The rest of the office appreciated the Hero's Feast you threw for lunch, though.
VikingHippie
joined 1 year ago
Maybe that's what they want.
Wasn't this the cover story of Well, Duh! Magazine way back in 2021?
Sure, but just because we know they suck doesn't mean we don't get to point out how much they suck. Especially when there are still people who will defend them everywhere 🤷
Yes, an absolutely negligible amount that they already pay often to other people who try to hit them with nonsense lawsuits. It's not anywhere near enough to be worth their journalistic integrity.
Now give it a rest and leave me alone.
That's not how I read what you wrote
Clearly.
it will "get thrown out of court" like some TV court drama
That's just a faster way to say "any judge would approve a motion to dismiss immediately" and as I mentioned before, such a motion is completely routine for their in house counsel.
It still costs money to have that much pull to have the right people know how to throw cases out of court.
Not anywhere near as much money as you seem to think. Any lawyer worth his salt knows how to draw up a valid motion to dismiss.
There are procedures that need to be followed or you look like you don't know anything about law.
Yes, it's called a motion to dismiss. It's one document that everyone with a JD has written many of.
And the judge with consider it a folly on either side.
No, the doctor will not consider filing a motion to dismiss a patently ridiculous case "folly on both sides".
You were wrong. It happens to all of us sometimes.
Now please give it a rest and stop making a Supreme Court case out of what would be a summarily dismissed nuisance suit.
And with her gone, it'll just be a state Santa visits three times a year.
The Fartographer saves the day once again!
And my point is and has always been that any tiny advantage of misleading their readers like this is multifold overshadowed by the many negative consequences.
Even if they DIDN'T have a fixed amount set aside for making frivolous lawsuits go away (again, a publication the size of Forbes definitely do), the cost of having the lawyers draw up paperwork saying "fuck off, you don't have a case", only more professionally, is trivial to Forbes.
You can keep yammering on about how not saying "alleged" about a legal certainty would have them sued to bankruptcy all you want but that doesn't change the fact that it just isn't true.
It really doesn't. Lawyers on retainer are on paid no matter whether they have anything to do. That's what being on retainer mean.
It costs nothing to ignore an unlawful legal request, at least not when you already have lawyers on retainer to do exactly that. A publication the size of Forbes ABSOLUTELY do.
There's no legal or economic downside to ommitting "alleged" and it still sends the misleading message that she might be innocent, which could feed into her false martyrdom scam and actually help "earn" her a lot more money than the fine cost.
In conclusion: there's no potential downside to NOT spreading false doubt like that and there's a ton of potential downside to doing it.
Yeah, because he's done such a bang-up job making sure there's oversight assuring that planes and trains are safe BEFORE accidents happen! Oh wait.. 🙄