He went slightly more in depth on this topic on the conspiracy. Since you seem to be keeping up with some of it, how is the huffington post going?
off topic, I hope, but anyone have any knowledge about how to throw a bachelor party? For a good catholic. I'm shooting for something like the antithesis of Ogged's attended bachelor party. That is, fun, and not emotionally scaring. Right now the ideas have consisted of bar followed by parlor games. Not especially creative. But, I don't even live in the state where this is going to be thrown. Frustrating. I just don't want it to suck.
how is the huffington post going
You know, I kind of like it. It feels anarchic, with the individual posts and intra-blog banter being clearly unedited and unscripted.
That's why you shouldn't do anything without a good pre-coup. Complete with diagrams showing all acceptable angles. Sure, I've had to walk away when she balked, but peace of mind is priceless.
success hinges on the type of parlor game.
The best one I went to was in Columbus Ohio. A dozen or so of us went to a place that had a basketball court set up for bumper cars. We played some six on six (or four on four?) zooming around in our bumper cars throwing a basketball at the 6 foot hoop and laughing like maniacs.
As I recall, no alcohol was involved, although there might have been a token six-pack.
The Mass Court got it wrong. It predicated its decision on the fact that there are no "reasonable" way to have consensual sexual relationship because such activity is varied and diverse. But, the question is: so what? The law does not, and has never stated what a "reasonable person" may or may not do. That is why we have a jury system comprised of 12 members of the community in order to decide what "reasonable" may be under the circumstances presented to them. In this system "reasonable" is a composite of what those 12 chosen members of the society would find to be "reasonable" and can agree upon.
The case should have been allowed to be heard by the jury--summary judgment assumes that none of the 12 chosen members of the society would or could have ever come to a conclusion that the defendant was unreasonable when she shifted her position without notice causing a penile fracture. An assumption that should not have been made.
Well, without knowing every last detail, we don't know for sure if the court got it wrong, but the more important issue is whether we want the courts to decide things like this. Wouldn't just about everyone say no?
The detail is spelled out rather completely in the Court's opinion. I don't like the Court making such decisions--the problem is that they just did buy denying the claim to be heard by a jury and allowing the people to make the final decision and not the Court.