Two Things
 

No, but I have that problem with everything aired on CNN, FOX, MSNBC, CNBC, and that other one. I find trepanation more appealing than the prospect of watching any of their programming. O'Reilly strikes me as particularly humorless and odious, though.

I assume the NYC FBers are the exception to the rule
 

do you use it robustly? ever throw mutatis mutandis in your boilerplate?

Two Things
 

Comedy Central?

I assume the NYC FBers are the exception to the rule
 

1. Soft polite openings invite possible hedging by the other side. Its much easier to say "Your understanding is incorrect" than "No, we did not conced/agree on that." I try to put concessions in the bag quickly and reiterate them until they are psychologically considered part of the settlement.

2. Its all subjective. So much depends on the personalities and the situation. I find as long as you make everyone look good, you'll get something you want. Best advice I ever got was "You'll know a great settlement because no one will be really happy at the end." No wonder litigators have substance abuse problems.

I assume the NYC FBers are the exception to the rule
 

Couldn't be me. I don't care enough about any of this crap to argue too long over a definition. Besides, my client is huge and their form is rarely contested. My biggest negotiating position is, "My client's policy ties my hands on this issue. But I will note it and bring it to their attention." The other side always caves, unless it's some piece of shit bank in the middle of nowhere, party to some minor blocked account agreement, where the lawyer has only had one issue blow up in his face in the last 20 years he's been practicing which makes him so wary of that issue that he can't let it go (run-on sentence supreme!). Then, it gets bounced up above our heads on both sides and I get a call from him later on saying that his client, against his wishes, is willing to live with the risk of a check's funds being misapplied by that bank to someone else's account and not discovered until 18 months after the agreement has terminated (and they still want to be indemnified for it because it was an "error made in good faith," whatever that means).

Like I said, I just don't give a shit about any of this crap.

TM

I assume the NYC FBers are the exception to the rule
 

Oh my gosh. All this time I've been saying robustily. How embarrassing.

I assume the NYC FBers are the exception to the rule
 

For some reason this reminded me of something that happened when I practiced in Canada (and is hugely outable). We were dealing with a firm in western Canada. They sent us a huge document and in the middle of one of the huge run on miscellaneous provisions near the end was "Leafs suck!". They were apparently just seeing whether we actually read the document. Either that, or a junior was just having fun. Because we have such scintillating lives, that was the talk of the firm.

Sometimes a cigar ...
 

That picture seems to be missing a tunnel.

I assume the NYC FBers are the exception to the rule
 

Did they agree to change it to "Leafs rule!"?

I assume the NYC FBers are the exception to the rule
 

I know there's a joke in there somewhere.

I want to go to a gay bathhouse!
 

Either that, or a nondiscript anchor in a mid-market city in the mighty PNW.

Still bummed I missed his exchange with Dan Savage.

I assume the NYC FBers are the exception to the rule
 

All I can see is an annoying Gloria Estafan (Estephan? whichever) song, now running through my head.

I assume the NYC FBers are the exception to the rule
 

I would have thought you'd go with robusty.

I assume the NYC FBers are the exception to the rule
 

Proof that Canadians hate trees.

Adult Swimming
 

Muchos Gracias, mi amigo. That is some strange stuff they were smoking when they wrote that, nu?