Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 01:21 PM) I don't think State Farm has someone funding a long-running shadow legal campaign with the specific intention of bankrupting them as a company. I think using the court system to overwhelm an enemy with lawsuits and drive them into bankruptcy over a personal vendetta is what makes it different. They're bankrupt because they did something wrong. You guys keep buying up the whoa is me Gawker bulls***. End of the day, if they didn't do something s***ty to Hogan they wouldn't be in this mess.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 01:32 PM) But yes, I concede that if Peter Thiel was not an influential billionaire it would be a completely different story. Usually taking crucial elements out of a story does change things. mm, k. You're talking about the ethics of the move. Money doesn't really matter. The same financial backing is being done on different scales in other cases.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 01:21 PM) Here's the NYT piece that revealed Theil's involvement: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/business...ith-gawker.html Hogan settled with the man who made the tape for $5k. Rather than including a claim that would have allowed them to involve Gawker's insurance company, they went for the longshot and got it. Gawker's since filed bankruptcy, and there's no way Hogan ever sees $140M. In the end, this legal strategy will likely result in less money for Hogan but more damage to Gawker. I'm not a lawyer, but I've had to take ethics courses for my profession, and that sort of behavior doesn't strike me as particularly ethical. Note too that this case is still being litigated in appeals court. It's entirely possibly that Gawker will either have the verdict overturned entirely or that the award could be substantially reduced, but Gawker is still a bankrupt company because of this. I don't think State Farm has someone funding a long-running shadow legal campaign with the specific intention of bankrupting them as a company. 1) Removing claims is par for the course in litigation. We do it all the time for strategic purposes before and during trial. Without more info, it's hard to say what motivated that move. It could have been a variety of reasons. And yes, you like having deep pockets of an insurance company for certain cases, but here Gawker was/is valued at more than they hoped to recover. I'm sure even they thought 140 million was a pipe dream. Whether Gawker had insurance to cover a verdict was sort of irrelevant. And again, maybe those claims were much stronger and those were the ones they wanted to present at trial. Tough to say without getting the specifics. 2) Settling with the camera guy for $5k isn't surprising. That happens all the time in litigation when there is a big corporation as a defendant and an individual. Jurors hate big companies. They know they have money. Keeping the guy in the case may have deflected some of the heat from Gawker. That's trial strategy. 3) It was still Hogan's call at the end of the day. Not sure why it's not ethical. Unless Thiel is calling all the shots, which no one has claimed, it's no different than an attorney litigating a case based on his financial stake. You don't/can't do that.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 01:18 PM) He has funded many more than that case. It's not theoretical that it's an abusive practice. State Farm et al can make the same sorry argument. They get sued thousands of times a day in relatively bulls*** lawsuits. Again, that's part of the business. Don't become a sensationalist blog if you don't expect to piss people off and get sued as a result.

And really, other than scale, how is his financial backing any different than any other contingency fee case? Lawyers finance lawsuits all the time. Does it really matter if it's a third party doing it instead?

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 01:13 PM) Correct. If you support Thiel doing this to a rag you don't agree with, just worry that if he has great success you will see it happen to one you do. Not recommending a policy difference here, but I thiel should be shamed. What a waste of money. He could be doing something productive with it. I too remember when John Galt got on the radio and said he was going to sue all of the takers of the world. In his view this is the most philanthropic move he has ever made. He's putting bad tabloid bully "journalism" down a peg.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 01:08 PM) I think you can both say that Gawker was in the wrong outing Thiel, and also say that, on balance, billionaires backing lawsuits - particularly frivolous suits like the Trump hairpiece one appears to be - against businesses that they do not like or whose political ideology they disagree with is a bad thing. I'm not sure it's a bad thing. Can that be an abusive practice? Sure. But there is also good that can come of it. If it truly cost him 10 million to get 140 million for Hogan, what if Hogan didn't have 10 million? Isn't it a good thing that he provided the finances to obtain some justice?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 12:53 PM) And sometimes claims that should be tossed or found against end up winning. And in both cases, it can cost huge sums of money to defend. That's the legal harassment strategy. It's not like Theil invented this. Every big company is going to win some cases and lose others. edit: the NYT story from a few weeks back found that the lawsuits Theil secretly funded would pursue legal strategies in such a way so as to maximally inflict harm on Gawker, not necessarily to get the best results for the plaintiff. E.g. in the Hogan case, they dropped all of the claims that would have allowed Gawker's legal insurance to cover the judgements. Gotta link? I'm curious to see what they dropped and why.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 12:43 PM) And still cost the firm legal fees to get it tossed. Sure, but that's the cost of doing business. That's why you get insurance. edit: if you're in the tabloid journalism industry, you should expect to be sued occasionally by angry people who are upset about what you wrote.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 12:22 PM) But a company worth tens of millions can be sued forever by a guy worth billions, and eventually some balls are going to bounce your way. I don't think you'd be cool if someone filed lawsuit after lawsuit against you for over a decade over a personal slight even if you hadn't done anything legally wrong. Legal fees can still ruin people financially when they're in the right. Claims without any merit generally get tossed.

Defending lawsuits is the price of doing business. If you don't do anything wrong, you shouldn't be concerned about being wiped out financially. Gawker is a company worth tens of millions if not hundreds of millions. They have an ample budget for legal expenses. They're trying to spin this into some rich guy v. poor company crap and i'm not buying it. Don't post private sex tapes and out people who don't want to be outed and this wouldn't be a problem for them. This is a great example of the internet bully crying foul once someone finally stands up to him and holds him accountable for being a dick.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 09:35 AM) Are we sure we couldn't get Bryan Colangelo to trade us the #1 pick? Or something stupid? There aren't many dumb front offices left right now, just bulls and sixers. Sacramento is up there.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 15, 2016 -> 09:26 AM) If that's the case, they didn't need to bring Grace back last year. Probably not, but she's his "true" love.

You guys are nuts. I've loved Peaky Blinders so far (through episode 3). Domesticated Tommy was never going to be entertaining.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Jun 14, 2016 -> 06:40 PM) So what kind of team are we hoping to build around Jimmy? Cause we're not getting KD or Russ or LeBron, so are we just going to try signing good but not great players again and rinse and repeat? Standing pat with Jimmy is just a bad move imo. I really hope some team in the East gets him. That would be my big sales pitch - come to the East. You have one team to beat and the best player will be over the hill in a couple of seasons. You're assured an ECF every season. Why f*** around with GS or SA every year?

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jun 14, 2016 -> 04:05 PM) They aren't getting Jimmy Butler then. I don't think Kris Dunn, Zach LaVine, and Dieng is enough. Bulls should hold out for Wiggins or not deal him to Minnesota. How badly does Tom want him? Boston can probably top Minnesota's offer. I'm definitely on board with dealing him and remaking the roster. I also love Dunn. I just don't think that's enough though. That Minnesota deal would allow them to make a run at Demar Derozan though. Why would he sign with the Bulls when the Bulls have no one but rookies and a broken D-Rose to play with?

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Jun 14, 2016 -> 02:02 PM) been to a few strip clubs where a bachelor gets called out, he speaks truth. That's happened at probably 75% of the strip clubs i've been to for bach parties. Most of them were absolutely hilarious and are still talked about to this day as fond memories. Not sure why people have an issue with a strip club. If you have the right mindset it can be a lot of fun. You're there to (1) have some hot woman shake their boobs in your boy's face, (2) embarrass/humiliate him in a fun and loving way, and (3) help the 1 or 2 guys in the group who are either way too single or way too married have a little fun. If you're wasting $300 on solo dances and spending the night in the back room by yourself you're going for the wrong reasons. NOLA is actually a perfect spot for this type of party. I've done it twice. Instead of having to devote a large portion of the night to a club, you can pop into a place for 30 minutes and then leave and continue on with the night. And for the people in the group that don't care for that stuff, you can meet up with them a short time later. You're not splitting the group up in different locations.

QUOTE (Tony @ Jun 14, 2016 -> 01:34 PM) As it should be. Every team doesn't have a franchise player, just because they are the most talented on that specific squad. Sure, but the flipside to that is we have more than just 2-3 franchise players in the league. You can be a franchise player and not be a superstar (even though Butler is getting there based on his exposure and endorsements). Butler's a top 15 player in the league. Put him on the vast majority of teams and he's going to be the best player. Let's go down the list: GS (the big three) Cleveland (Lebron and Kyrie) OKC (Durant and Westbrook) Spurs (Khawi, maybe Aldridge) NO (Davis) Those are the only teams with guys I would take over Butler no questions asked. I'm sure i'm missing someone obvious, but it's still a small list. To me Butler's on that next tier with Paul George, Damian Lillard, Boogie, etc. Guys that aren't winning you a championship by themselves but are still great players that won't allow your team to become the Sixers. Obviously the dysfunction around the Bulls this year hurts that argument, but I don't think that was due to anything Butler did on the court. I still consider those guys franchise players based on their play and marketability. They're all recognized nationally and for good reason.

a/s/l?

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Jun 14, 2016 -> 10:03 AM) Cause he's not a franchise player. Then your definition of franchise player is pretty limited.

I remember the days of Prodigy before AOL.

QUOTE (Y2JImmy0 @ Jun 14, 2016 -> 09:50 AM) Because Jimmy Butler can't be the best player on a championship team. I'd rather roll with Wiggins and Dunn and the cap relief. I obviously wouldn't do it without Wiggins involved though. He's a great #2 on a very cap friendly deal. He's a piece that can, in theory, attract another star FA to be #1.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Jun 14, 2016 -> 09:25 AM) Kyrie is going to try to hero ball it again next game and will go 4-22 and they will lose. Lebron too. He'll keep jacking up those fall away jumpshots.

Trading Butler for anything other than a top 2 pick in this draft is dumb, even if you get a guy like Wiggins. Why would you trade a franchise player (even a lower end one) for a couple of prospects that percentages say will never pan out? All but about 5 teams in the league continue searching for an all-star quality player to build their team around. The Bulls have one. It would be moronic to let that go.

Kyrie is overshadowing one of Lebron's all time games. Craziness.