Banned for Life

Politics, Religion, Salsa Recipes, etc. Everything you shouldn't bring up at your Uncle's house.

Re: Banned for Life

Postby Eaglehawk » Mon May 05, 2014 11:41 am

kalibane wrote:
Eaglehawk wrote:
STOP THE BS KALIBANE. PLEASE. You do the same sht with River and now you are trying to do it with me. Only thing I won't let you do it son!
Your garbage is ridiculously shallow and disingenuous.
People believe you on here because you are a great writer, I give you that. But you don't know what you are talking about.
What the hell does my last post have to do with the First Amendment?
Just in case you wanted to twist that, as you do with RD's posts and other posts here ya go bro:

Sorry but again you are wrong Kal. Contracts are worded to be as specific as possible and apply to as many situations as possible or as few situations as possible. Contracts are between two entities Kal, if they want it vague it will be vague(rare that both sides wants k vague unless both sides are thinking IRS issues, or some third party potential problem, or atty does it for some other reason), but you just unwittingly proved RD's point.
If the k is vague, court might, just might, have to interpret the clause, which is something most attorney's would NEVER want. Its called a meeting of the minds Kal. There is not a one size fits all when it comes to contracts. General rule is that you want to be as specific as possible, litigation forum, Statute of Frauds, Assignment, Delegation, blah blah blah. etc, which is why you need attorneys to draft/review them on both sides. The reason for attorneys is because one side will want some portion vague, but the other side will want that same portion detailed to best help their client.
That's how it works in the real world.

I will be demeaning myself to state how naive your arguments are or to argue about how much "experience" I have. I have something to protect. So no more on that score. On purpose. Let the readers decide that. I can tell by how you write. You don't hit main points, but argue ancillary crap, then try to make it "stick", then if you think that won't work you will argue stuff I said prior to my answer, but you take it out of context. HAHA. I am amazed that people can't see through you. But I do. Stop with the name calling and let's call a truce, you really look sorry. Look at your responses to River:SORRY. And he doesn't even need me to fight his battles. You look pathetic Kalibane. And no, I have not worked with mortagage contracts Kal. This is not a mortgage contract case Kalibane. This is not an IP case. Stop trying to change the topic Kalibane. You are comparing apples to oranges with Riverdog and now with me for two different arguments. Your experience means zero here. Mine does, and I ain't telling you jack about what I do.
Did you not read carefully what I wrote?
No need to even respond to you since you are all over the place, with First Amendment garbage. We were talking about contracts correct? Answer my last post.
It is you that is lost in the sauce, your own dreamworld sauce.
FOCUS SON!!!! That's all you have to do is FOCUS and I guarantee you that you will make more sense. FOCUS on what I said about contracts. FOCUS KALIBANE on EACH WORD of my statement. Then repost.
Until then, I can't help you. Until then, you just look "lost in the sauce" to steal your line Kalibane. SERIOUSLY.



Still want to maintain that I brought Riv into this?*

*bold added to references to River (again sorry Riv but I'm not letting this blatant lie go at this point)

No need to apologize to River.
I don't need to apologize to River. You are alleging that I am colluding with River in some way. The same way you colluded with BURR. This is not the case.
Your case makes my points actually.

Oh and by the way, at least I didn't ask River to defend me on this thread. Mentioning his name is different from accusing me of manipulating him. UNDERSTOOD?

So, your little argument about me MENTIONING RIver in my posts does not imply in the slightest that I MANIPULATED RIVER in any way. Again, stop twisting the facts Kalibane.


And stop with your fake apologies. Everything you do is disingenuous and fake. Stop it. You just look more foolish than you already are.

And, River, please if you don't want to respond don't. Don't let this guy drag you into an argument that will serve no purpose other than to help his own imaginary ego. I will happily take the heat from all my fellow posters on here via PM's and EM. But whittling Kalibane down to size is worth it.
He is not Kalibane he is the KRAKKEN. Leave us alone River if that is your choice. If not, please join in. At least I would know that you were not a patsy. That engenders much more respect than people telling others to "get a grip"
Last edited by Eaglehawk on Mon May 05, 2014 8:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Eaglehawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:28 pm
Location: Somewhere in China

Re: Banned for Life

Postby kalibane » Mon May 05, 2014 11:59 am

I never said you were colluding with River sir. I said you were dragging him into the discussion between you and I which you did. If I had an accusation of collussion I would have addressed it to both of you. As far as I was concerned (and Riv can correct me if I am wrong), we see eye to eye, even if we disagree on some of the finer details and how good Sterling's chances are to win in court if he's voted out. And if it hadn't ended to our mutual satisfaction we would still be talking (although much more civilly than you seem capable of). So there was no reason for you to muddy the discussion between you and I by dredging the remanants of a conversation you had no part of. Thus my comments that you quoted.

Bottomline... you decided to bring someone else in this. Not me. All I said was leave him out of it and argue your own argument on it's own merits.

P.S. Interesting that you had time to spend 5 paragraphs arguing about how you didn't invoke Riv... but you had no time to address the multiple links that touch on the fallacy of the first amendment argument or the quoted language from the NBA constitution that is in fact purposely vague , controverting your argument that contracts are always as specific as possible.
Last edited by kalibane on Mon May 05, 2014 12:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
kalibane
Legacy
 
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 3:42 pm

Re: Banned for Life

Postby c_hawkbob » Mon May 05, 2014 11:59 am

I don't know whether to reach for popcorn or an airline sickeness bag but this thread is tough to stop peeking at ...

Image
User avatar
c_hawkbob
Legacy
 
Posts: 6941
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 3:34 pm
Location: Paducah Kentucky, 42001

Re: Banned for Life

Postby burrrton » Mon May 05, 2014 12:03 pm

The same way you colluded with BURR.


Eagle, I realize you're either very tired or drunk or both, but I've explained to you as clearly as I know how why I posted.

Explain to me in the best English you can muster what it is about my explanation you either don't believe or don't understand and I'll work with you so you can move past this little persecution complex you're modeling.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Banned for Life

Postby savvyman » Mon May 05, 2014 12:40 pm

Burton you really are a trouble maker.

First you insult all women of ethnic backgrounds by claiming that a girl who looks like this looks in your opinion like a "Haggled Porn Star" and also "look like she's been run through the wringer".


Image



If this is not bad enough - you further contribute to dissension on this board by instigating a fight between two of the best posters here on this board - Eaglehawk & Kalibane.

Finally - if this is not enough already - you reach out and slap the Shacks Godfather - Chawkbob - for good measure.

You sir should apologize immediately for your actions and as punishment send a $100 to Yoder ASAP.
User avatar
savvyman
Legacy
 
Posts: 2114
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 12:17 pm

Re: Banned for Life

Postby kalibane » Mon May 05, 2014 12:54 pm

Not to add ammo to the recently concocted Burrton and Kalibane in collusion conspiracy theory (which I'm sure it will for at least one person) but I kind of agree with Burrton on this. Now granted my own wife says I'm too hard on people who have plastic surgery but I just hate it personally. If you're able to overlook that more power to you.

And this has nothing to do with race, trust me. If this is your bag I don't judge you for it but this woman is in no way attractive to me.

Also Burrton had nothing to do with my disagreements with Eagle. That's it's own animal.
kalibane
Legacy
 
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 3:42 pm

Re: Banned for Life

Postby burrrton » Mon May 05, 2014 3:12 pm

Savvy got an early jump on Cinco de Mayo celebrations, I see...

First you insult all women of ethnic backgrounds by claiming that a girl who looks like this looks in your opinion like a "Haggled Porn Star" and also "look like she's been run through the wringer".


Yes, that's exactly what I did.

[edit- I will say maybe I've only seen the worst shots of her and she's actually much more attractive than I think- that picture is the absolute best I've seen her look, though, and it only makes her borderline]

If this is not bad enough - you further contribute to dissension on this board by instigating a fight between two of the best posters here on this board - Eaglehawk & Kalibane.


Yeah, I feel badly about chiming in when they were getting along so swimmingly.

Finally - if this is not enough already - you reach out and slap the Shacks Godfather - Chawkbob - for good measure.


Not fair- you know good and well I absolutely *HATE* Bob and can't help swearing at him whenever possible.

Apologies all around!
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Banned for Life

Postby Eaglehawk » Mon May 05, 2014 5:50 pm

kalibane wrote:I never said you were colluding with River sir. I said you were dragging him into the discussion between you and I which you did. If I had an accusation of collussion I would have addressed it to both of you. So there was no reason for you to muddy the discussion between you and I by dredging the remanants of a conversation you had no part of. Thus my comments that you quoted.

Bottomline... you decided to bring someone else in this. Not me. All I said was leave him out of it and argue your own argument on it's own merits.

P.S. Interesting that you had time to spend 5 paragraphs arguing about how you didn't invoke Riv... but you had no time to address the multiple links that touch on the fallacy of the first amendment argument or the quoted language from the NBA constitution that is in fact purposely vague , controverting your argument that contracts are always as specific as possible.


I never said you were colluding with River sir.
You implied this. Note: I did not bring River into this. I mentioned his name. Quite different. You are great at stretching the truth Kalibane. Don't do so. You however, despite your denials brought Burr in. Don't try to deny this now. And yes, PM's were sent between you and Burr, and he jumped in, for whatever reason I don't know. His apologies are accepted. That issue is not worth revisiting nor is it necessary to respond to him since all that will do is repeat what I am posting to you. But he and you acted like bullies in the process. Just pop in, disagree, and we all can agree to disagree, I don't need to kiss anyone's ass while making an opinion. It means nothing in my book. Again, just because someone thinks Kalibane is a legendary hero, this doesn't mean that others will agree. In fact, some may disagree. Again, the issue as far as Burr is dead. But my viewpoint will hold since these are the facts. I don't know the motive but I feel that Burr was trying to help you in this argument when he popped in, after his pm's to you. That is my assumption which I feel is reasonable. That will not change.

As far as I was concerned (and Riv can correct me if I am wrong), we see eye to eye, even if we disagree on some of the finer details and how good Sterling's chances are to win in court if he's voted out. And if it hadn't ended to our mutual satisfaction we would still be talking (although much more civilly than you seem capable of).

You are proving my point. River I suggest that you do not take the bait. River expressed his opinion as to both of our points of view Kalibane. BOTH OF OUR VIEWS. Again, stop with the stretching of the truth here. Boy you don't stop do you? And River: he is trying to drag you into this, just like he encouraged Burr to post(my assumption) you are welcome to, personally though there is no need.

Interesting that you had time to spend 5 paragraphs arguing about how you didn't invoke Riv... but you had no time to address the multiple links that touch on the fallacy of the first amendment argument or the quoted language from the NBA constitution that is in fact [b] purposely vague , controverting your argument that contracts are always as specific as possible.[/b]

My goal is not like you Kalibane to twist the truth. People see how you operate by taking what people say and changing their own conclusions to fit your logic and argument. Not going to work with me Kalibane nor should it. And stop the campaign looking for people who agree or disagree with you. Only weak people do that.
Fight your own battles Kalibane. Your battle is with ME and only ME. Cowboy the F up bro.
Will have more later. I have a life and a job to go to.
Last edited by Eaglehawk on Wed May 07, 2014 10:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Eaglehawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:28 pm
Location: Somewhere in China

Re: Banned for Life

Postby kalibane » Mon May 05, 2014 6:26 pm

I don't imply Eagle. When I have an accusation to make I make it. If I wanted to accuse you of colluding that's exactly the word I'd have used. I have no reason and no patience to play coy. And certainly not for the likes of you.

It's become even more important to be crystal clear since you lost your ever loving mind and started making up some fantasy world where people care enough about your rambling to conspire against you. So how about you just stick to the topic at hand and address the links and quotes I posted, because your incoherent paranoia is getting way to out there to even follow at this point.

So take your own advice. Focus. Explain again how I was wrong/twisting the truth about the first amendment and contract language. Make sure you reference those articles about how the first amendment relates to Donald Sterling. Or just continue to ignore the mounting evidence and keep babbling about how I'm twisting the truth.
kalibane
Legacy
 
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 3:42 pm

Re: Banned for Life

Postby Eaglehawk » Mon May 05, 2014 7:38 pm

kalibane wrote:I don't imply Eagle. When I have an accusation to make I make it. If I wanted to accuse you of colluding that's exactly the word I'd have used. I have no reason and no patience to play coy. And certainly not for the likes of you.

It's become even more important to be crystal clear since you lost your ever loving mind and started making up some fantasy world where people care enough about your rambling to conspire against you. So how about you just stick to the topic at hand and address the links and quotes I posted, because your incoherent paranoia is getting way to out there to even follow at this point.

So take your own advice. Focus. Explain again how I was wrong/twisting the truth about the first amendment and contract language. Make sure you reference those articles about how the first amendment relates to Donald Sterling. Or just continue to ignore the mounting evidence and keep babbling about how I'm twisting the truth.


So now everyone that disagrees with you on this issue is reprehensible and a conspiracy theorist? Please sit down Kal and give your mind a rest.
Last edited by Eaglehawk on Mon May 12, 2014 9:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Eaglehawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:28 pm
Location: Somewhere in China

Re: Banned for Life

Postby kalibane » Mon May 05, 2014 8:30 pm

kalibane wrote:Um... but the first amendment argument is wrong.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/30/opinion/r ... g-privacy/
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/2014/ ... story.html
http://blogs.findlaw.com/california_cas ... t-get.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

Also from that last link: "The problem is that Sterling, as an NBA owner, had agreed to be bound by the NBA’s constitution. And that document gives the league’s commissioner, Adam Silver, broad powers to punish owners for actions including “conduct prejudicial or detrimental” to the league."

Care to tell me again how contracts are "as specific as possible"?

kalibane
Legacy
 
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 3:42 pm

Re: Banned for Life

Postby burrrton » Mon May 05, 2014 8:54 pm

I spoke fact about what you did with Burr.


So you know the "facts" about what I did better than I do, and you think I'd be willing to lie about something so nonsensically trivial.

Most bizarre, this insistence about being "ganged up on" does nothing to help your argument. It's just... being weird.

You have a tenuous relationship with reality, brother.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Banned for Life

Postby Eaglehawk » Mon May 05, 2014 9:55 pm

burrrton wrote:
I spoke fact about what you did with Burr.


So you know the "facts" about what I did better than I do, and you think I'd be willing to lie about something so nonsensically trivial.

Most bizarre, this insistence about being "ganged up on" does nothing to help your argument. It's just... being weird.

You have a tenuous relationship with reality, brother.


As do you. Never accused you of lying, I have made my assumptions based on what I saw go down. If you don't like my assumptions, next time you see two posters arguing, stay out. :o 8-)( I know, novel thought eh?).

If you want to stay in and join the fray Burr continue on bro. But as of now I have no issue with you. If you want to make it an issue, its up to you. For the life of me I can't understand why grown men would love to insert themselves into others discussions just for the sake of...arguing. But if that's what you want to do go ahead, bro. As I said as of now I have no issue with you and will ignore your comments for the sake of keeping the peace with you.
Last edited by Eaglehawk on Wed May 07, 2014 10:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Eaglehawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:28 pm
Location: Somewhere in China

Re: Banned for Life

Postby savvyman » Tue May 06, 2014 3:12 pm

burrrton wrote:Savvy got an early jump on Cinco de Mayo celebrations, I see...

First you insult all women of ethnic backgrounds by claiming that a girl who looks like this looks in your opinion like a "Haggled Porn Star" and also "look like she's been run through the wringer".


Yes, that's exactly what I did.

[edit- I will say maybe I've only seen the worst shots of her and she's actually much more attractive than I think- that picture is the absolute best I've seen her look, though, and it only makes her borderline]

If this is not bad enough - you further contribute to dissension on this board by instigating a fight between two of the best posters here on this board - Eaglehawk & Kalibane.


Yeah, I feel badly about chiming in when they were getting along so swimmingly.

Finally - if this is not enough already - you reach out and slap the Shacks Godfather - Chawkbob - for good measure.


Not fair- you know good and well I absolutely *HATE* Bob and can't help swearing at him whenever possible.

Apologies all around!



OK Burton - I will throw some Props your way - It takes a Big Man - - such as yourself - - to publicly admit that they are wrong again on everything and to issue an apology.

You might want to ask Yoder for his mailing address so that you can send the $100 cashola to his attention.
User avatar
savvyman
Legacy
 
Posts: 2114
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 12:17 pm

Re: Banned for Life

Postby RiverDog » Tue May 06, 2014 6:48 pm

How did I get in the middle of all of this? All I did was state my opinion, which as a rule, no one agrees with anyway.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Banned for Life

Postby kalibane » Tue May 06, 2014 8:26 pm

Like I said.. my bad Riv. My goal was to keep the focus on the conversation between Eagle and I... backfired. :oops:
kalibane
Legacy
 
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 3:42 pm

Re: Banned for Life

Postby Eaglehawk » Tue May 06, 2014 9:14 pm

Contracts should be as specific as possible in most situations. You need to state subject matter, dates of execution, etc.
This was my reference to specificity Kal.
I was not talking the NBA contracts. As a general rule contracts should be specific and cover all possible contingencies. Again, this is why you want contracts as specifically worded as possible.

For some clauses, you want them purposely vague, (as I mentioned earlier). Depending on both parties point of view. For example one party would want to specify just the term "chicken" to cover all types of chicken customary to industry usage and trade. Another party may want to specify "young chicken" because it want fryer chickens, etc. The more specific the better, for one party only.


This happens all the time Kalibane.
http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/cont ... es-corp-2/

In the above linked case plaintiff and defendant argued over the term "chicken". Fault of both lawyers who failed to be specific enough in the definition of this word as this term was also the subject matter of the contract. Unbelievable.

That's where I was coming from. Obviously in any contract you may have terms that are purposefully vague, I do not dispute this. Sometimes however if you don't line up your ducks in a row you will get burned by the courts because there was never a meeting of the minds.

You have just two areas where contracts can fail, in the formation phase(subject matter illegality, SOF issues, or the execution(performance) phase(Contract states 3 widgets, you sent only 2). The formation phase is where vagueness can result in a court deeming that the contract is completely void, or where one party has to comply according to what the Court sees fit to do. Again, result of those working on the k's not doing their homework in my opinion.

I can't comment any more specifically as the above is not legal advice anyway. But certainly I can't comment legally on the Sterling case except in general terms. As I look more at facts. The only party, if sued with F/A "clear cut" issues is TMZ.

Going to work. It's a beautiful day here today!
Last edited by Eaglehawk on Tue May 06, 2014 9:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Eaglehawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:28 pm
Location: Somewhere in China

Re: Banned for Life

Postby burrrton » Tue May 06, 2014 9:30 pm

OK Burton - I will throw some Props your way - It takes a Big Man - - such as yourself - - to publicly admit that they are wrong again on everything and to issue an apology.


Wait- you were *serious*?? AHAHAHAHAHAHA...

Savvy, dude, you gotta try harder if you're going to troll.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Banned for Life

Postby Eaglehawk » Tue May 06, 2014 9:40 pm

burrrton wrote:
OK Burton - I will throw some Props your way - It takes a Big Man - - such as yourself - - to publicly admit that they are wrong again on everything and to issue an apology.


Wait- you were *serious*?? AHAHAHAHAHAHA...

Savvy, dude, you gotta try harder if you're going to troll.


Savvy is the Pop Goes the Weasel on this Thread. He pops up then you hear that song. The dude is funny as hell!
User avatar
Eaglehawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:28 pm
Location: Somewhere in China

Re: Banned for Life

Postby kalibane » Tue May 06, 2014 10:13 pm

Are you kidding me? You really spent the last 3-4 days pitching a b**** and foaming at the mouth just to come back in here and admit that contracts contain vague language?

1. That's what I said ... a lot of times contracts contain purposely vague language. And it's not just NBA contracts it's many different kinds of contracts including NBA contracts.

2. Why wouldn't you be talking about NBA contracts? This entire debate centers around the contractual powers of the NBA Commissioner and Board of Governors.

And the funny thing is I would almost bet my life that you're going to come back and write some rambling, tangent and insult laden response to this pretending some how that you were still correct and I was still incorrect this whole time. I'm literally at a loss for words and that doesn't happen often.

I can tell from that post that you have little to no experience dealing with contracts. Seriously, "young chicken"? That's your idea of specific language? "Young" is a relative term. It's not specific at all. If you wanted to specify that you wanted fryers and fryers only you would include language that stated the age and weight ranges of the chickens you were talking about. (Oh here comes the part where you tell me I'm proving your argument again by admiting contracts contain specific language). But here's the thing genius. I didn't say contracts were vague. I didn't say that contracts don't contain specific language. I said a lot of contracts purposely contain vague language. Specific language and vague language in contracts are not mutually exlusive. If this is what I can look forward to in terms of your self proclaimed war against me, if this is the height of your ability to point out when I'm wrong and not let me get away with it, I see a lot of frustration in your future.
kalibane
Legacy
 
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 3:42 pm

Re: Banned for Life

Postby Eaglehawk » Wed May 07, 2014 1:06 am

kalibane wrote:Are you kidding me? You really spent the last 3-4 days pitching a b**** and foaming at the mouth just to come back in here and admit that contracts contain vague language?

1. That's what I said ... a lot of times contracts contain purposely vague language. And it's not just NBA contracts it's many different kinds of contracts including NBA contracts.

2. Why wouldn't you be talking about NBA contracts? This entire debate centers around the contractual powers of the NBA Commissioner and Board of Governors.

And the funny thing is I would almost bet my life that you're going to come back and write some rambling, tangent and insult laden response to this pretending some how that you were still correct and I was still incorrect this whole time. I'm literally at a loss for words and that doesn't happen often.

I can tell from that post that you have little to no experience dealing with contracts. Seriously, "young chicken"? That's your idea of specific language? "Young" is a relative term. It's not specific at all. If you wanted to specify that you wanted fryers and fryers only you would include language that stated the age and weight ranges of the chickens you were talking about. (Oh here comes the part where you tell me I'm proving your argument again by admiting contracts contain specific language). But here's the thing genius. I didn't say contracts were vague. I didn't say that contracts don't contain specific language. I said a lot of contracts purposely contain vague language. Specific language and vague language in contracts are not mutually exlusive. If this is what I can look forward to in terms of your self proclaimed war against me, if this is the height of your ability to point out when I'm wrong and not let me get away with it, I see a lot of frustration in your future.



That you would take my serious reply with no insults and respond with bombast only highlights your immaturity and naivete of what we were talking about. Ur little diatribe doesn't change anything Kalibane. You truly are the master of misdirection and misquotes. Here is your MO: You quote what others say, you take a portion of it, you change it via bombastic statements(or feigned outrage or misstatement), or redefinition of a particular term or phrase or you just lie ("I never imply")(which sounds good because as ignorant as you seem to be you are a decent writer), you act outraged and hit me with insults, then you throw out backhanded insults for the remainder of your post.This is your idea of a response to my serious post? You are not serious Kalibane, and that was my mistake. I thought that you would be at least earnest at finding why I came to the conclusions I have. But you aren't interested. Its okay, I didn't realize how much of a charlatan you were. I got it now. You only want to trade insults and use my serious reply, with zero insults to attempt to prove your talking points! Ah I got it now!!! You think the end justifies the means right?

And then after you have covered me with personal insults, you have the pomposity to write 'Eagle will reply with insults'? Really? Do you think the posters on here are that stupid not to see that I posted serious content to you but your reply was like a little 10 year old child having a tantrum with a keyboard? Put down the beer bro or the bong or both. You were the one who baited others to come onto this forum and argue against me because you knew I was onto your drivel and high grade but preposterous logic. You really think that people will believe you when you hit me with the 10 year old kid crying "is that all you got" argument? You are truly a little boy. And I am glad that now others on here can read who you truly are. Not a man, just a kid. Kalibane, you want to trash me again while ignoring the facts then go ahead. This is not the best or the worst of me trying to convince you. I choose not to give you my best or go into more details on the NBA legal analysis for a reason. A very serious reason. I am a man. You are little kid. I run circles around you in contract law kid. Circles. You look at my failure to give you more details as a weakness? It's strength.

You imply throughout all of your posts that contracts were not supposed to be specific but VAGUE. Now you say no, you didn't say that. (Of course you will look through your posts and cherry pick quotes while leaving out others etc. and expect people to believe that)? I hate to say this bro I think that your actions on this thread show me that you might be perhaps having some mental issues. Seriously. You've never been called out in this way and you are going insane or at least losing it. I don't mean this as an insult but maybe you should seek mental help bro. I know you feel you always have to be right, but your last response tells me you are losing it. I have never seen anyone get to you like I have. But on the personal side, I wish to impose on you no ill health or stress via my responses. If you feel this is happening or if I am even coming close to this line please tell me to stop and I will. No problem, okay? I wish you no ill will personally. This is a forum for us to agree, argue etc. If you in any way feel uncomfortable with me or want me to stop then tell me okay bro?

Now, back to the lecture at hand. You are the one that implied that contracts should be vague in your posts. You backtracked and decided to personally continue the insults.
I will continue to call you out as I see fit Kalibane on this forum. It doesn't matter to me what anyone thinks about you or me. What matters is that I allow the other posters to see what a vindictive, misrepresenting sack of potatoes you are and the extent you are willing to go to win arguments and how you try to get others to fight your battles when you and I alone are involved. At least you had the guts enough to admit that much and apologize. PATHETIC BRO truly PATHETIC.

And yes I will continue to fight you every chance I get on this forum if you're up to it mentally. Regardless of your little smug attitude and twisting of my arguments phoney assumptions about me or what I do. Insult me all you want. It does not change the fact that your arguments rely on misstatements, innuendos, slight of hand, misdirection of your position and twisting of the facts. All to fit your just posted neatly stenciled highly beautiful and stinking pile of donkeypoo.

The term "chicken" was what the parties and court found to be the subject of contention Kalibane. A more fact specific contract would have worked for one party, or they would have never entered into the k in the first place. Don't try to tell folks on this forum what is or is not a relevant term or that it means something else, you are attempting misdirection again. Won't work. People have common sense and won't go for your interpretation of jack because they now know that its suspect. The contract was ambiguous because of that term. What you say does not change that fact.

I have zero experience with contracts? To lower myself to your 10th grade argument, "that's all you got Kalibane? I would have thought you would have conjured up a more thoughtful response. But I forgot, that is not the purpose of Charlatans and egotistical freaks of nature. Sorry.

Our war of words will always continue Kalibane, bank on it. And I for one can't wait.
From here on out on this thread, I will speak to you about nothing else but insults. No more facts. I realize that is all you want. Great. I hope you are ready. Its a warning to you actually. Cause I will not stop and I hope you don't either. I am done trying to explain facts to you because from your last post you show me you are not interested in facts but in hurling more insults. With other posters I will discuss facts, not you.

Please respond and I will in turn, respond. And you will in turn respond. But remember Kalibane, no more facts. Just insults. I think at least that way our disgust with each other would be even more transparent no?

At least now you will be known as that guy who when he can't make a point will misstate facts, people's opinions, redefine the argument to fit his idea, misdirect others conclusions, speak half-truths and when that doesn't work, engage in pejorative talk, back handed insults and attempt to bait other posters to join in a discussion that has nothing to do with them.

FELLOW POSTERS I GIVE YOU: KALIBANE!!!! :roll: :roll: :roll: (what a joke of a poster :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: ).
User avatar
Eaglehawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:28 pm
Location: Somewhere in China

Re: Banned for Life

Postby kalibane » Wed May 07, 2014 7:07 am

Eagle, you don't get to call me the things you called me in this thread and then feign outrage about the tone of my posts. You should count yourself lucky. At least I replied to the meat of your supposed "serious" response. It took you the better part of a week to finally conjure up what you believed to be a cogent rebuttal to my remarks about how contracts are structured. And you still haven't fashioned a reply to what I posted in response to your fallacious first amendment argument. So yes... this is my idea of a reply. Shock and disbelief that you think your previous post actually helped your position. And pointing out that while arguing the purpose and necessity of highly specific contracts you don't even understand how to be specific.

Granted this is a complete tangent but your little coup de gras chicken case is laguable to say the least. The dispute according to you, is that the contract was supposed to be for chicken of the "fryer" designation. The contract only said "chicken" and thus chickens that didn't fall into the fryer designation weren't provided. Your solution was to say the contract should say "young chicken". Well that's zero help. If you wanted to specify fryers and fryers only they should have said chicken of specific age and weight ranges. All you did was replace a vague term with slightly less, but still massively vague term. Define "young chicken". It's perfectly reasonable to argue that a chicken that is older and heavier than fryers are supposed to be is still "young". And of course any chicken younger than a fryer is "young" in the context of this dispute. You can't even impliment the kind of language that you claim contracts are supposed to be made up of.

Now you're whole idea is that I've been making implications of how contracts should be. Helpful hint. Try focusing on what I actually said, instead of what you wish I said. I never said contracts should be vague. I never said contracts "SHOULD" be anything. I said a lot of contracts purposely contain vague langauge. You do get the difference right? Oh I shouldn't be so silly... of course you don't. One example of a poorly written contract about chicken doesn't prove your point when contracts commonly contain vague language on purpose. You seem to not get that having clauses that are highly specific and clauses that are intentionally vague are not mutually exclusive. They can both be present in the same contract.

Let's look at homeowners policies. They are highly specific regarding coverage amount, premium, beneficiary information, property covered and pay schedule for said premiums. On the other hand when it comes to what damage is actually covered, the clause is vague. They may specifically mention fire or something like that but there is no language that specifically states that an uninsured motorist crashing into your house is covered (even though it will be), or that burst pipes are covered (even though they are). Instead often times there will be a clause that deals with "acts of god" being covered which can apply to a wide range of disasters. And then if there is something they don't want to cover, like say flood damage, they will tack on an exclusion. That clause can be a bone of contention if a claim is denied and you can end up in court. But insurance company after insurance company keeps using that clause ... The question is why? Because the whole point of an insurance policy is to guard against financial ruin brought on from an unforseen disaster. It would do the homeowner very little good to only be covered for disasters that they could think of at the time they took out the policy. Plus.. It would be a complete waste of time and energy for the insurance companies if they couldn't use standard language in their policies and had to basically draft a new highly specific policy every time they had a new customer.

To bring it back full circle to the NBA... That is why there is vague language in the NBA constitution giving the Commissioner and the NBA board of governors power to punish another owner for "conduct prejudicial and detrimental to the league". They never intended to have a blatantly racist owner (in practice and in personal belief) that would incite protest, possible work stoppage and loss of ad revenue. Furthermore, they probably never envisioned they would have an owner like that. And that's why the vague language is there. This is something they didn't see coming but in the event that something like this happened they wanted the ability to take action. And that's why vague language in a contract can be a good idea and is present in most of the everyday contracts we are exposed to.

At the end of the day, this keeps circling back to the same immutable fact. You don't know jack about contracts, the first amendment or legal expectation of privacy. You just walk around with this myopic world view about how you think things "should" be not realizing how things "should" be in your mind aren't how they actually are.
kalibane
Legacy
 
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 3:42 pm

Re: Banned for Life

Postby Eaglehawk » Wed May 07, 2014 8:43 am

kalibane wrote:Eagle, you don't get to call me the things you called me in this thread and then feign outrage about the tone of my posts. You should count yourself lucky. At least I replied to the meat of your supposed "serious" response. It took you the better part of a week to finally conjure up what you believed to be a cogent rebuttal to my remarks about how contracts are structured. And you still haven't fashioned a reply to what I posted in response to your fallacious first amendment argument. So yes... this is my idea of a reply. Shock and disbelief that you think your previous post actually helped your position. And pointing out that while arguing the purpose and necessity of highly specific contracts you don't even understand how to be specific.

Granted this is a complete tangent but your little coup de gras chicken case is laguable to say the least. The dispute according to you, is that the contract was supposed to be for chicken of the "fryer" designation. The contract only said "chicken" and thus chickens that didn't fall into the fryer designation weren't provided. Your solution was to say the contract should say "young chicken". Well that's zero help. If you wanted to specify fryers and fryers only they should have said chicken of specific age and weight ranges. All you did was replace a vague term with slightly less, but still massively vague term. Define "young chicken". It's perfectly reasonable to argue that a chicken that is older and heavier than fryers are supposed to be is still "young". And of course any chicken younger than a fryer is "young" in the context of this dispute. You can't even impliment the kind of language that you claim contracts are supposed to be made up of.



Now you're whole idea is that I've been making implications of how contracts should be. Helpful hint. Try focusing on what I actually said, instead of what you wish I said. I never said contracts should be vague. I never said contracts "SHOULD" be anything. I said a lot of contracts purposely contain vague langauge. You do get the difference right? Oh I shouldn't be so silly... of course you don't. One example of a poorly written contract about chicken doesn't prove your point when contracts commonly contain vague language on purpose. You seem to not get that having clauses that are highly specific and clauses that are intentionally vague are not mutually exclusive. They can both be present in the same contract.

Let's look at homeowners policies. They are highly specific regarding coverage amount, premium, beneficiary information, property covered and pay schedule for said premiums. On the other hand when it comes to what damage is actually covered, the clause is vague. They may specifically mention fire or something like that but there is no language that specifically states that an uninsured motorist crashing into your house is covered (even though it will be), or that burst pipes are covered (even though they are). Instead often times there will be a clause that deals with "acts of god" being covered which can apply to a wide range of disasters. And then if there is something they don't want to cover, like say flood damage, they will tack on an exclusion. That clause can be a bone of contention if a claim is denied and you can end up in court. But insurance company after insurance company keeps using that clause ... The question is why? Because the whole point of an insurance policy is to guard against financial ruin brought on from an unforseen disaster. It would do the homeowner very little good to only be covered for disasters that they could think of at the time they took out the policy. Plus.. It would be a complete waste of time and energy for the insurance companies if they couldn't use standard language in their policies and had to basically draft a new highly specific policy every time they had a new customer.

To bring it back full circle to the NBA... That is why there is vague language in the NBA constitution giving the Commissioner and the NBA board of governors power to punish another owner for "conduct prejudicial and detrimental to the league". They never intended to have a blatantly racist owner (in practice and in personal belief) that would incite protest, possible work stoppage and loss of ad revenue. Furthermore, they probably never envisioned they would have an owner like that. And that's why the vague language is there. This is something they didn't see coming but in the event that something like this happened they wanted the ability to take action. And that's why vague language in a contract can be a good idea and is present in most of the everyday contracts we are exposed to.

At the end of the day, this keeps circling back to the same immutable fact. You don't know jack about contracts, the first amendment or legal expectation of privacy. You just walk around with this myopic world view about how you think things "should" be not realizing how things "should" be in your mind aren't how they actually are.


I have feigned outrage? Now you are using my terms? Who do you think you are, Mother Theresa? You don't know whether my outrage is feigned or not kid. Since you cannot read my mind. Is this the pot calling the kettle Kalibane black? Come on man! You don't get to tell me what I should or should not post. Got it Shakespeare?

"I should count myself lucky". This is the BS that I can't stand about you Kalibane. You are NOTHING AND NO ONE for me to count myself lucky or unlucky other anything else. You're a little kid that got some awards in grade school for a nice paper or two who found out that he could use his argumentative writings skills as a sword and haven't shut up since, because some people can't independently follow ur logic or tactics or don't have the will or the guts to show you up. And seriously kid, you can't even reach my ...I'll just say "belt" in terms of stature and experience. GET OVER YOURSELF KID.
So while I enjoy how you get to think and assert yourself on here as if I should be lucky or not, I don't care. Get over yourself Shakespeare, you write great prose but maybe you should stop writing so much fiction and start writing fact. And on that line, forget the meat, hit me with more insults jackass. In this way I could feel "lucky". Make my day little man.

You quote the chicken case as if I can't read. You go into the trees kid and then you get lost, and pull out a worm from the ground that has nothing to do with the gist of the case and tell me "ha ha, you know nothing it was a young chicken". You fool.

I'll indulge you just one more time because if you read carefully, the issue before the court was not what is a young chicken, but "what is chicken?" If you read the case you would realize that the plaintiff buyer contended that "'chicken" meant a young chicken, suitable for broiling and frying. The defendant insisted that a chicken is any bird of the genus that meets contract specifications on weight and quality, including what it calls stewing chicken. Understood, Kalibane or do I have to school you again in what the case actually turned on? The judge who heard the case, conceded that both meanings were possible. Consequently, he declared that the word chicken standing alone was ambiguous and he decided to look to the contract to see whether it offered any aid for the interpretation of the word chicken.

I am not getting into analysis of NBA contracts since its not in my interest to do so. But I don't have a problem with what you said in your last post re such.

I always have indicated that vague and specific provisions can exist in contract. My early posts referred to contracts as a whole, while you were refuting me based on what should be inside the 4 corners of the document. Maybe that is the source of the confusion. I'm sure you'll find a way to argue against that because that "way way too reasonable". And it makes, way way too much sense.

Of course vague provisions and specific provisions can exist mutually side by side in contracts. Why would I think that not to be the case? I imputed initially that you felt that all contracts should be vague. Your last post indicates this viewpoint not to be the case. You imputed incorrectly that I only indicated that contracts should be specific and not contain any vagueness in them and that was incorrect since I was talking about contracts in general, not specific provisions in the contract which of course can have both vagueness and specificity according to the circumstances which was what I posted originally.

Aside from the piousness, pomposity, arrogance, insults, in your posts, I feel we are saying the same thing Kal in some areas. I will try one more time to throw out another post without some insults Kal but you won't let me. So until then, expect insults with meat. At least that way I am fair. I know you probably have no idea what I am getting at. But its okay. Others may get it. One more time. Let's see if this works. Trying to help you man. Lower the insults some more and I will lower mine is what I am trying to say. Or stay in the corner moping like a little B with your high grade rhetoric.
I think we are saying the same thing. You might not like that and resume lobbing verbal grenades, then I will do the same.
User avatar
Eaglehawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:28 pm
Location: Somewhere in China

Re: Banned for Life

Postby Eaglehawk » Fri May 09, 2014 7:51 pm

Good Kalibane. Silence. Even young punks grow up.

From what I have seen and heard on his phone call Sterling is not a racist at all. I have heard worst, and this guy is not it. He might have been a racist before. He isn't one now. I posit he is a bit of a bigot, nothing more.
User avatar
Eaglehawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:28 pm
Location: Somewhere in China

Re: Banned for Life

Postby burrrton » Fri May 09, 2014 8:18 pm

Even young punks grow up.


Eag, you need to know how to take an olive branch as well as to offer one when someone else decides to stay 'quiet' (either intentionally or simply because they have better s*** to do sometimes).
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Banned for Life

Postby Eaglehawk » Fri May 09, 2014 10:30 pm

So its true you fighting alongside Kalibane?

Good. At least all can see now.
To be honest Burr, I am getting a bit tired of your popping up on here in defense of Kalibane giving me advice. It's getting old quick.
Especially since no olive branch was EVER offered by Kalibane. ZERO.

I offered an olive branch when I attempted to discuss facts a couple of posts ago and was met with bombast and insults.
And even in my second to last post I offered to lower the rhetoric and just stick with facts. So please do not attempt to say that I don't know how to offer olive branches.

And again, please stop giving me advice. I know its free advice. However, I would prefer that you just stop.

Let me give you some advice Burr and MY olive branch: Stay out. And stop trying to fight your friends battles for them. It just shows weakness.
User avatar
Eaglehawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:28 pm
Location: Somewhere in China

Re: Banned for Life

Postby burrrton » Sat May 10, 2014 9:04 am

To be honest Burr, I am getting a bit tired of your popping up on here in defense of Kalibane giving me advice.


Nobody gives a sh*t what you're "tired of", Eagle. I'm giving you some friendly advice because you're showing yourself to be someone who is both spectacularly incapable of effective communication and apparently new-ish to the internet if you think 'taking sides' is something unique and surprising.

I've told you a number of times I disagree with you about the FA issue, and that I think your posts are rather incoherent and troll-ish ("even young punks grow up" simply because someone hasn't replied in a while??), so don't get so butthurt if I chime in and say so.

I'm not trying to "defend" Kalibane- as this thread has illustrated he's perfectly capable of doing that himself- as much as I'm expressing aggravation with your rambling and bizarre insults.

At least all can see now.


Nothing was ever hidden, you paranoid nut. Kal isn't the only one here that disagrees with the bulk of your arguments.
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Banned for Life

Postby Eaglehawk » Sat May 10, 2014 9:59 pm

burrrton wrote:
To be honest Burr, I am getting a bit tired of your popping up on here in defense of Kalibane giving me advice.


Nobody gives a sh*t what you're "tired of", Eagle. I'm giving you some friendly advice because you're showing yourself to be someone who is both spectacularly incapable of effective communication and apparently new-ish to the internet if you think 'taking sides' is something unique and surprising.

I've told you a number of times I disagree with you about the FA issue, and that I think your posts are rather incoherent and troll-ish ("even young punks grow up" simply because someone hasn't replied in a while??), so don't get so butthurt if I chime in and say so.

I'm not trying to "defend" Kalibane- as this thread has illustrated he's perfectly capable of doing that himself- as much as I'm expressing aggravation with your rambling and bizarre insults.

At least all can see now.


Nothing was ever hidden, you paranoid nut. Kal isn't the only one here that disagrees with the bulk of your arguments.


You have the nerve to tell me I am paranoid. You BREAK FORUM PROTOCOL and BUST INTO ANOTHER CONVERSATION THAT WAS NOT YOURS, and hurl insults. Then you assume that all fellow posters would join you in agreeing with you because, "I am scattered"?

Add to that you then hypocritically say 'Apologies all around guys' , 'yeah I should have known better', oh boy, yes ' my bad, I should have not butted into their conversation' to paraphrase, now you hurl insults at me and you call me "paranoid"? Look in the mirror to see who is not paranoid Kaliburr, you might be even schizophrenic.
So much for your lecturing me about the olive branch right Burr? Ha hahaha. Hypocrite. I assume you are a Christian from your previous posts, even if not, the good book says to "First take the rafter out from your own eye, then you will be able to take the straw out from your brothers eye". Matthew 7.
You my ex friend have morphed into: KALIBURR.
Last edited by Eaglehawk on Sat May 10, 2014 11:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Eaglehawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:28 pm
Location: Somewhere in China

Re: Banned for Life

Postby Eaglehawk » Sat May 10, 2014 10:10 pm

KALIBURR,

Do you really think I care who agrees or disagrees with me on this thread? My viewpoints are my viewpoints. Sterling is not a racist. I will never call someone reprehensible because they disagree with me. But your boy did. And he got my response for it. All the names you and your buddy want to call me will not change that. The sole purpose of you posting to me is because you now want to throw insults at me. You don't give a rats ass about the issues. You are Kalibane's lap dog and you think that by barking at me you will somehow feel better for what you did on this thread. I will never change my point of view about what went down between you two and myself.

My only three insults to you would be this:

1. You are Kaliburr.
2. You are a hypocrite.
3. You are a bully.
I could think of more but I am holding myself back bro.

I am trying not to insult you further because you do not deserve my time if its just to go back and forth with insults. Who are you? You are nothing. As am I.
Hit me with some more insults KALIBURR, you look like a little ? when you do. I mock you bud. Truly. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Last edited by Eaglehawk on Mon May 12, 2014 9:11 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Eaglehawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:28 pm
Location: Somewhere in China

Re: Banned for Life

Postby burrrton » Sun May 11, 2014 8:03 am

Do you really think I care who agrees or disagrees with me on this thread?


I think your spittle-laden replies make the answer quite clear, Eag.

You need a hug?
User avatar
burrrton
Legacy
 
Posts: 4213
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 7:20 am

Re: Banned for Life

Postby ShackMod » Sun May 11, 2014 10:43 am

I would like to remind everyone that the "off Topic" forum is for friendly talk and banter. Reel in this thread and respect the forum, please.
User avatar
ShackMod
Site Admin
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Sat Nov 30, 2013 12:42 am

Re: Banned for Life

Postby Eaglehawk » Sun May 11, 2014 5:18 pm

Agreed.
No more insults coming from me at least.
Thank you.
User avatar
Eaglehawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:28 pm
Location: Somewhere in China

Re: Banned for Life

Postby kalibane » Mon May 12, 2014 7:44 am

You know Eagle I did actually start replying to your last semi-on topic post. But I found myself discussing case law, the particulars of your chicken case and in my mind I started thinking to myself, "What am I doing?", "Who's benefit am I posting this stuff for?". You don't appear to really know the difference between arbitration and a court proceeding much less finer points of the law. You aren't going to accept any explanation from me on the matter no matter how lucid because you've just come to the conclusion that I need to be put in my place or something. No one else cares in the slightest about your chicken case. It was no longer amusing, so replying was just a waste of my time and energy.

The sad thing is you couldn't just accept the last word when you had the opportunity and let the thread die. No you had to come back in here and do some silly little misguided victory dance with your "even young punks grow up" post. That in and of itself was amusing to me, sad but amusing. But that wasn't the saddest thing.

It's funny because when I quoted one of your previous posts and said I was quoting it because I didn't put it past you to go back and edit away stuff you regretted saying, it was a tongue in cheek comment. But now I come back in here 5 days later after not checking the thread since Wednesday, and I see the post you made on May 7 is a completely different post than the one that I started typing my reply to. You actually came back, and rewrote your original post (I can't even say edited because the whole thing is so different than the original version) to be more aggressive and insulting. Seriously what's wrong with you dude? Was I not giving you enough attention so you needed to try and goad me into continuing this back and forth? You need some help bruh... like for real... like this is not even a joke or me trying to get your goat on this. You literrally were sitting around stewing about one of your own posts and thought to yourself, "You know what, I'm not being enough of a jerk, I'm re-writing the entire thing only this time I'm going to fill it with ad hominems and hyper-provacative language, and I'm sure because no one actually replied to it that no one saw the original and I won't get called on it".

Seriously man... find someone to talk to.
kalibane
Legacy
 
Posts: 1495
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2014 3:42 pm

Re: Banned for Life

Postby FolkCrusader » Tue May 13, 2014 1:54 am

Trying to stay up until 2:30 to do some medical stuff. So I think to myself, watch latest game of thrones episode or read some forum. Regular forum is all I love/hate PC/Schneider/random football player so I try off topic.

Lets just say this thread leaves GoT in the dust.

My only comment, try to remember we have a common interest here.
FolkCrusader
Legacy
 
Posts: 356
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 11:51 am

Re: Banned for Life

Postby Eaglehawk » Tue May 13, 2014 9:59 am

Kalibane.

Don't mistake my editing out of my insults to you as "remorse" for what I told you. Some of the milder ones are still there. And yes, I meant every word. Please understand that. Also do not mistake my holding my tongue and heeding my promise that I would not insult you any more as weakness Kalibane. It's strength. Finally do not mistake me not responding to you, with me giving you any high ground in this conversation, I am simply moving on.

I have much better things to do with my time bub. Adios.
User avatar
Eaglehawk
Legacy
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 8:28 pm
Location: Somewhere in China

Re: Banned for Life

Postby c_hawkbob » Fri May 23, 2014 11:29 am

Sterling has agreed to sell the team today, this one's all over except the details now.
User avatar
c_hawkbob
Legacy
 
Posts: 6941
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 3:34 pm
Location: Paducah Kentucky, 42001

Re: Banned for Life

Postby Futureite » Sun Jun 15, 2014 9:34 am

Lol "first amendment right". Sterling's first amendment rights were not violated. The government has not prevented him from voicing his opinion. The NBA is a privately owned business. Any business is going to eliminate anyone or anything that negatively effects the bottom line. If you pop off as an employee, you'll get canned. If you are an owner, the board of directors will find a way to remove you, buyout or otherwise.
Futureite
Legacy
 
Posts: 1099
Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2013 4:09 pm

Re: Banned for Life

Postby RiverDog » Thu Jun 19, 2014 5:36 am

Futureite wrote:Lol "first amendment right". Sterling's first amendment rights were not violated. The government has not prevented him from voicing his opinion. The NBA is a privately owned business. Any business is going to eliminate anyone or anything that negatively effects the bottom line. If you pop off as an employee, you'll get canned. If you are an owner, the board of directors will find a way to remove you, buyout or otherwise.


Sterling is not an employee of the NBA, nor is he an employee of the LA Clippers.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Re: Banned for Life

Postby c_hawkbob » Thu Jun 19, 2014 6:01 am

Now Dog, you know better than that. You always ding people for cherry picking ... in his very next line he addresses the consequences as an owner.
User avatar
c_hawkbob
Legacy
 
Posts: 6941
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 3:34 pm
Location: Paducah Kentucky, 42001

Re: Banned for Life

Postby RiverDog » Thu Jun 19, 2014 7:21 am

c_hawkbob wrote:Now Dog, you know better than that. You always ding people for cherry picking ... in his very next line he addresses the consequences as an owner.


Ah...you're right. Didn't read through the whole thing. Thanks for the correction, and my apologies to Future.
User avatar
RiverDog
Legacy
 
Posts: 23995
Joined: Sat Dec 14, 2013 10:52 am
Location: Kennewick, WA, 99338

Previous

Return to Off Topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

cron