Soxbadger

Most of these questions are entirely irrelevant. 1) Why didnt he file a complaint immediately? Injury appeared to be temporary. Only after seeing his Dr was full extent of injury known. Defendant is not a Dr therefore had no idea of nature of injury. Injury was unknown at the time, only later did it become apparent. Finally statute of limitations on injury is longer than 1.5 years, there is no preference for filing the lawsuit earlier in that period or later. Attorney may have been trying to reach settlement with Sox over last year and final offer was not good enough therefore resulting in lawsuit. 2) How soon did he visit a Dr? That fact will come out in trial. Might be relevant if it can be shown that he waited an unreasonable amount of time and therefore his own negligence contributed to injury.

At the end of the day its a question of fact. I think that a judge definitely could rule against the White Sox in this case. If I was suing the Sox I would aruge: 1) White Sox knew or should have known that throwing souvenirs in the stands can cause "melees" for the souvenir. 2) That even though the White Sox knew this risk, they still decided to throw souvenirs into the stands. 3) The White Sox had a duty to have a sufficient amount of security to protect their fans from a "melee." 4) That the Sox breached their duty by creating a dangerous situation and not having the appropriate amount of security to contain said situation. 5) As a result of the dangerous condition created by the White Sox, the Plaintiff was injured.

E2 nightclub was sued for a stampede, Great White (rock group) was sued for a pyrotechnics display that resulted in a stampede. In order for this case not to be dismissed Plaintiff will need to allege the following: 1) White Sox had a duty to Plaintiff. 2) White Sox breached that duty. 3) As a result of that breach Plaintiff suffered injury/damages. The main problem for the Sox is going to be that these are all questions of fact. Questions of fact can only be determined at trial, therefore unless they can find a legal argument for 1) Why they had no duty or 2) Why they didnt breach that duty, the case will most likely go to trial. For the sake of simplicity Im not getting into what the back of the ticket says. As for the attorney not saying what the injuries were, well the attorney isnt a Dr. and cases arent won in the press. The only thing that could possibly happen is that the attorney says something stupid and the White Sox try and hold him to that. Which is why many attorneys simply do not make public comments regarding pending cases. They may say things like my client is innocent, or that my client was injured etc, but they generally dont make specific factual comments in the press.

Postage depends on weight, also with tax documents a lot of people do return receipt, that way they have proof the IRS received it.

Bah UConn should have beat MSU

I cant imagine Plax's lawyers didnt demand jury trial, so he may have a slight chance of something crazy happening.

Our society did not want to accept minorities as equals. I believe that this ruling is just and at the end of the day justice is more important than the feelings of the majority.

Steve, What no one mentions is that the Bears will have a 1st round rookie this year, his name is Chris Williams. Williams didnt play at all last year, so its more like we lost last years pick (which did nothing).

True, You said Denver won easily, which means that the Bears got fleeced. Other people have said the Bears got ripped off, etc. How else should this be interpreted? If your stance is that this trade may work out it may not, then I bet most people would agree. That's the nature of trading/

Tru, If Denver "easily won this trade" there should be no possible set of circumstances where they can lose. Now you are saying that there is in fact a possibility that the Bears get the better of the deal, to me that is the exact opposite of "easily winning the deal." Its your opinion that right now the Broncos won the deal because you feel that Cutler is not worth 2 firsts and a third. Its my opinion that right now the Broncos lost the deal because other lesser Qb's have been traded for more (Eli was worth 2 firsts (one being a top 5) and a 3rd. You keep talking about how valuable first rounders are, but when there are facts suggesting that the price paid in terms of draft picks is less than Eli, you say "Well Cutler is a proven player" as if that makes Cutler less valuable? Imo, a 26 year old proven QB is worth much more than a rookie QB. Which even further suggests that the Broncos took less than market value. What is market value? Imo its based on what other potential franchise QB's have been traded for, in each of those cases it was 1 top 5 first and a second first. The Bears did not give up a top 5 pick, thus in comparison to other trades the Broncos should have at least gotten the Bears 1st, 2nd and 3rd this year (the Bears 1st and 2nd being comparable to a top 5 pick) and next years 1st. That is why I think the Bears won, because they got Cutler for less than what the Giants gave up for Manning. Id rather have Cutler over Manning. Manning has only 1 time put up a qb rating over 85. Thus why I dont see how its possible to say that the Bears lost, unless you are just giving your opinion (which is fine). But all evidence suggests the Bears underpaid.

If they fired my head coach, my QB coach, brought in a new coach who tried to trade me, Id be pretty pissed off myself. Thats not how you run any business. If today at my office they brought in a new boss (who was barely older than me and had less experience) fired all of the other people I worked with and then tried to get some one to replace me, I promise you that my time in this office would not be long. Thats not being a cry baby, its called standing up for yourself. And the biggest problem I have with your statements is you said that "Denver easily won this trade" and now have backtracked to statements like: And thats fine, but I entirely disagree. McDaniels has been OC for 2 years (was named offensive coordinator/quarterbacks coach on January 20, 2006.). McDaniels did not invent this system, he inherited the system. McDaniels has never been OC of the Patriots with out Randy Moss. McDaniels has had his system be successful for only 1 year without Brady. So what have you seen McDaniels do in 1 year, that is such a sure fire thing? Cassel threw for almost a thousand yards less than Cutler, and had a 89.4 rtg compared to 86.0 rtg. I guess in my opinion the jury on McDaniels is out, I have no real faith in him.

A lot of laws needed to be rewritten and reinterpreted when Black people were given rights or when women were given rights. I mean its not really that hard to change intestate laws or to add an additional line on beneficiary forms.

Polygamy should be legal as long as its between consenting adults. Marrying your first cousin should be legal. (Better question is about allowing them to procreate.) In fact marriage to first cousins is legal in many states. http://discovermagazine.com/2003/aug/featkiss

And ive asked you to provide the "500 other qb's" who have posted above 85 qb ratings for their first 3 seasons. Hell even find 10 who have done it and turned out bad. You keep saying that the Bears overpaid, but so far you have done nothing to show why Cutler shouldnt be valued at 2 firsts and a third. Thanks Daa for putting the exact values down for people. (I argued this with Tru yesterday). If you put a value on the picks and then compare them to the Eli trade, the Bears gave up way less for a far more proven qb. Giants gave up a top 5 pick and a first and third, the Bears gave up a middle round pick, plus a first and third. So I guess I dont understand how the Bears got "robbed."

Nice work Iowa SC.

Youre changing your tune: Key Points: You never say Cutler is good, you instead say 86 is not "pretty good". I have provided information that shows an 86 qb rating is good enough to be a HOF qb. Now maybe you dont believe HOF qbs are good, I dont know. Second point: Lets look at Marino's 1985 Pro Bowl season, versus Cutler: G CMP ATT PCT YDS AVG TD LNG INT RAT Marino 16 336 567 59.3 4137 7.3 30 73 21 84.1 Cutler 16 384 616 62.3 4526 7.3 25 93 18 86.0 I guess Marino didnt belong in the pro-bowl that year and shouldnt have been first team NFL? But if you want to back track now and say that Cutler is good and that an 86 is good for a 3rd year QB, go ahead. The problem is you started off saying that the Bears were robbed, when I find it hard to believe that most people would think twice about trading the exact same package for a young Marino, Montana etc. Cutler may never turn into a HOF qb, but all of his statistics compare favorably to HOF players. Personally (and Im not even a Cutler fan), I think that he should have commanded more in terms of trading, the problem was the Broncos had to deal him. As for the Billy Madison quote, I have no clue as to why you decided to post it. It seemed like you were trying to be condescending about the fact I compared the industrial revolution to a story about a dog growing up, but whatever I feel the comparison was apt.

I compared each of those qb's first 3 seasons to Cutlers. Only Young and Marino put up significantly better stats than Cutler. You can say "sophomore slump" for Farve, but the facts are his average rating over his first 3 years is: 82.7333 That is significantly lower than Cutler, not to mention Farve threw for significantly less yards. So go ahead and find all of these Qb's who have put up 3 consecutive years of 86+ qb ratings in their first 3 seasons. Bottom line is if you want to call Cutler only "good" at this point, it means there has only been 1 QB who is great in his first 3 seasons (Marino, Young was 30 in his second season). But hey you quoted Billy Madison, so you must be much smarter than me.

If Cutler's ratings "rise dramatically" he will be in first ballot HOF range. Marino only had a career rating of 86.4. For a young QB 3 consecutive years of 86+ rating is pretty good, most of the guys who have done better are all in or going to the HOF.

YEAR TEAM G CMP ATT PCT YDS AVG TD LNG INT RAT Farve 2007 GNB 16 356 535 66.5 4155 7.8 28 82 15 95.7 Cutler 2008 DEN 16 384 616 62.3 4526 7.3 25 93 18 86.0 So 3 more tds and 3 less ints make Farve's stats "insane", where as Cutler is not even "pretty good" with a rating of 86. Furthermore, in Farve's first 3 seasons as a starting QB he posted 85.3, 72.2 and 90.7 qb rating. Cutler on the other hand posted 88.5, 88.1 and 86.0. In fact Farve's career passer rating is 85.4 Elways career passer rating is 79.9 and he did not put a rating over 85 until his 10th season in the league. Jim Kelly's career passer rating is 84.4 Troy Aikman's career passer rating is 81.6 So lets see the type of QB's with higher career passer ratings: Joe Montana career passer rating of 92.3, in Montana's first 3 seasons he put up 87.8, 88.4 and 88.0 Dan Marino career passer rating 86.4, Marino's first 3 seasons 96, 108.9 and 84.1 Steve Young career rating 96.8, Young's first season with TB 65.5, Young with 49ers at the age of 30 put up 101.8 and 107 ratings. Peyton Manning career rating 94.7, first 3 seasons 71.2, 90.7 and 94.7. Tom Brady career rating 92.9, first 3 seasons 86.5, 85.7 and 85.9 As of now Cutler's career rating is 87.1, through 3 seasons that means only Marino and Young had a significantly better QB ratings. Montana, Brady and Favre had very similar ratings to Cutler. So Im not sure how an 86 qb rating is not even pretty good when there are multiple HOF Qb's who have lower career ratings. Unless the HOF isnt very good?

Well you said Denver easily won the trade, I feel that Denver didnt get enough value (disagreement 1). I disagree on this as well. I think that McDaniels wanted Cassel for the above stated reasons. That McDaniels wanted Cassel above all things and convinced the Denver owners that if they gave him Matt Cassel he could deliver. Unfortunately Denver did not get Matt Cassel. McDaniels then was likely going to keep Cutler. The problem is Cutler decides that he wants to challenge McDaniels authority immediately and shows his displeasure. The Broncos do the only thing they can do, they have to support McDaniels. If the Broncos fired McDaniels they would be a joke, it would show how ridiculous hiring him in the first place was. The GM or whoever hired him has to stand by him. McDaniels doesnt need to win his year, my guess is that they are now on a 3 year plan. Although owners some times listen to fans, so if things got bad enough they could always cut their losses. If I was the Broncos owner Id be infuriated, Im sorry but we are not talking about a HOF coach, we are talking about some one who has never ran a team in his life and immediately causes problems with the one of their best players.

Well then we disagree. You dont trade QB's who have the potential to be franchise players. You act like McDaniels had a million other head coaching jobs lined up, hes 31. I personally think that the Broncos went off the deep end, and Im not really a big Cutler fan. It just makes absolutely no sense, unless its my theory that McDaniels needed a security blanket. Its not necessarily that Cassel is better than Cutler, its more that McDaniels had worked with Cassel and that he knew Cassel would listen to him and would respect him. Thats invaluable to a 31 year old coach who is going to be constantly challenged. So the Broncos were going to do something stupid to help their head coach feel safe. It completely backfired and now he has a QB who wont challenge him (Orton) but we all know that he is drafting a qb soon enough.

The reason you sound like a McDaniels supporter is you are making it seem like Orton is going to be great because he is going to McDaniels system. As for McDaniels not wanting Cutler, I think its more "McDaniels wanted Cassel because he felt comfortable with him and hes a 31 year old coach with absolutely no head coaching experience who is in completely over his head, then when he missed on Cassel his star QB found out, as a coach he is to inexperienced to deal with player friction and the owner is forced to support the coach because he just fired one of the most successful if not most successful Broncos head coach." Bottom line is that McDaniels should have been the biggest Cutler supporter.

And last year NE was 6th in rushing yards, 12th in passing yards and 8th in points per game. Meanwhile the Broncos were 12th in rushing, 3rd in passing yards and 16th in points per game. So why is the Pats pass offense better than what the Broncos already had? Last year Denver's problem was the run game... When you inherit a team that is already good at throwing the ball, why do you screw with that to bring in your "guy"? My answer is that either McDaniels is arrogant or hes scared. Either answer isnt very good for a coach. Most offensive coordinators would have died to inherit Cutler, Marshall and Royal. All they had to do was bring in a rb and the offense is elite. But hey, Im no Josh McDaniels.

Except for the fact that McDaniels was operating under Belicheck and not as the head coach. I dont think Cassel is very good either, but I think that Moss is pretty good. As for "the system", I guess Im not tremendously impressed by an offense that only 1 time since 2005 was in the top 5 for points scored per game. That "defensive system" also was pretty good. I just dont think McDaniels is as smart as you do.

What were the Broncos going to do? They just fired their long time coach, they brought in a coach with no experience whatsoever and then he has a power struggle with the franchise QB? You cant take Cutlers side if you want McDaniels as the coach. You might as well fire him on the spot, because hes going to have enough trouble getting NFL players to listen to him already, he doesnt need one of the most talented players on the team questioning his authority. McDaniels is not a strong enough coach to deal with dissension yet, there was no choice by the Broncos. When they hired McDaniels this was the cost.