Meh. - Page 256

Not Bob · 11-14-2005, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
Are you feeling alright?

I'm not feeling too good myself (oh no).

AoN, if you are a group of young lawyers traveling on public transportation, do not discuss clever ways to avoid producing discoverable documents.

Or at least don't mention your client's name. Especially if the client is a scumbag insurance company trying to screw a small company on a coverage case. And don't mention the last name of opposing counsel. Especially if it is an unusual last name, easily found by a quick google search for "[Name] and lawyer and coverage." Unless you want the annoyed lawyer who overhears you to drop an email to the unusually-named lawyer.

(Have I posted warnings about lawyers blabbing in public before? I think so. And yet it keeps happening.)

eta: No, I didn't really blow the whistle. But I might have if I caught their opposing counsel's name -- I was just really angry at what they were talking about, although (to be fair) the conversation was about trying to come up with legitimate objections, and about how they could try to minimize the negative aspects of the "coding memo" once the other side saw it. And they were half a car away from me, so it wasn't like I was eavesdropping on a whispered conversation, or could make a discreet "uh, aren't you concerned about waiving your privilege?" comment.

Replaced_Texan · 11-14-2005, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by baltassoc
Also, are you saying that [sister number 2] will pee on her paramours?

Given her drunken admissions over Christmas last year about an unusal sexual act that she's participated in, I'm betting she probably would pee on her paramours. After finding out about her participation in the unusual sex act, we stopped asking about her sex life.

I don't think that [sister number 1] has recovered from the shock of discovering that [sister number 2] once [parcipiated in unusual sex act]. She was struck dumb, if you can believe that.

ABBAKiss · 11-14-2005, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
I toss about the idea of getting another tattoo but am a little gun-shy.

It doesn't have to be of a gun.

Hank Chinaski · 11-14-2005, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Given her drunken admissions over Christmas last year about an unusal sexual act that she's participated in, I'm betting she probably would pee on her paramours. After finding out about her participation in the unusual sex act, we stopped asking about her sex life.

I don't think that [sister number 1] has recovered from the shock of discovering that [sister number 2] once [parcipiated in unusual sex act]. She was struck dumb, if you can believe that.

Donkey show?

Did you just call me Coltrane? · 11-14-2005, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Not Bob

eta: No, I didn't really blow the whistle. But I might have if I caught their opposing counsel's name -- I was just really angry at what they were talking about, although (to be fair) the conversation was about trying to come up with legitimate objections, and about how they could try to minimize the negative aspects of the "coding memo" once the other side saw it. And they were half a car away from me, so it wasn't like I was eavesdropping on a whispered conversation, or could make a discreet "uh, aren't you concerned about waiving your privilege?" comment.

It's not their privilege to waive.

Hank Chinaski · 11-14-2005, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ABBAKiss
It doesn't have to be of a gun.

I was going to get a bar code, I had choosen JW Black as the code. I had never seen one, and thought it would be a pretty funny thing to have.

I was gunshy because it seemed like all those perfectly straight lines would be easy to fuck up, so I kept stalling. Then I saw someone on TV had a fake barcode tat on her neck. So then I decided not to get it, because people would think I was a fan of that show.

Alex_de_Large · 11-14-2005, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Given her drunken admissions over Christmas last year about an unusal sexual act that she's participated in, I'm betting she probably would pee on her paramours. After finding out about her participation in the unusual sex act, we stopped asking about her sex life.

I don't think that [sister number 1] has recovered from the shock of discovering that [sister number 2] once [parcipiated in unusual sex act]. She was struck dumb, if you can believe that.

Wow, with that kind of set-up, you *have* to reveal the nature of the unusual sex act.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 11-14-2005, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Given her drunken admissions over Christmas last year about an unusal sexual act that she's participated in, I'm betting she probably would pee on her paramours. After finding out about her participation in the unusual sex act, we stopped asking about her sex life.

I don't think that [sister number 1] has recovered from the shock of discovering that [sister number 2] once [parcipiated in unusual sex act]. She was struck dumb, if you can believe that.

That's strange--the last paragraph of this post seems not to be appearing on my screen.

Alex_de_Large · 11-14-2005, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I was going to get a bar code, I had choosen JW Black as the code. I had never seen one, and thought it would be a pretty funny thing to have.

I was gunshy because it seemed like all those perfectly straight lines would be easy to fuck up, so I kept stalling. Then I saw someone on TV had a fake barcode tat on her neck. So then I decided not to get it, because people would think I was a fan of that show.

This man has a barcode on his neck:

ETA:

notcasesensitive · 11-14-2005, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by str8outavannuys
Fuck this guy. Seriously

However, a miracle happened yesterday, after I got knocked out of my Eliminator pool (kudos to y'all who went with the Bears). I decided to chase my Giants-related losses with a huge bet on the Broncos -3.5, and followed it up with another huge bet on the Steelers (on the money line, but still . . .) Chasing NEVER works, but yesterday it did. I've marked my TV room with the inscription "A great miracle happened here."

Still, fuck that whiny little interception-throwing, non-tackling bitch. Oh, and fuck Jay Feely too for missing that chippie.

Someone else I know picked the Giants yesterday and was tossed from his Eliminator pool as a result. We are never to speak of the Giants-Vikings game in my household ever again. I stayed the hell away from that game because I know the Giants and I knew that the game yesterday was exactly the kind of game they typically lose - strongly favored against a bad team a week before an important division game. People don't listen to me.

This qualifies as either the 3rd or 4th time that the Vikings have ruined Eliminator hopes for someone in my household (usually me) in the last 3 years. The Vikings have replaced the Texans as the "don't bet for or against them" Eliminator team.

Not Bob · 11-14-2005, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
It's not their privilege to waive.

Work product privilege can be waived by a lawyer in the State of Podunk.

eta: And "it wasn't my former associate's privilege to waive" would be a great response to the judge at the hearing on the motion to compel.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.) · 11-14-2005, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
The Vikings have replaced the Texans as the "don't bet for or against them" Eliminator team.

When have the Texans ever been a "bet for them" team?

[hi RT]no offence[/hi RT]

Replaced_Texan · 11-14-2005, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
When have the Texans ever been a "bet for them" team?

[hi RT]no offence[/hi RT]

The Texans eliminated half of my eliminator pool their very first game. For the last three years, they've been good at losing games they were supposed to win and winning games they were supposed to lose. This year, they just lose.

Replaced_Texan · 11-14-2005, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Alex_de_Large
Wow, with that kind of set-up, you *have* to reveal the nature of the unusual sex act.

Well, she apparently engaged in it well into the relationship, so the tricky questions about first date sexual fetish etiquitte that brought out the pee guy story aren't at issue here.

And I don't really like to think about this one.

dc_chef · 11-14-2005, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bold_n_brazen
I am indeed femme. So yes, fbf.

And how sad is it that we are talking about new careers as strippers and the boys are talking about baseball?

It's because no boy likes a butch lesbian.