LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers > General Discussion > The Fashionable

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 46
0 members and 46 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 4,499, 10-26-2015 at 07:55 AM.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-08-2015, 05:41 PM   #1006
Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Moderator
 
Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Pop goes the chupacabra
Posts: 18,517
Re: Ketchup

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder View Post
Most normal men might want to spend some time pondering how frequently wives cheat.

Also, there's a lot of room between mistake and/or rare extenuating circumstances and "going around fucking men."
Based on the Ashley Madison data, apparently there are 35m cheating men and zero cheating women in the US.
__________________
[Dictated but not read]
Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2015, 05:42 PM   #1007
ThurgreedMarshall
[intentionally omitted]
 
ThurgreedMarshall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 26,032
Re: Ketchup

Quote:
Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan View Post
I tend to side with Adder on the usefulness of jealousy in general. My husband is surrounded by/works with gorgeous women in yoga clothes during the day and gorgeous women who take off their clothes at night. And women, for whatever reason, tend to hit on the DJ all the fucking time. But I trust him, and bless him, he says I'm beautiful. So I send him off to all these other women not particularly worried that anything is going to happen.
I'm not sure there is a side to be on when it comes to the usefulness of jealousy. It simply is. I'm not saying it's valuable.

If you never feel jealous of the beautiful naked women who apparently can't wait to hit on your husband because yours is a relationship of perfect trust, great! If he's confiding in them and spending private time with them and telling them intimate personal things about himself or you or your relationship, but he's not touching them and your levels of trust mean that this didn't bother you at all, then I guess you have the perfect relationship. I tend to believe that this state of being doesn't exist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan View Post
That said, betraying trust is a big fucking deal in my book. If things aren't working out in one aspect of our relationship and someone needs to fuck around, that person damned well better talk about it with the other one first. We have a lot of friends in various stages of open relationships, and we've seen first hand the headaches they can cause. One of the very first conversations we ever had about our relationship status was "can you do open relationship" and both of us were firmly on the "no" side. I don't see that changing, but maybe we'd be ok with it if there were some other issue going on. But we wouldn't be ok with going behind each other's back. At. All. Doesn't matter how discreet or courteous or otherwise conscious of how we're not trying to hurt the other person. Without talking about it, without full buy in from the other partner, it's not ok.
Agreed.

TM
ThurgreedMarshall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2015, 05:53 PM   #1008
Replaced_Texan
Random Syndicate (admin)
 
Replaced_Texan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Romantically enfranchised
Posts: 13,804
Re: Ketchup

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall View Post
I'm not sure there is a side to be on when it comes to the usefulness of jealousy. It simply is. I'm not saying it's valuable.

If you never feel jealous of the beautiful naked women who apparently can't wait to hit on your husband because yours is a relationship of perfect trust, great! If he's confiding in them and spending private time with them and telling them intimate personal things about himself or you or your relationship, but he's not touching them and your levels of trust mean that this didn't bother you at all, then I guess you have the perfect relationship. I tend to believe that this state of being doesn't exist.

TM
Most of his friends are women, so I'm sure he shares some things that he doesn't share with me. I don't think that we have a perfect relationship, nor do I believe that such a thing exists. But, while I might be envious of certain aspects (read: physiques) of some of the women at the studio or club, I don't think I'm particularly jealous.
__________________
"In the olden days before the internet, you'd take this sort of person for a ride out into the woods and shoot them, as Darwin intended, before he could spawn."--Will the Vampire People Leave the Lobby? pg 79
Replaced_Texan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2015, 06:09 PM   #1009
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 30,152
Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall View Post
I hope you talk like this in real life so everyone can instantly experience what a douche you sound like.
Wait a second, I'm going to write this down. The guy who repeatedly makes crass and uncalled-for oral-sex metaphors is telling me I sound like a douche. Got it. Go on.

Quote:
The arbitration could have been fair if Goodell hadn't appointed himself hearing officer in "any appeal." Are you saying that if he had given Brady notice that he could be suspended for cheating, granted Brady access to the investigator and the notes, that he could have then appointed himself hearing officer and shut it down after patiently listening to all of Brady's evidence?
Yes. The court notes that issue on pages 11-12 of the decision, and quotes Goodell addressing the point on page 16. I don't see anything in the legal discussion that says that Goodell couldn't serve as the arbitrator. And Berman suggests otherwise when he points out that "[A] 'principal question for the reviewing court is whether the arbitrator's award draws its essence from the collective bargaining agreement....'" (page 19). As we all know, the NFLPA expressly agreed to this.

Quote:
I honestly think you're looking so hard to find something that reads well for Brady that you think this means something.
I have never doubted your honesty.

Quote:
Goodell was definitely making it up as he went along. But to stand before a judge and say, "I had NO idea that cheating of this type would be punished," is nonsense. You can argue that the number of games is without precedent (and Kraft (and I'm sure Brady) was ready to accept a shorter suspension) and Berman wouldn't have been wrong to reduce the suspension. But to say that you weren't on notice that you would be punished for participating in a cheating scheme, but the coaches and GM were, is just plain absurd.
Three things:

1. When you read the discussion of notice, you get the sense that what's really being addressed is whether the amount of punishment is proportionate with other decisions made by the NFL. Or at least I do.


2. As to the facts of what Brady did, you've said I'm looking hard for something positive for Brady, but I think it's pretty clear from a close reading of the text:
Berman quotes the NFL as saying that Goodell suspended Brady "for having approved, consented to, and provided inducements in support of a scheme to tamper with game balls." Page 26. Having noted the league's argument, Berman rejects it by instead discussing what's in the Wells Report. Berman then says that the Award "rel[ies] upon the Wells Report finding that Brady was 'generally aware' of the alleged ball tampering misconduct of the Patriots equipment staff." Further down on page 26. Thus, Berman addresses whether Brady had notice that "'general awareness' of others' misconduct -- which is the principal finding in both the Wells Report and the Vincent Letter" -- as prohibited. Top of page 27. I think it's clear from this that Berman has little regard for the supposed facts that Brady did something wrong, for the following reasons: (1) Without any evident factual basis, the NFL recharacterized what Brady supposedly did over time, and Berman pointedly deals with what's in the Wells Report, not what Goodell later said. If Berman weren't skeptical of the NFL's version of the facts, he would credit what Goodell said in the Award, not what's in the Wells Report. (2) The Court expressed skepticism of the concept of general awareness, first at the hearing and then in footnote 16, page 25, and by putting it in scarequotes.

3. Anyhoo, as to your point that Brady should have been on notice that he would get in trouble for 'cheating of this type," of course Berman points out that the Player Policies said that league discipline would be imposed for equipment violations, and that "first offenses will result in fines." See top of page 28. Brady didn't see he didn't think he could be punished, he said the punishment was not per league policy.
__________________
“Faced with the choice between changing one’s mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof”
- John Kenneth Galbraith
Tyrone Slothrop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2015, 06:12 PM   #1010
ThurgreedMarshall
[intentionally omitted]
 
ThurgreedMarshall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 26,032
Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) View Post
That wasn't his argument. His argument was that he had been notified that the fine for such cheating was $5512 or something.
Fair enough. But the violation of the Competitive Integrity Policy should have resulted in a punishment to the team of a paid suspension of Brady (no harm to Brady since he's being compensated), because the Chief Executives, Club Presidents, GMs, and Head Coaches were on notice and the team should have been punished. Brady should have then been fined the highest sum possible under Player Policies. Poorly thought-out by the Goodell and his staff.

But Berman's rejection of the conduct detrimental policy argument the League actually used is troublesome. In each of Berman's examples (which were fed to him by Kessler*) where it was used, he points to other policies which must be used to supporting any punishment under the conduct detrimental clause, which essentially renders the clause meaningless. Maybe that's his point--that he is essentially striking the whole clause from the CBA because exercising it without support elsewhere in the CBA or Player Polices necessarily means there is no notice to the player. But I think this is a stretch. The whole point of having such a clause is to catch shit that isn't expressly spelled out and which may not have precedent in order to protect the league.

TM

*Who is brilliant, by the way.
ThurgreedMarshall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2015, 06:15 PM   #1011
Sidd Finch
I am beyond a rank!
 
Sidd Finch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 11,873
Re: Ketchup

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder View Post
When you have whiskey dick so frequently that you can't perform your husbandly duties, I think your wife would be perfectly justified is getting hers elsewhere as long as she's not hurting you, for example.

*Intentionally shitty example, for obvious reasons.
If your wife refuses to blow you or do anal, are you perfectly justified in getting elsewhere? Do you have to tell her about it?


FYI, Flinty asked me to post this.
__________________
Where are my elephants?!?!
Sidd Finch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2015, 06:15 PM   #1012
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 30,152
Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski View Post
Translation: I don't understand football defense. hint- it is about having a more accurate tendency. Like on 3rd and 10 you expect a pass, but you still are aware it might be a run.

Now with the film you can expect an out route has been called. That doesn't mean you don't also be mindful of a run.
Jesus fucking Christ on a shingle. If it's 3rd and 10 and you think they're going to call a pass and you change your defense accordingly, it hurts you when they run and you have the wrong defense in.

As Deadspin says, Belichick had this guy watching the game and telling him what the signs were, and sometimes he was right and sometimes he was wrong. Belichick isn't dumb, and he wouldn't have arranged to have the guy talking in his ear if it weren't helping some, but it also isn't hardly true that they know every play that was coming, as Coltrane said.
__________________
“Faced with the choice between changing one’s mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof”
- John Kenneth Galbraith
Tyrone Slothrop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2015, 06:20 PM   #1013
Sidd Finch
I am beyond a rank!
 
Sidd Finch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 11,873
Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group

Just catching up. Busy day here. I'm trying to link the two discussions with a joke about Brady's deflated balls entitling Giselle to fuck someone else, as long as it's not Goodell, and maybe to be discreet she should douche with Ty, and....

As you can see, it bogs down in the details.
__________________
Where are my elephants?!?!
Sidd Finch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2015, 06:21 PM   #1014
ThurgreedMarshall
[intentionally omitted]
 
ThurgreedMarshall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: NYC
Posts: 26,032
Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop View Post
Wait a second, I'm going to write this down. The guy who repeatedly makes crass and uncalled-for oral-sex metaphors is telling me I sound like a douche. Got it. Go on.
Yep. The difference is I'm not sucking my own dick in my arguments like you. Write that down too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop View Post
Yes. The court notes that issue on pages 11-12 of the decision, and quotes Goodell addressing the point on page 16. I don't see anything in the legal discussion that says that Goodell couldn't serve as the arbitrator. And Berman suggests otherwise when he points out that "[A] 'principal question for the reviewing court is whether the arbitrator's award draws its essence from the collective bargaining agreement....'" (page 19). As we all know, the NFLPA expressly agreed to this.
Maybe. I tend to think that Berman was just looking for reasons to overturn the decision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop View Post
I have never doubted your honesty.
Why, thank you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop View Post
Three things:

1. When you read the discussion of notice, you get the sense that what's really being addressed is whether the amount of punishment is proportionate with other decisions made by the NFL. Or at least I do.


2. As to the facts of what Brady did, you've said I'm looking hard for something positive for Brady, but I think it's pretty clear from a close reading of the text:
Berman quotes the NFL as saying that Goodell suspended Brady "for having approved, consented to, and provided inducements in support of a scheme to tamper with game balls." Page 26. Having noted the league's argument, Berman rejects it by instead discussing what's in the Wells Report. Berman then says that the Award "rel[ies] upon the Wells Report finding that Brady was 'generally aware' of the alleged ball tampering misconduct of the Patriots equipment staff." Further down on page 26. Thus, Berman addresses whether Brady had notice that "'general awareness' of others' misconduct -- which is the principal finding in both the Wells Report and the Vincent Letter" -- as prohibited. Top of page 27. I think it's clear from this that Berman has little regard for the supposed facts that Brady did something wrong, for the following reasons: (1) Without any evident factual basis, the NFL recharacterized what Brady supposedly did over time, and Berman pointedly deals with what's in the Wells Report, not what Goodell later said. If Berman weren't skeptical of the NFL's version of the facts, he would credit what Goodell said in the Award, not what's in the Wells Report. (2) The Court expressed skepticism of the concept of general awareness, first at the hearing and then in footnote 16, page 25, and by putting it in scarequotes.

3. Anyhoo, as to your point that Brady should have been on notice that he would get in trouble for 'cheating of this type," of course Berman points out that the Player Policies said that league discipline would be imposed for equipment violations, and that "first offenses will result in fines." See top of page 28. Brady didn't see he didn't think he could be punished, he said the punishment was not per league policy.
No comment on 1. Your argument under 2 is unconvincing and, in fact, really just reinforces the fact that you're looking for what you want to find. As for 3, your conclusion doesn't address the League's argument, it just restates what Berman seized on, which is exactly what Kessler wanted him to. See my post in response to Burger.

TM
ThurgreedMarshall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2015, 06:31 PM   #1015
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 30,152
Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall View Post
Maybe. I tend to think that Berman was just looking for reasons to overturn the decision.
Say what? I thought you were essentially suggesting that Berman ruled against the league on the law, and didn't have a view on the underlying facts, which is why there was no vindication for Brady. But now you're telling me that the legal reasoning was pretextual, and that he was looking for a reason to rule against the league. But presumably not because he thinks Brady didn't do it. So then why?

Quote:
Your argument under 2 is unconvincing and, in fact, really just reinforces the fact that you're looking for what you want to find.
In my world, a federal judge uses scarequotes to indicate sarcastically that he thinks something is stupid. (Not just federal judges -- other people do it too.) There's no reason for a close reading in your world, because Berman doesn't really believe what he's saying -- he's just results-oriented -- and anything I see in what he says is really just a sublimated indication of my own desire for 'Brady fellatio'.

You world is depressing and I'm glad I don't live there.

Quote:
As for 3, your conclusion doesn't address the League's argument, it just restates what Berman seized on, which is exactly what Kessler wanted him to. See my post in response to Burger.
Berman did address the league's argument, and he rejected for reasons that I would bother to relate if I thought that both of us would attach some significance to what he said.
__________________
“Faced with the choice between changing one’s mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof”
- John Kenneth Galbraith

Last edited by Tyrone Slothrop; 09-08-2015 at 07:27 PM..
Tyrone Slothrop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2015, 07:34 PM   #1016
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 84,000
Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop View Post
Jesus fucking Christ on a shingle. If it's 3rd and 10 and you think they're going to call a pass and you change your defense accordingly, it hurts you when they run and you have the wrong defense in.

As Deadspin says, Belichick had this guy watching the game and telling him what the signs were, and sometimes he was right and sometimes he was wrong. Belichick isn't dumb, and he wouldn't have arranged to have the guy talking in his ear if it weren't helping some, but it also isn't hardly true that they know every play that was coming, as Coltrane said.
If your linebackers know there is a 50% chance there is a run coming off tackle, they are looking for that. It doesn't mean no one is ready should it actually be a pass. But if that 50% guess is accurate, that play is busted; huge advantage.

At this point you are waaaayyyyyyy outside your comfort zone, think HSA level of ignorance. Move on.
__________________
alumnus of beating thurgreed in arguments
Hank Chinaski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2015, 07:48 PM   #1017
Tyrone Slothrop
Moderasaurus Rex
 
Tyrone Slothrop's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 30,152
Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski View Post
If your linebackers know there is a 50% chance there is a run coming off tackle, they are looking for that. It doesn't mean no one is ready should it actually be a pass. But if that 50% guess is accurate, that play is busted; huge advantage.

At this point you are waaaayyyyyyy outside your comfort zone, think HSA level of ignorance. Move on.
Keep talking -- you're making TM's posts look more reasonable.
__________________
“Faced with the choice between changing one’s mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof”
- John Kenneth Galbraith
Tyrone Slothrop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2015, 08:14 PM   #1018
Icky Thump
Registered User
 
Icky Thump's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,632
Re: Ketchup

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski View Post
What does this mean?
hotwifephotos.tumblr.com
__________________
You can breathe, you can blink, you can cry. Hell, you're all gonna be doing that!
Icky Thump is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2015, 09:20 PM   #1019
Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Moderator
 
Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Pop goes the chupacabra
Posts: 18,517
Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall View Post
Yep. The difference is I'm not sucking my own dick in my arguments like you. Write that down too.
A propos of nothing, do you or Donald Trump have the patent on the response technique of barely addressing the question but following it with an ad hominem attack?
__________________
[Dictated but not read]
Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2015, 09:25 PM   #1020
Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Moderator
 
Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Pop goes the chupacabra
Posts: 18,517
Re: No Faith in the Moral Standards of the Players as a Group

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall View Post
Fair enough. But the violation of the Competitive Integrity Policy should have resulted in a punishment to the team of a paid suspension of Brady (no harm to Brady since he's being compensated), because the Chief Executives, Club Presidents, GMs, and Head Coaches were on notice and the team should have been punished. Brady should have then been fined the highest sum possible under Player Policies. Poorly thought-out by the Goodell and his staff.
Or maybe a league lawyer convinced them that trying such a brazen end run around the CBA (oh, we can't punish you like we agreed, so we'll punish you for conduct detrimental) would get bounced out of course even faster than this case.

The problem here is not that the NFL didn't come up with punishment for this - they did, and it's $5512/incident for players. It's that they felt that the predetermined punishment they viewed as insufficient so came up with other grounds for imposing more punishment. It's like some guy getting arrested for doing 75 in a 55 but the judge decides because it was a Ferrari, and it's a hedge fund douche so he should be sent to jail for 30 days instead of fined $250 as provided in the law.
__________________
[Dictated but not read]
Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:09 AM.