|
I get emails from some online casino, looking for some guy named lance, all about his winnings It is my belief that this is a marketing ploy, take a look behind the curtain, lance could be you
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2020 19:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 16:21 |
|
|
Devor posted:The first incarnation of the site, Whitesonly.com, was declared a hate group by the SPLC, so they created Farmers Only To be clear, this is a joke, isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2020 20:10
|
|
|
Thomamelas posted:This is weird. Long ago I got a firstname.lastname gmail address. I have a pretty common name. About five years ago, a retired judge wanted my email address. He sent a few emails, I read one and just ignored the rest. I guess during his retirement, he does arbitration. I got sent some legal docs. Didn't look at them. Didn't open them. But I did sent a message that they had sent the docs to the wrong person. That has triggered an avalanche of legal/personal threats. Stuff like threatening to sue me and have people beat me up. I'm thinking this dude is just an old cranky boomer with too much free time. Is this something consulting with a lawyer might help with? And if so, what kind. Or am I just kinda stuck writing more and more rules in gmail till the guy crokes? If the arbitrator is threatening to have people beat you up, file a bar complaint against the motherfucker. Google "[your state] bar association," look him up in the lawyer directory to verify he's a registered, current member of the bar, and then gently caress him up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2020 21:17
|
|
|
Thanatosian posted:If the arbitrator is threatening to have people beat you up, file a bar complaint against the motherfucker. Google "[your state] bar association," look him up in the lawyer directory to verify he's a registered, current member of the bar, and then gently caress him up. Yeah, agreed. Just bundle up all the emails you have from him and send them to attorney complaints for your state.along with a cover "hey, this dude is improperly threatening violence."
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2020 21:24
|
|
|
Be careful with these recommendations as they could lead to more headaches for goon poster
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2020 21:28
|
|
|
buy a gun
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2020 21:29
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Yeah, agreed. Just bundle up all the emails you have from him and send them to attorney complaints for your state.along with a cover "hey, this dude is improperly threatening violence." Is there a way to properly threaten violence?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2020 21:34
|
|
|
For no reason I’m thinking about a defamation lawsuit
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2020 21:35
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Be careful with these recommendations as they could lead to more headaches for goon poster Yeah, does your doppleganger even know you actually are at this point? He has your name, but apparently it's common enough that he has it too. Unless you are the only two with the name somehow.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2020 21:37
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:Is there a way to properly threaten violence? "If you don't stop pointing that gun at me, Im a-gonna have to take steps"
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2020 21:38
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:Is there a way to properly threaten violence? If we're talking "legally" as opposed to "more effectively", be a cop seems to be the answer there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2020 22:37
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:To be clear, this is a joke, isn't it? Yes, it is a joke about the subtext of the site's target demo
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2020 22:49
|
|
|
Anonymous Zebra posted:Haha, it's late at night and my decision making is pretty bad right now, so I probably would if I still had them, but that was easily 6 years ago and I usually delete my doppelganger emails after awhile because it feels kind of scummy to keep them around when they contain personal information. Those particular emails (there were only really 5) also easily led to the two people's real identification in the company they worked for and the dude's Facebook, which was public, so I really felt scummy even knowing that much and deleted them after showing them to my wife so she wouldn't randomly look at my email and misinterpret emails coming from a woman using my first name talking about how to gently caress around on the next business trip. Welp, no legal advice for you.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2020 02:13
|
|
|
I have a common first and last name. So common, that there used to be an old guy with the same name that lived two blocks away on the same street as me. I got a call from his wife one day saying that a package for me had been delivered to their house so I walked over to get it. I spent almost an hour standing in her living room while she addressed "thank you for attending my brother in law's funeral" cards (I think that's what she was doing) to a bunch of people while she told me how she knew the people and provided uninteresting personal anecdotes about each of them. Her husband was napping the whole time, so I never actually got to meet him. I wouldn't have stuck around so long, but she seemed like she was very lonely and I didn't want to be rude. She just invited me in and started talking about all this funeral stuff and didn't actually get my package for me until she was done. This qualifies for the legal thread because I used the word "law".
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2020 02:27
|
|
|
SkunkDuster posted:I have a common first and last name. So common, that there used to be an old guy with the same name that lived two blocks away on the same street as me. I got a call from his wife one day saying that a package for me had been delivered to their house so I walked over to get it. I spent almost an hour standing in her living room while she addressed "thank you for attending my brother in law's funeral" cards (I think that's what she was doing) to a bunch of people while she told me how she knew the people and provided uninteresting personal anecdotes about each of them. Her husband was napping the whole time, so I never actually got to meet him. I wouldn't have stuck around so long, but she seemed like she was very lonely and I didn't want to be rude. She just invited me in and started talking about all this funeral stuff and didn't actually get my package for me until she was done. This qualifies for the legal thread because I used the word "law". gently caress I read the whole thing. I guess you're my client now.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2020 12:56
|
|
|
Mediation scheduled for Tuesday 22nd, our counsel yesterday (16th) just asking us for discovery stuff. Is this reasonable? Seems hasty/rushed to me. (Civil, water stuff, construction trespass)
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2020 15:46
|
|
|
some_admin posted:Mediation scheduled for Tuesday 22nd, our counsel yesterday (16th) just asking us for discovery stuff. It's very likely they just got the request. Mediation doesn't always happen after the end of the discovery period, so you may get such requests frequently. Please promptly provide your attorney with what they have asked for.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2020 16:03
|
|
|
some_admin posted:Mediation scheduled for Tuesday 22nd, our counsel yesterday (16th) just asking us for discovery stuff. Your lawyer wants info from you more than a day in advance? Seems like she's bored. I'd probably procrastinate another few days and blow up your phone the day before. (This is totally reasonable. Unless what she wants will take you too much time to get together, in which case just talk to her.) If it's opposing counsel? Could be a different scenario, depends.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2020 16:05
|
|
|
On the off chance noone has seen it I highly recommend reading Gaj's posts in the boomer thread. It's incredible to the point of fantasy that this family produced Gaj, a seemingly right headed human being.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2020 16:38
|
|
|
Outrail posted:On the off chance noone has seen it I highly recommend reading Gaj's posts in the boomer thread. It's incredible to the point of fantasy that this family produced Gaj, a seemingly right headed human being. Got a link handy?
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2020 16:39
|
|
|
Devor posted:Yes, it is a joke about the subtext of the site's target demo Ok; it was so close to possibly being true that I wanted to know, but didn't want that in my search history, lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2020 17:19
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:Got a link handy? I'm billing this as legal research. https://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3886674&userid=96281
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2020 17:37
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Ok; it was so close to possibly being true that I wanted to know, but didn't want that in my search history, lol What I find hilarious about FarmersOnly is that there are basically 2 kinds of farmers that are actually working the land. The first kind have large operations and are the landed gentry of any agricultural community. They draw a lot of water and have money and influence in local society and politics. The second kind are barely scraping by and probably also need to have a job off-farm because the size of their spread doesn't support modern agricultural practices. Someone signing up to that site trying to snag themselves a farmer is hoping for the former, but I can pretty much guarantee that only the latter exists on that app/website.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2020 17:51
|
|
|
toplitzin posted:I'm billing this as legal research. C/o Deez Nutz 100 My Taint Lane Sackville, NJ
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2020 17:53
|
|
|
VanSandman posted:C/o Deez Nutz I'm just going to take it out of your retainer.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2020 17:58
|
|
|
Another pod-related question I asked in the insurance thread but may be more appropriate here: assume an indoor in-person pod operating in NYC has the kids and caregiver get COVID-19 around the same time. Generally speaking, is it completely implausible that one of the parents or caregiver could successfully sue the pod organizers and/or homeowner where the pod operated for negligence leading to the infection? It doesn't seem implausible to me, but people have strong opinions about this and consequently the necessity of having liability insurance that covers infectious disease. It's fair to assume that the pod would in fact be operated negligently, because the type of person organizing an in-person indoor pod right now probably isn't the type to follow CDC guidelines.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2020 21:04
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:Another pod-related question I asked in the insurance thread but may be more appropriate here: assume an indoor in-person pod operating in NYC has the kids and caregiver get COVID-19 around the same time. Generally speaking, is it completely implausible that one of the parents or caregiver could successfully sue the pod organizers and/or homeowner where the pod operated for negligence leading to the infection? It doesn't seem implausible to me, but people have strong opinions about this and consequently the necessity of having liability insurance that covers infectious disease. It's fair to assume that the pod would in fact be operated negligently, because the type of person organizing an in-person indoor pod right now probably isn't the type to follow CDC guidelines. No one here could ethically answer this question.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2020 21:19
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:No one here could ethically answer this question. Sorry! Thought it was fairly general. Anyway there might be lots of interesting legal drama coming up from all the pandemic pods people are trying to set up.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2020 21:36
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:Sorry! Thought it was fairly general. Anyway there might be lots of interesting legal drama coming up from all the pandemic pods people are trying to set up. No problem, and yes, lots of legal precedent is going to be set, and more is going to be challenged in the coming months and years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 17, 2020 21:40
|
|
|
toplitzin posted:I'm billing this as legal research. Thank you this was quite a ride. therobit posted:What I find hilarious about FarmersOnly is that there are basically 2 kinds of farmers that are actually working the land. There is a third kind. They drive F150s, live in the suburbs of any city in Texas or Arkansas or Tennessee, have a lawn tractor to mow their 0.37 acres, and are in no way "farmers" in any real sense of the word, but they feel deep down inside that they are farmers. e. I did see you wrote "that are actually working the land" but the point here is that it's not land-workers signing up on farmers-only.com.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2020 00:13
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Thank you this was quite a ride. But I thought it was for farmers ONLY!? This is very troubling.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2020 00:22
|
|
|
I don't know how legally binding it is, but when we entered our daughters into their pods here we had to initial and sign a whole pile of paperwork where they laid out what the classes would be like, how they were keeping the kids distanced, how shared spaces worked, the punishments for not abiding by the rules, the expectations of the kids, parents and families in how they were to act outside of the pods, etc., etc. And then at the very bottom was a paragraph that basically said, "We're going to do our best, but you still could catch the rona, so please be aware of that risk." I really feel like it would be hard to convince a judge or jury that parents didn't know what they were getting into after signing all of that, but who knows.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2020 01:25
|
|
|
Anonymous Zebra posted:I don't know how legally binding it is, but when we entered our daughters into their pods here we had to initial and sign a whole pile of paperwork where they laid out what the classes would be like, how they were keeping the kids distanced, how shared spaces worked, the punishments for not abiding by the rules, the expectations of the kids, parents and families in how they were to act outside of the pods, etc., etc. And then at the very bottom was a paragraph that basically said, "We're going to do our best, but you still could catch the rona, so please be aware of that risk." The easiest answer would be to take the forms to a lawyer and ask. I would be extremely surprised if the pod people (lol) had a legal firm draft the agreements as this all sounds like a bunch of rich people just trying to find a way to throw money at the problem of remote schooling so they don't have to deal with their own kids.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2020 02:16
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:Another pod-related question I asked in the insurance thread but may be more appropriate here: assume an indoor in-person pod operating in NYC has the kids and caregiver get COVID-19 around the same time. Generally speaking, is it completely implausible that one of the parents or caregiver could successfully sue the pod organizers and/or homeowner where the pod operated for negligence leading to the infection? It doesn't seem implausible to me, but people have strong opinions about this and consequently the necessity of having liability insurance that covers infectious disease. It's fair to assume that the pod would in fact be operated negligently, because the type of person organizing an in-person indoor pod right now probably isn't the type to follow CDC guidelines. Without trying to give a legal answer, think about it this way: if liability insurers are asking for a meaningful amount of money, that means they think there's a meaningful risk of litigation.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2020 03:35
|
|
|
POD PEOPLE
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2020 04:51
|
|
|
Thuryl posted:Without trying to give a legal answer, think about it this way: if liability insurers are asking for a meaningful amount of money, that means they think there's a meaningful risk of litigation. This is a super good point. Insurers will gleefully undercut each other on price in order to build market share, so high prices generally point to risks being considered high.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2020 07:21
|
|
|
Thuryl posted:Without trying to give a legal answer, think about it this way: if liability insurers are asking for a meaningful amount of money, that means they think there's a meaningful risk of litigation. Yes, this is a helpful point thanks. It's increasingly difficult to find liability insurance policies without viral disease exclusions, which says a lot already.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2020 14:59
|
|
|
Nocturtle posted:Yes, this is a helpful point thanks. It's increasingly difficult to find liability insurance policies without viral disease exclusions, which says a lot already. That's actually a matter of correlated risk. Insurance companies do well when risk under their policies is independent. Take house fires, for example: in the modern age fires don't really spread from house to house, so every house fire is an independent risk. If a house has about a 1% chance of burning down every year (this is obviously much higher than reality), you hold hold reserves of something like 2% of the value of all the houses you insure to cover a bad year. Because losses are uncorrelated, every year you'll have losses around 1%. You have to charge at least 1% of the house value each year in premiums, charge a little extra for the cost of the reserves capital you're holding, but that's not very much. So you're talking about a break-even rate of like 1.01% or something like that. However, some risks are highly correlated. Take, say, business interruption from a pandemic. In approximately 99 years out of 100, you will pay out nothing on your policies - it's been about 100 years since the last global pandemic. But in that one bad year, you will pay out the full amount of your insurance policies because if one company is getting shut down because of a pandemic, guess what's happening to their neighbor, and their neighbor, and their neighbor. So you need to hold reserves, every year, of the full amount of your policies. That is horrifically expensive. It just doesn't really work for insurance because insurance is about combining uncorrelated risks so that a loss that wipes out an insured (and would have devastating effects on them) is completely minor for the insurance company. So the insurance company can charge a small premium over the actual risk, and the insured is happy to pay a small premium over the actual risk because the knock-on effects of, say, losing everything you own is a lot greater than the cost of just replacing everything you own (you're homeless, you have no business clothes, you lose your job, etc). But for a global risk like a pandemic, the loss is no longer minor for an insurer - if the loss hits, they get wiped out. Insurance companies realized this risk with SARS/MERS and started writing those viral exclusions - not because they knew COVID was coming, but because they recognized if a COVID did come it would wipe out their companies.
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2020 15:23
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:That's actually a matter of correlated risk. Insurance companies do well when risk under their policies is independent. Take house fires, for example: in the modern age fires don't really spread from house to house, so every house fire is an independent risk. If a house has about a 1% chance of burning down every year (this is obviously much higher than reality), you hold hold reserves of something like 2% of the value of all the houses you insure to cover a bad year. Because losses are uncorrelated, every year you'll have losses around 1%. You have to charge at least 1% of the house value each year in premiums, charge a little extra for the cost of the reserves capital you're holding, but that's not very much. So you're talking about a break-even rate of like 1.01% or something like that. A great example of how insurance companies handle these correlated large tail risks is the national flood insurance program
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2020 15:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 16:21 |
|
|
Which is to say, the govt does it lmao
|
|
#
?
Sep 18, 2020 16:01
|
|