Tom Adams Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 "Actually, you are simply perpetuating the same myth used in the silly Radio host rubbish." You know Mark, if you would just take a breath, shut the hell up, and listen for a moment, you might just hear what I (or anyone else) has to say. Fer chrissakes man, do you not see that you are doing just exactly what you're critizing everyone else for? You're an intelligent person - what's the word for that? Just because I or anyone else opines something here that sounds like what you say is blasted over talk show radio doesn't automatically mean that we're parrotting what "they" said. That's a bit paranoid and conspiracy theory doncha think? FWIW, I don't listen to talk show radio and MHO's are just that - opinions based on my own life experiences and my value system. When I said life goes on without a hiccup, I'm referring to the enviroment within the company. Sure...the corporation will change a process or implement a new policy or whatever. But there are very few cases where there's been serious changes in management or the structure of the company. Now, before you blast me again may I ask you to again TAKE A BREATH AND COUNT TO 10? If you will re-read my post, I never said it was right or wrong. I merely said that's the way a major suit award was accounted for. So, for the record - I DON'T AGREE IT'S RIGHT. What I hope I'm hearing you say is that the frivilous suits are muddying the waters for the legitimate suits. And I believe that's some common ground we can agree on. You sound like you're scared to death that tort reform is gonna ruin all our chances. The sky is falling , the sky is falling! What if it doesn't turn out that way? What if the "reform" enables us little folks to get the bad guys in a meaningful way and results in some true changes for the good. Glass half empty or half full? All I'm saying is that the future hasn't happened yet, but we're waxing on as if it has. You know, I think it's a crying damn shame about your nephew. And the people that's responsible should be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. However, throughout this thread, your modus operandi has been to "shout down" and belittle and insert sarcasm and all but call people stupid for voicing an opinion that's contrary to yours. I've been on this BB as long as most here and this MO of yours has held true in many of the "debates" you get into. I too will ask what someone else posted above - just who the hell died and put you in charge? Thanks for driving me away from the thread. Tom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hwatkins Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 ---------------- On 1/9/2004 12:58:59 PM TBrennan wrote: Before some of you guys cry about the MacDonalds coffee thing maybe you ought'a know the facts? You'll fine that MacDonalds was incredibly arrogant and uncaring and definately negligent. But you'll have to go a little deeper into it then simply listening to talk radio. Tort reform seeks to take away the only weapon the common man has against powerful corporations; the sharp lawyer willing to work on a contingency fee in the hope of a share of large punitive damages. If caps are put on punitive damages YOU won't be able to get a sharp lawyer if you have to go up against some corporation or insurance company. But they'll still have platoons of the finest lawyers money can buy, the result is that you're ****ed. I can't beleive how STUPID some comon people are as to not see this and go along with a program, tort reform, which is intended to screw them and benefit the big-shots. ---------------- Tom - I usually agree with you and in many ways I do here. But this is one of those cases where first hand experience can leave one with a different opinion. I am currently being sued (More precisely, my insurance company is being sued). It is pertaining to an incident 6 years ago and has been either in mediation or on a docket of some sort for three years. I have spent quite some time on this and there has been reasonably significant out lay of money by the insurance company to defend this. The total suit expectation by the plaintiff is $400,000. So what happened? On a golf course lined with houses, in the yard of a house some few 20 yards off the fairway, 260 yards from the tee box and on the back side of a hill (unseen from the tee) - my ball richocheted off a power line that crossed the corner of the fairway and struck a lady in the head. I spent an hour with her until reliable help (a family member) came to verify she wasn't suffering a concussion and to not leave her alone. I gave her my name and number. I called her the next day to be sure she was OK and then got my insurance in touch to be sure her expenses were paid. Stitches and follow up - bills amounted to $500 (paid by insurance). I visited a couple of more times the next couple of months (it was my regular club, so I saw her in her yard). All this was out of concern, not guilt or fear of a lawsuit. She was truely not hurt badly at all. So - what do I get for that concern - a lawsuit (which quite realistically can't easily be won by the plaintiff). Bitter - a bit. Will I change - not at all, I'll continue to use that same care with any other stranger. Does the system that lets's this happen get under my skin a bit - yep. Do I have a good answer - maybe- In certain cases (such as unseen person hit by an errant tee shot - something that has been tried and precedent set that the golfer is only responsible for reasonable warning) a judge should be more willing to exercise 'common sense' and rule rapidly without the cost and hassle of a jury trial. The worst part - I have no gaurantee she won't win, just low odds of her doing so..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clipped and Shorn Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 "The death throes of the ditto heads will not be a pretty sight and the country will again be in an extensive period of antebellum reconstruction." (just something I read on a fortune cookie recently) c7s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hwatkins Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 Geesh C&S - with my eyesight I would never been able to read all those words on that itty bitty piece of paper. At least I still got reasonably good ears for the music - oops, didn't mean to mention audio in this thread.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fini Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 I've been working on my opus: An animated version of D.W. Griffith's classic, "Intolerance." It stars Clo the Cow, a local cartoon character, seen mostly on Clover milk billboards around our County. Here's the history of Clo, for those not familiar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3dzapper Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 "The death throes of the ditto heads will not be a pretty sight and the country will again be in an extensive period of antebellum reconstruction." No problem for the Ditto Heads, they've got Sean Hannity waiting in the wings when Rush retires. Mark, Monsanto's bankrupcy did affect the shareholders most of whom were pension funds and employees. However most settlements are paid by insurance and reinsurance. Since all insurance is "shared risk", you, I, others in industry and everyone else are paying the costs of these large settlements. There is no free lunch. That said, I am in favor of significant tort reform that would limit liability for events outside the control of the defendant or perils which were not and/or could not be forseen. In cases like your unfortunate nephew (you and yours have my sincere condolences) I could not support any action against the drug company as it acted in good faith producing the clotting facter prior to the availiabity of tests. However for continuing to distribute known tainted goods after testing, HANG-EM! This sort of hits home Arthur Ashe and I had bypass operations within a month or so of each other he contracted aids from tainted blood he recieved in 1983 prior to tests. My wife and I were on pins and needles for years thereafter. Rick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clipped and Shorn Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 fini, I get this udder nonsense, probably nobody else does though. Analysis: 1. The Moo-ning Sentry in "Birth Of A Nation" by D.W. Griffith 2. Scenes of Reconstruction in above (controversial) film. 3. "Intolerance", an even more involved film by same director, but having a title which is suggestive for the current discussion in addition to the film named in #1 above. 4. The absurdity of the level of ambition needed to make an animated version with Clo the Cow. Brakhage would be impressed. 5. Brakhage essay on Sergei Eisenstein 6. The fact that someone has made an animated (rotoscoped) excerpt from Eisenstein's film "Alexander Nevsky". Sure, why not an animated version of "Intolerance". 7. How I read all kinds of imaginary depth and profundity in my students' efforts and thus give them a high grade ..... or get a hot date. 8. oops, shouldn't have said that. I was just kidding.... 9. Jacque Cousteau sues Clover Milk because he cannot take a joke. (.....fini being the minister of jocularity and all) 10. Mad Cow disease relevant today. I got it man, cool going, you get an "A". your professor, C&S footnote: The Lord of the Rings (1978) Before the Peter Jackson trilogy, skeptics who claimed Tolkiens trilogy was patently unfilmable were probably recalling the grand folly of animator Ralph Bakshi (the inspiration for Comic Book Guy on The Simpsons), whose ambitious but misguided attempt to recount the entire cycle in one feature-length movie fell flat on its face. Tolkien fanatics hated it, Tolkien tyros found it confusing but dull, and nobody much cared for Bahskis style, rotoscoping, in which animation is superimposed over live action. To top it all off, the production ran out of money roughly at the point where the events recounted in The Return of the King were to begin. The whole thing feels sloppy, rushed and incomplete, particularly right at the end. But as crummy as the animation lookslike too little paint spread over too much housethere are some inspired touches here. Eisenstein devotees will notice footage from the Soviet directors 1938 epic Alexander Nevsky mixed into the battle scenes, which is a pretty unusual move. The Nazgul (ring-wraiths) are live actors filmed in photo-negative, which I think makes them weirder and scarier than the blurry old prunes hounding Frodo in the Peter Jackson movies. Bakshis movie also produced an unusual legal battle stemming from the fact that all of the live actors, many of them little people, went uncredited for their performances. None recorded voice parts for the soundtrack, and Screen Actors Guild rules at the time held that only the voice actors were required to be given screen credit. Billy Barty, founder of the advocacy group Little People of America, was so infuriated by this omission (he stood in for the parts of Bilbo Baggins and Samwise Gamgee) that he successfully challenged the SAG rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Mobley Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 too much time, not enough to do..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Mobley Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 huh??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hwatkins Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 whew C&S - that is one heck of a head full. And all this time I only thought Fini was funny in an "Animal House", National Lampoon sort of way. I'll have to look at him a different way now (maybe cross-eyed). The animated LOTR required quite a bit of patience to find the good stuff. I admire your passion for the nuances of film, but I could not come away from that one with anything near your inspiration for the good stuff..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fini Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 It'll be called, "Lactose Intolerance." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Mobley Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 >>>"And all this time I only thought Fini was funny in an "Animal House", National Lampoon sort of way."<< Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkrop Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 I hope Dean learned his lesson! Cheese and rice! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Songer Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 How about a remake of "Broken Blossoms" starring Drew Barrymore and Jackie Chan? I'm in for a share! http://www.starville.com/drew/gallery/glamour/dbglam28.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cluless Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 The difference is... Garbage, Guns, and Grits. In ANY ORDER Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clipped and Shorn Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 Its already in the can awaiting distribution: You could also do "Birth Of Carnation" but Clover might let Clo out of her contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvel Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 C&S, This is getting exciting now! My daughter graduates from the film program at the College of Santa Fe this May. The Bakshi films were always a bit strange, although they were in my smokin' days. Wasn't "Wizards" one of his as well? The rotoscoping was an interesting effect. It is really amazing what was done before computers could be used. Have you seen "Spirited Away" by Hayao Miyazaki? It really isn't a childrens film. I just wish Disney weren't taking so much credit for it. Marvel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clipped and Shorn Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 Yes, I hardly remember anyone who really liked those Bakshi animations. It was all promise and hype, and we were mostly dissappointed with the carelessness of the results. There are great little art animations being made all the time, even today. Some are amazingly innovative. I think it would be just as exciting as ever to be embarking on a career in film (except for being tempted to live in So-Cal which I had enough of in my youth). Even the independents have more options than they used to, and what is amazing beyond belief, given the expense, are those hold-outs who insist on making 16mm experimental films like we did when it was sort of affordable. If I can get organized I want to transfer some of my old films to DVD (via first making digital video). C&S Guns and Butter.....who would have thought....? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyKubicki Posted January 9, 2004 Share Posted January 9, 2004 Mark, My sincere condolences to you and family. Life is precious and I can understand your anger here. I don't know how you think I would want to change things as far as tort reform, but I certainly think there is an obvious discrepancy between the damage cause by hot coffee spilled due to the buyer's own mishandling and the award of 11 mil vs a human life being settled at 150,000. That on the surface show something is seriously flawed. My point of view (at least the one I strive for) is one that would answer the question "what will be best for our society?" What consequences will these actions have? For 11 mil, I would gladly suffer burns on my lap. The burns will be somewhat temporarily life changing, but the 11 mil will definately be life changing! this means that I am as interested in a corporation getting a slap on the hand that will be large enough to be felt by the corporation. Yet I don't want to create the impression that anyone who through their own negligence has a mishap can sue the deep pockets and win the LOTTO. The other point has been made that these costs are passed on to the consumer, and this is true in the medical field and the high cost of malpractice insurance and so on. We, as a society, are paying the price. You and I and everyone here. Just because it is not obvious, don't think it's not real. This position does not mean I want to let companies do what they want without any recourse. That too would NOT be best for society. Mark, you were able to have the "what is best for society" attitude in the gun issue to some degree. Apply it to the rest of your positions. Also, don't forget, power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. When there were no unions and companies and business owners had their way, they abused that power, giving society the responsibilty to correct that imbalance. The correction was the union. But don't think the union is free from corruption. The guy sleeping on his forklift making $20+ per hour does NOT benefit society. As to the other matters, your anger at Rush et al prevents you from using your head instead of emotions. Do yourself a favor and stick to the issues and you won't look so out of control. Your earlier comments about the need for liberals to shout louder will only make for more noise. We don't need louder shouting, we need ALL the facts, including the facts that most major media ignore when not in allignment with their philosophy. We are intelligent enough to figure things out on our own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBrennan Posted January 10, 2004 Share Posted January 10, 2004 Andy---Why do you persist in your error of saying the woman in the MacDonalds coffee case got $11,000,000? I already told you you had the facts wrong but you continue to trumpet lies. The fact is the woman was awarded $160,000 compensation and $2.7 million punitive damages. The trial judge reduced the punitive award to $480,000, a far cry from the 11 million you keep crying about. You could have easily found this out yourself were you really interested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.