T206 Young ... Justice!

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

"Your/you're" and "it's/its" are enough to drive me crazy. It will take at least $1.50 to restore my sanity.

[Archive]

Posted By: Anthony S.

"Definitely" spelled "definately" sends me careening onto two week benders. That and the fact that my older sister thought the term "wind chill factor" was actually "windshield factor" until she was 32. And she has 4 kids. Nothing good can come of this.

[Archive]

Posted By: Bob Pomilla

There spelling they're words wrong, over their, it seems.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

"your" instead of "you're"

"effect" instead of "affect"

"it's" instead of "its"

[Archive]

Posted By: Sean BH

Jeff,
Your crazy, its just cause and affect.

There never going to understand.

[Archive]

Posted By: quan

sean you just summed up this board perfectly in 2 short sentences...sick!

[Archive]

Posted By: John

Shawn stop rolling like this already you’re always having an adverse “affect” on collector’s deals tossing these huge cash offers to them. LOL

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob D.

When does the statue of limitations on this post expire?

[Archive]

Posted By: Sean BH

Jon,
I guess the offer was two bigger so he say "know way to you sun."

Learn and live I guess, thats how I roll.

Subway has subs for $5!

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

Interesting, congrats on getting the card.


Steve

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Jeff- at least with "affect" and "effect" there is some gray area. But I'm with Anthony on "definately". I've seen that misspelling about four hundred times on the board.

Most of the errors are a result of posters not proofreading their work. An extra minute or two would go a long way.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Statutes of limitations, which date back to early Roman Law, are a fundamental part of European and U.S. law. These statutes, which apply to both civil and criminal actions, are designed to prevent fraudulent and stale claims from arising after all evidence has been lost or after the facts have become obscure through the passage of time or the defective memory, death, or disappearance of witnesses.

The statute of limitations is a defense that is ordinarily asserted by the defendant to defeat an action brought against him after the appropriate time has elapsed. Therefore, the defendant must plead the defense before the court upon answering the plaintiff's complaint. If the defendant does not do so, he is regarded as having waived the defense and will not be permitted to use it in any subsequent proceedings.

Statutes of limitations are enacted by the legislature, which may either extend or reduce the time limits, subject to certain restrictions. A court cannot extend the time period unless the statute provides such authority. With respect to civil lawsuits, a statute must afford a reasonable period in which an action can be brought. A statute of limitations is unconstitutional if it immediately curtails an existing remedy or provides so little time that it deprives an individual of a reasonable opportunity to start a lawsuit. Depending upon the state statute, the parties themselves may either shorten or extend the prescribed time period by agreement, such as a provision in a contract.

*****So in this venue I get to act like the legislature and I believe we have a few days to go.....though I often will bow to my constituency.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Do white guys that say "how I roll" also wear their pants down by their ass?

[Archive]

Posted By: Darren

After reading the first 20 or so posts of this thread I got sick to my stomach. Really nothing more than the gist of the whole thing....not cool.

[Archive]

Posted By: Sean BH

Because it's hard to see out the zipper if you put them over your head.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Got it. That's how I roll.

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

Wow Leon - impressive use of your legal research skills. Have you been going to law school behind our (or, in keeping with the spirit of this thread, should I say "hour") backs? I mean, without any legal training that Im aware of, you probably understand the "statue" of limitations better than lapdog.

Please dont lock this thread - not that I care, its the "principal" of the matter.

Whoever said their sister thought "wind chill factor" was "windshield factor" reminded me of an old girlfriend who thought the words to "I shot the sheriff" were "I shot the sheriff, but I did not shoot the death to he" rather than "but I did not shoot the deputy". Funny stuff.

[Archive]

Posted By: barrysloate

Jimi Hendrix's "Excuse me while I kiss the sky" sounds an awful lot like "excuse me while I kiss this guy."

[Archive]

Posted By: Anthony S.

To be fair, Barry, he was in a purple haze at the time he sang it.

[Archive]

Posted By: leon

Don't knock it till you try it...

[Archive]

Posted By: Steve

Leon, you're amazing.

Sorta related;

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hPVtJURarNxEjcggyrH1ICGpmE6AD90OTDNG0

[Archive]

Posted By: MVSNYC

i love russian models.

[Archive]

Posted By: John

http://www.roflwigger.com/

Just for Jeff....

[Archive]

Posted By: Dan Bretta

Don't knock it until you try what???

Kissing a guy? or getting into a "Purple haze"?

[Archive]

Posted By: Rob D.

Leon, thanks for the explanation. My post was more along these lines:

Kramer: Anyway, it's been two years. I mean isn't there like statue of limitations on that?

Jerry: Statute.

Kramer: What?

Jerry: Statute of limitations. It's not a statue.

Kramer: No, statue.

Jerry: Fine, it's a sculpture of limitations.

Kramer: Just wait a minute...Elaine, Elaine! Now you're smart, is it statue or statute of limitations?

Elaine: Statute.

Kramer: Oh, I really think you're wrong.

[Archive]

Posted By: boxingcardman

"The statute of limitations is a defense that is ordinarily asserted by the defendant to defeat an action brought against him after the appropriate time has elapsed. Therefore, the defendant must plead the defense before the court upon answering the plaintiff's complaint. If the defendant does not do so, he is regarded as having waived the defense and will not be permitted to use it in any subsequent proceedings."

You should plead it but if the facts supporting it are discovered and litigated, you can conform to proof at the end of the trial and assert any defense you proved up.

Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc

[Archive]

Posted By: JK

Take it up with Wikipedia Adam.

[Archive]

Posted By: Kenny Cole

I would object to a motion to conform the pleadings to the proof (on the plaintiff's side) if I was worried about a SOL issue that had arisen for the first time. Since its an affirmative defense, you would then have to explain why it wasn't pled earlier, etc., etc. I don't want to give the seminar about pleadings, waiver, whether it was necessarily litigated and whatnot, and I'm not saying I would win that argument, I'm just saying that it isn't necessarily a slam dunk if it isn't pled to begin with. Plus, I'm sure that the defendant has almost always committed fraud, which only starts the statute running when it is discovered.

BTW, I always move to conform the pleadings to the proof. I have had at least three trials where I did that and the judge didn't know WTF I was talking about. Sigh.

Kenny Cole

[Archive]

Posted By: Jamie

seems like you have nothing better to do with your day than trying to insult people over the internet.. and reading threads and spell proofing them... my guess is you are both overweight and havent had any responses to your online dating account..taking out your frustrations through internet insults on baseball threads..
pathetic and sad..

is that how you roll Jeff .. get a life

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Jamie, John showed me your picture and email. I'm not sure that you should be critical of either: a) anyone's looks; b) anyone's intelligence; or c) anyone's achievements in life.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jamie

John has never seen a pic of me so I have no idea what you think you saw.. some google image... oh wait must be the pics of the wiggers... man that was a real knee slapper.. again.. "pathetic" comes to mind.. how much time did john spend to put that little slide show together??.. again "no life" comes to mind

[Archive]

Posted By: Jamie

Jeff.. you have been posting messages on this thread since 1 in the afternoon.. what do you do with you day.. are you retired... its been 10 hours and your still responding to my first post of the day within seconds.. lol

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Jamie, is English your second language?

[Archive]

Posted By: Jamie

"is English your second language"
in response to my big spelling error..
"what do you do with you day."

sorry I left off the "r" in "your" Jeff... can you get some sleep tonight now that i noticed it... lol

[Archive]

Posted By: Tim

When discussing solar eclipses I had a customer of mine say "You know if you look at one of those it will burn your rectums."

[Archive]

Posted By: Dave F

Jamie-

I have no dog in this fight. And while Jeff is in fact a Duke guy, he is actually quite successful..probably not the best person to hit with "what do you do with your day". Just my two cents...

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Uh, keep editing Justin.

And please don't send me any of those scary threatening emails you sent John in which you threatened him and promised to show him how you roll. We both (along with about 10 other people on this board) nearly busted a gut laughing at your idiocy.

[Archive]

Posted By: Jamie

I dont care what school he graduated from or how successful he is.. anyone who looks to insult people over the internet for their own kicks.. should be able to find better ways to spend spare time..

[Archive]

Posted By: Jamie

im going to bed so jeff you can have this conversation with yourself..
only thing I cared about in this whole mess was the card.. which I have

[Archive]

Posted By: Jeff Lichtman

Sorry, Justin, that's just how I roll.

[Archive]

Posted By: Kenny Cole

Jamie,

Jeff is a lawyer too, and by all accounts a pretty good one. He didn't shoot at you initially, nor, at least as I read his posts, did he start the shooting today. I suggest that you re-read his posts and think about it before you say more on that particular issue.

Insofar as the initial situation between you and the seller is concerned ("round 1"), I still think you were right, even if that renowned legal scholar, "Bulldog," who spent the night at the Holiday Inn Express just days before he posted, disagrees. However, I think you have misread Jeff's posts, and that there is no reason to make that the start of Round 2.

I don't have a dog in this fight (that's for you Jeff, LOL), but I don't see it going anywhere. How about we start talking about cool cards again? Just my suggestion.

Kenny Cole

[Archive]

Posted By: Jamie

agreed. back to cards goodnight

[Archive]

Posted By: John

Jamie you poking fun of anyone for not having a life for posting on a chat board is the equivalent of calling guys dorks while attending a Star Trek convention dressed as Spock. People who live in glass houses shouldn’t practice drive bys homie…just not a smart way to roll.

Second I do think you’re onto something with the fact that our online dating hasn’t been stellar as of late. I keep telling Jeff we need to update our profiles with better pictures…but as Jeff always says just more of us to love!



*Besides Mr. Kitty likes me... and Jeff I think we need to take out that long walks on the beach line..It’s clear that neither one of us digs walking your thoughts?*