BuffaloBob

Hey, I resemble that remark! Please be more specific. I know many patent attorneys and besides having a great deal of technical knowledge, they are not all that wierd. Actually, it really helps to have a technical or science degree to get into patent law as a litigator although not required, and it is a requisite if you are going to prepare and file patent applications. Bill, I highly recommend her taking the year off regardless! It does wonders for the attitude to take at least some time off, take a job doing something you like to do, and then going back. Virtually every kid I talked to in my law school class had a better attitude after at least some time off, and a crappy one when they did not.

I will be there as I am home for Christmas and my old highschool buddy from Eden has tickets.

The guy with the fact-filled positions has studied corporate governance and countless tort gases in law school and out, in which this very thing occurred time and again. Let's start with the exploding Pintos and the rolling SUVs, down to the drugs that they push through the FDA and sell $Billions of dollars worth before the health issues are finall brought to light. I suppose I could start citing specific cases, but I think you made my point with the fact that this position is strictly opinion and that at best it is based on stuff you've heard rather than actual study of anything concrete. Like I said, this is exactly what the insurance industry, corporate America and the Republicans want. An ignorant public willing to believe anything they hear because they want to believe it.

Please provide some facts for this position. You are not an attorney and you are not in insurance, so perhaps you should provide us with the basis for this position.

ROTFLMAO! Why am I not surprised to see this sort of non-response retreat from my last post? Perhaps you should just do the research on the subject and then come back for more, rather than simply re-stating your original premise and reinforcing the fact that your gut feel tells you that it must be so (just what the insurance industry loves to see BTW!). Do lawyers have something to do with premiums? Yes they do. Were it not for lawyers keeping morons in check that harm people out of their own carelessness and/or greed, why would such people and corporations even need insurance? Perhaps we should just let people dupe, swindle and otherwise harm other people for their own pecuniary gain without any recourse to those being hurt. Then we can go back to a society that largely settled these types of disputes with guns in the street! Of course, if it weren't for people taking advantage of others with regard to their safety in the name of profit, or for those who conduct themselves professionally below a reasonable standard of care, we wouldn't need trial lawyers at all. As for class action lawsuits, the whole premise for them is that individual liability is small, but harm to society in the aggregate is not small. Were it not for class action-lawsuits, these types of fraud and other harms would go unremedied, unpunished and unchecked. The whole purpose of class-action suits is the ability to aggregate the wrong and make it worthwhile to pursue. The point is not to compensate you as an invidual, nor to justify the earnings of the law firm based on an invidual's recovery, but to prevent corporations from taking advantage of the public at large for the mere fact that the harm is spread over many people and would otherwise be unremedied because of that. You obviously have a harsh opinion of lawyers. It appears this is based primarily on ignorance and cliche. One can argue, and reasonable minds can differ, regarding whether attorney's belong to an "elite" group. But one of the reasons why most law school graduates from highly reputable schools pass the bar the first time is that they were well-screened upon admission to have the types of intrinsic skills that would make one a success at the profession, and they are well-prepared by those schools to pass the bar. Given the number of people trying to get into a good law school that are turned away each year, and given the rather small number of people that actually take and pass the bar in the 50 states each year relative to the population in general, I am proud of the fact that I accomplished that task, whether or not it makes me elite in your opinion.

Like I said, most doctors who stand up and agree are ones that are on the payroll. Moreover, I do not believe understanding or researching facts regarding the economics of insurance companies and corporate policies on liability vs profits is within the expertise of most doctors. And of course, doctors don't like to be sued for their mistakes, even when they deserve to be sued. As for jackasses not being able to get medical degrees, from where do you get this? I've known lots of jackasses with medical degrees. Why, just recently the father of a very good friend of mine was diagnosed by one of these supposed non-jackasses as having stomach cancer. This non-jackass told my friend and his mother and father that his only hope was to have his stomach removed, a surgery which was then scheduled and was imminent. When they asked him for more details regarding the operation and how many he had performed, he arrogantly asked them, without answering any of their questions, "How many would make you comfortable? 10, 20, 100?" They told him they might seek another opinion, to which he once more responded with incredible arroagance: "Fine, go ahead. Any doctor that knows what he is talking about will tell you the same thing." They did get that second opinion. It turned out that he had esophageal cancer instead. Rather than remove his stomach, they removed his esophogus and fashioned a new one from part of his stomach that had he not sought the second opinion, he would not have still had and he would most certainly have been dead by now. The physician that provided the second opinion was incredulous that this guy made the diagnosis he did based on the various diagnostic tests that he ran, telling them that not only was the stomach cancer not revealed by these tests run by the first (because he did not have it) but neither was the cancer in his esophagus revealed. It turns out that his father is actually in remission, has a great prognosis and still has his freakin' stomach which was healthy to begin with. But I guess this guy they went to first is clearly not a jackass, or at least not any old jackass, and had he removed this man's stomach, leaving the real cancer in him, he should not have been sued when the man would surely have died prematurely, right? And can any old jackass get a law degree? Perhaps, but not any old jackass actually passes the bar. Otherwise perhaps you would be a member?

And what would THEY know except what the insurance companies are telling them? Sure, you always get some doctors who are willing to stand up and repeat the insurance company/corporate line. They are either as duped as the public, or they are being paid for it. And nobody pissed in my coffee. I read a post early in this thread making some ignorant comment about meaningful tort reform, and I couldn't help myself. I have no vested interest in the Trial Lawyers Association. I do not practice that kind of law, and I do not like to see people abusing the system any more than the next guy. But if you buy this crap that the insurance companies and corporate America is selling you and the public, then you are not looking into the facts that there for anyone to see if they are willing to spend the time. But then again, big business is counting on the fact that you and most of the public won't! Just get a few docs on the payroll ready to support the assertion, and that's all people need. So much easier than actually studying the facts.

And he always said over and over: Get your peanuts here.........Buffalo's Best!

I enjoyed the hell out of Law School. It really helps if you spend a few years working first, as that will give you a break from school and makes you appreciate it all the more. I am a patent attorney working for myself. I've done the big firm thing and it was OK but not for me. The advice given by others to NOT do it for the money is sound indeed. And there are all kinds of options to make less money and help others if you wish. As for those who think trial lawyers do not perform a service for society, no matter how much money they may make, obviously have never been harmed by someone else's stupidity, greed and/or carelessness. They will be the first one knocking on the tort lawyer's door when they are needlessly harmed by some person's carelessness or some corporation's greed (i.e. putting profits above people's safety). The biggest myth in the world is this premise that runaway juries and trial lawyers are the reason for astronomical insurance premiums in this country. This is one of the most successful cons I have ever seen perpetrated on the public in my entire life. If anyone cared to study the stats, they would discover that huge tort awards are actually the exception to the rule, and almost invariably the result of outrage felt by the jury for the behavior of the defendant. A perfect example is the McDonald's coffee case. What most people do not know is that the elderly woman who suffered the injuries was not driving, but a passenger. The car was not moving, but they had in fact pulled over to fix their coffees. Yes, she put the cup between her knees to remove the lid and add cream and sugar, which nearly anyone of us would have done because it is virtually the only way to do it in a car. There are no solid, stable surfaces upon which to rest a cup to free both hands to tear packages and remove the lid. Moreover, back when this occurred, those styrafoam cups were cheap and flimsy at best. Her injuries were so severe, primarliy to her genitalia, that she was treated for a week in the hospital, including skin grafts and other treatement associated with severe burns. The coffee was well above the temperature that was appropriate, at roughly 190 degrees, and there was evidence that McDonald's did this to keep people from drinking the coffee on the premises and requesting refills. McDonalds was well aware that serving the coffee to drivers at that temperature was unsafe, as they turned up hundreds of reported cases of severe burns and claims made against them, many of which McDonald's even paid for treatment, yet they did nothing to make it safer. And the topper was that all the lady wanted from McDonald's originally was for them to cover the cost of treatment of her injuries, which was refused outright. And taking the position that regardless of all of that, people should simply know that there is a chance of severely buring themselves if they buy and try to fix coffee in a car is crap when a company like McDonald's advertises, cajoles and otherwise exhorts peope to pay them money to put themselves in that position. Who thinks that anything that bad could happen to them if the Clown is inviting them to the Golden Arches to buy coffee on the run while making $$Millions per day doing so? And then, in the face of hundreds of cases of people really hurting themselves, continues to do so without the slightest regard for those risks or even the most feeble of attempts to lower the risk or lessen the damage. But it is so easy to dupe people on these cases because the general public will not do the reseach to get the true facts. And they have the benefit of using the media to make jokes about it as an example of the system gone wrong. The reality is that insurance premiums are high because insurance companies are guaranteed a minimum profit, they abuse what restrictions or controls exist on them, they lose money on their investments when the stock market dives, and they will often spend a lot of money trying not to pay claims they are obligated to pay. Moreover, corporations will virtually always opt for profits over safety, especially when they believe that their liability will be less than the profits they expect to reap. So what if you harm a few individuals, disrupt their lives and their families, so long as it costs you less to pay out compensation than it does to either fix the problem or do without the profits. Placing limits on recovery only serves this goal further, by making it even easier to disregard potential liability in favor of profit, as that potential libility ha not been capped for them by a duped public. And if you read any studies of those states who have passed "tort reform" they will see that virtually know relief has been provided in the cost o premiums, as insurance companies and corporations have not passed on those savings in liaility to the patsy public. OK, I am off my soapbox now. Just don't let the ignorant opinions of some dissuade you from a legal education and career if you are interested and you have the aptitude.

It was a game at the Ole Rockpile on November 30th, 1969 that I remember most. I was 11 years old. It was OJ's rookie season and the Bills were struggling. The Bills were playing the Bengals with QB Greg Cook and Sam Wyche backing him up. It was snowing like I have never seen it snow for a Bills game before or since. You could barely make out the players, let alone tell which guy played for which team. I was snow blind after that game! I remember how long QBs stood looking down field trying to figure out which guy was on their team let alone find one who was open. The Bills were holding onto a 9-3 lead when Cook went back to pass deep in his own territory (it was his own 10 yard line and our seats were about 40 rows up from the field at like the 15). Cook went back to pass, and he stood back there scanning the field, which by this time had long since lost any indication of yard markers, sidelines or goal lines, for what seemed like at least 10 seconds. Booker Edgerson was standing to his right, spying him to make sure he didn't run. As Greg turned his attention to his left side, Booker bolted into the backfield towards Cook. I started nudging my dad, who was watching the action (what little you could see) in the secondary; all I could do was point as my Dad focused on the QB just in time to see Edgerson not plow into Cook's blind-side, as I had anticipated. Instead he simply reached up and gently took the ball out of Cook's cocked hand and ran it the ten yards into the solid white end zone. I think he ran the ball past the end-line just to make sure he crossed the goal line because it was buried. Cook was absolutely confounded as he alternately looked at his empty hand and then in the direction of the running Edgerson. It was the longest delayed TD call I've ever seen, as the Referee did not see Booker take the ball, but only saw Edgerson jumping up and down in the endzone. Edgerson literally had to run over to the referee and explain what he had just done (I think the receivers and DBs were still running around because they couldn't see far enough to know what had happened either. After another (what seemed like) few minutes of conferring, the TD signal was given and the Bills took a commanding (for the conditions) lead of 16-3. The Bills hung on for a 16-13 win. Sam Wyche scored a late TD to make it close. I was so cold and wet after that game, but I didn't care because I had suffered through the 1968 debacle and most of the 1969 season, and a win felt so good it was unbelievable. I have been to more important games, with much more at stake than on that cold blizzardy day in 1969, but I doubt any will be as memorable as that one.

Ahhh, good to see you're still here, just lurking for the next opportunity to drop one of your moronic Drew bashes on us whenever you get the chance. Don't you get tired of your redundant, broken-record self? We all have.

Hey, why not give the Jags their props?! I agree that the Pack ain't all that, but give the Jags some credit. Their defense is top notch and their offense took advantage of a mediocre at best Packer defense. Also, give Leftwich some props for taking the hits and coming back. Also, while Favre is still a great athlete, his screw-ups only serve to highlight how easy it is to make bad decisions as an NFL QB in the heat of battle. As Peyton Manning stated in an interview yesterday on ESPN, the game continues to get more and more complex all of the time, especially defensively. He pointed out how sophisticated defense and defensive players have become in the NFL over his career, and just how much work and effort goes into making a successful play these days, even when it looks like it was easy.

Still pisses me off we didn't beat them ourselves when we had the game in our own hands! Props to the Jags for beating Green Bay at home on the frozen tundra in December. That team is tough as nails.

Dude, The Jags are not average. There defense is the real deal. In fact, I see them as a mirror image of the Bills, except I think the Bills speccial teams are bit better. They have an extremely tough defense and are bit offensively challenged at times. The AFC is simply so much better than the NFC this year. The Jags are a damn tough team, and they beat a decent Packers team at home in December. Props to them. It's a damn shame we did not finish our games against them. If we had, they would not be an obstacle to us now.

Yeah, and in just a few short seasons, if these guys keep developing the way they are, we will be looking at the same $$$ issue with them. Of course, the difference will be that THEY will actually be worth ponying up the dough for!

Teague Article by Sullivan It's amazing what stringing some wins together and getting into the playoff hunt will do to mute the Nancies, and even turn some of them around. Come on Sully, admit it. It feels good not to have it so puckered! Teague is finally being recognized for the solid player that he is, and note the reference to McNally. McNally has done wonders for the confidence of this O-line. It took some time for them to gel, but the future looks bright.

Well, Petey's been damn good for the Sox, but it is not clear that he has 3 more years left in him let alone 4. I wish him the best, but I think the Sox made a very reasonable offer considering the longevity concerns and the Mets are paying him way to freakin much. I guess I can't blame him for taking the cash. The Sox will ultimately be better served spending that money eslewhere.

ROTFLMFAO!

You know Bill, I enjoy your posts and have a high opinion of you, even if we don't always agree. But I really think your splitting hairs here. BTW, when you called me out for using a rather crude allegory for those taking a rather overly biased position in suport of a certain left tackle for the Vikings, I felt kind of bad. Then I read ICE's post where he refers to those supporting Bledsoe as "licking his asscrack." I have since then decided I wasn't so bad after all! LOL! BTW, while I do not condone child abuse, I have to say that labeling sex with a 15 year old girl when you are 21 as child molestation and pedophilia is really a bit over the top and a function of the times. My mother was 15 when my old man knocked her up with me at 22! They've been married for 46 years. I do not believe I have ever heard my father accused of being a pedophile or child molester!

I can live with that!

Actually, I think it's more akin to a horrible accident. You just can't help but look!

This is the funniest post I've read in this entire thread! Level-headed? One who didn't get carried away? Recently stepped over the line? Dude, what game have you been watchin lo these many years??!!

I too really liked the show. But according to some chick firemen I met recently in Houston, it does not reflect reality. Although they liked the show. They said the part about the guys razzing the women because they have their own bathroom, and actually using it was true. I thought that was pretty funny. Besides, I think the widow chick that Leary's character was banging is just totally hot.

You mean, the same thing that happened to Favre last night?