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

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Both.

Fair enough.

It actually bothers me when I find out that people whose work I sometimes appreciate turn out to be huge, raging, sexist/racist/homophobic/egotistical/whatever assholes. I generally care very little about celebrities (even when they're around, I usually take a look to see who it is, but rarely approach them--unless they're kind of a sub-celebrity who probably doesn't get much attention and I think taking a photo with them is kind of funny*). But people who say stupid shit generally tend to piss me off. I'd say I'd work on it, but we both know I'd be lying.

TM

The only "celebrity" I've actually approached was at a bar the night of the bar exam. And it was Frenchy from Goodfellas. Although I kept calling him the Gas Man (from Dumb & Dumber).

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

As Thomas Pynchon is my witness, it ought to be possible to be a successful artist and live your life out of the public eye.

It also ought to be possible to cure ebola with unicorn blood.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Whatever. I don't even own a curling iron.

What, precisely, was being curled?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

This is totally fucked up.

eta: Since you and GGG have already talked past each other on this, I'll just add that what I'm reacting to (and probably him too) is your suggestion ("she has built a world") where what other people do is her fault. In other words, blaming the victim. Your further responses to GGG suggest that's not what you meant, but my telepathy isn't working today and it is what you said.

Joining me under the bridge, aye?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

As Thomas Pynchon is my witness, it ought to be possible to be a successful artist and live your life out of the public eye.

It's much easier if your art does not involve being in front of a camera.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

It also ought to be possible to cure ebola with unicorn blood.

I'm pretty sure it is.

TM

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

This is totally fucked up.

eta: Since you and GGG have already talked past each other on this, I'll just add that what I'm reacting to (and probably him too) is your suggestion ("she has built a world") where what other people do is her fault. In other words, blaming the victim. Your further responses to GGG suggest that's not what you meant, but my telepathy isn't working today and it is what you said.

go to your google, take off safesearch, and image search Kate Upton. She is famous for exposing 80-95% of the surface area of her breasts, but never 100%. That was an image she controlled.

Does her image mean her private photos deserved to be hacked? No. We all agree there.

Does her image mean we were justified in looking (and since Thurgreed called out all of the self-righteous bullshit, the "we" seems to be getting a bit more populous) at the hacked pictures? No. We probably all agree there too.


Does it mean she shouldn't be surprised that lots of people did look anyway? Maybe we differ on this one. I find it hard to believe she was shocked. (I haven't heard her saying she was FWIW).

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

What, precisely, was being curled?

The public's perception of Bar Refaeli.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

go to your google, take off safesearch, and image search Kate Upton. She is famous for exposing 80-95% of the surface area of her breasts, but never 100%. That was an image she controlled.

Does her image mean her private photos deserved to be hacked? No. We all agree there.

Does her image mean we were justified in looking (and since Thurgreed called out all of the self-righteous bullshit, the "we" seems to be getting a bit more populous) at the hacked pictures? No. We probably all agree there too.


Does it mean she shouldn't be surprised that lots of people did look anyway? Maybe we differ on this one. I find it hard to believe she was shocked. (I haven't heard her saying she was FWIW).

It sounds like she's been building up for the big sale for a while and has now been robbed of it. I think everyone who looked needs to chip in a few bucks on a quantum meruit theory.

[Hank Chinaski]

lit tricks needed. so after waiting months for documents from a company that should have produced about 200000 pages we got 150. 30 b 6 Dep scheduled in a week. People are advising me to cancel the dep and move to compel. we already won a motion, judges don't slam these guys. I am toying with going into the dep with several docs they didn't produce, and asking about them. I can get 90% of what i need, just won't have the golden eggs I know exist. I will also be taking public ads they produced and asking whether there were no underlying memos/email about the creation. taking things they did produce, say a sketchy meeting notice and asking why we got no summary notes from the meeting. In short proving the production was incomplete, then moving to compel and to fly the witness to beautiful Detroit to complete the dep.

anyone have tricks or see landmines?

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

It sounds like she's been building up for the big sale for a while and has now been robbed of it. I think everyone who looked needs to chip in a few bucks on a quantum meruit theory.

I didn't look, and don't actually know where to look, so I'm not chipping in. But I am ashamed. And I am an asshole. But I still don't own a curling iron.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

go to your google, take off safesearch, and image search Kate Upton. She is famous for exposing 80-95% of the surface area of her breasts, but never 100%. That was an image she controlled.

Does her image mean her private photos deserved to be hacked? No. We all agree there.

Does her image mean we were justified in looking (and since Thurgreed called out all of the self-righteous bullshit, the "we" seems to be getting a bit more populous) at the hacked pictures? No. We probably all agree there too.

Does it mean she shouldn't be surprised that lots of people did look anyway? Maybe we differ on this one. I find it hard to believe she was shocked. (I haven't heard her saying she was FWIW).

I agree. She created a huge market for guys who want to look at her almost naked or fully naked by cultivating her sex symbol status.

And you are correct that that doesn't mean you are blaming the victim by pointing that out, especially since we all agree that hacking her computer (and even seeking out and looking at the hacked photos) is wrong. The market is there. She is more likely to be a target because of it because those photos will command a premium.

For Jennifer Lawrence, it's a different analysis, since she doesn't make her money with her boobs. The market is there for her simply because she is very successful and guys find her very attractive. Is it more wrong to look at photos of her? No. Does it feel more wrong? I can admit that it does and that's surely because I am part of our collective problem when it comes to how we view women and what we (maybe) unintentionally believe we have a "right" to see.

I think about this a lot because I am a huge fan of the female form. I also believe men are more visual than women and are more prone to enjoy looking at what they like. Does that justify the objectification of women? No. But it's very difficult for me to square both sides. Also, I like boobs.

TM

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

lit tricks needed. so after waiting months for documents from a company that should have produced about 200000 pages we got 150. 30 b 6 Dep scheduled in a week. People are advising me to cancel the dep and move to compel. we already won a motion, judges don't slam these guys. I am toying with going into the dep with several docs they didn't produce, and asking about them. I can get 90% of what i need, just won't have the golden eggs I know exist. I will also be taking public ads they produced and asking whether there were no underlying memos/email about the creation. taking things they did produce, say a sketchy meeting notice and asking why we got no summary notes from the meeting. In short proving the production was incomplete, then moving to compel and to fly the witness to beautiful Detroit to complete the dep.

anyone have tricks or see landmines?

I do a really good job of keeping my client out of federal court, so I don’t know: isn’t it still the case that you can say you’re holding the depo open for failure to produce the records? Or does that only work with records requested by the depo notice? Even still, it’s win-win if you take the depo with 150 docs, move to compel and win, THEN move to reopen the depo. When I defended depos my heart would sink when my witness admitted the possibility/reality that there were more documents out there (“Oh, there’s the filing cabinet in my garage.” “Yes, tell me more about that.” Me: “Taking a break here.”) Plus, the other guy’s client will hate you so much in depo he might recommend settlement rather than go through it again with 200K docs.

[taxwonk]

Originally Posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?

I don't think this would have any effect at all. The remaining paps would shrug their shoulders and continued on as if nothing had happened.

That's why it will take a few months to wrap the problem up. You can't assume we will run them all down in the first day or two.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

And right on time.

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=2836

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=2837

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=2838

http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/sho...postcount=2839

TM