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

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

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

She has destroyed her face. So, "wrong" in every sense of the word.



I think she's hideous.



If you think this is how she looks, think back to the two photos above:



TM

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

She has destroyed her face. So, "wrong" in every sense of the word.



I think she's hideous.



If you think this is how she looks, think back to the two photos above:



TM

So, you're saying that black men shouldn't let themselves be seen in photos with her?

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

So, you're saying that black men shouldn't let themselves be seen in photos with her?

T.O. is desperately trying to hide his shame.*

TM

*Ha. I can't do it! T.O. has no fucking shame. And he's probably the black guy Sterling got the most shit about fucking her.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

yes

Best not to watch while eating.

Today's paper had a story out of Florida about State Farm winning a coverage dispute against a woman who contended the corpse of her neighbor had "exploded" its contents into her downstairs condo within the meaning of her fire insurance policy's coverage of "explosions."

It was the first time insurance coverage litigation sounded even remotely interesting.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

T.O. is desperately trying to hide his shame.*

TM

*Ha. I can't do it! T.O. has no fucking shame. And he's probably the black guy Sterling got the most shit about fucking her.

Foul . Outable.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Atticus Grinch

Today's paper had a story out of Florida about State Farm winning a coverage dispute against a woman who contended the corpse of her neighbor had "exploded" its contents into her downstairs condo within the meaning of her fire insurance policy's coverage of "explosions."

It was the first time insurance coverage litigation sounded even remotely interesting.

I am likely being too earnest, but some types of insurance coverage practices are the closest thing to working for an appellate court vis-à-vis the incredible variety of cases. Anything can be insured, and thus potentially damaged or lost. So, for example, first-party property claims can run the gamut from business income loss to every shop in a mall arising out of a fire (the Santana row fire) to determining the value of 190,000 breast cancer tumor samples dating back to the 1970s destroyed during Tropical Storm Allison which hovered over Houston for 14 hours. Both cases I worked on. Compare and contrast to listening NIMBYs every week.

[Icky Thump]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

I am likely being too earnest, but some types of insurance coverage practices are the closest thing to working for an appellate court vis-à-vis the incredible variety of cases. Anything can be insured, and thus potentially damaged or lost. So, for example, first-party property claims can run the gamut from business income loss to every shop in a mall arising out of a fire (the Santana row fire) to determining the value of 190,000 breast cancer tumor samples dating back to the 1970s destroyed during Tropical Storm Allison which hovered over Houston for 14 hours. Both cases I worked on. Compare and contrast to listening NIMBYs every week.

As opposed to handling the same case over and over . . . despite being paid like an NFL QB.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

I am likely being too earnest, but some types of insurance coverage practices are the closest thing to working for an appellate court vis-à-vis the incredible variety of cases. Anything can be insured, and thus potentially damaged or lost. So, for example, first-party property claims can run the gamut from business income loss to every shop in a mall arising out of a fire (the Santana row fire) to determining the value of 190,000 breast cancer tumor samples dating back to the 1970s destroyed during Tropical Storm Allison which hovered over Houston for 14 hours. Both cases I worked on. Compare and contrast to listening NIMBYs every week.

I had cause to reference that issue earlier this week when someone came to me wondering what sort of consents we need to sell stool samples. My practice, too, has interesting crap to deal with.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

I am likely being too earnest, but some types of insurance coverage practices are the closest thing to working for an appellate court vis-à-vis the incredible variety of cases. Anything can be insured, and thus potentially damaged or lost. So, for example, first-party property claims can run the gamut from business income loss to every shop in a mall arising out of a fire (the Santana row fire) to determining the value of 190,000 breast cancer tumor samples dating back to the 1970s destroyed during Tropical Storm Allison which hovered over Houston for 14 hours. Both cases I worked on. Compare and contrast to listening NIMBYs every week.

Agreed. First party property claims are about 60% of my work. Some are indeed boring, but having done many different types of litigation, I find most of the insurance cases pretty interesting - none of them are cookie cutter. The big brokers (and sometimes policyholders) often hire BIGLAW and I'm always amused at how terrible most of the BIGLAW lawyers are at taking depositions.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

Foul . Outable.

I don't get it.

TM

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

I don't get it.

TM

bad joke, you used the initials of someone from here. of course nothing is outable as we are pretty much all "friends" elsewhere.

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

you used the initials of someone from here.

And appropriately so.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Icky Thump

As opposed to handling the same case over and over . . . despite being paid like an NFL QB.

Or an Arena Football League kicker.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

I had cause to reference that issue earlier this week when someone came to me wondering what sort of consents we need to sell stool samples. My practice, too, has interesting crap to deal with.

If you think that's interesting, wait until they've been in the biz a few years and then call up one of the tax guys and ask them a question about the lifo layers on the stool inventory. You're talking a real hootenanny

[ThurgreedMarshall]

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=2536

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=2537

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=2538

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=2539

TM