Implanting Bill Gates's Micro-chips In Brains For Over 20 Years!

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Ladies and gentlemen, start your engines.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

I need a good paralegal, preferably with corporate/transactional skills, not litigation, for 3-6 months. Can be totally remote. Any of you law-firm types want to do a secondment?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I need a good paralegal, preferably with corporate/transactional skills, not litigation, for 3-6 months. Can be totally remote. Any of you law-firm types want to do a secondment?

Now you’re sorry you ran PPNYC off?

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Never sue another lawyer for malpractice. You'd think "Don't shit in your nest" would be a basic rule, but in any city, there are three of four guys who can't get clients any other way who hold themselves out as guys who sue other lawyers. And almost every one of them is exactly the sort of shitty human being you'd expect.

I have a friend who is a lawyer malpractice lawyer. He's a super nice guy and I always have to remind myself what he does because it seems so different from his personality. I do see some pretty egregious stuff from lawyers from time to time, but nothing that I'd recommend him for. His stories are usually pretty jaw dropping.

I deal with the doctor malpractice lawyers a lot more often.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

I have a friend who is a lawyer malpractice lawyer. He's a super nice guy and I always have to remind myself what he does because it seems so different from his personality. I do see some pretty egregious stuff from lawyers from time to time, but nothing that I'd recommend him for. His stories are usually pretty jaw dropping.

I deal with the doctor malpractice lawyers a lot more often.

Real, valid legal malpractice cases are rare. To prove one, plaintiff has to prove it'd have enjoyed a positive result but for the negligence (prove the claimant would have won its case, in an instance of alleged litigation malpractice). Usually difficult.

The guys who do it that I've encountered aren't terribly discerning. I think most have to take a high volume of cases, many dubious, to keep the lights on. The business model seems to be shaking down the law firm to see if it'll cough up a settlement and if not, then getting a sleazy expert to state that the claimant definitely would have won the case but for the alleged negligence. It's so speculative, except in real cut and dry instances (truly egregious failures) the expert is basically fictionalizing a future which probably would not have occurred.

I refuse to refer people who want to make legal malpractice claims. I've sold enough of my soul for money. I can't get into that sewer for a referral fee.

ETA: I'm already doomed to hell for having been involved in med mal work long ago.

[LessinSF]

[Adder]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

An important lesson in clearly defining the mission from the start and how easy it is for interests that benefit from mission creep to make it happen.

Did anyone honestly believe we could fix Afghanistan when we went in? If so, those people should be anywhere near decisions.

But you see how it happens in the press coverage of how the current situation might be bad for Biden and the Dems. We are finally engaged with reality and making hard choices. You might even call that leadership (and yes, the former guy was there, sorta, too).

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by LessinSF

On the plus side, this is a big improvement over our record in Iraq.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

An important lesson in clearly defining the mission from the start and how easy it is for interests that benefit from mission creep to make it happen.

Did anyone honestly believe we could fix Afghanistan when we went in? If so, those people should be anywhere near decisions.

But you see how it happens in the press coverage of how the current situation might be bad for Biden and the Dems. We are finally engaged with reality and making hard choices. You might even call that leadership (and yes, the former guy was there, sorta, too).

I do not recall anyone here saying we should not have gone in, and to me that is still a no-brainer. But in retrospect we supported guerrillas, not really people bound to govern. Still I think early on there was a sense that they could defend themselves eventually. And the hell the women experienced there then, and are again, is a hard thing not to try to change.

[LessinSF]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I do not recall anyone here saying we should not have gone in, and to me that is still a no-brainer. But in retrospect we supported guerrillas, not really people bound to govern. Still I think early on there was a sense that they could defend themselves eventually. And the hell the women experienced there then, and are again, is a hard thing not to try to change.

I did. Repeatedly. (If we only had a search function.)

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I do not recall anyone here saying we should not have gone in, and to me that is still a no-brainer. But in retrospect we supported guerrillas, not really people bound to govern. Still I think early on there was a sense that they could defend themselves eventually. And the hell the women experienced there then, and are again, is a hard thing not to try to change.

I thought and think that we needed to go in to get Al Qaeda. We should have limited ourselves to that.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I do not recall anyone here saying we should not have gone in, and to me that is still a no-brainer. But in retrospect we supported guerrillas, not really people bound to govern. Still I think early on there was a sense that they could defend themselves eventually. And the hell the women experienced there then, and are again, is a hard thing not to try to change.

I can verify Less was anti-going in from the beginning. I was not, and I was wrong.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Adder

I thought and think that we needed to go in to get Al Qaeda. We should have limited ourselves to that.

That's like eating just one potato chip. It's theoretically possible, but have you ever done it?

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

That's like eating just one potato chip. It's theoretically possible, but have you ever done it?

So just let the women be fucked? We can’t try to improve anything anywhere?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I do not recall anyone here saying we should not have gone in, and to me that is still a no-brainer. But in retrospect we supported guerrillas, not really people bound to govern. Still I think early on there was a sense that they could defend themselves eventually. And the hell the women experienced there then, and are again, is a hard thing not to try to change.

Can't find it now, but I read an article yesterday saying that the big mistake was the Taliban wanted to surrender early on, and we wouldn't negotiate with them. Unclear that anyone in the government in the last twenty years has had a realistic idea of how to get out.