Does anyone know anything about Pennsylvania proprietor Jim Salisbury?

Yeah, and he seems like a decent person with quite a bit of insight about the game and business as it relates to bowling. He posts quite a bit on the PBA forums and doesn't really mention any lawsuit action. His bowling center is kind of dumpy though.

I think his supposed lawsuit is kind of frivolous myself.

 Dear RJN825:

If he's really "a decent person with quite a bit of insight about the game," why, then (as if you don't know) has he been banned from these forums?

Sort of supports my supposition that ONLY if you directly threaten or sue USBC are you barred from the forums, doesn't it? 

Okay, I'll bite.  Why is he suing the USBC?  And since I don't know his screen name, I wouldn't know if he has been banned from this forum.

I thought I heard about a dude sueing USBC for the decline in bowling - saying something like since USBC has not controlled the scoring environment, credibility and integrity have been lost and hence the decline or something like that - I am going to do a google search and see if I can find an article - please, someone correct me, or expound

cicada49:

Okay, I'll bite.  Why is he suing the USBC?  And since I don't know his screen name, I wouldn't know if he has been banned from this forum.

Dear Doctor Doom:

Even if his lawsuit is "frivolous," is there a chance that USBC will have to spend some "frivolous" membership money to respond to such lawsuit?

Doctor Doom:

cicada49:

Okay, I'll bite.  Why is he suing the USBC?  And since I don't know his screen name, I wouldn't know if he has been banned from this forum.

http://www.cumberlink.com/articles/2008/01/27/news/news311.txt     cicada try this link it is the article about his frivolous lawsuit.

 

In 1991, Richard Harris sued Anheiser-Busch for $10,000 for false advertising. Harris (no relation to the above-mentioned burglar) claimed to suffer from emotional distress in addition to mental and physical injury. Why? Because when he drank beer, he didn’t have any luck with the ladies, as promised in the TV ads. Harris also didn’t like that he got sick sometimes after he drank. The case was thrown out of court.

Or this one, maybe we should do the same

In 1995, Robert Lee Brock, a Virginia prison inmate, decided to take a new approach to the legal system. After filing a number of unsuccessful lawsuits against the prison system, Brock sued himself. He claimed his civil rights and religious beliefs were violated when he allowed himself to get drunk. After all, it was inebriation that created his cycle of committing crimes and being incarcerated. He demanded $5 million from himself. However, since he didn’t earn an income behind bars, he felt the state should pay. Needless to say, the case was thrown out.

What next???????????? I know it's a Government conspiracy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Dr. Doom,

     I will not argue the validity of this case. Yes it is frivilous, but sometimes a frivilous lawsuit may actually bring about meaningful change. I think back to the McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit. There was an inherent danger of the coffee temparture at McDonald's, but for years most people either added ice or were just very careful and manged to survive drinking it. One lady, comes along, and decides to put the cup between her legs as she is driving to work, putting on her makeup, talking on her cellphone etc (I don't remember the specific details of what she was doing so this is probably a gross exageration, but you get my point) and she spilled the coffee and burned herself. To me, this was a frivilous lawsuit because if she would have used common sense nothing would have happened. Bur her lawsuit caused McDonald's to have to lower their coffee temp so others may not be injured, which is a good thing. Maybe, and that is a huge, Empire State Building size maybe, this lawsuit brings some attention to this problem with our sport and we get some kind of change out of it. Im not going to hold my breath, but stranger things have happened. The only downside is adding this to an already overloaded legal system.

jorge300:

Dr. Doom,

     I will not argue the validity of this case. Yes it is frivilous, but sometimes a frivilous lawsuit may actually bring about meaningful change. I think back to the McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit. There was an inherent danger of the coffee temparture at McDonald's, but for years most people either added ice or were just very careful and manged to survive drinking it. One lady, comes along, and decides to put the cup between her legs as she is driving to work, putting on her makeup, talking on her cellphone etc (I don't remember the specific details of what she was doing so this is probably a gross exageration, but you get my point) and she spilled the coffee and burned herself. To me, this was a frivilous lawsuit because if she would have used common sense nothing would have happened. Bur her lawsuit caused McDonald's to have to lower their coffee temp so others may not be injured, which is a good thing. Maybe, and that is a huge, Empire State Building size maybe, this lawsuit brings some attention to this problem with our sport and we get some kind of change out of it. Im not going to hold my breath, but stranger things have happened. The only downside is adding this to an already overloaded legal system.

In February 1992, Stella Liebeck ordered a cup of coffee to go from McDonalds. Liebeck was sitting in the passenger seat of her nephew’s car, which was pulled over so she could add sugar to her coffee. While removing the cup’s lid, Liebeck spilled her hot coffee, burning her legs. It was determined that Liebeck suffered third degree burns on over six percent of her body. Originally, Liebeck sought $20,000 in damages. McDonalds refused to settle out of court. However, they should have. Liebeck was ultimately awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages, which was reduced to $160,000 because she was found to be twenty percent at fault. She was also awarded $2.7 million in punitive damages

I should have known you'd have the details, lol. I like my version better, lol, as with eddiboo who needs the truth when the story is this good.

While the story may be incorrect, I hope the point I was making came through. Something needs to be done to kickstart the changes needed to our sport, maybe this lawsuit, as frivilous as it is, can be that spark.

jorge300:

I should have known you'd have the details, lol. I like my version better, lol, as with eddiboo who needs the truth when the story is this good.

 

While the story may be incorrect, I hope the point I was making came through. Something needs to be done to kickstart the changes needed to our sport, maybe this lawsuit, as frivilous as it is, can be that spark.

MightyFish:

 Dear RJN825:

If he's really "a decent person with quite a bit of insight about the game," why, then (as if you don't know) has he been banned from these forums?

What's with the sarcastic (as if you don't know) comment? What makes you assume that I would know that he's been banned from this forum? Like I said in my 1st reply, I've read some of his posts on the PBA forum.

I'm on the phone with Jim right now, and he says he would be willing to respond to anyone's e-mail.

So if you'd like to comment or ask him questions ... 

Just leave a message on "Contact Us" at www.bowlparklanes.com

He says he may not be able to respond right away, but he's willing to respond to anyone.

MightyFish:

Dear Doctor Doom:

Even if his lawsuit is "frivolous," is there a chance that USBC will have to spend some "frivolous" membership money to respond to such lawsuit?