Make a note, gentleman
Why? Is she hot?
All brides are beautiful. Thus, no need to go to Option 2.
It's only after you marry them, that the flaws appear.
(The obvious joke being made, since I just told my wife about this place: kidding, honey.)
There's one? I'd be stunned if anyone commenting here were armigerous.
Unfortunately, L., I am the only one of my kind here.
Well, that's good, w-lfs-n. So who's the gentleman?
did ogged really just use the phrase "shifty eyed Jewish guy," in a post detailing someone else's cultural insensitivity?
Of course not. He hyphenated "shifty-eyed."
I am troubled by finding "a cousin's wedding," "a relative's house," and "a man should marry a woman who is ...a relative," all in the same paragraph. You're not in the old country now, heathen.
So, are they going to marry you off this weekend, ogged?
That query certainly shut down the conversation.
I wonder what's the longest span of time Unfogged has gone without a new comment appearing on any thread?
Well, let's not turn it into a contest!
Hasn't the site grown in popularity by an immense amount over the past 6+ months? Looking back a year or more ago, it seems like the site could very well go multiple days between comments, even when regular posting was going on. Unf? Labs? What's that other guy's name?
Six is too few months. The monster party threads were around six months ago. Too bad ogged's not here or we could pester him for comment data, so we could see when they really started taking off.
I should have qualified my question: since the first thread with more than 100 (or maybe just 50?) comments. Was that 6 months ago? a year?
It's just funny that when a thread goes only a couple of hours or so without a comment people start thinking that it's already died.
The first thread with more than 100 comments, 12/12/04.
I've been lurking since before the comment threads got long, and I don't think it's that the site got much more popular, just that the comments got chattier. I couldn't give a list offhand, but I don't think there's more than a couple dozen frequent commenters, if that many.
Right, but if you back 9 months, are there more than a dozen regular commenters? I'm imagining some sort of a critical mass. I've only been seriously lurking since January or so, but I went back a few months in the archives once I got hooked.
Where's ogged to whip out one of his handy-dandy grphs when you need him? I'd like to see unique hits to comments by week over the last year.
Dunno. I talk a lot here (recently changed jobs, wildly deprived of social interaction at work, hate my job anyway and am looking to avoid work however I can), but I haven't been commenting for much longer than you have.
Like Ben just said, the heavy chatter just goes back to December or so.
Yes, the "comments" have recently started to become more of a chat room.
And if we're not careful, ogged will probably come by and remind us of this.
Not for me -- I can read blogs, but my law firm blocks chatrooms (and webmail -- anyone who tries to email me should know that I only check my webmail when I'm home, and I'm almost never home.).
L.: So who's the gentleman?
b-wo: Michael
I think we established earlier that Matt is the haus gentleman and that he'll do some as yet undetermined thing to you for pointing it out.
I have a job with a lot of interstitial moments between tasks (or, you know, I could work constantly like they theoretically pay me to do, but mine sounds better, no?).
I've had a huge school project hanging over my head that I am amazingly skilled at procrastinating on (presentation: done paper: not so much).
Plus the fact that some of the commenters here nearly make me crap myself on a fairly regular basis, has had me hanging around a lot lately.
It's an entertaining bunch.
And I'll do anything, anything at all, in preference to doing my job.
The thread apo just linked to is actually one of the earlier ones I popped up in. It feels like I've been commenting here so much longer than that.
If my job kept me at the office until nigh 11pm and likely later, I would, too!
Yes, but, w-lfs-n, did you notice that the Salahih (or whatever), protector of marriage, showed up on that 100 ct. thread you linked to? That seems like a fact your Eco-like mind could spin into something.
Eco-terrorist.
There's probably a full-scale joke to be made out of that, but I'm too tired.
I really hate RICO -- it just encourages people to file stupid, annoying, complicated lawsuits, none of which involve genuine racketeers.
Didn't she say that she only comes here when directed to by others? Or was that someone else? If it was her, though, who knows what can be made of it! I think I'll eat an olive or two now.
Man, when will people lay off big tobacco?
Okay, this is going to sound self-serving, and if I expound on it at length it will get dull, but a big part of the reason I'm hating this case is that legally, the tobacco cases are crap. If the same law got applied to tobacco companies that gets applied to everyone else, these cases wouldn't get past a motion to dismiss.
It's not so much the injustice that bothers me, I hate big tobacco as much as anyone (although it's not good for the legal system), it's just maddening trying to work on them because you just don't know what rules are going to be applied.
I believe she said that when she comes here on her own she usually likes the blog and what's been posted, but that when she's directed here by someone else it's always because someone here is being too snarky for her (or her referrer's) taste.
Speaking as a plaintiff's lawyer and a smoker, I think the tobacco companies should be sued until they're all in Chapter 11. If there ever was legal murder, it's the tobacco industry. They deserve bankruptcy court even more than the asbestos industry did.
Say, I am I the only one to wonder exactly how long it's taking Ogged's damn optician?
Not that we'd have it any other way!
Here's what I don't get: how come nobody ever goes after the tobacco farmers? They produce a product that kills people, it's an entrenched cartel based on arcane rules set up in the Depression era--why does noone try to sue them en masse, or at the very least try to make them feel guilty enough to give it up?
You can't sue farmers, man. Salt of the earth!
Why no lawsuits against tobacco farmers? I'm guessing a lack of deep pockets. Also, it's true, it's not sexy to sue farmers.
Yeah, I guess. It depends on whether you're looking to make lots of money or just drive them out of business.
And yes, family farmers are the salt of the earth, and they're getting killed these days by economic pressures. These people aren't food farmers--they're drug dealers.
"how long it's taking Ogged's damn optician?"
Sue tobacco farmers? And then we can sue fry cooks and Wal-Mart cashiers and rob homeless shelters.
Not much blood to be squeezed from that turnip.
Seriously, though, most tobacco farmers are food farmers. Tobacco gives them the margin to grow the food crops; without it, many would no longer be able to be farmers. I live smack in the middle of Tobacco Road. Trust me, those guys ain't gettin' rich on it.
The tobacco farmers are simply growing a plant that is legal to purchase and that people will buy from somewhere. Unless you're proposing to make possession of tobacco illegal (and best of luck with that campaign), on what grounds are you going to sue them? They're not marketing a product to consumers or making false claims.
Not much blood to be squeezed from that turnip.
Man, I hope Big Turnip gets its ass nailed to the courtroom wall. They've ruined so many lives, and up till now have not had to answer for it.
And Chopper, aside from the sympathy factor, which is very significant, who would you choose to sue if your goal was to drive the tobacco-industrial complex out of business: lots of little targets with not much money each, or a few big fat juicy targets? True, the big fat juicy targets have the money to pay for a lot of legal counsel, but given the large number of farmers you'd have to sue to have an impact, I seriously doubt that tack would be more efficient. Plus, it's not the farmers who have been lying about the health effects of the product (in contradiction to their own medical studies), manipulating nicotine levels to increase addictiveness, putting in harmful additives, etc.
Also, there's a huge difference between a drug dealer and, say, a Columbian or Afghani farmer. To put it another way, how would you feel about MADD targeting grain farmers for alcohol-related deaths?
Speaking as a plaintiff's lawyer and a smoker, I think the tobacco companies should be sued until they're all in Chapter 11. If there ever was legal murder, it's the tobacco industry. They deserve bankruptcy court even more than the asbestos industry did.
Morally, I'm right with you -- tax them into bankruptcy, legislate them out of business, it's all good. They killed my grandfather, and they've got a good shot at both my parents and my sister.
As a lawyer, though, these cases are bad law. They all come down to fraud, and for fraud, it isn't enough to show that people were lying (certainly the tobacco companies lied their asses off). You have to have justifiable reliance. Since 1964, it's been right there on the package that smoking would kill you. Back in the twenties, they called cigarettes 'coffin nails'. In the seventeenth century, King James I wrote a book about what tobacco would do to you. None of this affects the morals of the situation, but for everyone but a tobacco company, you can't recover for fraud just because someone lied to you, if you had all the information necessary to know you shouldn't believe them.
It makes working on the cases maddening, because you know the normal rules don't apply, but there aren't any other rules that you can be sure do apply.
I don't know if Matt's a gentleman (the proposal to meet up after talk of biting gives me my doubts), but he's sweet. Not sure if he'll appreciate that description, either.
thoughts on tobacco:
Smoking is harmful to oneself, but it is not the place of society to limit what harm one can do to oneself.
However, it is possible second hand smoke is harmful to others. I'm not up on this debate, as mentioned elsewhere. If this is true, then it is the place of society to regulate harm one does to others.
In another sense smoking is harmful to society on an economic level. It has been argued that smokers, as a group, cost business and government well above the average amount for healthcare. I haven't read enough to know for certain whether this is true, but, even if it is, I'm not certain where I stand on this. I don't tend to think it is a good argument for regulation. I mean, I don't want to set limits on the apostropher's bacon intake, either.
It true that cigarette companies lied, and it is true that people knew that the cigarette companies were lying. However, one should keep in mind that a substantial percentage of this country will use any excuse to justify desired beliefs (examples: evolution, global warming). And, it was perhaps not well known that the companies were upping nicotine content and harmful chemicals. Based on this, I would find it hard to believe that Big Tobacco did not in fact fool some people.
I don't, at present, have much of an opinion on what the legal consequences of that should be.
Certain of the statements above about what is/isn't the role of society came accross as if I was stating empirical facts, but I am aware that they are arguable. They are statements of belief.
Not sure if he'll appreciate that description, either.
Well, I notice it didn't actually get you to the Stone....
Today's valuable life lesson: Often "sweet" = passive-aggressive.
(No really: Aw shucks.)
Er, me. I'm not that passive-aggressive.
My obsession keeps me very busy. So many things to ponder and decode. Plus there's my whole, you know, actual life. So no, no Stone. But you are very sweet, in a passive-aggressive sort of way.
It's perhaps true that I overstated my case (and I was certainly callous enough with the "fuck'em comment). I'm a former/light/potential relapse next time I get three drinks in me/ smoker. I understand that it's the tobacco companies that make the money and the lies. I was just curious if there was any reason for anti-tobacco forces to pursue every avenue. You've all named a few.
not to pursue every avenue, Chop.
Also, I believe the gentleman always lets the lady have first bite.
Speaking as a plaintiff's lawyer and a smoker, I think the tobacco companies should be sued until they're all in Chapter 11. If there ever was legal murder, it's the tobacco industry. They deserve bankruptcy court even more than the asbestos industry did.
Morally, I'm right with you -- tax them into bankruptcy, legislate them out of business, it's all good. They killed my grandfather, and they've got a good shot at both my parents and my sister.
As a lawyer, though, these cases are bad law.
----------------------
Spoken like a corporate defense lawyer. Your concern for the legal system as such is touching. Shithead.
Yes, enforcing law which actually exists is a typical corporate defense lawyer move. Instead, enforce the law which the adverserial party wishes existed. Doing otherwise makes one a shithead.
Also, his name got one b shorter.
Shithead.
Spoken like like a fool who can't put together a cogent argument.
No, I was speaking cogently to my corporate defense lawyer opponent who is whining abot how difficult it is to defend to the tobacco industry in court, while pocketing $100,00 plus a year. Where did you two jackoffs go to law school?
The incursion of lawyers and uninformed law students to this place probably actually is bringing down the whole tone of the joint (an inevitable result of allowing lawyers entry anyplace). I recomend a complete ban on lawyers from this website.
P.S. Fuck you.
Michael, how's your weekend going?
$100,00 plus a year
According the European system of denoting numbers and decimals, that's not a lot of money.
In one comment, bb has:
1. Imagineds the existence of a second law student.
2. Proved that he should look up the word "cogent" because he is using it incorrectly.
3. Argued from his self-righteous position while at the same time bulldozing over LB's complaints about unfairness in legal standards. ("Injustice in the pursuit of justice is acceptable!" he would say if he had the intellect to put together a setence representing his own feelings.)
4. Accused others of being uninformed while he has brought no information whatsoever into the argument.
5. Made a general attack against an entire profession, a sign of an uncritical mind if there ever was one.
6. Somehow fallen under the impression that anyone cares what his recommendation is.
7. Resorted to cursing at people, presumably because he finds slinging insults to be the greatest mental effort of which he is capable.
8. And, just in general, assured that no one here will take him or his opinions seriously.
w/d: weekend is going ok. Went to a wedding yesterday. Hooray for free booze and cake. Should be paper writing...
Wow, flamage.
I'll cop to whining -- nothing like defending pariahs, who well deserve their pariah-hood, to elicit the odd whimper. And of course, given that none of us reading here are worried about getting access to potable water for ourselves or our loved ones, it's really unacceptable for any of us to be complaining about anything, particularly me.
... it's really unacceptable for any of us to be complaining about anything
...that's not true.
Well, it is sort of unseemly for a well-fed, employed, highly-educated American to be complaining about much of anything, considering the problems I'm not dealing with (roving bands of machete-wielding child soldiers, lack of potable water, epidemic disease...) "Unacceptable" isn't a word I should use on anyone else's behalf, though.
It's a psychological phenomenon, and a real one, but I don't have to approve of people who wallow in it unthinkingly. (I do, of course, to a certain extent, but there's no rule saying I have to approve of myself, either.)
No, one certainly doesn't have to approve of oneself. But--wait! exciting reinforcement of earlier point!--it may in fact be this issue that comes to the fore when one has solved certain other basic problems.
If one is privledged to have some needs met plus some amenaties, one gives up the right to complain of other injustices? I don't understand that at all.
Giving up the right isn't what I'm thinking of -- rights aren't a good way of analysing what I wanted to say. It's an esthetic judgment more than anything else -- we're (or, more pertinently, I am) so outrageously privileged that complaints are unseemly.
This doesn't mean I plan to actually stop complaining, of course, just that I recognize it as a bit of a grotesque spectacle.
Man, I wish I had some tonic water and limes, or tonic water and lots of lemons, or tonic water and lemonade, or some bitter lemon.
Is that directed at anyone in particular, bw?
Clearly an elliptical method of pointing out that he has real problems, like fighting off a simultaneous attack of malaria and scurvy.
LB, does your aesthetic judgment really rest on amount of privledge or simply lack of misfortune? Certainly one could be both extrodinarily privledged in a variety of ways and also a victim of great misfortune.
Really, I'm just crabbing. There are all sorts of situations where I would heartily sympathize with all sorts of terribly, terribly privileged people. I've just been feeling self-pitying the last few weeks, and am trying to smack myself into line a little.
Oh man.
You can complain all you want. How many hours a week are you putting in? Any chance of a vacation (out of the city, away from work) any time soon?
Oh, I don't bill more than 60-65 a week on average. I don't know how much clock-time I spend at work, though.
Vacations are tricky -- this case is on a super-expedited schedule, but it might calm down after the class certification decision comes out in the fall and gets appealed. I am planning to sneak out next weekend and go to Vegas where one of Mr. Breath's editors is getting married. I really shouldn't, but there's this pretense that our weekends are free, so I'm just going to do it unless I get a specific task that there's simply no way I can accomplish without working the weekend.
Man. Yeah, you can complain all you want. I'll keep my fingers crossed for you on the Vegas thing.
fairly confused, ac; the link is messed up, and I don't know when you were referring to it, and I'm not sure who 'b' is. Hm. I know who 'I' refers to.
It's a mispost from the other active thread, I believe -- look over there and it should make more sense.
I don't know that I know who 'I' refers to half the time, so you may be ahead of me there. Otherwise, LB is correct.
