LawTalkers
Page 275 of 335 « First 175225265273274 275 276277285325 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   The Fashionable (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=14)
-   -   Toronto Trim's Hotel Cum Drop-in Centre (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=682)

robustpuppy 06-30-2005 01:23 PM
Random observation
 
Quote:
Originally posted by ABBAKiss
Why did you post this.
Because Avocado is not a vegetable, Spanks.

Mister_Ruysbroeck 06-30-2005 01:24 PM
Random observation
 
Quote:
Originally posted by ABBAKiss
Why did you post this.
What did the poor question mark do to you to deserve such shoddy treatment?

sebastian_dangerfield 06-30-2005 01:25 PM
Random observation
 
Quote:
Originally posted by robustpuppy
Avocado on a sandwich, not so great.
Dissent. Excellent with swiss, dijon and roasted turkey. Counters the spiciness of the dijon perfectly.

str8outavannuys 06-30-2005 01:27 PM
Well, no duh
 
Quote:
Originally posted by robustpuppy
ABC has pulled "Welcome to the Neighborhood" after it was suggested to the network that a reality series in which three couples consider race and religion to help decide which contestant family gets to become their neighbor violates the federal Fair Housing Act.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2902817_2.html

My question is, how the fuck did this get through Legal in the first place, Str8?
TV lawyers are dumb.

Better question is how did Warner Bros.' lawyers miss the fact that the TV show Dukes of Hazzard was based on a 1974 movie called Moonrunners, and apparently the TV show producers never got theatrical motion picture rights?

So Warner Bros. is infringing on Moonrunners' copyright, and the producer of Moonrunners this week got a preliminary injunction against Stiffler, Johnny Knoxville, Jessica Simpson et al. Warners just paid this producer $17.5 million to settle the suit and avoid having all their prints confiscated by federal marshals.

Bwahahahhahaha. That's going to change some P&Ls up there.

robustpuppy 06-30-2005 01:29 PM
Random observation
 
Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Dissent. Excellent with swiss, dijon and roasted turkey. Counters the spiciness of the dijon perfectly.
You have a point. The problem is that this particular sandwich is too bland. Much like today's board, Abba's candy panties notwithstanding (whatever they didn't withstand).

robustpuppy 06-30-2005 01:31 PM
Well, no duh
 
Quote:
Originally posted by str8outavannuys
TV lawyers are dumb.

Better question is how did Warner Bros.' lawyers miss the fact that the TV show Dukes of Hazzard was based on a 1974 movie called Moonrunners, and apparently the TV show producers never got theatrical motion picture rights?

So Warner Bros. is infringing on Moonrunners' copyright, and the producer of Moonrunners this week got a preliminary injunction against Stiffler, Johnny Knoxville, Jessica Simpson et al. Warners just paid this producer $17.5 million to settle the suit and avoid having all their prints confiscated by federal marshals.

Bwahahahhahaha. That's going to change some P&Ls up there.

Why the PIs against the actors? Did they have % of receipts deals?

ETA: is not realizing that TV rights had been secured but movie rights hadn't been (which I guess must be standard procedure for tv/movie lawyers, so yes, it's stupid), really worse than not realizing that blatantly-prohibited bases fordiscriminating, er, choosing among potential neighbors might pose a legal problem?

ABBAKiss 06-30-2005 01:34 PM
Random observation
 
Quote:
Originally posted by Mister_Ruysbroeck
What did the poor question mark do to you to deserve such shoddy treatment?
I was making a statement more than seeking an answer. I could have conveyed a similar thought by writing: "There was no reason to post this."

robustpuppy 06-30-2005 01:34 PM
Random observation
 
Quote:
Originally posted by ABBAKiss
I was making a statement more than seeking an answer. I could have conveyed a similar thought by writing: "There was no reason to post this."
Rhetorical questions are people, too.

spookyfish 06-30-2005 01:35 PM
Well, no duh
 
Quote:
Originally posted by str8outavannuys
TV lawyers are dumb.

Better question is how did Warner Bros.' lawyers miss the fact that the TV show Dukes of Hazzard was based on a 1974 movie called Moonrunners, and apparently the TV show producers never got theatrical motion picture rights?

So Warner Bros. is infringing on Moonrunners' copyright, and the producer of Moonrunners this week got a preliminary injunction against Stiffler, Johnny Knoxville, Jessica Simpson et al. Warners just paid this producer $17.5 million to settle the suit and avoid having all their prints confiscated by federal marshals.

Bwahahahhahaha. That's going to change some P&Ls up there.
Glad to see the government is working on protecting me against domestic terrorism too.

How could this movie not completely suck ass?

ABBAKiss 06-30-2005 01:36 PM
Well, no duh
 
Quote:
Originally posted by str8outavannuys
TV lawyers are dumb.
Yesterday I caught a snippet of Mariska Hargitay on SVU saying something like, "...you dislocated her arm and hit her over the head with a lead pipe -- that's assault."

spookyfish 06-30-2005 01:37 PM
Random observation
 
Quote:
Originally posted by ABBAKiss
I was making a statement more than seeking an answer. I could have conveyed a similar thought by writing: "There was no reason to post this."
Excuse me. Have you actually been reading this board lately, Miss ten-pound panties?

Hank Chinaski 06-30-2005 01:37 PM
Well, no duh
 
Quote:
Originally posted by str8outavannuys
TV lawyers are dumb.

Better question is how did Warner Bros.' lawyers miss the fact that the TV show Dukes of Hazzard was based on a 1974 movie called Moonrunners, and apparently the TV show producers never got theatrical motion picture rights?

So Warner Bros. is infringing on Moonrunners' copyright, and the producer of Moonrunners this week got a preliminary injunction against Stiffler, Johnny Knoxville, Jessica Simpson et al. Warners just paid this producer $17.5 million to settle the suit and avoid having all their prints confiscated by federal marshals.

Bwahahahhahaha. That's going to change some P&Ls up there.
Will you be aiming for GC job there?

ABBAKiss 06-30-2005 01:38 PM
Random observation
 
Quote:
Originally posted by robustpuppy
You have a point. The problem is that this particular sandwich is too bland. Much like today's board, Abba's candy panties notwithstanding (whatever they didn't withstand).
My candy panties rocked. I am ordering more pairs. They look really hot on if I do say so myself. And they are fun to "remove." 40 calories! No grams of fat!

ABBAKiss 06-30-2005 01:39 PM
Random observation
 
Quote:
Originally posted by spookyfish
Excuse me. Have you actually been reading this board lately, Miss ten-pound panties?
No -- did we discuss "avacodas"?

Not Bob 06-30-2005 01:40 PM
Well, no duh
 
Quote:
Originally posted by spookyfish
Glad to see the government is working on protecting me against domestic terrorism too.
Nah. It might have prevented the marshals from seizing some fake LV purses and Rolecks watches, though.

Marshal Dillon: "Miss Kitty, I'm afraid we're going to have to remove that knock-off Dior dress you're wearing . . ."


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:32 AM.
Page 275 of 335 « First 175225265273274 275 276277285325 Last »
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com