Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jun 17, 2016 -> 08:39 AM) This is dumb.. I save my disdain for guys that get in trouble off the court. I mean you have Bobby Jenks' name in your display name and he's a much worse human than LeBron is. I don't care about who Lebron is as a person, i'm going by what I see on the court. I see a whiny b**** 99% of the time. A guy with the GOAT physical talent, but a guy with the mental fortitude of my 4 year old son. Lebron should average 40, 10 and 10 every night. But he doesn't.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jun 16, 2016 -> 10:50 PM) I don't understand how people can still dislike LeBron. He's awesome and humble. I just puked in my mouth. He's the least likeable superstar in sports.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jun 16, 2016 -> 09:57 PM) This series will define the King. Put the team on his back and he's gonna win this thing. You're gross.

QUOTE (Boogua @ Jun 16, 2016 -> 08:47 PM) This. Cleveland is doing a good job getting Lebron into iso situations on him. That doesn't make anyone look good.

Not sure about that. He's just not hitting his shots and it's been for most of the playoffs it seems.

So my baby boy #2 came last week. The first 2-3 nights were instant reminders of how much getting up every hour sucked. But since then, this guy is only getting up once every 2-3 hours. Last night my wife fed him at 11:30, he got up at 2:30 and ate again and then didn't get up until we woke him up at 6:45. *knocks on wood* Hopefully the good luck continues!

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 16, 2016 -> 12:36 PM) This is where having an engineering background and 3D CAD at work has helped me a few times, especially when I built a new deck/staircase at our previous house. Lots of little minor tweaks to the design on the computer when I would realize "wait, I can't built that that way." Had a good idea of every board and cut that had to be made before I even bought the wood. The village permit office also appreciated a set of real plans rather than crayon scribbles on a napkin they usually get. A lot of that is stuff that a pro would have breezed right by because they've run into the same thing a dozen times before, but it's always harder figuring it out the first time. It'll be something that I'll notice forever but nobody else would ever be at eye-level (hopefully). My bro in law is a general contractor and it's really annoying when i'm stumped on something and he can offer a solution in about 3 seconds. I mean i'm grateful for the advice and all but still. He's also really good at knowing about random products at Mendards/Home Depot that work for a given situation. "Oh yeah they make a fastener that looks like X, just go grab that."

Yeah I think 3 is going to be your best shot, but that'll take some accurate cuts to look good. In my experience even the best cut/fill/paint job ends up cracking or needing a touchup after a season or two with the wood contracting/expanding.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jun 16, 2016 -> 11:11 AM) You guys have big balls doing that work yourselves. I installed custom wainscoting when I finished part of my basement, including up the stairs. I would get to certain points where I would be stumped for days trying to figure out the best way to work the angles. You don't think about the little things at the start of the project. It's not until you get to that point, then it becomes a hurdle.

Tough to say without looking at all of this in person but: (1) can you use a thinner riser covering and/or no covering at all, just paint the 2x stair? That'd set the nose back a little more. edit: nm, that wouldn't change anything since the nose is going to be where the nose is going to be. Maybe on that 2nd pic though where it sticks out farther. Although that's drywall nm. Ha, just forget this suggestion. (2) is it really that unsightly if the nose did stick out further than the skirt board? (3) i'm sure it's next to impossible on a long run, but how straight is that skirt board going down? Any chance you can tack on a new skirt board on top, fill the seam and paint it?

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jun 16, 2016 -> 11:20 AM) Well, but part of the problem is that there's no disclosure requirement. Therefore, Gawker would have no idea that there's was a connecting thread behind all these lawsuits... I'm still not sure what a disclosure requirement would do. Let's say we have that and the court and attorneys are provided that information, so what? What are they going to do with that information? Every court considers every claim filed one that has merit unless it is totally frivolous on its face. Do we really want judges using past filings as a factor in determining frivolous claims? I've seen that done with prisoner filings before, but that's when the prisoner files a new complaint against everyone in government on a weekly basis. You're never going to have that extreme with a billionaire trying to bleed a company dry through litigation. And again, what if this person is filing two "frivolous" cases for every five legitimate ones. You can't really say with any certainty the next one will be frivolous. You still have to decide the case on the merits. So nothing changes.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jun 16, 2016 -> 11:22 AM) I'm not sure if you can bring a libel suit on a contingency basis (I think Jenks probably has a lot more experience in that area), but in general access to the court system should be much more open. A media giant like Gawker (or any other party with means in a lawsuit) shouldn't be able to win litigation by making the litigation long and unduly expensive. You can, but those cases are difficult to prove and it's not easy to find an attorney/law firm that is willing to finance a risky case.

Sounds like after reviewing his social media history just before the attack and the phone calls he was making before and during the massacre, there's no question this guy was doing this in support of an anti-West, pro-ISIS/radical Islam ideology. Specifically citing airstrikes in the Middle East.

A small part of me wants to question them (who goes into a large body of water in Florida?), but, I mean, they lost their 2 year old son. Isn't that enough punishment? And it's not like they were swimming. He was just barely in the water.

QUOTE (Tex @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 07:16 PM) I was reading some of the tweets and other comments that flame the parents from Nebraska whose 2-year old was killed by an alligator and started wondering is the internet too harsh? These parents had just watched their child being eaten by an alligator. Do they really deserve to be vilified as well? I was in a real dark, sad place for about 5 minutes after reading they found the body. So incredibly sad.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 02:37 PM) That $10 million is likely inflated by this actually going to trial, and a law firm that knew all of its hours billed would be paid. Another plaintiff would almost cetainly settle for less, but restitution is there (unless they don't have a case which many libel cases don't). Your second point is idiotic. Nothing gawker has done punished poor people as much as Thiels funding of james o'keefe's ACORN sting, a malicious piece of trash that hurt actual poor people that he manipulated. If only poor people had a billionaire fighitng for them to protect them against Thiel. No, they may. Your argument is essentially we should have an unchecked billionaire class and not a free media. I disagree. No, my argument is this sort of activity is ripe for abuse but it's not a certainty. There may be positives to rich third parties financing lawsuits against large corporations that individuals may not be able to afford by themselves. Here is one of them. A s***ty online blog that breached someone's privacy for page clicks got a significant judgment entered against them. You're looking at nothing but the assumed "certain" negatives, whereas i'm looking at the potential positives.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 02:11 PM) We have a legal system in place for specific people to charge libel or slander against such an outlet. And, as you've said, plenty of enterprising law firms to take a case that has legs. Not to the tune of 10 million on a 50/50 case. That's going to take some work by a Plaintiff to find a firm to take a case like that. The CPD largely does a good job but they also kill innocent black kids! They may, they may not.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 02:03 PM) It depends. If he's directing the litigation behind the scenes and taking control of the case out of the plaintiffs' hands, then no, he isn't. Hence, disclosing the source of funds for litigation generally. To who though? Jurors? That's unfairly prejudicial for the same reason we can't talk about insurance to jurors. End of the day who finances the lawsuit is irrelevant. Only facts matter.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 01:57 PM) That's an obtuse argument. If there are lawyers who find it profitable to specifically target libel cases against online publications because they win them, congrats to them. Thiel is in a priveleged position of being one of the richest men in the United States and is using that influence to specifically injure a free media outlet he does not like. He';s not on a crusade to get justice, he rarely even knows the cases, he just funds every case made against gawker to financially punish them. So he's got money, that's the problem. Link to the bolded? The reverse of that is a powerful antagonistic press outlet that attacks and bullies people who may not have the means to fight them is equally dangerous. So there's good and bad with all of this.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 01:56 PM) That's another part of it. The legal choices in some of the cases seem to favor damaging gawker over maximizing the outcome for the client That's a huge assumption you're making. You only know of "specifics" in one case, not multiple cases, and as I explained there could be legitimate reasons for doing what they did. You simply don't know one way or the other.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 01:54 PM) What if some are and some aren't? Is that still an ok tactic? I think if he's doing more good than bad, yes. His reasons for backing the cases are immaterial to me. If this were a billionaire backing plaintiffs in claims against companies like BP over an oil spill, me thinks none of you would have a big issue with it, even if some of the claims were bulls***.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 01:52 PM) No this is an argument about ethics. Ok, so if he has a personal vendetta but every case he backs is 100% legit and the victim could not have sued otherwise, ethically isn't he doing a good thing?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 01:48 PM) Read the nyt article I linked. I did, they don't mention specifics. You're assuming every case is frivolous. What if they're not?

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 01:47 PM) To me, this literally has nothing to do with Gawker. The Hogan judgment is irrelevant to the conversation of whether billionaires bankrolling any and all litigation against a company they personally dislike (regardless of the basis for that dislike) is something that we, as society, should be ok with. For the record, I also hate - on both sides, plaintiff and debtor - suits brought exclusively in an effort to get a settlement because the settlement is less than the cost of litigating the case. The legal system has legitimate access issues. Using the legal system to further a personal vendetta against a company is bad and wrong. I also think that Gawker's conduct both in outing Thiel, and regarding Hogan, was bad and wrong. Gawker is bankrupt because they did something wrong, but that doesn't make Thiel's conduct right and ok. How do you prevent that though? Is it even possible?

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 01:40 PM) Jenks, you are looking at this almost exclusively through the lens of Gawker itself. You and I both know that big companies with vast legal resources can spend smaller companies into settling crappy cases that have just enough to get by a motion to dismiss. You and I also both know that contingency fee arrangements are a way to get lawyers to take smaller dollar suits, and to provide access to lawyers generally in certain types of cases (we can get into an argument generally about access to the legal system, but that doesn't really fit here). I don't see anything wrong with Thiel or other billionaires using their funds to provide access to the legal system generally. I do have a problem with billionaires like Thiel seeking out and bankrolling any claim against a particular entity - regardless of the merits of that claim. Bankrolling any and all litigation to try to drive a particular company out of business is, to me, an abuse of the judicial system, regardless of who employs that method. I don't disagree if the claims are truly frivolous. But of the two cases Thiel is bankrolling that I know of, one was absolutely legit (Hogan) and the other is probably not (the inventor of email). I guess i'm not seeing this systematic frivolous lawsuit system that SS and bmags are complaining about.