quoththeraven

It contradicts the purpose of this group by not sharing a name to avoid being taken advantage of.

Sorry for your bad experience

For one thing, there is a rule against posting reviews here, where there is no vetting. Naming the name would probably constitute a review.

The judges had a brawl in the parking lot of a White Castle and attempted to visit a strip club?? This is bizarre!!

That's why I posted it! The attempt to visit a strip club preceded their visit to White Castle. It's not clear, but it's implied they went there with the fourth judge who went inside and wasn't part of their shenanigans.

Although they may sound like minor offenses, these actually count as "high crimes and misdemeanors," because they were committed by judges.

Not necessarily. Also they're not subject to the federal constitution. I don't know if Indiana provides for impeaching judges.

"Truth is stranger than fiction."

A couple of years after Mayor Moscone and Supervisor Milk were killed, the National Association of Broadcasters conference was held

at the *George Moscone Center* in San Francisco. My father managed a television station in a medium market, got tickets for the Awards ceremony, and I attended as his guest.

 

Bob Hope was the master of ceremonies; he told *Fag Jokes*.

 

It seriously crossed my mind to call him out on it and make a public scene ...

Ugh.

Mindblown!!!! Peg is Margaret???

I gather this is news to you?

Yes, Anglophone names are weird. Margaret comes from Marguerite (the Normans who conquered England were originally Norse but lived in France and probably brought the name with them), but its ultimate origin is Greek. Elizabeth is originally Hebrew.

As for Betty as a diminutive of Elizabeth, see this.

or from Marguerite, a common name in my maternal family.

But a less common name in the US overall than Margaret.

This is just wow:

Back in May, three Indiana judges got into a fight. It was the crescendo of an incident brimming with colorful details: a gaggle of judges drinking the night before a judicial conference, a failed attempt to visit a strip club called the Red Garter, a brawl in the parking lot of an Indianapolis White Castle.

The altercation apparently started sometime after 3 a.m., when one of the judges, Sabrina Bell, raised a middle finger at two men yelling from a passing SUV, and ended after one of those men shot two of the judges.

In between, the three judges took a number of actions that "discredited the entire Indiana judiciary," according to an opinion posted by the Indiana Supreme Court this week, suspending the judges.

The court found that the three — Andrew Adams, Bradley Jacobs and Sabrina Bell — had "engaged in judicial misconduct by appearing in public in an intoxicated state and behaving in an injudicious manner and by becoming involved in a verbal altercation." Adams and Jacobs engaged in further judicial misconduct "by becoming involved in a physical altercation for which Judge Adams was criminally charged and convicted."

More details here:

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/14/779339897/3-indiana-judges-suspended-after-white-castle-brawl-that-left-2-of-them-wounded?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=npr&utm_medium=social&utm_term=nprnews

I would of thought that Betty would have been the shorten form of Beatrice or Bettylou. I would have thought Beth or Lizz would be the shorten form of Elizabeth.

Nope, it's most commonly a nickname for Elizabeth. "Beth" is common as a name on its own. It can also be a shortened version of Bethany or Bethia. And Bettylou is just Betty Lou smushed together (and almost certainly southern in origin).

Concomitantly, explain how we get to Peg and Peggy from Margaret.

My former sister-in-law's legal name is Betty. She was forever having to correct teachers who assumed that was short for Elizabeth.

... And worth every penny if they get the win.

Or give good advice that avoids further losses/liabilities and/or achieves client objectives, seeing as the majority of attorneys aren't litigators.

I was at one of the NYC big name firms, and while not a Partner, was in a senior position. Parners billed in the $900/hour range and I was billed at about $475.

There you go. That's why.

THAT'S a different problem with today's Hollywood...

It's all a tradeoff. Bigger screens may be more important to you. They're not to me. I pay Netflix less per month than a full price movie ticket and I have access to a lot of content, some of it in languages other than English, that I wouldn't have otherwise. And most of what I watch on Netflix is more analogous to a TV series or miniseries than a movie anyway. (Some of what I watch are actual TV series.)

Netflix has its downsides (doesn't everything?) but I am glad they are blowing up Hollywood.

You must have left legal practice quite a while ago. I haven't practiced in 7 years, and my rate was in the high 400s/hour. That's what the firm billed for my time.

11 years ago, and I worked in northern New Jersey, not Manhattan. Partner's rates were in the high $400s. (I was a senior counsel.) So not that much longer ago than you.

Just had the 'privilege' of seeing this on the big screen in LA. I feel bad for those who have to settle for watching this epic on Netflix at home with even a decent big screen TV. It's just not the same. I'm really not liking the way Netflix is shaking up the Hollywood business model.

And I am super happy because projects are getting financed that never would be before by people whose stories weren't being told.

Damn

If I wanted to be fucked for $400 / hour I’d hire a lawyer.

 

 

sorry... it was there and I had to take it

Uhm, when I left the practice of law my rate was in the high $200 range ($260? $275? I don't remember).

Also in my experience by the time they call, the client has already fucked himself.

More generally, every escort with half a brain screens clients (avoid law enforcement, timewasters, etc.) What matters is how he screens and for what.

having lunch with my sister & some of her friends, they were talking about a school curriculum that mentioned homosexuality, and one guy was outraged, "the kids are too young to hear about that!"

But not too young to hear about heterosexuality? (Meaning the consequences like children etc., not necessarily the nitty gritty of sex acts - although those need to be talked about at a much younger age than people are comfortable with too)

*smh*

I understand that feeling saying referential jokes is always a hit or miss especially if your the only one that gets your references and then have to explain it after laughing at your own corny joke is such a pain. Probably should of went with a Lady Gaga Telephone reference at first I was thinking you could of went with 876-5309 but I doubt they would get it.

 

Hmm... could probably went with Ring Ding Dong by Shinee aka Gaynee. They are not on BTS level but there may be some Kpop fans in your class or at least have heard of them compared to Joplin.

That's an older (and frankly embarrassing) SHINee song, though.

Have never heard them referred to as Gaynee but there's a

widespread assumption that Key is gay and that Jjong (RIP) might have been bi.

Fun fact: SHINee is the only kpop group to have been mentioned by a US president (Obama, suggesting one of his daughters might be a fan, although it was at a conference in South Korea after his presidency ended).

https://www.soompi.com/article/1008877wpp/shinee-talks-mentioned-barack-obamas-speech

Maybe he's related to that Shawn dude SNL almost hired.

Should not have.

Entirely predictable...OakieTownie?

 

Still not going to share you short position with us I assume? Haah!

Whether and when Boeing's share price will recover isn't the point of this thread. That you think it is is telling. For one thing, the share price for any business that isn't imminently going out of business usually rebounds, either because of future good news or because of a general market upturn. Suggesting that share prices will rebound is not the revelation you seem to think it is.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10155001106573097

Holiday card photo, I presume?

The British took their anti gay rules to all the places they ruled. India had a British era anti gay legislation till it was stuck down recently by their Supreme court.

 

Kenya still has British era anti gay rules that I believe allow upto 14 years in jail for just the act of having gay sex. Their supreme court unfortunately upheld it .

Some more history on the British and their role in spreading anti gay legislation to countries that never had them before.

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/05/kenya-supreme-court-lgbtq/590014/

 

My point was not about coming out. I think being out is good. More about the frivolous nature of the article-oh my how many times do I have to come out-how many times do striagt people ask me about our gay relationship. I think that is a good thing that straight people actually care and engage and not shun us or God forbid we have to face what our fellow gay people face in many countries of the world today. If their curiosity bothers you, say so-it is a free country-it means we are being integrated.

Not exactly. There's still the assumption that everyone is straight, which isn't true and is a product of limited thinking.

Just because something is more prevalent doesn't make it the default, just like white, male and cis aren't defaults but often are treated as if they are.

To be fair, @quoththeraven, it is well known by members who travel to Russia and Eastern Europe.

I meant it's not a matter of discussion on the forum. That is always limited to handwringing over Muslim countries.

There are Christian ministers who support the proposal in Uganda (not, as far as I know, yet enacted) to make homosexual behavior punishable by death. I haven't been able to quickly decipher who is behind this, but since Uganda is 81% Christian and 19% Muslim and over 90% consider homosexuality unnatural, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that any religious impetus is primarily coming from Christians.

Liz Smith, the late gossip columnist, almost never wrote anything negative about anyone, so this one stood out to me. Diahann had done a show (for some reason, I’m remembering in Philly) and afterward a woman in her 20s came up to her & said something like “Diahann, you were wonderful; I’m such a fan.” Diahann thanked her and said something to the effect of “You know, dear, I have a daughter about your age, and when she was a child I taught her that it’s impolite to call your elders by their first names.” Liz called her out for being less than gracious with a fan.

And Liz was wrong. It is presumptuous to address a total stranger by their first name.

I don't think this is quite as simple as you make it sound. For instance, if the original incident was brought to light at the time, it probably would not have been regarded as rape by everyone. The perpetrator himself (if the incident happened as described) might not have so regarded it (and this has some bearing on how we regard his subsequent admissions) and the victim herself seems not to have quite thought of it that way, while aware of feeling something to be wrong. If it had happened yesterday, there would be more agreement about how to assess it. (Our perception of how much valid consent a drunk person is able to give has changed. What about the degree of culpability of a drunk perpetrator?)

 

This changing attitude also reflects on how we should look on the subsequent acts of condonation (this may be a Scottish legalism, betraying my roots) you refer to. A steals from B. B gives a present to A. B is to some extent wiping out the original act. A steals property, which B only learns long afterwards belongs to B. In that case does the present-giving condone the original act? Also, in the actual case, the way the "victim" describes the subsequent acts is significant. She says quite clearly that she did not regard the consensual acts as constituting a "relationship". In other words did the original action influence her subsequent consent? And if so, and our attitudes and hers have changed regarding that original action, how does that change affect our perception of how the consented-to acts were influenced?

 

I know it is difficult to believe but this is a shortened version of my original reply. I have tried to condense it and any incomprehensibilities can be put down to this!

Sex with someone who is unconscious or too drunk to be able to consent has always been rape as a legal matter. People's belief that anyone who is drunk is fair game (in effect, assuming the risk) is why you think the legal standard has changed. It hasn't.

There is not as much upside to allegations like this as people think. My practice is to believe them unless and until facts are revealed that undermine the allegations. Historically, it's the denials that have been untruthful, not the allegations. And what I think of someone isn't a due process violation. We make decisions every day about other people without going through anything close to a trial process or demanding proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Due process applies to court proceedings. Someone shouldn't be fired without an investigation, but at the most that requires satisfying a civil level of proof, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And given why Lauer was fired, it's hard to even characterize this as defamatory, as what reputation does he have to defend anymore.