Litigation is expensive. I think the many famous cases where people have reached astronomical settlements, has caused some of this.
Also, I believe the amount of cases settled out of court for economic reasons (Cheaper to settle) causes a lot of this.
The McDonalds coffee case as an example. I wonder how many people wish they would have spilled a cup and been awarded millions before that lady did it?
And I even understand the logic behind that one. However, wouldn't the same (Too Hot coffee) incident happening at the local dive, about to go out of business, been treated differently.
These things cause insurance rates to go up for nearly everyone.
Obviously there are times when law suits are necessary. I have nothing against lawyers, insurance companies and people that sue for ligitimate reasons. I just think it is getting a little out of hand.
quote:Originally posted by PGStaff:
Litigation is expensive. I think the many famous cases where people have reached astronomical settlements, has caused some of this.
Also, I believe the amount of cases settled out of court for economic reasons (Cheaper to settle) causes a lot of this.
The McDonalds coffee case as an example. I wonder how many people wish they would have spilled a cup and been awarded millions before that lady did it?
And I even understand the logic behind that one. However, wouldn't the same (Too Hot coffee) incident happening at the local dive, about to go out of business, been treated differently.
The local dive A) probably wouldn't have had nearly the level of repeated incidents, and B) needed the level of punitive damages to ensure that injuries to customers would be curtailed.
PG,
In my perspective, it has been out of hand for a very long time!
On the other hand, people look at this in very different ways. A few years back there was a discussion on this board about the ability of entities such as yours(not yours though) to be protected from liability through the use of informed consent releases.
For all the issues which exist in California, it is one of the States which allows the use of a release to completely bar entities such as yours from being sued by parents or participants when injuries occur related to the sport/enterprise/ and activities covered by the release.
When I posted about that ability and provided the case references, more than a few posters felt it was wrong and unfair to use a required release to bar liability, in the context of future injury.
If there is no other area where agreement can be reached, there certainly can on one thing: "litigation is expensive."
In my perspective, it has been out of hand for a very long time!
On the other hand, people look at this in very different ways. A few years back there was a discussion on this board about the ability of entities such as yours(not yours though) to be protected from liability through the use of informed consent releases.
For all the issues which exist in California, it is one of the States which allows the use of a release to completely bar entities such as yours from being sued by parents or participants when injuries occur related to the sport/enterprise/ and activities covered by the release.
When I posted about that ability and provided the case references, more than a few posters felt it was wrong and unfair to use a required release to bar liability, in the context of future injury.
If there is no other area where agreement can be reached, there certainly can on one thing: "litigation is expensive."
[QUOTE]Originally posted by infielddad:
I could care less what term you use in referring to lawyers, but knew that would be point one when you responded.
Well were you putting it out there as bait then? That seems to be a modus operandi of some posters. Is that in keeping with you hearkening back to the days this forum was more compassionate/civil.
Your post is just another illustration of the every mounting contrast and difference between the compassionate, and persuasive, logic which a poster like Fungo used so well to make the HSBBW such a vibrant, almost lifelike, site.
Your opinion of such is of no real concern to me, so I probably should not have even addressed it.
I have no opinion on the situation posted by Bum.
I see, so that and the example PGStaff posted which really are glaring examples of frivilous lawsuits generated by money grubbing lawyers are the ones you wish to ignore.
My point was about your grabbing the comments in which TPM described a situation of a father of her daughter's best friend who died and the family was successful in a legal recovery. Without any facts or information beyond that, you choose to, illogically, use that family to insinuate that family hired a lawyer to "justify any suit and try and win money."
For starters I was not aware it was a comment/post by TPM. Had I known, that alone would have been reason enough to leave it alone. Instead it was quoted by another poster without attribution.
Regardless my point having nothing to do with the author was that we could live in a nanny state from cradle to grave, and to some people, that would be Utopia. So the idea that a successful lawsuit that instituted mandatory AED's everywhere is not such a great thing. Sure now days AED's are less expensive than ever, but maybe when the lawsuit was brought, it was still too expensive for every business where people go to buy them. What is worse is that the business was not negligent by not having one, yet they wound up being the test case. Where is the compassion for the business owners who through no fault of their own suffer? Lastly, the AED may or may not have saved the guy, so why not mandate a higher level of preparedness for any malady that might befall a patron like the examples I gave. I am sure some people would say yes, any life is precious, so no matter the expense or burden on business, once a person leaves their home, everyone should be willing to foot the bill to try and make sure no harm comes to that person.
As to Bum's example where the father used the hot tub for a couple decades and passed, only to have the family file a suit that in the end was lost. Still it was sufficient to help put Bum out of that business. Why not proffer an an opinion of your profession on that example or PG's?
So yes, I have and will continue to point out where absurd lawsuits have a negative impact on society. In many ways most people do not understand how it can effect them. A classic example is when doctors practice defensive medicine, which in turns causes everyones medical costs to skyrocket.
It seems so interesting how many folks such as you, Vector, speak with such disdain for people who acted such as the family TPM referenced, EXCEPT when it comes to their Mother, Father, Son, Daughter or themselves.
In this instance you could not be more mistaken. I practice what I preach, and if you read my post regarding my own personal experience with my sons injury, that should be evident.
My point was the rhetoric you continue to use seems to play so well on the HSBBW as we enter 2013. But the rhetoric is so hollow since you know nothing about the facts involving the family who lost their Dad and recovered for that loss, but choose to use the example for a pulpit filled with vilification.
I see, but you somehow do know the facts of that particular case? I nor you know the facts of PG or Bums cases beyond what they have chosen to share. Does that mean everyone should say I'd like to give an opinion based on your story, but without all the facts from both sides, I must abstain. If that is the criteria we must use on a forum this place would fall silent very fast.
I could care less what term you use in referring to lawyers, but knew that would be point one when you responded.
Well were you putting it out there as bait then? That seems to be a modus operandi of some posters. Is that in keeping with you hearkening back to the days this forum was more compassionate/civil.
Your post is just another illustration of the every mounting contrast and difference between the compassionate, and persuasive, logic which a poster like Fungo used so well to make the HSBBW such a vibrant, almost lifelike, site.
Your opinion of such is of no real concern to me, so I probably should not have even addressed it.
I have no opinion on the situation posted by Bum.
I see, so that and the example PGStaff posted which really are glaring examples of frivilous lawsuits generated by money grubbing lawyers are the ones you wish to ignore.
My point was about your grabbing the comments in which TPM described a situation of a father of her daughter's best friend who died and the family was successful in a legal recovery. Without any facts or information beyond that, you choose to, illogically, use that family to insinuate that family hired a lawyer to "justify any suit and try and win money."
For starters I was not aware it was a comment/post by TPM. Had I known, that alone would have been reason enough to leave it alone. Instead it was quoted by another poster without attribution.
Regardless my point having nothing to do with the author was that we could live in a nanny state from cradle to grave, and to some people, that would be Utopia. So the idea that a successful lawsuit that instituted mandatory AED's everywhere is not such a great thing. Sure now days AED's are less expensive than ever, but maybe when the lawsuit was brought, it was still too expensive for every business where people go to buy them. What is worse is that the business was not negligent by not having one, yet they wound up being the test case. Where is the compassion for the business owners who through no fault of their own suffer? Lastly, the AED may or may not have saved the guy, so why not mandate a higher level of preparedness for any malady that might befall a patron like the examples I gave. I am sure some people would say yes, any life is precious, so no matter the expense or burden on business, once a person leaves their home, everyone should be willing to foot the bill to try and make sure no harm comes to that person.
As to Bum's example where the father used the hot tub for a couple decades and passed, only to have the family file a suit that in the end was lost. Still it was sufficient to help put Bum out of that business. Why not proffer an an opinion of your profession on that example or PG's?
So yes, I have and will continue to point out where absurd lawsuits have a negative impact on society. In many ways most people do not understand how it can effect them. A classic example is when doctors practice defensive medicine, which in turns causes everyones medical costs to skyrocket.
It seems so interesting how many folks such as you, Vector, speak with such disdain for people who acted such as the family TPM referenced, EXCEPT when it comes to their Mother, Father, Son, Daughter or themselves.
In this instance you could not be more mistaken. I practice what I preach, and if you read my post regarding my own personal experience with my sons injury, that should be evident.
My point was the rhetoric you continue to use seems to play so well on the HSBBW as we enter 2013. But the rhetoric is so hollow since you know nothing about the facts involving the family who lost their Dad and recovered for that loss, but choose to use the example for a pulpit filled with vilification.
I see, but you somehow do know the facts of that particular case? I nor you know the facts of PG or Bums cases beyond what they have chosen to share. Does that mean everyone should say I'd like to give an opinion based on your story, but without all the facts from both sides, I must abstain. If that is the criteria we must use on a forum this place would fall silent very fast.
quote:Originally posted by PGStaff:
Litigation is expensive. I think the many famous cases where people have reached astronomical settlements, has caused some of this.
Also, I believe the amount of cases settled out of court for economic reasons (Cheaper to settle) causes a lot of this.
The McDonalds coffee case as an example. I wonder how many people wish they would have spilled a cup and been awarded millions before that lady did it?
And I even understand the logic behind that one. However, wouldn't the same (Too Hot coffee) incident happening at the local dive, about to go out of business, been treated differently.
These things cause insurance rates to go up for nearly everyone.
Obviously there are times when law suits are necessary. I have nothing against lawyers, insurance companies and people that sue for ligitimate reasons. I just think it is getting a little out of hand.
PG, you are so right about these things causing insurance rates to go up for nearly everyone. Having been in the insurance business as long as I have, I would have left out the "nearly" part.
Most people have no idea how interconnected all the insurance companies are and how trends like this affects insurance rates (liability insurance coverages in particular)for us ALL.
quote:I see, but you somehow do know the facts of that particular case?
No, I don't know the facts.
What I know is what you posted. Vector, my difference of opinion is with you, not what PG posted, Bum posted or TPM posted. I expressed opinions on what you posted.
You are the one who took a few short sentences and attempted to portray the family as an example of villains. I didn't express an opinion on the family, lawsuit or Bum's situation or PG's. Litigation is fact intensive.
An example is the other thread and the NFL players lawsuits. Frivolous or valid? Some seem to think NFL players assume all the risks of injury. When I introduced the theory of Toradol injections, CD posted he didn't realize the issue with Toradol and its place in the litigation and that information could well be important. It might not end up being important if the facts and evidence do now show what the players allege. Should they be provided that chance?
For one last time, I don't have any issue with PG or Bum presenting their perspective on the facts of claims and lawsuits made against them. If you want to use their facts to vilify, that is perfectly fine to me.
TPM's facts were a Father died, a lawsuit was filed and a recovery occurred. There is no reason, in my opinion, for you to vilify the family, lawyer, recovery or the system, in the way you tried to do, because there are no facts. If you didn't realize you cut/pasted TPM's situation, I accept that you made a mistake and assume you would not have posted what you did in reference to that situation, but would have used a different situation. Had you done that, I would not have posted, expect, perhaps, to point out the distinction between the ability of past posters like Fungo, and how I thought that made the HSBBW more user friendly in provoking thoughtful discussions which would go on for pages and weeks, as contrasted with the current trend.
Anyone interested in the facts can do a search..The Legal Examiner April 1,2006 by Bob Caroll or type in Tringali vs LA Fitness. Draw your own conclusions.
I only posted in reply to Bum's situation. I was only pointing out the contrast in situations.
I only posted in reply to Bum's situation. I was only pointing out the contrast in situations.
A few thoughts from someone who works in this field:
The legal system depends upon lawyers to do their duty, as officers of the court, to screen out these cases before they are brought. But as with any system run by human beings, the system is not perfect. Some cases get through.
IMHO, the worst thing you can do with these cases is to settle them over the expense of defense. All you do is encourage the craven among us to bring more of them. Better to pay your premiums and let your insurance company's lawyers make them regret they brought the case.
Which raises the point that, for every bad lawyer out there, there is, we should hope, a good one fighting back. Think about that before you start suggesting we "kill all the lawyers" or some such.
I would also add that in many instances, what you hear on the Jay Leno show or some such is either a parody of a real case, a fictionalized urban fable, or the product of a wrongdoer's sour grapes whitewashed version of what he really did. Be sure not to believe everything you read in some report. After all, the whole point of having a court system is to let both sides have their say so that the truth will ultimately come out.
And it is just as often the case, when all is said and done, that it was the suing lawyer who had it right, while the guy defending actually contributed to the problem by fighting when he should have had his client pay up.
The moral is, we have a system set up to sort through all this. Let it work. For the most part, it works pretty darned well.
Case in point: The McDonald's coffee case involved highly egregious misconduct that caused burns so severe that an elderly woman had to undergo multiple skin grafting procedures to her inner thighs. This was following several severe scalding burn injuries to others at the same restaurant, including injuries that scarred young children, in response to which the restaurant involved continued to super-heat its coffee to levels that, I can assure you, you have never experienced and would never want to subject yourselves to, not for any amounts of money.
And oh yeah, at the end of that case, the woman got a few hundred thousand dollars, not millions.
That being said, suing over getting hit by a pitch is silly. And if some weren't so quick to throw money at people who sue like that just to make them go away, people would stop bringing those cases, because lawyers don't like to work for percentages of zero.
The legal system depends upon lawyers to do their duty, as officers of the court, to screen out these cases before they are brought. But as with any system run by human beings, the system is not perfect. Some cases get through.
IMHO, the worst thing you can do with these cases is to settle them over the expense of defense. All you do is encourage the craven among us to bring more of them. Better to pay your premiums and let your insurance company's lawyers make them regret they brought the case.
Which raises the point that, for every bad lawyer out there, there is, we should hope, a good one fighting back. Think about that before you start suggesting we "kill all the lawyers" or some such.
I would also add that in many instances, what you hear on the Jay Leno show or some such is either a parody of a real case, a fictionalized urban fable, or the product of a wrongdoer's sour grapes whitewashed version of what he really did. Be sure not to believe everything you read in some report. After all, the whole point of having a court system is to let both sides have their say so that the truth will ultimately come out.
And it is just as often the case, when all is said and done, that it was the suing lawyer who had it right, while the guy defending actually contributed to the problem by fighting when he should have had his client pay up.
The moral is, we have a system set up to sort through all this. Let it work. For the most part, it works pretty darned well.
Case in point: The McDonald's coffee case involved highly egregious misconduct that caused burns so severe that an elderly woman had to undergo multiple skin grafting procedures to her inner thighs. This was following several severe scalding burn injuries to others at the same restaurant, including injuries that scarred young children, in response to which the restaurant involved continued to super-heat its coffee to levels that, I can assure you, you have never experienced and would never want to subject yourselves to, not for any amounts of money.
And oh yeah, at the end of that case, the woman got a few hundred thousand dollars, not millions.
That being said, suing over getting hit by a pitch is silly. And if some weren't so quick to throw money at people who sue like that just to make them go away, people would stop bringing those cases, because lawyers don't like to work for percentages of zero.
Great post Midlo. Jerry for what it's worth do not allow this case to be settled out of court. Make it clear your not going to pay one red cent to anyone who sues you for something like this. More people are going to get hit by balls. Your only going to encourage others to follow this same route if you settle this case. These people are not trying to right a wrong. They are simply trying to make a quick buck. JMO
Hi PG - Longtime reader, first time poster. Last July my son was trying out for a national travel team and was hit by the first pitch thrown to him. He stayed in the box and was hit in the jaw. Long story short it was broken in two places. The travel coaches helped us get to the hospital and whatever my own medical insurance didn't cover, I paid myself. It caused him to miss your Northeast Underclass Showcase in CT.
The thought of suing the travel team never crossed my mind. Baseball is a physical game and with all the variables in it, can be a dangerous game. But boy is it fun to play and watch!
Best of luck and thanks for the National Underclass Main Event and most recenlty the Northeast Indoor, both were exceptionally run events!
The thought of suing the travel team never crossed my mind. Baseball is a physical game and with all the variables in it, can be a dangerous game. But boy is it fun to play and watch!
Best of luck and thanks for the National Underclass Main Event and most recenlty the Northeast Indoor, both were exceptionally run events!
Had I known, that alone would have been reason enough to leave it alone. Instead it was quoted by another poster without attribution.
Vector don't you read all the posts before you comment or do you just jump in without first knowing who posted what and why? Considering that you have asked me in the past NOT to post in YOUR topics, I find this very amusing.
So yes, I have and will continue to point out where absurd lawsuits have a negative impact on society. In many ways most people do not understand how it can effect them.
Actually if you read The Legal Examiner, you will see that what happened made an impact, positively. That was the whole point of my post, but you took the situation and twisted it without even knowing any of the facts. Let me ask you a question, I am curious, what would you have done if it were any member of your family that any one of these situations happened? Would you have seen it as frivolous or would you have hired an attorney to help you determine what really happened (since you were not there)? When your son got hurt and you found your bills began to accumulate, you hired an attorney and eventually you found out the truth and who was to blame?
Who is to determine what is a frivolous lawsuit and what is not? I don't get that. As Midlo Dad points out, the whole point of having a court system is to let both sides have their say so that the truth can come out. I am sure that many of those lawsuits we see as silly really do have some merit to them, we just don't know both sides.
Vector don't you read all the posts before you comment or do you just jump in without first knowing who posted what and why? Considering that you have asked me in the past NOT to post in YOUR topics, I find this very amusing.
So yes, I have and will continue to point out where absurd lawsuits have a negative impact on society. In many ways most people do not understand how it can effect them.
Actually if you read The Legal Examiner, you will see that what happened made an impact, positively. That was the whole point of my post, but you took the situation and twisted it without even knowing any of the facts. Let me ask you a question, I am curious, what would you have done if it were any member of your family that any one of these situations happened? Would you have seen it as frivolous or would you have hired an attorney to help you determine what really happened (since you were not there)? When your son got hurt and you found your bills began to accumulate, you hired an attorney and eventually you found out the truth and who was to blame?
Who is to determine what is a frivolous lawsuit and what is not? I don't get that. As Midlo Dad points out, the whole point of having a court system is to let both sides have their say so that the truth can come out. I am sure that many of those lawsuits we see as silly really do have some merit to them, we just don't know both sides.
Great post by Midlo, (but I think he missed that the McDonalds case was mostly about the cup being easily breakable in conjunction with the superheated coffee, and McDonalds knew it was an issue as there where internal meetings discussing the numerous other incidents).
Anyway, one thing I have found is that those that fight most against lawyers and our legal system are the first to get upset when you tell them there is no legal remedy when they are perceived to have been wronged. Interesting correlation.
TPM is right. Our court system is not perfect, but I would take it over those legal systems in virtually every other country on Earth.
Anyway, one thing I have found is that those that fight most against lawyers and our legal system are the first to get upset when you tell them there is no legal remedy when they are perceived to have been wronged. Interesting correlation.
TPM is right. Our court system is not perfect, but I would take it over those legal systems in virtually every other country on Earth.
Aleebaba, I think we should try the English system, don't you think our lawyers would look fantastic in wigs? ;-)
Seriously, nothing's perfect, but imo, it's an industry.
(disclaimer, lawyers in family, don't have an issue with the profession, the system could use some polish)
Seriously, nothing's perfect, but imo, it's an industry.
(disclaimer, lawyers in family, don't have an issue with the profession, the system could use some polish)
quote:Originally posted by TPM:
Who is to determine what is a frivolous lawsuit and what is not? I don't get that. As Midlo Dad points out, the whole point of having a court system is to let both sides have their say so that the truth can come out. I am sure that many of those lawsuits we see as silly really do have some merit to them, we just don't know both sides.
Agreed. This is not directed at any one individual. However, unless someone is an attorney, works in the field or has significant experience with lawsuits, they simply base their understanding on television, news and what others tell them. The McDonald's coffee case is a great example. Everyone thinks that the only facts are: a woman spilled coffee and got millions. This is simply not true.
People do not know about legal standards, duty, comparative negligence, remedial measures and the like. The fact is that most of us are decent well meaning individuals who are making an honest living. As with everything in the media, only the negative is exposed. I, as infielddad, know some unscrupulous lawyers, just as there are unscrupulous doctors, police officers, politicians, teachers and people of faith.
I understand PGs situation and I agree that it stinks that they may have to settle. I wouldn't want to either. I hate frivolous lawsuits and I never accept one. However, the insurance company is a business and they will not want to spend $50K in litigation if they can settle for $10k. It is bad business and they are, after all, a business. That's just how it is.
As said earlier, there certainly are flaws with our system, but IMO overall it's pretty darn good.
McDonald's coffee case:
http://www.caraccidentsinorlan...really-happened.html
And no, this is not my Firm.
http://www.caraccidentsinorlan...really-happened.html
And no, this is not my Firm.
quote:Originally posted by 2013 Dad:
However, the insurance company is a business and they will not want to spend $50K in litigation if they can settle for $10k.
You're exactly right on there. And one might think it was the insurance companies are at the heart of the problem, but it really has more to do with the laws we have in place. It hasn't always been this way. IMHO, our systems needs Tort Law reform. I don't have the answers, but I'd think people much smarter than me can come up with reform that does better than what we've got today.
quote:Originally posted by infielddad:quote:I see, but you somehow do know the facts of that particular case?
No, I don't know the facts.
What I know is what you posted. Vector, my difference of opinion is with you, not what PG posted, Bum posted or TPM posted. I expressed opinions on what you posted.
You are the one who took a few short sentences and attempted to portray the family as an example of villains. I didn't express an opinion on the family, lawsuit or Bum's situation or PG's. Litigation is fact intensive.
An example is the other thread and the NFL players lawsuits. Frivolous or valid? Some seem to think NFL players assume all the risks of injury. When I introduced the theory of Toradol injections, CD posted he didn't realize the issue with Toradol and its place in the litigation and that information could well be important. It might not end up being important if the facts and evidence do now show what the players allege. Should they be provided that chance?
For one last time, I don't have any issue with PG or Bum presenting their perspective on the facts of claims and lawsuits made against them. If you want to use their facts to vilify, that is perfectly fine to me.
TPM's facts were a Father died, a lawsuit was filed and a recovery occurred. There is no reason, in my opinion, for you to vilify the family, lawyer, recovery or the system, in the way you tried to do, because there are no facts. If you didn't realize you cut/pasted TPM's situation, I accept that you made a mistake and assume you would not have posted what you did in reference to that situation, but would have used a different situation. Had you done that, I would not have posted, expect, perhaps, to point out the distinction between the ability of past posters like Fungo, and how I thought that made the HSBBW more user friendly in provoking thoughtful discussions which would go on for pages and weeks, as contrasted with the current trend.
The irony in all this is that you are one of the few people who seem to be contrary(assuming I am not mixing you up with someone else)when it comes to posting. There are two or three posters who I have noticed over the years, who like to be critical of others, and look to keep up feuds well beyond the initial disagreement. I think you are one of the people who fit that category, but if not in general, certainly with me. Since I'm not even positive you are part of that little cliche it just goes to show how little I care.
Only one poster has earned me putting them on my ignore list, so I clearly remember who they are. Another poster seems to be an old curmudgeon, and is difficult with everyone. Yet they are rarely critical of the little cliche from what I've noticed.
Now before you go assuming it is just me, I still have plenty of PM's where others have sent me support and said to ignore so and so, since "they are always like that with everyone". You hearken back to a time when the board was presumably more civil/compassionate, yet if you are an example of that, you need to start practicing what you preach.
The bottom line is that it is not your place to correct me even if you think my view is incorrect. That is especially true if you are not even participating with me in the discussion, but rather you ignore the particulars of the post, yet decide to directly respond to my perceived ignorance. Most lawyers I know, even if they are apologists of the profession in general, are happy to comment on absurd cases which help to make the profession look bad. They do not need every specific on a case to render an opinion, nor do it. If they hear a news report, we are able to have a rational discussion about it without one of them chiming in like you, to say not enough is known about the case to render an opinion.
`
I should have researched the McDonalds coffee case before using that as an example. After researching it, it seems like a legitimate law suit and a fair settlement.
Does anyone know if this led to other law suits involving those previously injured by McDonalds coffee.
Anyway, I'm sure there are much better examples of frivolous law suits.
I have a question.
You are hoLding an event and the temperature is at record breaking levels. Do you cancel the event or part of the event? Has anyone ever heard of a game being called off due to heat? This is something we have struggled with in the past. If someone suffers a heat related injury, are we liable? If there are a hundred scouts and recruiters at the event and we cancel the game and teams/players feel it is unreasonable, are we liable for having an adverse effect on their future?
I know it is best to play things safe, but at what point do you call off the games? After all, there have been millions of games played in extremely hot weather. At what point is it too hot or too cold to play? If you play it too safe when teams want to play, the teams might quit going to your events. If you do play the games, you open things up for litigation.
So far the only time we have canceled due to heat was in the California desert. I wasn't there at the time, but we had an umpire go down. Often heat is most dangerous to the home plate umpire. They had to call in a helicopter to take the umpire to a hospital. The medical staff told our director we needed to cancel the games. Our director called me up, saying all the teams wanted to continue playing. I made a decision to call off the games based on the fact that the umpire went down and the medical people had warned us. The teams were very upset. We took a lot of grief over that decision. The umpire turned out fine!
So if anything other than ideal conditions exist the danger increases. Too windy, too wet, too hot, too cold, too foggy, lightening, etc. Do teams/players hold any responsibility for allowing play to continue? Do historical facts hold any water? For example the many times games were played in adverse conditions at every level including professional and/or college baseball.
I could probably ask these questions to our insurance carrier, but this is easier. Besides insurance companies are not as likely to weigh the effect of what we are trying to accomplish vrs. The liability risks. I really don't think it is ever possible for us to eliminate the risk. But we do spend a small fortune on insurance for that purpose.
Does anyone know if this led to other law suits involving those previously injured by McDonalds coffee.
Anyway, I'm sure there are much better examples of frivolous law suits.
I have a question.
You are hoLding an event and the temperature is at record breaking levels. Do you cancel the event or part of the event? Has anyone ever heard of a game being called off due to heat? This is something we have struggled with in the past. If someone suffers a heat related injury, are we liable? If there are a hundred scouts and recruiters at the event and we cancel the game and teams/players feel it is unreasonable, are we liable for having an adverse effect on their future?
I know it is best to play things safe, but at what point do you call off the games? After all, there have been millions of games played in extremely hot weather. At what point is it too hot or too cold to play? If you play it too safe when teams want to play, the teams might quit going to your events. If you do play the games, you open things up for litigation.
So far the only time we have canceled due to heat was in the California desert. I wasn't there at the time, but we had an umpire go down. Often heat is most dangerous to the home plate umpire. They had to call in a helicopter to take the umpire to a hospital. The medical staff told our director we needed to cancel the games. Our director called me up, saying all the teams wanted to continue playing. I made a decision to call off the games based on the fact that the umpire went down and the medical people had warned us. The teams were very upset. We took a lot of grief over that decision. The umpire turned out fine!
So if anything other than ideal conditions exist the danger increases. Too windy, too wet, too hot, too cold, too foggy, lightening, etc. Do teams/players hold any responsibility for allowing play to continue? Do historical facts hold any water? For example the many times games were played in adverse conditions at every level including professional and/or college baseball.
I could probably ask these questions to our insurance carrier, but this is easier. Besides insurance companies are not as likely to weigh the effect of what we are trying to accomplish vrs. The liability risks. I really don't think it is ever possible for us to eliminate the risk. But we do spend a small fortune on insurance for that purpose.
quote:Originally posted by PGStaff:
Anyway, I'm sure there are much better examples of frivolous law suits.
Indeed.
Two that come to mind right off the top of my head is a woman who sued and won a settlement because her psychic powers were diminished after she had a CT scan done. The other was a case where a person decided to commit suicide and jumped in front of the train as it was coming into the station. As I recall he lived but was severely injured, then sued for his injuries and won.
Some of these cases are indefensible, even by the most ardent apologists of the profession.
quote:Originally posted by PGStaff:
I have a question.
You are hoLding an event and the temperature is at record breaking levels. Do you cancel the event or part of the event? Has anyone ever heard of a game being called off due to heat?
This is a question right in my wheelhouse. I can explain why privately if you like.
Tennis is the best example to answer your question. Many tourneys are played over successive days, but sometimes requiring players to compete twice in the heat, on the same day.
When some tourneys have reached certain temperatures, the organizing body has mandated greater break times in between games and sets. They have also increased the number of times a player can request breaks due to heat related illness or as they call it, loss of condition(i.e. cramps, fatigue, nausea). This is a complete break with the past where a player was expected to play through such things, even to the point of losing consciousness before the match was called a default. In rare instances they have suspended play, even at the professional level, but it is a judgment call by the tournament referee. They will restart once temperatures have lowered, but they do not call off the tournament.
A comparative analogy would be akin to lightning warnings that some baseball fields have where play is suspended. At the fields that do not have the warning system, it is left up to the discretion of the umps, coaches, or tourney directors.
I would therefore say a legitimate suit could be brought if a tourney were to continue play during unusual heat conditions. There are things that can be done to reduce heat related injuries, and thereby mitigate liability as well.
`
All are good questions PG. These are the kinds of "Risk Management" questions businesses (actually individuals as well) have to deal with on a regular basis. There are basically 4 things one can do when looking at their risk exposure, which are:
1. You can retain the risk and plan to pay whatever loss may occur.
2. You can reduce the risk by taking measures to minimize what the loss might be and/or the probability of a loss occurring.
3. You can transfer the risk, which is typically thought of in terms of sharing the risk and is where the insurance companies come in where you decide on how much of the risk you want to retain and how much you want to share (e.g. deciding on the amount of coverage and deductibles).
4. You can avoid the risk all together. So, yes . . .it is possible to eliminate the risk, but that's seldom a viable option as it can mean not doing or staying in business at all.
And since the issue has to do with risk, one must realizes that different people, different businesses (even those of exactly the same type of business) have different risk tolerances. So, to start with, one needs to try as asses one's risk tolerance and then make decisions on how to handle risk based on that assessment.
So, in the case of running show case baseball events in various adverse weather conditions, I might want to know that the history for losses and in what conditions so that I might so I might asses just what the exposures actually are. How often is there a $5k loss or a $50k loss when an event is done in temperatures above 100 degrees, above 110 degrees. Am I willing to retain 100% of a $5k loss? Am I willing to retain $50k or do I need to transfer all or some of that exposure? Then one decides on how much risk to transfer, how much to retain, or at what point should the risk simply be avoided.
Most small business people don't like to think about these kinds of details as it can just take too much time and effort. So. . .that's where they depend on their insurance agent to help in determining how much "transfer" might be appropriate (how much insurance coverage and size of deductibles). And perhaps, if one has a pretty good insurance agent, they might also be able to assist in determining risk reduction measures.
Note that insurance companies do indeed weigh the effects of what you're trying to accomplish verses the risk. They're extremely good at this and have vast databases to work with. That's how they determine the amount of premium they want for sharing the risk. So, if you want to reduce the fortune you spend on insurance, you would probably need to decide to take on a little more risk by maybe adding or increasing insurance deductibles (liability insurances can have deductibles, which many people are not aware of).
. . . and BTW, assessing one's exposure to frivolous lawsuits is part of the risk management process too.
1. You can retain the risk and plan to pay whatever loss may occur.
2. You can reduce the risk by taking measures to minimize what the loss might be and/or the probability of a loss occurring.
3. You can transfer the risk, which is typically thought of in terms of sharing the risk and is where the insurance companies come in where you decide on how much of the risk you want to retain and how much you want to share (e.g. deciding on the amount of coverage and deductibles).
4. You can avoid the risk all together. So, yes . . .it is possible to eliminate the risk, but that's seldom a viable option as it can mean not doing or staying in business at all.
And since the issue has to do with risk, one must realizes that different people, different businesses (even those of exactly the same type of business) have different risk tolerances. So, to start with, one needs to try as asses one's risk tolerance and then make decisions on how to handle risk based on that assessment.
So, in the case of running show case baseball events in various adverse weather conditions, I might want to know that the history for losses and in what conditions so that I might so I might asses just what the exposures actually are. How often is there a $5k loss or a $50k loss when an event is done in temperatures above 100 degrees, above 110 degrees. Am I willing to retain 100% of a $5k loss? Am I willing to retain $50k or do I need to transfer all or some of that exposure? Then one decides on how much risk to transfer, how much to retain, or at what point should the risk simply be avoided.
Most small business people don't like to think about these kinds of details as it can just take too much time and effort. So. . .that's where they depend on their insurance agent to help in determining how much "transfer" might be appropriate (how much insurance coverage and size of deductibles). And perhaps, if one has a pretty good insurance agent, they might also be able to assist in determining risk reduction measures.
Note that insurance companies do indeed weigh the effects of what you're trying to accomplish verses the risk. They're extremely good at this and have vast databases to work with. That's how they determine the amount of premium they want for sharing the risk. So, if you want to reduce the fortune you spend on insurance, you would probably need to decide to take on a little more risk by maybe adding or increasing insurance deductibles (liability insurances can have deductibles, which many people are not aware of).
. . . and BTW, assessing one's exposure to frivolous lawsuits is part of the risk management process too.
quote:...There are two or three posters who I have noticed over the years, who like to be critical of others, and look to keep up feuds well beyond the initial disagreement. I think you are one of the people who fit that category, but if not in general, certainly with me. Since I'm not even positive you are part of that little cliche it just goes to show how little I care.
Only one poster has earned me putting them on my ignore list, so I clearly remember who they are. Another poster seems to be an old curmudgeon, and is difficult with everyone. Yet they are rarely critical of the little cliche from what I've noticed.
Wah, wah, wah! BTW, the word is "clique," not cliche. Make sure you throw out the correct insult next time.
cliche: 1: a trite phrase or expression; also : the idea expressed by it 2: a hackneyed theme, characterization, or situation 3: something (as a menu item) that has become overly familiar or commonplace
clique: a narrow exclusive circle or group of persons; especially : one held together by common interests, views, or purposes...
quote:Now before you go assuming it is just me, I still have plenty of PM's where others have sent me support and said to ignore so and so, since "they are always like that with everyone". You hearken back to a time when the board was presumably more civil/compassionate, yet if you are an example of that, you need to start practicing what you preach.
Wow! Thats really somethin!
It appears you're the one thats a part of a "clique." Seriously, thats a couple of the silliest comments I've read here in a while. Time to stop acting like a teenager when you don't get your way.
This should be good... 
.
That's some nice smackin' lip gloss ya' got goin' there jerseydad!
.
That's some nice smackin' lip gloss ya' got goin' there jerseydad!
.
woodman,
Is that meant to be a cliche or a clique?
Is that meant to be a cliche or a clique?
.
Neither...just an observation.
.
Neither...just an observation.
.
Play PG tourneys in Texas! Tort reform passed years ago.
quote:Originally posted by justbaseball:quote:...There are two or three posters who I have noticed over the years, who like to be critical of others, and look to keep up feuds well beyond the initial disagreement. I think you are one of the people who fit that category, but if not in general, certainly with me. Since I'm not even positive you are part of that little cliche it just goes to show how little I care.
Only one poster has earned me putting them on my ignore list, so I clearly remember who they are. Another poster seems to be an old curmudgeon, and is difficult with everyone. Yet they are rarely critical of the little cliche from what I've noticed.
Wah, wah, wah! BTW, the word is "clique," not cliche. Make sure you throw out the correct insult next time.
cliche: 1: a trite phrase or expression; also : the idea expressed by it 2: a hackneyed theme, characterization, or situation 3: something (as a menu item) that has become overly familiar or commonplace
clique: a narrow exclusive circle or group of persons; especially : one held together by common interests, views, or purposes...quote:Now before you go assuming it is just me, I still have plenty of PM's where others have sent me support and said to ignore so and so, since "they are always like that with everyone". You hearken back to a time when the board was presumably more civil/compassionate, yet if you are an example of that, you need to start practicing what you preach.
Wow! Thats really somethin!You still passing notes in class and playin on the HS (or Jr. HS) playground?
Seriously, thats a couple of the silliest comments I've read here in a while. Time to stop acting like a teenager when you don't get your way.
A spelling/dictionary commando. A simple pointing out how I had got the two words mixed up would be sufficient. The cut and paste of their meaning was over the top and certainly unnecessary. But then you knew that, didn't you.
As to whining it has nothing to do with "getting my way" as you put it. So let me be clear. In this medium people act caustic without regard to manners, where as they would never have the gumption or guts to mouth off in public. That is something many of us accept in the cyber world that we would never tolerate in person. That said, it does no harm to point it out.
In my case I came to this forum not expecting the unwelcome responses of a few negative people. Fortunately the overwhelming number of helpful positive posters made staying here well worth it.
Bottom line on your post is that my observation is factual despite your objections of me pointing it out. It would not take much work to figure out who the few individuals are by looking up their posting history. Should they be called out on it?
Who knows, but when they decide to spew their bile in my direction I either ignore them(via the ignore feature), or make sure they understand I'm going to shine a light on their poor behavior. What is worse is when you see them attack other new posters, and those people never return because they do not need to deal with keyboard commandos.
If you care to continue this feel free to PM me, but let us allow the topic of this thread to carry the day.
`
[QUOTE]Originally posted by PGStaff:
Really, it's amazing that more people don't get hurt by foul balls and overthrows at these spring training complexes.
Everyone is aware of the danger involved in both playing and even watching a game.
QUOTE]
Been to the backfields in jupiter, and IMO, could be a disaster waiting to happen, especially on red fields. I don't think those fields were built with the intention of holding real games.
Whenever son played in HS it was at the blue field complex,much safer than red.
I don't know how anyone could say that this may be a frivolous lawsuit. Some of the reasons may be a bit out of hand, but in most suits, everyone involved usually is named in the suit. Correct? Usually people sue when they either get pi ssed off or someone down the line doesn't cover part of the responsibility or they need to get to the facts of what happened (as in the case I cited).
I am not saying anyone was at fault, but why would this be any different than any other claim that the insurance companies paid on in the past?
I know that every team son ever played for it was required that we give proof of insurance and we inquired as to what any team was responsible for. That was something that we felt was our responsibility instead of taking things for granted, and if we weren't coverd enough than we took care of it. That was back then when policies were affordable and that people were employed and had company benefits. These days there are many many families that are uninsured with health/accident insurance because they just can't afford it.
Putting that aside, it is my opinion that some of the comments in this topic were intentional to cause an argument by baiting certain individuals.
There are just some folks who come here not to produce a lively debate, but to argue and create bad feelings. There is a difference. You can see that very clearly in the history of the posts. I am sure that I am not the only one who noticed this. There is a difference between challenging people to think reasonably in topics and being just downright contrary to everything that is posted.
Either way, PG, I hope that this works out for you as well as for the young man that was hurt. I always hate when that happens to any player.
Really, it's amazing that more people don't get hurt by foul balls and overthrows at these spring training complexes.
Everyone is aware of the danger involved in both playing and even watching a game.
QUOTE]
Been to the backfields in jupiter, and IMO, could be a disaster waiting to happen, especially on red fields. I don't think those fields were built with the intention of holding real games.
Whenever son played in HS it was at the blue field complex,much safer than red.
I don't know how anyone could say that this may be a frivolous lawsuit. Some of the reasons may be a bit out of hand, but in most suits, everyone involved usually is named in the suit. Correct? Usually people sue when they either get pi ssed off or someone down the line doesn't cover part of the responsibility or they need to get to the facts of what happened (as in the case I cited).
I am not saying anyone was at fault, but why would this be any different than any other claim that the insurance companies paid on in the past?
I know that every team son ever played for it was required that we give proof of insurance and we inquired as to what any team was responsible for. That was something that we felt was our responsibility instead of taking things for granted, and if we weren't coverd enough than we took care of it. That was back then when policies were affordable and that people were employed and had company benefits. These days there are many many families that are uninsured with health/accident insurance because they just can't afford it.
Putting that aside, it is my opinion that some of the comments in this topic were intentional to cause an argument by baiting certain individuals.
There are just some folks who come here not to produce a lively debate, but to argue and create bad feelings. There is a difference. You can see that very clearly in the history of the posts. I am sure that I am not the only one who noticed this. There is a difference between challenging people to think reasonably in topics and being just downright contrary to everything that is posted.
Either way, PG, I hope that this works out for you as well as for the young man that was hurt. I always hate when that happens to any player.
quote:If you care to continue this feel free to PM me...
Tell you what, you have your (by your description) 'name-calling, whoa-is-me, talk behind other's back' clique PM my clique (whoever that is?) and we'll see if there are any double-agents (you know, the ones we kids call "two-faced") and kick them to their own clique.
Then we'll have THREE cliques...which is always better than two!
Geez, I'm feeling younger already!
Use the "ignore" button. You've already told us you use it and you've threatened to use it again...JUST DO IT! <---Now there's a cliche!
List of Cliches
.
Thanks for the list of cliches just. It's the cat's pajamas and it takes two to tango!
.
Thanks for the list of cliches just. It's the cat's pajamas and it takes two to tango!
.
quote:Originally posted by justbaseball:quote:If you care to continue this feel free to PM me...
Tell you what, you have your (by your description) 'name-calling, whoa-is-me, talk behind other's back' clique PM my clique (whoever that is?) and we'll see if there are any double-agents (you know, the ones we kids call "two-faced") and kick them to their own clique.
Then we'll have THREE cliques...which is always better than two!
Geez, I'm feeling younger already!
Use the "ignore" button. You've already told us you use it and you've threatened to use it again...JUST DO IT! <---Now there's a cliche!
List of Cliches
You just can't let certain things go, and clearly want to stir things up publicly. Your one of what I think are about three difficult people on this board who while serving up some good advice at times, want to also stir the pot. Only one poster on this board was worthy of the ignore button, but rest assured you are part of their clique, just maybe not as caustic.
Regardless your last two posts have nothing to do with the OP topic, yet you cannot resist getting in a dig toward someone you love to grapple with.
Or maybe you are just one of these immature adults who has to get in the last word. We will see if you fit that category as well.
Now, I will once again try to get the thread back on topic from the attempted hijack.
While our overall legal system is certain better than many other examples, our civil and personal injury system has been perverted in many ways. Is that a reflection of our overall society, the multitude of lawyers who seem to have skipped ethic courses, a combo thereof?
I certainly do not have the answer, but it is high time serious tort reform was implemented to remove this perversion of our legal system.
This example of an absurd lawsuit and PG's predicament is just the tip of the iceberg.
`
quote:Originally posted by Vector:
You just can't let certain things go, and clearly want to stir things up publicly. Your one of what I think are about three difficult people on this board who while serving up some good advice at times, want to also stir the pot . Only one poster on this board was worthy of the ignore button, but rest assured you are part of their clique, just maybe not as caustic.
Regardless your last two posts have nothing to do with the OP topic, yet you cannot resist getting in a dig toward someone you love to grapple with.
Or maybe you are just one of these immature adults who has to get in the last word. We will see if you fit that category as well.
`
Vector, other than calling you out on a bit of BS, I don't know what you have been reading from Justbaseball to warrant those comments? Based on your last post I'd say what credibility you might have had on this board has gone down quite a few notches in my opinion.
I'd put JB up with there with some of most insightful and supportive contributors we have on his site. Hard to imagine anyone considering to "ignore" what JB has to say...it would be their loss. I'd take his "clique" any day.
Not sure if it's on list of cliche's however GLASS HOUSES comes to mind...
Now THAT was a classic! 
Let me see....according to you I like to get the last word so you try to insult me while you try to get the last word and challenge me not to respond...else I'll be getting the last word and you will somehow feel vindicated?!
Absolutely classic! Geez I'm dizzy, but I hope you feel better.
Let's be clear Vector...I could care less what you or your little secret clique think of me. But you're posting like a screaming little teenager. 'Wah! Wah! Nobody likes you and they've all told me so in secret little messages.'. Kinda like passing notes in Jr. HS - huh?
You don't wanna read my posts cause they bother you? It's easy...then don't! Don't read any of the posts by the 3 posters (whoever they are?) that annoy you. You'll feel better, I promise!
Let me see....according to you I like to get the last word so you try to insult me while you try to get the last word and challenge me not to respond...else I'll be getting the last word and you will somehow feel vindicated?!
Absolutely classic! Geez I'm dizzy, but I hope you feel better.
Let's be clear Vector...I could care less what you or your little secret clique think of me. But you're posting like a screaming little teenager. 'Wah! Wah! Nobody likes you and they've all told me so in secret little messages.'. Kinda like passing notes in Jr. HS - huh?
You don't wanna read my posts cause they bother you? It's easy...then don't! Don't read any of the posts by the 3 posters (whoever they are?) that annoy you. You'll feel better, I promise!
quote:The bottom line is that it is not your place to correct me even if you think my view is incorrect. That is especially true if you are not even participating with me in the discussion, but rather you ignore the particulars of the post, yet decide to directly respond to my perceived ignorance.
Not "my place" to correct you, even when I think your view is incorrect???
Interesting perspective. Probably won't work on a message board.
In contrast to your placing yourself on some pinnacle on this issue, your continued posts in this thread reflected a complete inability to distinguish a lawsuit without merit from a lawsuit with merit. I didn't post before because both PG and Bum posted facts which could easily support the view the lawsuits had no merit.
TPM posted a situation without facts other than a Dad died, the family sued and they recovered and you jumped in right way to "again" argue it was another example of blood su##ing lawyers, a greedy family and a jury out of control.
In my view, that post showed, clearly, the inability to distinguish important information as the thread PG started evolved. Your jumping on the TPM case situation showed nothing but a desire to inflame by language which inflames.
Advocating for tort reform rings so hollow when you cannot recognize lawsuits and claims which might be valid, as TPM presented, and those which are not, as PG and Bum presented.
I can imagine it is very embarrassing for you, Vector. You kept posting as the thread evolved until the gaping holes in your emotional, inflammatory language were exposed, by your own continued posting. If you don't like getting push back, this is probably not the site for to step out on the end of the plank and see your own words and continued venting saw it off behind you.
In contrast to your views, perhaps it is not your "place" to tell anyone on this site what is their place to post, or not.
I'll throw out another interesting lawsuit against my company. Guy on the basketball court does a slam dunk, breaks the hoop which now dangles precariously from above..
Players go to the front desk to advise of the damage.
..meanwhile another player (don't ask me why) stands directly underneath the broken hoop, looking up at the damage. The hoop falls onto his head.
Turns out the guy is bald. He sues. Says the resulting scar on his head makes it difficult for him to attract his wife sexually.
The insurance company pays out.
Players go to the front desk to advise of the damage.
..meanwhile another player (don't ask me why) stands directly underneath the broken hoop, looking up at the damage. The hoop falls onto his head.
Turns out the guy is bald. He sues. Says the resulting scar on his head makes it difficult for him to attract his wife sexually.
The insurance company pays out.
.
I gotta' ask...was his wife bald too?
.
I gotta' ask...was his wife bald too?
.
quote:The insurance company pays out.
No....we - all insurance policyholders - pay out or bend over, whatever your perspective is.
So why not go to trial? It's got to be at least worth the price of admission to hear the guy explain why he can't get his wife's interest. What a rodeo that would have been.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by jerseydad:
Vector, other than calling you out on a bit of BS, I don't know what you have been reading from Justbaseball to warrant those comments?
In your book he called me out on BS, which is your right to feel that way. The fact of the matter is that I articulated a point of view that differs from his, but he decided to call me out. By his own admission he did not know the facts of the case even though he was admonishing me for giving an opinion without all the facts. To me that is a classic example of hypocrisy.
Based on your last post I'd say what credibility you might have had on this board has gone down quite a few notches in my opinion.
Credibility as it relates to baseball, or just debating skills? Or do you differentiate one from the other. My overall issue with him has nothing to do with his baseball advice/knowledge, so my observation and criticism has to do with his attempt to pounce on me. This is not the first time, nor do I suspect it will be the last. Look up his posting history with me if you care to know more about it. It might very well have you see who is the antagonist.
Hard to imagine anyone considering to "ignore" what JB has to say...it would be their loss. I'd take his "clique" any day.
I never said he was on my ignore list, so you read that incorrectly. Logic would dictate he could not be on my list since I keep responding back to his posts. He is however an apologist for the one person who is on the ignore list. He can play dumb all he wants as to who the other two are, based on a few rounds we went where the three ganged up. Still I will no longer engage him in this thread because I do not want to see it get totally derailed.
Not sure if it's on list of cliche's however GLASS HOUSES comes to mind...
Exactly was your purpose in posting this little tidbit. Is it a way for you to get in a little jab at me for having made a simple mistake which I already acknowledged?
`
Vector, other than calling you out on a bit of BS, I don't know what you have been reading from Justbaseball to warrant those comments?
In your book he called me out on BS, which is your right to feel that way. The fact of the matter is that I articulated a point of view that differs from his, but he decided to call me out. By his own admission he did not know the facts of the case even though he was admonishing me for giving an opinion without all the facts. To me that is a classic example of hypocrisy.
Based on your last post I'd say what credibility you might have had on this board has gone down quite a few notches in my opinion.
Credibility as it relates to baseball, or just debating skills? Or do you differentiate one from the other. My overall issue with him has nothing to do with his baseball advice/knowledge, so my observation and criticism has to do with his attempt to pounce on me. This is not the first time, nor do I suspect it will be the last. Look up his posting history with me if you care to know more about it. It might very well have you see who is the antagonist.
Hard to imagine anyone considering to "ignore" what JB has to say...it would be their loss. I'd take his "clique" any day.
I never said he was on my ignore list, so you read that incorrectly. Logic would dictate he could not be on my list since I keep responding back to his posts. He is however an apologist for the one person who is on the ignore list. He can play dumb all he wants as to who the other two are, based on a few rounds we went where the three ganged up. Still I will no longer engage him in this thread because I do not want to see it get totally derailed.
Not sure if it's on list of cliche's however GLASS HOUSES comes to mind...
Exactly was your purpose in posting this little tidbit. Is it a way for you to get in a little jab at me for having made a simple mistake which I already acknowledged?
`
This thread appears to have run its course.
Vector - you get the last word.
Vector - you get the last word.