Dear Doctor Doom, dgarren and everyone:
Have a great weekend!
MightyFish: Dear Doctor Doom, dgarren and everyone: Have a great weekend!
*
**
MightyFish: Special thanks to Doctor Doom, jorge300, RJN825, ToddM and dgarren to helping keep ME in the limelight. As usual, your interest in The Mighty Fish is greatly appreciated.
Special thanks to Doctor Doom, jorge300, RJN825, ToddM and dgarren to helping keep ME in the limelight. As usual, your interest in The Mighty Fish is greatly appreciated.
Give me a break. I have very few posts in this thread and the only reason I responded to you at all was because of your snippy remark to me on page one which was uncalled for.
RJN825:Give me a break. I have very few posts in this thread and the only reason I responded to you at all was because of your snippy remark to me on page one which was uncalled for.
Dear Randy:
Every small response is appreciated. Thanks for your "help," and have a good weekend.
Looks like our friendly neighborhoood, sue-happy proprietor has sent in a letter to the Editor of Bowling Industry magazine and it was published in the August 2008 issue - of course it was nothing new - pretty much verbatim what is said in other articles. He titled it "Integrity vs. viability." The dude is absolutely off his rocker. EVERY arguement he uses to make his point are the FAULT of the PROPRIETORS, NOT USBC.
THE PROPRIETORS ARE ALWAYS RIGHT!
Therefore, how could they be "at fault" on anything?
LOL
Just in case anybody missed it
Boy, was that a surprise! NOT!!!
Gary SparksAsst. Prof. Bowling Industry ManagementVincennes University
dgarren: I am no lawyer, but I just dont think there is any way that this Salisbury dude can prove his allegations. He will need some form of empirical data. Unfortuantely for him, his arguments are entirely theoretical and will be thrown out of court. You know what would really help curb frivilous law-suits? I say make the LOSER pay the bill for the entire trail. Send a clear message that if you bring this crap to court and clog up the system, you will be flipping the bill for BOTH SIDES when you lose.
I am no lawyer, but I just dont think there is any way that this Salisbury dude can prove his allegations. He will need some form of empirical data. Unfortuantely for him, his arguments are entirely theoretical and will be thrown out of court.
You know what would really help curb frivilous law-suits?
I say make the LOSER pay the bill for the entire trail. Send a clear message that if you bring this crap to court and clog up the system, you will be flipping the bill for BOTH SIDES when you lose.
/
In essence, USBC claims to have never lost a case. However, from my observations over the years, the Crystal Palace has always SETTLED CASES that they were pretty certain they couldn't win.
On the other hand, has USBC ever actually WON a case concerning institutional integrity? And have they ever actually had to defend a case challenging the system under which they operate on an institutional level?
