- Mar 30, 2004
You've done something very intelligent here, I have to admit. You're trying to obfuscate, because you are wrong about this case, so you're making its legitimacy contingent on the outcome of other cases. There's no doubt that cases are won by the 'wrong' side - usually it is the side with the expensive lawyers.Originally posted by: Amused
Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
What I disagree with is this particular case. If you've been following at all, you'll see the 6000SUX (who by the way I have disagreed with strongly in the past) has got Amused to the point that he is mindlessly repeating 'denied, denied, denied!' when it was the defendant's (i.e. 'coffee's') appeal that was denied.
Even if I am wrong on that one case, it does not destroy my entire argument. If there is, in fact, a second win in court that only 2 wins in dozens and dozens of cases pressed. That they were not appealed higher is a sad reality in business today. It is often cheaper to just pay off the ambulance chasers than it is to fight it in court.
At any rate, me being wrong and there being a couple obscure cases out there does NOTHING to the rest of my argument. To act as if it does is absurd.
You've also now changed your position from 'all lost' to 'some settled but they were still right'. The second position is of course not legitimate as anything more than a weak opinion.