After a few days of deliberation, it seems the jury has found in favor of the complainant in the case against Isiah Thomas and the New York Knicks.
Certainly, anyone subjected to unwelcome advances and abusive language is deserving of protection. And possibly even compensation for the unpleasantness and stress caused by the situation.
Madison Square Garden was also found to be responsible for punitive damages.
Despite the jury's seeming assuredness in their conclusion, one must wonder about the situation.
Was Anucha Browne Saunders granted considerable benefit by the jury in their interpretation of her responsibility in the interactions?
Certainly, Browne Saunders convinced the jury that she was harassed. But, in the arena and business of male sports: what is harassment?
We are talking about a culture of male interaction, relationships, expectations and behavior. Certainly, if a female chooses to enter that world, she should have a thorough indoctrination into the culture. A complete understanding of the world she is entering. The notion that the established culture must change to accommodate the sensibilities of someone entering it is unfair. It's a tyranny of the minority to suggest that now, because Anucha Browne Saunders was unable to adjust to a world that existed in good condition before her association with it, that that world must change.
The fallacious reaction is that the individuals that are already a part of the culture at The Garden should take harassment training and sensitivity training. All in an effort for their successful and happy organization to change to accommodate one individual.
Certainly, the more reasonable course of action would be for Browne Saunders to undergo some sort of counselling or course to help ease her into the culture. To help change her sensibilities, perceptions and attitude. To help her understand that the onus is on her to fit in with the culture.
What efforts did Browne Saunders make to adapt to the Knicks culture? Did she exhaust every opportunity to fit in?
There are accounts that she was the frequent vocalizer of less than civil word choices. So, clearly, at some point she did attempt to fit in to the culture.
Why did she stop trying? Because she realized that this job and culture simply wasn't for her?
There is no shame in that. Sometimes, when one assumes a responsibility that is not suitable in a cultural environment in which fitting in is something they simply can't do, the best course of action is to find one that is suitable. Not damage the already existing culture by trying to force a reconstruction of the already established and well functioning working environment.
Obviously, if Browne Saunders had simply explained herself and left, Thomas and MSG couldn't have had any less respect for her.
By giving up, Browne Saunders may have made herself a lot of money. But, everyday when she looks at her bank account, she will have to live with the fact that she simply quit. She gave up on herself.
And she gave up on being a female and fitting into the culture of the business of male sports.
Because of this, we predict that opportunities for women in male sports front offices will be in even less availability.
Anucha Browne Saunders gave up on women.
And at NOIS, unlike some, we think women are worth more than a $10M settlement.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
72 comments:
it's probably all bs.
this is what happens when you mix the work place.
you bring in black men AND women...and no one acts right.
So sexual harassment doesn't exist at all--it's all because a woman can't cut it in certain field of business? Your argument is full of holes big enough to drive a truck through. There's a definite difference between working in a male-dominated environment and being sexually harassed as Ms. Browne Sanders was.
I've worked in places where I was one of few, if not the only, woman in the department. Yes, it was a different environment than what I was used to: The dominant topic of conversation among the guys was sports and there were plenty of coarser jokes about women and such. But I was *never* called "black bitch" or "ho", explicitly and repeatedly propositioned for sex, or openly derided in front of co-workers. I was treated as an equal.
It's one thing to have to adjust to a different working atmosphere, something I gladly did and would do again. But it's entirely different to be deliberately mocked, degraded, and verbally attacked to the point that you can't do your job because your relationships with your co-workers and bosses have been thoroughly compromised.
I used to respect this blog for its unique perspective on sports and society. But your blanket dismissal of her claims as personal weaknesses and vengeance reveals that you're no better than the racist forces you constantly rail against.
"So sexual harassment doesn't exist at all--it's all because a woman can't cut it in certain field of business? "
Ma'am, we never said that is what it's all about.
We said that if a woman wants to work in a 'locker room' (so to speak), she should expect locker room behavior and shouldn't be incumbant upon the culture to change for her...she should change for the culture.
"Your argument is full of holes big enough to drive a truck through. "
LOL...and then you go on to personalize things by telling us about 'you' and 'your' experiences. Did you work for a male sports team?
Well....then we aren't talking about 'you'. Are we?
" I was treated as an equal. "
We're glad the men were able to make you feel that way. They did a good job fooling you!
"But your blanket dismissal of her claims as personal weaknesses and vengeance reveals that you're no better than the racist forces you constantly rail against."
Where did we dismiss it as vengeance? We never said she was trying to get even.
We do dismiss you, tho.
And, we used to respect you as some one with reading comprehension skills.
We say again. 'Women are worth more than a $10M settlement'.
"So sexual harassment doesn't exist at all--it's all because a woman can't cut it in certain field of business? "
someone needs to look up 'irony'...
"
I've worked in places where I was one of few, if not the only, woman in the department. Yes, it was a different environment than what I was used to: The dominant topic of conversation among the guys was sports and there were plenty of coarser jokes about women and such. But I was *never* called "black bitch" or "ho", explicitly and repeatedly propositioned for sex, or openly derided in front of co-workers. I was treated as an equal. "
ummm...then clearly you haven't experienced sexual harrassment...so, maybe it DOESN'T exist...
why are you commenting and acting like a victim or expert on sexual harassment when YOU SAY THAT YOU WERE TREATED AS AN EQUAL...
in other words...shut your cockholster mouth and cook some dinner, honey....
now, you been harrassed.
"But your blanket dismissal of her claims as personal weaknesses and vengeance reveals that you're no better than the racist forces you constantly rail against."
so, racism is the same as someone not liking the fact that sometimes at a macho work environment, boys will be boys? seriously? wow.
Hey harriet....maybe if blackwomen like YOU didn't put black athletes on such a pedestal and spend so much time chasing and worshipping them...they WOULDN'T call you a black bitch and ho...
blame those black women for the way black men treat you...don't blame a work environment for it...
"I've worked in places where I was one of few, if not the only, woman in the department. Yes, it was a different environment than what I was used to"
Yes. The differences between dancing on a stage naked while rubbing your big, fat butt in your pimps crotch while he stuffs $1 bills in your ass crack and working in a board room are minute. However, you did have to blow the boss to get both jobs, so in that respect they are not so completely different.
"I used to respect this blog for its unique perspective on sports and society."
Uh oh, NOIS lost a groupie.
Tell ya what, if you take your top off I'll point you to my blog, bitch.
"We are talking about a culture of male interaction, relationships, expectations and behavior. Certainly, if a female chooses to enter that world, she should have a thorough indoctrination into the culture. A complete understanding of the world she is entering. The notion that the established culture must change to accommodate the sensibilities of someone entering it is unfair. It's a tyranny of the minority to suggest that now, because Anucha Browne Saunders was unable to adjust to a world that existed in good condition before her association with it, that that world must change."
I think my reading comprehension skills are working perfectly fine: You're saying that in order to achieve her dream of working in professional sports, Ms. Browne Sanders should have simply tolerated being treated less than dirt and the inhuman treatment she received was part and parcel of the business. By that logic, why do we even have civil right laws or OSHA? If certain prejudices and abuses are entrenched in a business, then I guess we all should put up and shut up no matter what the cost to our livelihood or health.
I stand by my argument that there's a line between a work culture and outright abuse. It's one thing to tolerate and adapt to the rough language and behaviors of male sports. It's another thing to be treated as a piece of dirt and directly attacked by coworkers.
She was standing for her right, for a woman's right to be treated like a full-fledged human being--something that isn't exactly comprehended here, given the responses to my comment. I don't think it should matter whether a woman works with a group of white-collar males or male athletes (who, by the way, I never said I particularly admired): in each situation, they ultimately are working together in one business with the common goal of making their company more successful. Browne Sanders didn't want to be their best friend or force them to create the ideal workplace for her--she just wanted to treat her as a professional equal. But they weren't calling her "affectionate" nicknames nor joking around as they did with her male counterparts. They couldn't even leave her alone--they chose to attack her to the point that she couldn't do her job.
Yes, you say that 'Women are worth more than a $10M settlement'. I'm sure we are in your eyes--as long as we stay nice and pure in the confined arenas where we're supposed be. If we dare to try new things and stand up for our right to be able to do them, then we become the uppity black bitches who are too ambitious for their own good. But all the names in the world won't stop us from plowing ahead.
"I used to respect this blog for its unique perspective on sports and society."
Sir, your posts are merely perspectives? I thought your posts were gospels...
"By that logic, why do we even have civil right laws or OSHA?"
Ma'am, WE do not have civil rights, only the white culture have civil rights. I encourage you to read the writings of a lesser known writer by the name of Alfred Charles Sharpton, Jr. ("AC" to his friends)
"If certain prejudices and abuses are entrenched in a business, then I guess we all should put up and shut up no matter what the cost to our livelihood or health."
Ma'am, Roger Goodell applauds your notion.
Well harriett, I'll give you this, most who stumble upon the blog and manage to defecate a post don't bother coming back. You, being the bitch you are, just won't let it go-- a sign of perseverance.
I take back the comment regarding your previous work experience. However, the offer to exchange my blog address for a topless photograph of yourself still stands.
"If we dare to try new things and stand up for our right to be able to do them, then we become the uppity black bitches who are too ambitious for their own good."
Ma'am, is this like the time Whitney defended her right to take cocaine instead of crack because crack is for poor people and she was not poor?
"But all the names in the world won't stop us from plowing ahead."
Ma'am, really?
You seem to have slowed down to argue here with NOIS.
When, if you'd followed the advice of one commentor and looked up, 'irony', you might have been able to keep moving ahead.
Shame.
" we become the uppity black bitches who are too ambitious for their own good."
ok...i thought you were serious with your comments...but you just used black bitches and ambitious in the same sentence...LOL...now I KNOW this is was an elaborate joke.
...you could have kept it going if you had used 'black bitches' and 'gold diggers'...but the ambitious thing...you tipped your hand
well played. had me going for a bit.
"Ma'am, really?
You seem to have slowed down to argue here with NOIS.
When, if you'd followed the advice of one commentor and looked up, 'irony', you might have been able to keep moving ahead.
Shame."
I think she missed her English lesson on Jonathan Swifts "A Modest Proposal."
Please excuse her, she was turning tricks.
"someone needs to look up 'irony'..."
No, no. She needs to look up 'ironing,' because thats pretty much all shes qualified for.
"No, no. She needs to look up 'ironing,' because thats pretty much all shes qualified for."
you are finally making some sense, boy!
i really have nothing to add to the "merits" of this discussion, but must comment that those of you who could not rebut Harriet without resorting to calling her a bitch or a stripper, etc. really need to spend less time fucking around on here and more time looking yourselves in the mirror and trying to gain an education.
All of these Internet bullies are funny. Courage behind a monitor...the new weapon of choice.
Believe it or not, when you think you are being funny or cute or flirting or whatever it's not up to anyone else to interpret your context. The impact you have is entirely separate from you and how you grew up. If you are talking and someone else is offended then you're being offensive. Maybe you don't care, maybe it's not your problem that someone else is offended, but the fact remains and it matters. And you should be glad it matters because the low man on the totem poll changes from generation to generation. Personally I'd rather leave my kids a world where the playing field is level more than a world where the rules cheat in their favor. Maybe that's just me, maybe centuries of bigotry and prejudice have only served to show you the evils of one race or religion, instead of the evils of the human heart, black, white, christian, muslim, jewish, male and female.
Sensitivity sounds funny to a lot of men, it sounds weak and unmanly, but all it means is recognizing that the world doesn't begin and end with you. It doesn't mean you have to like flowers or talking or hugging or Sandra Bullock's movies. Nor does it mean you have to give a shit. But it does mean you are at least aware that there are other people in the world who have absolutely nothing to do with you. They live their own lives, have their own experiences, and interpret things according to their own rules, not necessarily according to your intent. Understanding that is what's called "being an adult." Until you do understand this you can be as strong, stoic, and macho as it is possible for a person to be, and you'll still be a little boy. A little boy who's a pain in the ass to the rest of the world at that.
So grow up, idiots. I for one am sick of hearing you whine.
"but must comment that those of you who could not rebut Harriet"
rebut what????
she said that SHE HAS NEVER experienced harassment at work...yet she wants to act like an expert on it...she said that the argument was full of holes big enough to drive a truck through...but then turned her truck another direction and didn't point ANY out..
but, you...you sound spunky. i like your moxie, lil mama...come here and give ole zeke a kiss!
"So grow up, idiots. I for one am sick of hearing you whine."
ironic, that you are sick of hearing someone whine after that bitch fest of a comment.
whiney bitch.
"Sensitivity sounds funny to a lot of men, it sounds weak and unmanly, but all it means is recognizing that the world doesn't begin and end with you."
yea, i guess according to you the world begins and ends with the asshole that can't function if people don't treat them special or conform to THEIR views, huh?
YOU are a hypocrit. plain and simple.
"If you are talking and someone else is offended then you're being offensive."
I find your post insensitive and offensive.
therefore it is, right??
if we lived according to YOUR rules, we couldn't talk to each other and we'd have to censor everything on TV and the movies and the internet...
"They live their own lives, have their own experiences, and interpret things according to their own rules, not necessarily according to your intent. Understanding that is what's called "being an adult." '
Actually, being able to discern 'intent' and understand context would be part of being an adult, too.
you are a clown.
that statement, in the current context, has the intent of insulting your limited intelligence and narrow view of the world.
open your mind and quit being so self centric.
"So grow up, idiots. I for one am sick of hearing you whine.'
Sir/Ma'am, while you did make several reasonable and thoughtful points in your rambling diatribe...we would be remiss if we didn't point out the obvious insensitive nature of your final statement.
When you comments about sensitity, offensiveness, interpretation of words and actions...and then end it as you did, you lose major credibility.
Basically, you come off as one of those 'do as i say, not as i do' people.
Take this as a righteous lesson learned.
No apology or retraction of your offensive and insensitive ending is necessary...as we are sure you will be more careful in your interactions with others here in the future.
"All of these Internet bullies are funny. Courage behind a monitor...the new weapon of choice."
ummm...what exactly is your point?
I say that Mr. Thomas is a freedom fighter. It takes true courage to stand up to the world and say "Bitch, I don't give a f--- about these white people".
Right on, NOIS. It reminds me of all the black kids who can't hack working in a white-dominated legal profession. Memo to black law students: If you're going to quit over a few negro jokes, or sue every time you're called "boy," you're doing yourself and your race a disfavor. Buck up! I did!
"Right on, NOIS. It reminds me of all the black kids who can't hack working in a white-dominated legal profession. Memo to black law students: If you're going to quit over a few negro jokes, or sue every time you're called "boy," you're doing yourself and your race a disfavor. Buck up! I did!"
Sir, you make an excellent point!
And it would be valid, if only...male sports were set up with the intent of singularly persecuting against women. If male sports one particular mission was to hold women down and destroy their existance as a race.....the white legal system WAS set up with the intent of singularly persecuting against and destroying Negroes.
But, yes, other than...good point.
We assume that your participation in the white legal system is to fight from within?
"Right on, NOIS. It reminds me of all the black kids who can't hack working in a white-dominated legal profession. Memo to black law students: If you're going to quit over a few negro jokes, or sue every time you're called "boy," you're doing yourself and your race a disfavor. Buck up! I did!
Thats great, but you've failed to understand the context of the commentary, however, you were the one who thought that by showing your white cohorts just how fast you can throw another member of your own race under the bus for any given reason would somehow persuade them to sponsor your membership to whitetopia, a process you were suspiciously eager to undertake, thus, i am not surprised by your error.
Let me clue you in on something, if what you say is true, then the reason you 'did it,' is because you jigged your way there.
Now do you understand why Dave Chappelle said 'in the wrong hands, these sketches are dangerous?'
"And it would be valid, if only...male sports were set up with the intent of singularly persecuting against women. If male sports one particular mission was to hold women down and destroy their existance as a race.."
agreed!
males sports weren't instituted to stop women from having jobs and such.
Jim Crow laws were instituted to destroy blacks. And, when they were no longer 'acceptable', it became the job of 'prosecutors' (more aptly called persecutors) to unfairly, disproportionately and heavy handedly apply laws to blacks...
"We assume that your participation in the white legal system is to fight from within?"
Correct, sirs. I see you're familiar with my jurisprudence.
"Sir, you make an excellent point!
And it would be valid, if only...male sports were set up with the intent of singularly persecuting against women. If male sports one particular mission was to hold women down and destroy their existance as a race.....the white legal system WAS set up with the intent of singularly persecuting against and destroying Negroes."
Being familiar with my jurisprudence, you know I'm no wordsmith. Do you, by your use of "singularly," mean to contend that the white legal system has no function other than that of "persecuting against [sic] and destroying Negroes"? If so, I can assure you that the persecution and destruction of Negroes is merely incidental to the function of the white legal system nearly 50% of the time. I had assumed the persecution of women associated with professional sport was similarly incidental.
Point well-taken, and mea culpa, sirs!
By way of anecdote: I once had a woman law clerk who continually referenced something called "the patriarchy" and implied its singular purpose was the subjugation of women. Mamacita, the rack on this chick, you wouldn't believe.
"Do you, by your use of "singularly," mean to contend that the white legal system has no function other than that of "persecuting against [sic] and destroying Negroes"? "
Sir, agreed.
You are no wordsmith.
And, it has been proven beyond contention that the legal system performs the referenced function.
"I once had a woman law clerk who continually referenced something called "the patriarchy" and implied its singular purpose was the subjugation of women. Mamacita, the rack on this chick, you wouldn't believe."
Sir, we've all seen crackpots like this lady with her 'patriarchy' at work...there's one in every office.
"Sir, we've all seen crackpots like this lady with her 'patriarchy' at work...there's one in every office."
Our minds are one here, sirs. Bitch was running wild!
in my capacity as a black female attorney who 7 years ago had to sue her employer for race, sex and marital status discrimination [and continued to work there, and still do] whose case survived several summary judgment motions and ultimately was settled in my favor [and allow me to mention my employers hired the nastiest employer defense firm in the region -- i mean sanctioned by courts in other cases nasty], i can't begin to explain the extent to which some of you have no fucking clue about the subject on which you pontificate. this is why i periodically have to stop reading this site because it just gets too fucking annoying.
"[and allow me to mention my employers hired the nastiest employer defense firm in the region -- i mean sanctioned by courts in other cases nasty], "
that's funny!!!
a lawyer suing her own firm bithing about the firm hiring a "nasty" lawyer.
that's rich!
lawyers are funny people!!!
"i can't begin to explain the extent to which some of you have no fucking clue about the subject on which you pontificate. this is why i periodically have to stop reading this site because it just gets too fucking annoying."
ya know what? You just summed up what this blog seems to be all about...
if you got your overinflated head out of your a$$, and read the post without such a biased and unbending point of view...YOU might read the post for what it is..
also, you might notice that NOIS not only makes those guilty of the 'bias' look like fools....he also makes those who scream 'bias' at every corner look silly...
The subjugation of Foxxy Brown in the white legal system is reviewed de novo.
This Blog has repeatedly held that the white legal system was "set up with the [singular] intent of . . . persecuting . . . and destroying Negroes." NOIS (October 3, 2007 6:03 PM). Because this intent is singular, it follows that the white legal system was not established with the intent of persecuting and destroying women. See id. (noting that "male sports" do not have the "one particular mission" of "hold[ing] women down and destroy[ing] their existance [sic] as a race"); see also al sharpton's banana hammock (October 3, 2007 6:06 PM) ("[M]ales sports weren't instituted to stop women from having jobs and such.").
VACATED and REMANDED.
logroll much, brother t?
"logroll much, brother t?"
actually, no.
how bout you?
"VACATED and REMANDED."
it seems like half the morons that come and play here are 'lawyers'.
and half of you post during the fucking day.
i'm sure you clients would be thrilled to know what you do while on the clock and passing them billable hours.
bunch of clowns
Sir, you are mistaken. Article III judges most certainly do NOT bill.
Brother T, sir, thank you for so handily dispatching of that pest. Now could you please tell us more about how brilliant NOIS is?
"Now could you please tell us more about how brilliant NOIS is?"
Sir, no need.
The fact that our postings draw such intensely retrospective commentary from lawyers and judges certainly is proof enough of the brilliance of NOIS.
We thank you for you presence.
"intensely retrospective"?
""intensely retrospective"?"
Sir, well...how would you characterize it?
i don't know, i'd probably use a term that made sense. retrospective means "looking back." anyway, i just see one lawyer who's pissed off and one person doing a pretty funny schtick as clarence thomas. so i guess i'd characterized them as "pissed" and "pretty funny." maybe "intensely pissed" and "intensely funny."
NOIS, I'm glad you think I made some good points. That means something to me. I also think it's laughable to imply (as you did in response to another commentor, not me) that, while the white power structure was setup to dominate non-whites, there is no parallel structure setup to dominate women, and that Brown-Saunders might not have been the victim of that structure. Think about that for a moment, make the actors in Thomas' play white vs black instead of man vs. woman, and then re-read what you wrote about her "giving up on women," or "fitting in." I think you'll be as disgusted as I was. If you're not, you should be.
Then, in that context, read the knuckle dragging comments lashing out at the idea that women aren't to blame for their own harassment. Like blacks are to blame for white racism? Why don't blacks just try to fit in to white culture? What's wrong with a little word? Oh, I forgot, blacks were lynched, there were Jim Crow laws, slavery, etc, and nothing like that has ever happened to women. It certainly wasn't happening long before whites and blacks even met, and it's absoloutely not happening today. Right.
So don't play this game of my treatment at the hands of the bigots is the real tragedy, yours is just one of life's many obstacles you need to meet with a smiling face. I'm sick to death of these logical gymnastics. Wrong is wrong.
Also, to everyone reading these comments and feeling anger: I don't expect that these words will illuminate your dim minds immediately. This would never be the venue to try to do something like that. I do, however, expect these words to infect you like a virus, to prey on your subconscious, and that one day you will act just a little more responsibly and sensitively, because now you know what a jerk is (I think I've provided quite a wonderful example of it here) and knowing is, after all, half the battle.
"Like blacks are to blame for white racism?"
Well, the whole "uppity" thing doesn't help.
But I'm with you, sister. And if your bod is rockin' half as hard as your last post, I think maybe we should get together for a pantsparty.
Prepare to feel the sting of NOIS's lash, e.g.,
Ma'am, [INSERT REMARK THAT IS SARCASTIC BUT WHOSE INVERSE IS NOT TRUE].
[INSERT ANOTHER SARCASTIC COMMENT, BUT BE SURE TO DO IT AFTER A PARAGRAPH BREAK. I CAN'T STRESS THAT LAST POINT ENOUGH.]
[CONCLUDE WITH BRIEF SARCASTIC REMARK, POSSIBLY USE "MA'AM" AGAIN.
"retrospective means "looking back." "
Sir, exactly.
Looking back and reflecting on the merits of the original post, and looking back and reflecting on the thoughtful conversation which ensued as a result of the insight original post.
Thank you.
" I do, however, expect these words to infect you like a virus, to prey on your subconscious, and that one day you will act just a little more responsibly and sensitively, because now you know what a jerk is (I think I've provided quite a wonderful example of it here) and knowing is, after all, half the battle."
the only virus you will ever infect anyone with is your herpes...
....and you might pass on your anal warts, too.
nasty bitch.
"Think about that for a moment, make the actors in Thomas' play white vs black instead of man vs. woman, and then re-read what you wrote about her "giving up on women," or "fitting in." I think you'll be as disgusted as I was. If you're not, you should be."
i dont get the connection.
what does enslaving a people and then writing a legal system to ensure that they are forever dominated have to do with some males wanting to play basketball and run a business?
you are nuts!
"Looking back and reflecting on the merits of the original post, and looking back and reflecting on the thoughtful conversation which ensued as a result of the insight original post."
yeah, that's what you meant. that is well beyond weak. this site is hilarious.
look, you misused a word. it's not that big a deal. writing gets easier with practice. sir.
"i dont get the connection."
that's a shocker.
"Prepare to feel the sting of NOIS's lash, e.g., "
or, prepare to weep at the boredom of judge thomas' recently presented schtick.
it's craptastic.
maybe he will start his own blog...and just go away.
right, there's nothing "schticky" about this site. "recently presented"? what's with all the stilted constructions people use here? it's like a bunch of 12-year-olds trying to sound "educated."
"look, you misused a word. it's not that big a deal. writing gets easier with practice. sir."
Sir, really?
-the act or process or an instance of surveying the past-
That's retrospection.
Anyone that comes here, reads one of our insights...thinks about it...makes a comment...receive feedback...thinks about the post again...makes another comment...etc...is engaging in intense retrospection.
Don't worry, reading comprehension gets easier with practice as well!
"right, there's nothing "schticky" about this site. "recently presented"? what's with all the stilted constructions people use here? it's like a bunch of 12-year-olds trying to sound "educated.""
you'll fit right in then.
yes, that's what you meant to say.
if you could provide one more post -- no, let's go for two more posts -- convincing me that you knew what "retrospective" meant before i told you, that would be great. thanks in advance.
bear, please stop antagonizing these people. If a riot breaks out and the police shoot NOIS and his family sues, I'm going to have to affirm the case's dismissal. Don't put me in an awkward spot here.
"if you could provide one more post -- no, let's go for two more posts -- convincing me that you knew what "retrospective" meant before i told you, that would be great."
Sir, so...we used a word exactly as we intended.
You jump to an erronious conclusion and didn't understand the context.
We explained it clearly and correctly.
You claim that, now that we have shown we did use the word correctly, that we originally didn't know we were?????
And we are the morons?
Indeed.
"bear, please stop antagonizing these people. If a riot breaks out and the police shoot NOIS and his family sues, I'm going to have to affirm the case's dismissal. Don't put me in an awkward spot here."
Sir, clearly...you have the antagonist roles misconstrued.
It's our blog.
Thanks for coming.
And, that US COURT IP ADDY is probably tax payer funded.
Get back to work.
"And we are the morons?'
you are all morons.
NOIS is a habitual douchenozzle.
The Judge guy apparently just found this blog and thinks he is 'antagonizing' NOIS iwth his schtick. He doesn't realize that he has been trolled and sucked into this crap.
And Bear has named himself after a gay fetish.
this is a mess.
Very busy at work - only on blogs once per day. not hiding, now responding:
"that's funny!!! a lawyer suing her own firm bithing about the firm hiring a "nasty" lawyer. that's rich! lawyers are funny people!!!"
no substance here -- no response required. except to say it's not "my own firm" if i'm an employee rather than a owner/partner. dumb ass.
"also, you might notice that NOIS not only makes those guilty of the 'bias' look like fools....he also makes those who scream 'bias' at every corner look silly..."
yeah, wow, thanks. i sho ain't never thunkified what the Honorable NOIS was bout til you tole me massah.
"The subjugation of Foxxy Brown in the white legal system is reviewed de novo. . . . VACATED and REMANDED."
"Sir, you are mistaken. Article III judges most certainly do NOT bill."
thank you, LOL, and best wishes with your work.
o/t" NOIS, condolences on the ffl team last weekend. the Wrath shall flame again!
"o/t" NOIS, condolences on the ffl team last weekend. the Wrath shall flame again!"
Ma'am, we thank you.
After a few lucky weeks with some of our lower draft picks putting up good numbers...everyone crapped the bed this week.
"thank you, LOL, and best wishes with your work."
a black woman being friendly with justice thomas??? oh my!
Post a Comment