A Friendly Correction for those Man-Haters who Delve to be Single

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

You jest, but the NBA's blatant rejection of hundreds of years of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence as reflected by the Mailbox Rule is quite troubling to some of us, sir.

As a tax guy, I've never had a problem with it. As a draftsperson, I would think that if one party wants to be sure it receives whatever by a date certain, the provision is written one way, and if an action just needs to be taken by a date certain, the mailbox rule is as reliable as anything else.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

As a tax guy, I've never had a problem with it. As a draftsperson, I would think that if one party wants to be sure it receives whatever by a date certain, the provision is written one way, and if an action just needs to be taken by a date certain, the mailbox rule is as reliable as anything else.

Several of my friends failed the patent bar relying on the mailbox rule- essentially the question was about a magazine article that made public something em had a patent on. The magazine was mail subscription only and the issue was mailed 1 year and 1 day before em filed his application. Em could prove that no one actually received the issue until 2 days later. Was that a barring public knowledge 1 year before em's patent filing date? No. It wasn't public until the public read it, mailbox aside.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Several of my friends failed the patent bar relying on the mailbox rule- essentially the question was about a magazine article that made public something em had a patent on. The magazine was mail subscription only and the issue was mailed 1 year and 1 day before em filed his application. Em could prove that no one actually received the issue until 2 days later. Was that a barring public knowledge 1 year before em's patent filing date? No. It wasn't public until the public read it, mailbox aside.

I will concede it isn't a good fit for every situation. But then, my point was that it's possible to make it clear when the rule does and doesn't apply. I just don't find it the abomination that Not Bob seemed to declare it. At this point, I've already spent more time on the mailbox rule than I planned to spend on it this year.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by taxwonk

I will concede it isn't a good fit for every situation. But then, my point was that it's possible to make it clear when the rule does and doesn't apply. I just don't find it the abomination that Not Bob seemed to declare it. At this point, I've already spent more time on the mailbox rule than I planned to spend on it this year.

I posted that tongue in cheek- A lizardy old white guy gets fucked by a beautiful woman he apparently is banging, or was. It turns out, even though his mistress is mixed race, and he bought a NBA team, he doesn't like being around black people. And then flower focuses on some mail stamp rule, and, I'm going to go out on a limb, he did that as a goof, but half the socks here start focusing on the mail box rule instead of the ten other really fun topics that should flow from the main issue.

[Hank Chinaski]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5242446.html Donald Poppadick arrested for indecent exposure.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

Following the lead of the Bunny Ranch (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/0...n_5235320.html), I am formally banning Don Sterling from my house.

For life.

That article was awesome.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

That article was awesome.

This was my favorite part:

"Hof says his sense of confidentiality prohibits him from confirming or denying if Sterling has ever visited his brothels.

"I can tell you this: Johnny Buss, one of the owners of the Los Angeles Lakers, and I have had a dual birthday party at the Bunny Ranch for the last 18 years, so a lot of NBA people have been here," he said."

Remind me not to trust Mr. Hof's "sense of confidentiality".

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

http://hasthewhaleexplodedyet.com/

yes

Best not to watch while eating.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

a beautiful woman

Wrong.

TM

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Wrong.

TM

Hank also thinks Snookie is hot.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=2532

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=2533

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=2534

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=2535

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Hank also thinks Snookie is hot.

I find this impossible to believe.

TM

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I find this impossible to believe.

TM

it's all relative- Snookie next to me is sickening, next to adder, hot.

from a Sterling deposition, re a prior "love interest."



Sterling: “When I’m in a limousine, she takes all of her clothes (off). The limo driver said, ‘What is going on?’ And she started sucking me on the way to Mr. Koon’s house. And I thank her. I thank her for making me feel good.”

Lawyer: “Sir, the question was, is this your handwriting?”

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Wrong.

TM

Wrong for the standards of this board (I wouldn't fuck sarah jessica parker!), or wrong objectively?

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Wrong for the standards of this board (I wouldn't fuck sarah jessica parker!), or wrong objectively?

SJP now or SJP from Honeymoon in Vegas?