the vast majority of the aforementioned politicians are in fact lawyers. Lawyers account for 60% of the current US Senate, and 100% of the Supreme Court, which obviously oversees the the laws being put on the books. So, if one wants to think that lawyers do not put odious laws on the books, one is entitled to that misguided view.
posted by dviking at 07:33 PM on October 01, 2007
My best guess would be the lawmakers, otherwise known as legislators: senators, congressmen, congresswomen, members of parliment, depending on the country. Don't have a dog in this fight, but those legislators (in the US) tend to be lawyers.
posted by yerfatma at 07:58 PM on October 01, 2007
60% is a "vast majority"? Whatever. ObHomer: go pats!
posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:44 PM on October 01, 2007
lbb, 60 out of 100 is most certainly a vast majority. Especially since the remaining 40 would come from a variety of fields, such as teachers, ranchers, doctors, businessmen, etc. So, compared to any other group's numbers, 60 would indeed be a vast majority. And, now I'm really pretty sure that you are in fact, my wife. After her "I'm done with this discussion" statement, if I have the balls to inject a factual statement , or two, she replies with "whatever" and then walks away saying something totally unrelated. As in: Wife- Dear, you can not go on the deer hunting trip if they are bringing stripers along. That's it, I'm done with this discussion. Me- But honey, if we bring stripers we don't have to drive all the way into town to see them. Surely you don't want us drinking and driving... besides this way we can buy a keg and save tons of money on the beer. Wife- (walking away, rolling her eyes) Whatever! Oh, look the magnolia's blooming.
posted by dviking at 09:06 PM on October 01, 2007
Eh, since this thread isn't quite dead yet... The last message (Madison Square Garden Sues NHL) involves lawyers too, yet no lawyer jokes. Who do you think makes the least between the legal staff for Madison Square, the lawyers defending for the NHL, the Patroits legal department, or some joker public interest (alright, probably screwball) lawyers, trying to turn a quick buck? Granted, Patriots will probably have to shell out about $2000 in legal fees to get their attorneys to draft a couple page memo to dismiss. But the "crooked sharks" representing the class action won't see a dime of that. Presumably they were just doing it for kicks, PR, hoping to dig up some dirt on the organization in discovery, or jsut trying to win the plaintiff lottery. And if the Patriots do have to shell out a $100k more to get this thing to go away, so what? Aren't Jets fans (and of course all fans) a bit deceived? Don't fans have the right to something more than the NFL's private reassurances that "we'll take care of it? Sorry that your team got cheated, but if it happens again, we promise to be sure that we get compensated." And yes, lawyers take a cut off the money that you get toward your medical bills when you get a settlement. Otherwise, you'd have no lawyer, and probably get no settlement (of course you still can get a lawyer who sucks, in which case SOL) . You could argue that losing defendants should have to compensate your lawyer so that you don't have to. But those greedy defense lawyers who lobby and become legislators themselves wouldn't have it that way.
posted by bmauger at 10:11 PM on October 01, 2007
sorry, I meant strippers...bringing stripers to deer hunting camp just doesn't make any sense. The problem with these frivolous lawsuits is that too often companies do settle out of court, just to make it go away. The details are often not disclosed, so we never really know the extent of it. However, the lawyers get paid, the company passes the cost to the consumers, and that's business as usual. I personally have no issue with most lawyers, just the ones filing these nonsense lawsuits that clog the courts and do absolutely no good for society.
posted by dviking at 11:34 PM on October 01, 2007
Okay, maybe fraze could have chosen a better title for the fpp, which is about a couple of ambulance chasers, but it wasn't a blanket invitation to drag out every dumb lawyer joke in creation and tell our campfire stories of being screwed by lawyers. There's some substance here worthy of discussion, I'm sure...but maybe not so much if we can't keep from turning this into a "how I was hurt" fest. I am guilty of of telling a lawyer joke on here without adding to the content of the FPP. I'm sorry Mr. Frazer jr. sir, I must have gotten carried away, I guess. OTOH, lbb what exactly did this or any of your other posts in here add to topic of this FPP?
posted by jojomfd1 at 01:09 AM on October 02, 2007
OTOH, lbb what exactly did this or any of your other posts in here add to topic of this FPP? Actually, there wasn't really a lot to add, when you get right down to it -- the choice was pretty much to add either lawyer jokes that we've all heard before, lawyer-done-me-wrong stories, or an observation that we don't feel the need to chime in in quite the same way when a doctor or a building contractor or a used car salesman done us wrong. I chose option 3, is all.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:17 AM on October 02, 2007
The aforementioned politicians often debate what should be made into law, they just don't write the laws. They have tons of lawyers on staff to actually write the laws. That is why we often get troublesome laws. The politicians had noble intentions, however, in the writing of the law things got complicated, and perhaps twisted. Thus the arguments over the intent vs. the letter of the law. Wow. You can't really believe that. Politicians had noble intentions? Umm, no. First, politicians do write laws, they just don't do it well. Lawyers are not writing the laws, a whole heap of people work together to throw a bunch of stuff together (including many nonlawyers like lobbyists, industry groups, government regulators, policy analysts) and hope that it makes sense. Second, politics is mainly motivated by who has the deepest pockets. Spend some time and you will see consumers get the shaft repeatedly (like bankruptcy, pensions, health). Finally, arguments over the intent vs. the letter of the law clearly show that lawyers aren't drafting these laws. If they were, the intent would not be different than the letter of the law. However, do keep in mind that the vast majority of the aforementioned politicians are in fact lawyers. Lawyers account for 60% of the current US Senate, and 100% of the Supreme Court, which obviously oversees the the laws being put on the books. I think there is some confusion over what a lawyer is. A lawyer is not someone who went to law school, or someone who once practiced law. A lawyer is someone who went to law school, passed the bar, and is currently in the practice of law. A physician is not someone who went to medical school, and went on to sell prescription drugs. You have to actually be practicing to be a physician, or you are not one. The same goes for lawyers. Politicians who were once lawyers are not lawyers anymore. Judges are definitely not lawyers anymore, their duties are completely different from the role of a lawyer. Being a lawyer is just a job, it's not some club that once you join you can never escape.
posted by bperk at 09:07 AM on October 02, 2007
I think there is some confusion over what a lawyer is...A lawyer is not someone who went to law school...A lawyer is someone who went to law school ?!!? After reading this, I have to ask: Are you sure that you're not the one that's confused?
posted by BornIcon at 09:21 AM on October 02, 2007
I think there is some confusion over what a lawyer is. A lawyer is not someone who went to law school, or someone who once practiced law. There's definitely some confusion then. If a person becomes a doctor and then leaves to teach, are they no longer a doctor? That sort of sophistry is what annoys the shit out of people.
posted by yerfatma at 09:23 AM on October 02, 2007
yerfatma sent me scrambling for a dictionary ... soph·ist a person who reasons adroitly and speciously rather than soundly.
posted by Ricardo at 09:32 AM on October 02, 2007
Specious means having deceptive attraction or allure.
posted by The Crafty Sousepaw at 09:39 AM on October 02, 2007
If a person becomes a doctor and then leaves to teach, are they no longer a doctor? That sort of sophistry is what annoys the shit out of people. They are a medical doctor because that's what you become when you graduate med school. They aren't a physician anymore. They are a teacher. How is that sophistry? Lots of people go to law school and never even take the bar. It is illegal for these people to practice law. They aren't lawyers, they are just legally-trained.
posted by bperk at 09:48 AM on October 02, 2007
After reading this, I have to ask: Are you sure that you're not the one that's confused? Are you being funny or do you not know how the conjunction "and" works?
posted by bperk at 09:51 AM on October 02, 2007
Yeah, but how many politicians went to law school and never practiced law? I don't think it is unfair to label these politicians as lawyers. Most of them retain their license.
posted by The Crafty Sousepaw at 09:55 AM on October 02, 2007
Yeah, but how many politicians went to law school and never practiced law? I don't think it is unfair to label these politicians as lawyers. Most of them retain their license. Bring it back to the discussion, though -- if we accept this broader definition of "lawyer" meaning, I guess, "anyone who went to law school", that isn't who has come under fire in this thread. Instead, people have been critical of the subset of "lawyers" who litigate -- remember, litigation is where this thread started, and negative experiences with litigation are what people have got a mad on about.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 10:01 AM on October 02, 2007
Yeah, but how many politicians went to law school and never practiced law? I don't think it is unfair to label these politicians as lawyers. Most of them retain their license. Almost half of the Senate have at one time practiced law. Congressman are prohibited from practicing law while they are in office.
posted by bperk at 10:20 AM on October 02, 2007
Are you being funny or do you not know how the conjunction "and" works? Considering that English was my major in college, I think I may have a grasp on how the conjuction 'and' works. I just thought there was some humor in the way you wrote that post. In other words, I was being funny.
posted by BornIcon at 10:47 AM on October 02, 2007
They are a medical doctor because that's what you become when you graduate med school. They aren't a physician anymore. They are a teacher. How is that sophistry? Lots of people go to law school and never even take the bar. It is illegal for these people to practice law. They aren't lawyers, they are just legally-trained. Sorry, I'm with the others in not seeing the distinction. A person who graduates medical school is a DOCTOR regardless of what profession he chooses later. A person who graduates law school and passes the bar is a LAWYER regardless of what profession he chooses later. I don't see what is the difference between those 2 statements (and you agreed on the first, and disagreed on the second).
posted by bdaddy at 10:48 AM on October 02, 2007
sophist - a person who reasons adroitly and speciously rather than soundly adroitly - cleverly skillful, resourceful, or ingenious specious - having deceptive attraction or allure had to go the dictionary 2 times to understand the first dictionary definition :-)
posted by bdaddy at 10:51 AM on October 02, 2007
I refuse to make any other comments without representation.
posted by The Crafty Sousepaw at 10:54 AM on October 02, 2007
I have to admit, I too went to the dictionary twice when I posted the above. soph·ist·ry - a cleverly skillful way to say cleverly skillful
posted by Ricardo at 11:08 AM on October 02, 2007
Sorry, I'm with the others in not seeing the distinction. A person who graduates medical school is a DOCTOR regardless of what profession he chooses later. A person who graduates law school and passes the bar is a LAWYER regardless of what profession he chooses later. I don't see what is the difference between those 2 statements (and you agreed on the first, and disagreed on the second). There are quite a few differences between those two statements (the words DOCTOR and LAWYER, for example). But bperk made the following distinction between "doctor" and "physician": They are a medical doctor because that's what you become when you graduate med school. They aren't a physician anymore. ...emphasis mine. I think that distinction makes sense: "medical doctor" is derived from the degree that this person holds (M.D.), whereas "physician" refers to someone who practices medicine. Likewise, the term "lawyer" refers to someone who practices law, who litigates. The statement "A person who graduates medical school is a PHYSICIAN regardless of what profession he chooses later" is not true, because someone may graduate medical school and not practice medicine. Likewise, the statement "A person who graduates law school and passes the bar is a LAWYER regardless of what profession he chooses later" is also not true, and putting LAWYER in all caps doesn't make it so.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:13 AM on October 02, 2007
Actually, a person who graduates law school and passes the bar is a doctor.
posted by The Crafty Sousepaw at 11:27 AM on October 02, 2007
I think that distinction makes sense: "medical doctor" is derived from the degree that this person holds (M.D.), whereas "physician" refers to someone who practices medicine. Sure, but if you start explaining that while I'm bleeding out, you're not either. I appreciate US liability laws require girding one's legal loins, but it feels like an easy excuse for some people to view their fellow humans through a filter, rather as fellow humans. And that's enough mealy-mouthed Hallmark crap from me. Really makes you think.
posted by yerfatma at 11:48 AM on October 02, 2007
Sure, but if you start explaining that while I'm bleeding out, you're not either. Hey, no worries. I am not a doctor or a lawyer, but I'm awesome with direct pressure.
posted by lil_brown_bat at 12:15 PM on October 02, 2007
None of this has anything to do with the fact that Bill Bailachuck is a cheating, mind reading troll, and deserves to be sued by the makers of the Never Ending story. Habeus corpus, corpus delecti, ad infinitum, sophistus, two fistus, uvfrogtuzanapalp. (OK the last one was the bottom line on a word search)
posted by THX-1138 at 12:33 PM on October 02, 2007
Where is Schoolhouse Rock when we need it?
posted by tommybiden at 01:31 PM on October 02, 2007
Lisa: That's specious reasoning , Dad. Homer: Thank you, Lisa.
posted by owlhouse at 04:05 PM on October 02, 2007
How bout those Braves?
posted by Folkways at 05:37 PM on October 02, 2007
Within the past 30 minutes I have checked several resources, and spoken with a co-worker who holds a law degree, and a neighbor that has a medical degree. The resources and the people are in complete agreement on the following: A person that passes the bar examine is licensed to practice law. If they actually do so, they are a lawyer. A law degree is not necessarily needed to become a lawyer. Laws vary by state and country on this. However, a physician is a medical doctor, other than a surgeon, that is licensed to practice medicine. The distinction is "licensed". A graduate of medical school does not have their license current is not a physician. However, a US Senator that has kept his license current is still a physician even though it has been years since he actually practiced medicine of any kind. As is the case with my US Representative in Congress Michael Burgess M.D. Beyond the above, I have learned several things during the past 24 hours. 1) my vocabulary is not as good as it should be. 2) the lbb doesn't mean it when he says "I'm done with this silliness" 3) the average number of posts on any one thread before the thread no longer is about the original topic is 6. (okay, I knew that before today)
posted by dviking at 07:33 PM on October 02, 2007
Beyond the above, I have learned several things during the past 24 hours. 2) the lbb doesn't mean it when he says "I'm done with this silliness" She.
posted by tommybiden at 07:39 PM on October 02, 2007
Just who is it purveying the pureed equine here?
posted by lil_brown_bat at 09:17 PM on October 02, 2007
but I'm awesome with direct pressure. I get the pressure point. It's more fun pushing on these anyway!
posted by jojomfd1 at 12:55 AM on October 03, 2007
Mayer and Afran, who consider themselves public interest lawyers, have been thorns in the side of New Jersey politicians for years, filing lawsuits and demanding investigations to advance their grievances. They are well known in the state but generally have had little success in their causes. The only thing that keeps going through my mind while reading and contemplating this story is, "God, I despise lawyers and attorneys." It's like the old joke that goes something like: Q: What do you call 100 dead lawyers? A: A good start.