Client did a very silly thing. Client is failing to understand that the fact that he was not specifically warned not to do such a silly thing is not a defence that will hold up in court.
as glad as I am that the real right-wing and 'spergin obama haters have their own thread now, it is starting to make my eyes bleed from the amount of goosery that is taking place
a ham sandwich? really?
oh come on
this forum is the biggest liberal echo chamber this side of my left testicle
let them have something
if you can't even live alongside generally liberal people who have some conservative leanings or a distaste for the current administration... how can you even bear to inhabit a world where there are actual conservatives and xenophobes
don't be a hostile silly goose
kumbaya and such
fair enough
for perspective, remember that I live in the state where our Lt. Governer compared helping the poor to feeding stray animals and one of our reps got major points for yelling at the president that he was lying.
I like my escape into liberal-land unsullied by their ilk
Client did a very silly thing. Client is failing to understand that the fact that he was not specifically warned not to do such a silly thing is not a defence that will hold up in court.
Client did a very silly thing. Client is failing to understand that the fact that he was not specifically warned not to do such a silly thing is not a defence that will hold up in court.
Explaining this took up far too much of my day.
Run across this all the time at my job. People seem to have developed retard morality where if they aren't specifically forbidden from doing something, its aok.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Client did a very silly thing. Client is failing to understand that the fact that he was not specifically warned not to do such a silly thing is not a defence that will hold up in court.
Explaining this took up far too much of my day.
Long version?
Look its Japan, there isn't a long version from what bob tells us.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Client did a very silly thing. Client is failing to understand that the fact that he was not specifically warned not to do such a silly thing is not a defence that will hold up in court.
Explaining this took up far too much of my day.
Long version?
Look its Japan, there isn't a long version from what bob tells us.
First we a-bomb them, now we're making jokes about their manhood. Way to kick a country in the balls.
No, hardening arterial walls. But I guess cirrhosis also seems likely.
I'd think that increased odds of killing me with sex would be a point in the pros of dating an older man rather then the cons. Just get a life insurance policy and then fuck him to death. Win/Win.
also, i'm in the po' house until friday... my glasses sapped my discretionary funds for the week... i got two pairs, all the options (anti shatter, anti scratch, anti glare etc), and no vision insurance
i'd really like to go see a movie or something since i'm off work today but i don't have much $
Client did a very silly thing. Client is failing to understand that the fact that he was not specifically warned not to do such a silly thing is not a defence that will hold up in court.
Explaining this took up far too much of my day.
Long version?
Look its Japan, there isn't a long version from what bob tells us.
First we a-bomb them, now we're making jokes about their manhood. Way to kick a country in the balls.
Or maybe peanuts, I don't want to overexaggerate.
no wait i take it back
japan these guys are jerks
see now we are best friends and you should buy me a ticket to the uk and we can run brikwars games
Client did a very silly thing. Client is failing to understand that the fact that he was not specifically warned not to do such a silly thing is not a defence that will hold up in court.
Explaining this took up far too much of my day.
Run across this all the time at my job. People seem to have developed retard morality where if they aren't specifically forbidden from doing something, its aok.
Probably because people have been so successful at suing companies when they did something that was obviously stupid and dangerous, but not explicitly explained as such.
Client did a very silly thing. Client is failing to understand that the fact that he was not specifically warned not to do such a silly thing is not a defence that will hold up in court.
Explaining this took up far too much of my day.
Long version?
Client's vehicle was being used to tow an equipment trailer at an event. The rules of the event, as explained in the contract that they signed when they paid to attend, state that no vehicle is allowed to be moved inside the event grounds between 8am on the opening day (thursday) and 7pm on the last day of the event (the following monday), for safety reasons. If they really, really need to move the vehicle, they can inform the event organisers who will cordon off a route for the vehicle to use.
Client's idiot driver decided they needed to get the vehicle out of the event grounds at 5am on the saturday, and instead of speaking to event security, tried to find their own way out, culminating in them trying to drive a giant pickup through the open ended marquee set up at the pedestrian entrance of the event, demolishing it in the process.
They are seriously trying to argue that the event organisers are equally liable for failing to put height restriction notices on a marquee that nobody in their right mind would try to drive a vehicle through.
Client did a very silly thing. Client is failing to understand that the fact that he was not specifically warned not to do such a silly thing is not a defence that will hold up in court.
Explaining this took up far too much of my day.
see I spend most of my day with a slightly different argument along the lines of "So can you see how, despite your good intentions and long patience, your total lack of any evidence to the former may mean your defence to dismissing this person will not work without a stroke of luck?"
Probably because people have been so successful at suing companies when they did something that was obviously stupid and dangerous, but not explicitly explained as such.
Sad but true, in America we've raised a group of people who think unless they are told specifically not to (or don't get caught) it wasn't wrong.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I wasn't being derisive/dickish, though I can see how it would be impossible for y'all'z to interpret my post any other way so I don't begrudge y'all'z the reprimand.
I'm going to keep using the word "y'all'z" from now on.
Hey so yeah, I'm still kind of worried but not so worried, it seems I'm pretty much out of the COI loophole because I didn't start working here until a long period of time after they stopped being a customer and I didn't use any of my knowledge from my previous employee to help them.
I actually told them from the get go I wouldn't use that knowledge to solve or fix problems, but would come up with new and innovative solutions and implement them. And it's worked and I have. So I'm pretty much out of the red in that situation right?
My former boss would be the vindictive asshole to try and sue me for it so what does [Chat] think about this predicament?
bowen on
not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
I wasn't being derisive/dickish, though I can see how it would be impossible for y'all'z to interpret my post any other way so I don't begrudge y'all'z the reprimand.
I'm going to keep using the word "y'all'z" from now on.
Probably because people have been so successful at suing companies when they did something that was obviously stupid and dangerous, but not explicitly explained as such.
Sad but true, in America we've raised a group of people who think unless they are told specifically not to (or don't get caught) it wasn't wrong.
Don't forget that the circumstances of "being caught" also figure into it. There are all kinds of details that can invalidate the catching in question, therefore nullifying the crimes of known robbers and murderers.
Probably because people have been so successful at suing companies when they did something that was obviously stupid and dangerous, but not explicitly explained as such.
Sad but true, in America we've raised a group of people who think unless they are told specifically not to (or don't get caught) it wasn't wrong.
Don't forget that the circumstances of "being caught" also figure into it. There are all kinds of details that can invalidate the catching in question, therefore nullifying the crimes of known robbers and murderers.
either you need to elaborate or I'm going to assume you've just watched way to much Law and order.
EDIT: Never read reviews to games you want. It can only ruin things.
Oh, and a vehicle that was stolen from a client a year ago turned up in Southern Spain, where it was seized and impounded by customs while in the process of being loaded onto a freighter bound for Africa.
I've never had to get a vehicle repatriated before.
Probably because people have been so successful at suing companies when they did something that was obviously stupid and dangerous, but not explicitly explained as such.
Sad but true, in America we've raised a group of people who think unless they are told specifically not to (or don't get caught) it wasn't wrong.
Don't forget that the circumstances of "being caught" also figure into it. There are all kinds of details that can invalidate the catching in question, therefore nullifying the crimes of known robbers and murderers.
Yeah I forgot the "It's not wrong because I'm right." defense.
Preacher on
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I wasn't being derisive/dickish, though I can see how it would be impossible for y'all'z to interpret my post any other way so I don't begrudge y'all'z the reprimand.
I'm going to keep using the word "y'all'z" from now on.
I'm calling you zerD from now on.
It took me 20 minutes to figure out that "zerD" was "Drez" spelled backwards.
Yep, 20 minutes. I figure it out 16 minutes from now. It's still a mystery to me.
Posts
Client did a very silly thing. Client is failing to understand that the fact that he was not specifically warned not to do such a silly thing is not a defence that will hold up in court.
Explaining this took up far too much of my day.
look
i have a gun
you have the hatred
let's do this
where do they live
Long version?
Wait, so you're currently courting a 30 year old guy?
hahahahahahahahahah
Only if you're a mormon and shes your cousin
No, hardening arterial walls. But I guess cirrhosis also seems likely.
Run across this all the time at my job. People seem to have developed retard morality where if they aren't specifically forbidden from doing something, its aok.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Look its Japan, there isn't a long version from what bob tells us.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Can you who have been so recently dumped be so flippant towards another and their prospective mates?
First we a-bomb them, now we're making jokes about their manhood. Way to kick a country in the balls.
Or maybe peanuts, I don't want to overexaggerate.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
I'd think that increased odds of killing me with sex would be a point in the pros of dating an older man rather then the cons. Just get a life insurance policy and then fuck him to death. Win/Win.
i just woke up and uh
i could eat
also, i'm in the po' house until friday... my glasses sapped my discretionary funds for the week... i got two pairs, all the options (anti shatter, anti scratch, anti glare etc), and no vision insurance
i'd really like to go see a movie or something since i'm off work today but i don't have much $
sigh
Hi kagera, meet drez, drez kagera. Nice to see you two get aquainted.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I often derisively laugh in people's faces when something makes them hopeful.
no wait i take it back
japan these guys are jerks
I find this particular case amusing for very specific reasons. I'm not being negative though. Good luck, Hakks!
Like hopeful or Obamu?
except you're also alone
Client's vehicle was being used to tow an equipment trailer at an event. The rules of the event, as explained in the contract that they signed when they paid to attend, state that no vehicle is allowed to be moved inside the event grounds between 8am on the opening day (thursday) and 7pm on the last day of the event (the following monday), for safety reasons. If they really, really need to move the vehicle, they can inform the event organisers who will cordon off a route for the vehicle to use.
Client's idiot driver decided they needed to get the vehicle out of the event grounds at 5am on the saturday, and instead of speaking to event security, tried to find their own way out, culminating in them trying to drive a giant pickup through the open ended marquee set up at the pedestrian entrance of the event, demolishing it in the process.
They are seriously trying to argue that the event organisers are equally liable for failing to put height restriction notices on a marquee that nobody in their right mind would try to drive a vehicle through.
see I spend most of my day with a slightly different argument along the lines of "So can you see how, despite your good intentions and long patience, your total lack of any evidence to the former may mean your defence to dismissing this person will not work without a stroke of luck?"
Sad but true, in America we've raised a group of people who think unless they are told specifically not to (or don't get caught) it wasn't wrong.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I'm going to keep using the word "y'all'z" from now on.
I see no need to discriminate.
I actually told them from the get go I wouldn't use that knowledge to solve or fix problems, but would come up with new and innovative solutions and implement them. And it's worked and I have. So I'm pretty much out of the red in that situation right?
My former boss would be the vindictive asshole to try and sue me for it so what does [Chat] think about this predicament?
I'm calling you zerD from now on.
Don't forget that the circumstances of "being caught" also figure into it. There are all kinds of details that can invalidate the catching in question, therefore nullifying the crimes of known robbers and murderers.
remember that malaysian children do have to breathe and eat
maintenance between uses, okay?
is your Mass Erect too?
either you need to elaborate or I'm going to assume you've just watched way to much Law and order.
EDIT: Never read reviews to games you want. It can only ruin things.
I've never had to get a vehicle repatriated before.
Yeah I forgot the "It's not wrong because I'm right." defense.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Don't be a silly goose.
It's awesome and if Ars Technica says otherwise well they are silly gooses.
It took me 20 minutes to figure out that "zerD" was "Drez" spelled backwards.
Yep, 20 minutes. I figure it out 16 minutes from now. It's still a mystery to me.
Link?
pleasepaypreacher.net