Royals revoke credentials - UPDATED AGAIN

wow. i knew tv "journalists" were shallow... but you might wanna drop the "lugunts" and just go with "puddles."

 

You really are a soccer dad. I feel sorry for your kid.

 

And you may want to utilize spell check.

;D

 

alma, for years most of your posts have been beyond my level of comprehension. (no back-handed insult intended). maybe i misinterpreted your post.

my point is that people who complain about the litigiousness of our society are part of the problem. it's a knee-jerk reaction, tantamount to the reaction some people have that they will sue any time they perceive that they've been wronged. give us a solution to the problem rather than moan about the existence of one or perpetuating the myth that most americans file lawsuits every day every time they are wronged. a third-grader can offer up the suggestion that we have an overly litigious society. the other reason people who file this complaint are part of the problem is that for every inane lawsuit that gets too much media attention, two dozen are filed that are extemely important to the parties involved. it's cheap, easy and too convenient to ignore this reality. it's the type of thing you'd expect from a local TV news 'reporter' -- all style, no substance (but technically true on some level).

(i guess this is a topic for another thread someday, but most people aren't aware that alternative dispute resolution is now mandatory in many major court systems. that's right -- parties are required to attend mediation before going to trial. and a whole other set of problems is our understaffed and ill-equipped court system which clogs up the system. if the state of florida budgeted a few million dollars every year for trial judges to have law clerks, judges would have far more time to actually hear cases rather than read crates of briefs prepared by lawyers. while we're at it, let's attack the billable hours paradigm, which needlessly results in litigation taking years to reach conclusion.)

 

Let's all say it for what it is - Jason spews out this crap so the focus of attention goes back on him.
Notice he's managed to threadjack something about Kansas City that didn't involve him and turn it into how he can rescue this and how he can get things done?
Jason, you wrote a pretty good column on this, that should have been enough.

 

man, if that wasn't a typo, it's a helluva insult.

Great thing about Lugz is that she never fights fire with kerosene....she's one of the few here who can disagree without taking the low road. Do they teach that in journalism school?

 

leo1,

You actually mention some common solutions to the wrong problem - how do we make lawsuits more efficient? I suggest the real problem is that we need to sue so much at all.

 

whitlock,

I don't think you're racist. Or sexist. I don't think that would be possible for me to know, since I think you're a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Such is the lot of a hypocrite. Talent, no talent, it is all in aid of smoke you exhale to muddle the air of discussion. You are the equivalent of the Cosmo stories 26-year-old staffers write about fictional people saying fictional things about sex, work, life, death - you work off a false premise (that you're sincere) often to argue false premises. Your work is useful in the way it can be manipulated - hence my earlier post - in aid of a cause that, in an undetermined period from now, you will align yourself against. Another analogy: Your work is that which college debators could reasonably quote on the affirmative and negative sides, sometimes in the same column.

It works as gadfly journalism, and, on certain occasions, your work is so terrifically selfish and phony that it achieves a kind of grandeur. I don't question your influence or pull - I know you have it - nor do I deny the balsa wood that undergirds it. I can only say it appeals to the ugliest kind of intellectualism, that it is not affirming, but distracting, and whatever movement your work creates swirls more destructive forces than creative ones. It's base, not truth. Period. As so are so many of your posts here.

 

What he said.

(What did he say?)

 

Jeez, there's a lot going on in this thread.

 

Whitlock's a Republican? Who knew?