Originally Posted by Penske 2.0 (Post 442950)

the McShane dude

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0 (Post 442950)

To be honest, I listen to it sometimes...for inspiration.

(

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller (Post 442952)

Which one is he? The monkey scribe?

As to the embarrassed part, I don't think the powers that be in the attorney's dining room at W&S were amused.

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0 (Post 442950)

Embarassed??:confused: it would be part of My multimedia deal sheet.

To be honest, I listen to it sometimes...for inspiration.

Otoh, looks like the McShane dude couldn't cut the partner track....:o:(

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller (Post 442945)

The warranties depend on the form of the deed.

Whether it falls to the title insurer depends on what the Insurer required from the Lender. It's not a good thing for the Insurers, no matter what.

Originally Posted by sgtclub (Post 442953)

I listen to it every 6 months when I'm having a particularly bad day. It brings a smile to my face every time. That guy is a genius. I would hire him blind.

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 442960)

On the one hand, it was a great vmail in saying what all of us have probably wanted to say at one time or another. Possibly on a weekly basis. "Just do your fucking job and get it done."

On the other hand, it was a great pointer in why people don't say that sort of thing, at least not in a way that is recorded. "Do your job and make the fucking changes" strikes me as a weak negotiating tactic.

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch (Post 442958)

Right -- I was actually asking (though this wasn't clear) whether there is a practice as to the deeds and the title ins. requirements in the context of sales of foreclosed properties by a bank.

I expect that there will be a whole lot of fucked to go around.

Originally Posted by sgtclub (Post 442951)

the former. I still have a recording of the vm.

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop (Post 442894)

You know, I'm sick of this bullshit, which I usually ignore, so I'm going to say this once, to you, Hank, and Penske, and then I'll go back to ignoring you on it.

All three of you know what I do in real life, though others here don't. You can all tell that I have made a choice not to talk about what I do for a living on this board. The suggestion that I don't live in the real world, that somehow my experience in the different fields you all know about is entirely academic and practice -- you wouldn't say that to my face, because in a face-to-face conversation I wouldn't be constrained by the choice I've made about what I'll say on this board. It's a cheap debating trick, one that just takes advantage of what I'll say in response, and one that plays to other people reading the posts but that the four of us know is bullshit.

Originally Posted by Cletus Miller (Post 442956)

He does appear to be working at a place with his last name on the letterhead, tho, so it would appear he made a similar trade to the one you made.

Originally Posted by hank chinaski (Post 442967)

i respect your real world experience but it isn't in labor law. .

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0 (Post 442974)

2!


eta: amongst other areas, including but not limited to health care reform and education. no offence.

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski (Post 442975)

although, to his credit, he can't comment on sleeping with married ladies or having someone sleeping with his wife, like the two of us could, respectively, as it were, and not as we'd wish it were necessarially, again respectively or not.

Originally Posted by Penske 2.0 (Post 442977)

You lost me after the "as it were".....but, anyhoo, speaking of sleeping with ladies, I am watching MSNBC right now and wondering......am I the only who wonders if Rachel Maddow and Ana-Marie Cox have ever slept together and who enjoys visualising the possibility?