Re: Rules of Engorgement

1

I think the Mayo Clinic should work on the epistemological training of its urologists, should any philosophers want to take up penises as a topic.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 09-12-12 9:09 AM
horizontal rule
2

Properly philosophically-trained urologists should always focus on the Dong an Sich.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 09-12-12 9:14 AM
horizontal rule
3

Also, anybody who can talk men into walking into an apartment and paying somebody to put a needle into their penis should teach rhetoric somewhere.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 09-12-12 9:35 AM
horizontal rule
4

Unless it's just a New Jersey thing.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 09-12-12 9:40 AM
horizontal rule
5

Ironically, we can never experience the Dong an Sich because our intuition is receptive.


Posted by: | Link to this comment | 09-12-12 9:42 AM
horizontal rule
6

ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE!


Posted by: OPINIONATED JOHN HOLMES | Link to this comment | 09-12-12 9:53 AM
horizontal rule
7

paying somebody to put a needle into their penis

Seriously, why pay somebody?


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 09-12-12 10:10 AM
horizontal rule
8

Because outdated television is the most important thing in my life right now, I misread "Justin Street" as "Jason Street" and got penile silicone shots confused with embryonic shark cell injections. (By the way, that's only about the fourth or fifth dumbest plotline this season, after IKWYDLS and "why are Tami and Julie still in Dillon anyway?," and waaay after the clearly-unhinged-but-irrepressibly-sexy Latina domestic help. /complaining about FNL)


Posted by: jms | Link to this comment | 09-12-12 10:12 AM
horizontal rule
9

7: He didn't pay for insertion.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 09-12-12 10:16 AM
horizontal rule
10

I misread "Justin Street" as "Jason Street" and got penile silicone shots confused with embryonic shark cell injections.

The QB who gets paralyzed in the pilot episode of FNL is the same guy who does embryonic shark cell injections?


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 09-12-12 10:18 AM
horizontal rule
11

He just rammed a needle into his penis until the pain became unbearable. Completely unremarkable.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 09-12-12 10:19 AM
horizontal rule
12

11: Actually, apo was advocating for free universal health care.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 09-12-12 10:21 AM
horizontal rule
13

9: Exactly. Insert it yourself and save your money for the removal.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 09-12-12 10:21 AM
horizontal rule
14

11: I will continue to ram this needle into my penis until the nation gets universal coverage. We'll see who's more dedicated: me or Congress.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 09-12-12 10:24 AM
horizontal rule
15

13: Who are you and what have you done with apo?


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 09-12-12 10:24 AM
horizontal rule
16

In a way, the founders thought of Congress as a needle rammed in America's penis.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 09-12-12 10:26 AM
horizontal rule
17

14: That could really move the needle of public opinion.

Or maybe just of pubic pinion, it's hard to tell.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 09-12-12 10:26 AM
horizontal rule
18

Aaaaugh, somebody get me to Canada already!


Posted by: apostropher's penis | Link to this comment | 09-12-12 10:26 AM
horizontal rule
19

16: See? Everything IS beautiful, in its own way.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 09-12-12 10:27 AM
horizontal rule
20

18: Not specifying which nation you were referring to in 14 was a clever move. Well played!


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 09-12-12 10:28 AM
horizontal rule
21

George Washington's Congress had, like, thirty goddamned Senators.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 09-12-12 11:25 AM
horizontal rule
22

It's like cold fusion.

Mitt Romney believes in it?


Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Link to this comment | 09-12-12 11:57 AM
horizontal rule
23

OT question for the lawyers:

So I'm editing an answer for a line attorney. And the complaint alleges that plaintiff did something wrong because some unnamed representative of my client told him to on some unspecified (no date, manner of communication, identified individual) occasion. We have no record of this interaction, and the advice plaintiff reports having been given would be contrary to our policy and makes no sense at all.

The line attorney denied knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief, on the grounds that hey, we're a huge organization, and we can't know that something didn't happen. I changed it to a flat denial: while I see the line attorney's point that we don't know with absolute certainty that it didn't happen -- plaintiff could have called our offices and spoken to someone who happened to be insane -- we have no reason at all to think it did happen, good reason to think it didn't, and you don't need absolute certainty to deny something in an answer, just a good-faith belief.

I'm not being overly cavalier, am I? I hate having superiors override me when I'm being cautious, but this seems like serious overcaution on the line attorney's part to me.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 09-12-12 3:43 PM
horizontal rule
24

11: He just rammed a needle into his penis until the pain became unbearable. Completely unremarkable.

I once met a man who had inserted his own amphalang. Or Prince Albert. Or something like that. I didn't ask to see. He said it was pretty much like you'd expect. 7 seconds to push the needle all the way through and lots of blood.


Posted by: Natilo Paennim | Link to this comment | 09-12-12 4:03 PM
horizontal rule
25

23: How far did the plaintiff stick the needle into his penis?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 09-12-12 4:16 PM
horizontal rule
26

LB, I personally would go with the more cautious answer, but that's why I'm not a manager. Any cockamamie thing is possible, and without evidence it would seem difficult to be absolute, but then I have no idea of the stakes here.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 09-12-12 4:28 PM
horizontal rule
27

I don't think I'm overly cautious about these things, but since under FRCP 8 denying information sufficient to form a belief has the effect of a denial, and you can certainly in good faith say that you lack sufficient information, I see little upside to issuing a flat denial and a mild downside if some of the allegations turn out to be true (eg, if he did talk to someone at your client, but the conversation didn't go as alleged). Just an initial off the cuff take without much thought or research.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 09-12-12 4:52 PM
horizontal rule
28

If the denial of information sufficient to form a belief has the effect of a denial, then how can a denial (which has the effect of a denial of information sufficient to form a belief) have a downside and a denial of information sufficient to form a belief not?


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 09-12-12 5:02 PM
horizontal rule
29

If some of the allegations do turn out to be true (eg if a conversation did happen, but didn't go as alleged) and you want to structure your defense around that, you'd then have to amend your answer from "deny" to "admit" which is at a minimum embarrassing and carries a (very small) risk that a Court would find that you're estopped from changing your answer.

"Effect of a denial" means that you havent admitted something as true by saying you lack sufficient information, so the plaintiff can't use the answer to narrow the facts or issues in the case.

Generally this doesn't come up and answers don't matter unless you screw up in a big way, the most common of which is asserting an affirmative defense. Some judges get mad about them though


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 09-12-12 5:19 PM
horizontal rule
30

Asserting sb failing to assert. I give up now.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 09-12-12 5:20 PM
horizontal rule
31

The only concrete consequence of a denial is that if you don't deny or DKI, you admit. The reason for denying rather than DKIing is that it's a core issue -- we took action based on plaintiff's wrongdoing, which would be capricious of us if we'd told him to do that. Saying that we don't know it happened but we don't know it didn't, which is the effect of a DKI, looks problematic in that context. And we do have pretty good reason to believe it didn't happen -- it's something that no one doing their job properly would have said, and that would be an unlikely and unmotivated error.

I've always understood that a good reason to believe the truth of a denial is enough, and that metaphysical certainty isn't required, but the line attorney's squeamishness is worrying me.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 09-12-12 5:23 PM
horizontal rule
32

I mean I don't think it's Rule 11 sanctionable or anything to flat deny, based on what you've said. I'd just worry about the downside of having to amend the answer and changing "denies" to "admit" vs the upside of pleading the flat denial.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 09-12-12 5:29 PM
horizontal rule
33

33

... but the line attorney's squeamishness is worrying me.

Is it possible that this is because he knows (or suspects) that it (or something sort of like it) actually did happen?


Posted by: James B. Shearer | Link to this comment | 09-12-12 5:35 PM
horizontal rule
34

29.1 doesn't seem that likely to be a problem (at least under federal practice, I have the general impression LB usually practices in state court) since if the conversation did happen but didn't go as alleged then a flat denial would be appropriate as to the allegation as a whole and wouldn't have to be changed. Also, 23 sounds like a good-faith basis for a denial to me.


Posted by: widget | Link to this comment | 09-12-12 5:37 PM
horizontal rule
35

since if the conversation did happen but didn't go as alleged then a flat denial would be appropriate as to the allegation as a whole

Maybe, maybe not. It depends on how things are alleged. That's one of the things I'd look at.

23 sounds like a good-faith basis for a denial to me.

Yes, I agree there.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 09-12-12 5:43 PM
horizontal rule
36

A good faith basis for denial is my life goal.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 09-12-12 6:29 PM
horizontal rule
37

God civil law is such a cluster. You should be able to respond with "it's incumbent on you to provide evidence for your claim, fuckhead".


Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 09-12-12 8:57 PM
horizontal rule
38

Is it practicable to survey the population of employees who might have interacted with the plaintiff? As in, send a privileged email with the bare minimum of information about the plaintiff to all the customer service reps or whatever and say "anyone who has recollection of interacting with this person reply to legal", and then use the absence of responses to justify the good faith belief in the event it becomes an issue? I'm analogizing (banned!) from our Sarbanes Oxley compliance process, where we get an email every quarter asking us to speak up if we are aware of any material omissions or misrepresentations in the financial reports.


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 09-13-12 4:45 AM
horizontal rule
39

Not really. That is, we've spoken to everyone who had any reason to talk to him -- the metaphysical doubt rests on the possibility that he somehow called someone completely random and got insane advice. There's no population short of every employee to survey.

I've decided to stop worrying about this -- the line attorney rattled me by being concerned, but I confirmed that he hasn't got any reason for the concern other than 'you can't prove a negative'.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 09-13-12 5:21 AM
horizontal rule
40

37: That's really what DKI is -- "I dunno, but unless you can prove it you don't either".


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 09-13-12 5:21 AM
horizontal rule
41

23, 33: It sounds like an in person, informal, unrecorded, unscheduled conversation is in order.


Posted by: Benquo | Link to this comment | 09-13-12 10:11 AM
horizontal rule
42

41: That conversation had happened, and it's not an issue. It has been firmly established that the only basis for the line attorney's concern is "How can we know for absolutely certain that this guy didn't somehow make contact with one of our thousands of employees and get told something insane?" No actual reason to believe that it did happen beyond plaintiff's allegation.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 09-13-12 10:38 AM
horizontal rule