beacamdim
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 774
- Reaction score
- 585
Forgot to leave in disgust this time.
In disgust? While riding a two-game winning streak? Never lol!
Forgot to leave in disgust this time.
He had me going until that one
and the part about working with Harvey is a bit much
my guy at the liquor store we have a case a habeas corpus and a fifth of bs
What's your position on claiming the victim as the eyewitness?Funny, right? I will make sure Peter shares a laugh over that with Mara at their next anti-Dallas summit.
What's your position on claiming the victim as the eyewitness?
The NFL is starting to become tainted with power, that I'm questioning if the fairness and integrity of the games are still completely legit.
1. Um, I said that I did not believe that at the end of the day that jurisdiction would matter -- this is because even if a MN trial court ruled against the league it would be appealed, and would be decided by the regional circuit court that would apply law similarly to the Second Circuit. Go ask another lawyer -- they will know what I mean.
2. I am pretty sure I in fact do understand deductive reasoning. At least my professors at Harvard and Columbia thought so (no joke).
3. When did I claim newspaper headlines were case law? I was using your words as a joke -- that is why they were in quotes!
4. Never said that. I said that under the CBA Goodell had the authority to rule that the term "charge" under the CBA could mean an accusation by an alleged victim of domestic violence. I wouldn't necessarily say that, but that's not what matters -- Goodall's authority is what matters.
5. In all honesty, you don't have the experience, knowledge or judgment to make such a determination. (What IS your profession by the way?).
You are welcome. However, what either your or I THINK about the league's position will not make any difference when this gets litigated.
Peace.
which house were u at harvard?
Winthrop.
and where did u live for freshman year?
gov jock?Canaday, Ugliest freshman dorm.
gov jock?
gov jock?
i see. who taught gov 10 when u were there?Half. I did a double concentration (Harvard's highfalutin name for "major") in History (primary) and Government (secondary).
Is inspector Putty on the case of "did he really go to Harvard?"
Does that being the first point in his statement suggest objectivity? What's your view of the entire basis of the decision being founded upon the word of someone who was admittedly willing to lie about the situation?Seems a little too cute -- and convenient -- for my taste.
To be clear, I very much respect Peter as a person and a former colleague, and believe he is a man of integrity who acts objectively.
That doesn't mean I always agree with him, though.
Going to Harvard doesn't mean you can't be stupid or not make sense on something. That right there shows that Harvard isn't what its cracked up to be if too many of your types coming through the ranks. UPenn is better anywayHaha. I'm not lying. In fact I NEVER mention that unless someone repeatedly tells me I'm stupid or make no sense when I am trying to have a civil discussion.
I've been lucky to go to good places, but I firmly believe (in the immortal words of Bruce Springsteen) we "learn more from a two-minute record, baby, then [we] ever learn in school".
Whatever. Humor -- the last refuge of the ignorant.
Not BSing --
Not sure -- I didn't have to take it because History was primary. I had fewer requirements in Gov. My first gov course was International Conflicts of the Modern World. It was usually taught by Joe Nye, but (just my luck) he was on sabbatical that semester and we got some guy named Kehone (sp?) instead.