sfcityduck wrote:
famac wrote:
sfcityduck - he threw down the wager - are you going to take him up it? And I find the Tea Bagger stuff insulting.


Famac,

The point of my post is not to predict the outcome of the appeal, it is to properly discuss the issues.  As an attorney, I know how difficult it is to predict the outcome of a case, and how often judges get it wrong.  I've lost appeals I should have won and won appeals I should have lost.  So, no, I'm not going to bet on an outcome, especially when I haven't read the appellate briefs on which the outcome will be based.  This appeal could have several stages, and it will be a long time, possibly years, before it is over.

I also don't make gentlemen's bets with folks who aren't gentlemen.  Binecon has repeatedly insulted me and my profession.  

On that note, I find it curious you feel a need to note that you feel "insulted" by a comment not directed to you, but make no comment on Binecon's rudeness to me.  Seems to me that Binecon's unprovoked insults are motivated by some long past political animosity, as I can't otherwise explain his insult that at some other point my analysis has offended him.  Hard for me to believe that my love of Barks or EC could have offended anyone.  I agree that there is no place for political animosity on this board.  The fact I apparently pegged Binecon accurately is suggested by his lack of alternative explanation for his animosity.

No further need for me to waste time on this. 


Esp. as you're incorrect, your argument is weak and muddled, and you refuse to support your own argument with case law.

And in fact, I didn't insult you, but rather your often muddled opining. You saw fit to go ad hominem, and in a rather crude and childish fashion.

You're correct in that judges get it wrong all the time, of course, but this case is so weak that even Scalia couldn't rule for the Kirbys, sad as that is for those (like myself) who'd like to see Jack's legacy bring more benefit to his heirs.

Good news, though: someone close to the case has told me they believe the Kirby's are being represented on a contingency basis. Smile

And you know what they say, Duck: it's unfortunate that 90% of a profession give the other 10% such a bad name...

That's a joke, son! Wink

(Heard it from a lawyer, in fact. Eek)

Perhaps a thicker skin (or a second pair of briefs in lieu of that) is in order?

Smile

PS: I think your comments on the diversity thread are excellent, and not muddled in the least, and I share your views there. Bravo!