Does this mean that I can sue everybody that has ever caused me "mental anguish" by the words they spoke to me?
What?...you say that it has to be in front of a crowd on a stage?...OK with me...Martindale caused me mental anguish in front of 500 people and he had a microphone to boot.
What's that you say?...he didn't call me a nigger?...How do you know?
Geeze, jonny, so it ain't your thing. You don't have a dog in this fight, so why keep on? Why do your values have to be everybody elses?
If I was in the recipient of this kind of treatment, I guarandangtee ya, I wouldn't let go of it. Respect who these people are, and what they stand for. Please?
I do have a dog in this fight. I live in America, and I do not like the fact that Lawyers have helped to make rampant lawsuits a way of life and a "hopeful windfall" for those who find a way to make money off of being offended or injured. I pay taxes. American courts cost all of us lots of money. I didn't like it at all when the woman spilled McDonalds coffee on her crotch and sued for two million and won. How much money did that cost whichever state tried the case? I don't like it that a woman I know sued the state of Alaska and won $250,000.00 because she burned her pinky in the french fryer on the ship I was working on. In my opinion she should have been more careful, and the state should have paid the medical bills and given her ample time off to heal. End of story. But oh the "mental anguish" and the subsequent big bucks!! And even though these black men men were thoroughly insulted, I do not agree that they should be awarded MONEY in a lawsuit for their plight, and that is my opinion. My values do not have to be your values. But in a discussion forum, we exchange opinions.
This is a discussion forum EX10, and I simply do not agree with the fact that they want to sue. This thread includes the element of "to sue or or not to sue?", and I am commenting on it. And so, I am stating my opinion. It differs from yours, and I am not sorry. Am I supposed to agree with those seeking the law suit just because you say I should? I do not agree with it, and maybe you do. But I won't agree with it just because they were hurt by that guys' terrible words. I think they would be making a far bigger statement by holding their heads high and shining it on, making themselves far far above such blatant bigotry. I would respect these people more if they did that. To go for the money just seems to taint their cause. Throws a shadow over their integrity, a shadow which would not exist if they just forgave and pittied the poor redneck moron for his activities as a "lewd fellow of the baser sort..."
P.S.
I had dropped my desire to comment anymore on this, with Socks and I making our peace, agreeing to disagree, until I read your post. Then I just had to come on back. But now really Sis, we do come here to debate and comment, do we not? I love you, and think of this as a bro/sis spat. Love you...
Ok, Jonny, not we're "gettin down to the heart of the matter...".to quote Don Henley.
I think you are gloriously missing the point. You are making a huge assumption, and assertion, that the men who were the recpients of this grossly unacceptable social behavior in these our United States (where freedom rings for all,) are sueing, "just for the money." (pardon the quote, I don't know if you said it or not, it's just the implication, sorry)
You are judging their motives, and that's what I take issue with.
How do you know what their motivation is? Have you ever been subjected to such gross public humiliation? Just because your race is a minority? that has a bad history of being mistreated, (persecuted, misjudged, etc. think of more adjectives if you will) in this our fine country?
The issue is far deeper than you make it out to be. That's what I take issue with.
Yeah, and ps love you too, that's why we can talk like this. We know each other and are ok with who we are. Hugs.
Thanks for the love and the hugs, and I mean that. But, even though I have not been subjected to 300 years of racism, I still believe that love and forgiveness and "shining on" such an insult better serves the cause of exposing and helping to resolve the evils of racism. I believe it is better than "asking for the money". It's like saying; "Hey, I don't care about money, I just care about what is right. It was terribly wrong for Richards to do to me what he did, but he is an ignorant man and I forgive him and I hope he turns the corner some day". And with head held high, he moves on, above the fray, and untouched by the crime...
Maybe you think that, Jonny, but some things are worth fighting for. I happen to think this cause, is worth it. We all pick and choose our battles. Maybe it ain't yours. Fine. But it is somebody elses. And they deserve a platform.
So, the Lawsuit is the answer as to how to fight it? I never said not to fight for it. I have systematically said that I do not believe that the Lawsuit is the way to fight for it. I believe that the law of the love of God in Christ Jesus (which includes forgiveness-and certainly excludes the "request for money") is the way to fight for one's cause. I believe that the lawsuit very often taints one's motives. Apparently, it has been determined by Society Today that the Lawsuit is "the way to fight for ones cause"? Well, I do not go by what Society Today tells me when it comes to methods in how to win a battle or a cause.
The Media, in this case, has given these guys an awesome platform with lots and lots of attention in the news. And their cause is just and I believe in it. Except, too bad they have asked for money. I think it hurts them :(
I didn't like it at all when the woman spilled McDonalds coffee on her crotch and sued for two million and won.
Just for the record, Jonny....
That settlement was granted because McDonald's ticked the jury off by being callus - they offered to pay a sum not even equal to her damages (Skin grafts) in the least. (This was the third lawsuit of its kind and McDonalds was tired of it so they low-balled her to send a message to future would be opponents.)
The jury awarded the amount of ONE day of coffee sales for all the McDonald's in the US
Then even that seemed to be too large a number.....so they brought it down a notch.
And so. Maybe we are getting closer to the issue here:
Some believe, and maybe you, that the lawsuit which ends with a monetary reward, is a means of making a statement, an impact and a way to "put the hurt" (in his/her pocketbook) on the perpetrator of whatever crime. And that the one asking for money doesn't really "want money", but just wants justice.
I believe that in the case of the company that hurt and killed people in the true life story of "Erin Brockovitch" (watch the movie if you haven't), that a lawsuit that was filed and won, and that this was a just way to deal with the crime. It really was an excellent way to make those money hungry bastards pay for what they did to American Citizens like you and me.
I believe that the lawsuit suit filed against the ficticious insurance company in the John Grisham novel "The Rain Maker" (read the book) was just and a good way to punish the evil doers in that story. No doubt, the story mirrored many a real life situation over and over in these our United States. My wife's brother, as an attorney, became a "rainmaker" in Amarillo Texas, when he sued an insurance company for defrauding a large number of poor Mexicans who were wronged and robbed by an insurance company. He procured for a group of fifty or so, a handsome sum from a company who ripped them off of their dollars, and who did not supply the services promised.
But, and this is a Big But, and where we diverge in our opinion I suppose, I think that there is a HUGE difference between having been given cancer from a Corporation that taints the water with cancer causing chemicals, and a stupid individual, who in his frustration because of his personal failure as a comedian, calls some black men the "n" word in retaliation to their heckling. Yes that "N" word represents hundreds of years of racism and inhuman crime. But, I still believe ( and we are simply talking about our beliefs here), their mind set, taught to them by our white society, is that "we should sue for money". I just think it's wrong. I just think that it is counter productive...
Another point that maybe you happen to miss Jonny, and that is the factor of 'forgiveness' ain't something that is required in a _court of law_. You can't mix the court of law and personal forgiveness and expect them to be irrevocably intertwined.
Personal forgiveness is ... personal. And if someone wants to 'take the high road' and forgive his transgressors in the legal system, well hey, that's his right, and maybe the perps might be shamed by it, and learn to do better. But to make that a kind of prerequisite in our legal system, ... ahhh, ..... no. As for one thing, it's not the state's job to shake its finger at us and go, "Now now now, shouldn't you *forgive*? What would Jesus do?", that sort of thing.
Oh by the way, your taxes do not pay for civil suits. That is up to the 2 'contestants' in the matter. That is part of what the monetary part of the lawsuits cover.
Now its true that the system needs some major sort of tort reform for sure, beginning with a cap upon what lawyers can leach---err I mean earn off of the settlements. I think it does in any event.
Another point that maybe you happen to miss Jonny, and that is the factor of 'forgiveness' ain't something that is required in a _court of law_. You can't mix the court of law and personal forgiveness and expect them to be irrevocably intertwined.
I am just saying; Skip the "court of law", I don't care about the court of law. If you skip it, you won't have to worry about whether the court says "forgive ot not forgive". Leave the government out of it. Take the High Road, rely on God to take care of "you and yourn" and move on down the line fighting the real battles in life like taking care of your wife, kids, mortgage, health insurance, and let the a$$holes be a$$holes, while you are not "amongst them". I love that kind of noble honor. Hold your head up and move on, for their karma will come back on them...I guess I still believe in spiritual repercussions, for, man and his laws will never right any wrongs. Lawyers fix things? Fuggedaboudit...
And as you like to say, "whatever Jonny." I'm done here on this thread...
Okay. Kramer sez the "N" word (ominous fanfare here) to 2 blacks in his audience. Does he owe an apology...maybe yea, maybe nay. That I'm willing to debate. But should he pay for "mental anguish"?
Puh-leese NO!!! Didn't this ambulance chaser have to track the 2 "victims" down? Here we are, living in the Litigation Nation, where every little alleged, percieved offense is easily solved with a jury award.
The lawyer talked them into seeing deep pockets, a possible settlement, & ALL ABOARD!!!...THE LAWSUIT TRAIN!!!
This is a perfect case of where these two worms should study the lyrics to The Eagles' "Get Over It" & take heed & that ambulance chaser should slither back under the rock she came from.
And Jonny is correct...what goes around does come around. Michael Richards wasn't funny anyway...as it was, his career was circling the bowl...
lawsuits and settlements often are brought because there is real loss. It is not necessarily to make a statement or win a point. Most often it is to claim compensation for monetary loss. Such loss does not have to be of life or limb. There is a monetary value, which the courts can determine, of things like "loss of companionship", "loss of future earnings", "mental anguish" on and on. One can be totally forgiving, but still seek compensation without it being a matter of greed.
If there is no loss, hopefully, the courts will also determine this. It is a citizen's right to bring suit, and it is far better than stalkng, lynching or otherwise taking matters into your own hands.
My parents had not considered suing the driver of the semi that crossed the line and hit my sis headon and killed her. They figured insurance covered the bills, and in their hearts, they had found a way to forgive the careless driver.
Their church's attorney (not a party to the case) told them they might wish to reconsider because there was definable monetary loss to them and also to my sister's friends due to the loss of their daughter's life. They did file a suit, and received a settlement. Getting money for themselves was NOT a part of their consideration.
Knowing that money in no way replaced their personal loss, they donated 95% of it to several places, not the least of which was a perpetual scholarship fund at Lawrence University where Susie had graduated from, and also a memorial circle there which has become a place of solace to future generations of students. Many of the girl's friends still (20 years later) write this time of year to let us know they stopped by sometime the past year and prayed for good to come from this terrible loss. I think it has.
Let's all keep talkikng around in circles. Tis much more comfy to talk about the problems with our legal system, how we all feel, what our religious beliefs are, and what we would do if we were king, than the real issue.
And as you like to say, "whatever Jonny." I'm done here on this thread...
hah! I'll believe that when I see it!
It's quite obvious there are a lot of opinions as well as sides on this story... I'm reminded of the old "..until you've walked a mile in their shoes" saying... I don't care who you are or where you've lived... until you've walked a mile in their shoes... you don't know.
So many horses have been beaten to death on this thread I'm thinking about reporting some of you to the A.S.P.C.A.
The truth of the matter is that while we are fighting and bickering everyone who is involved in this matter is getting some sort of payoff:
Michael Richards is getting attention - albeit a lot of negative attention but attention all the same.
The two men may or may not get money but they are getting seen on national TV and the web
The attorney - welll she gets her name in the media
The media - they get the story
All this and next week there will be some other news story to fight about. Another someone getting their 15 minutes of fame. And all this Michael Richards stuff will be old hat and forgotten as we move on to the next media fodder.
Not that the issues arent' important - just not worth gettting all torn up over.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
9
8
16
9
Popular Days
Nov 25
32
Nov 24
19
Nov 28
15
Nov 26
12
Top Posters In This Topic
GT 9 posts
ex10 8 posts
J0nny Ling0 16 posts
doojable 9 posts
Popular Days
Nov 25 2006
32 posts
Nov 24 2006
19 posts
Nov 28 2006
15 posts
Nov 26 2006
12 posts
dmiller
I looked for (and found) THE VIDEO of it all.
It was pretty bad, but (sadly) the same scene happens all too frequently in every day life. :(
It turned into a shouting match that shouldn't have happened.
The main difference here is he was on stage and had the microphone.
While I don't think it a *sue-able* offense, I would hope that no one would patronize his shows
from here on in. That should send an effective message to his wallet (and conscience) as well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
I spewed my coffee on that one
too much of an image!!
Thanks Dan-Now Im gonna have Kramer doing Al Jolson in my head all day
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TheInvisibleDan
Mstar,
I think I missed my calling as a Celebrity Damage Control Consultant.
I could have been something of a "James Baker" for dumb celebrities.
Okay, maybe Kramer in a remake of "Blackula" would be a bit much.
But I bet it would do well in the direct-to-video market.
:)
Danny
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Well hell, now that you mention it, maybe he should play the lead role in "Shaft"...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrouchoMarxJr
Does this mean that I can sue everybody that has ever caused me "mental anguish" by the words they spoke to me?
What?...you say that it has to be in front of a crowd on a stage?...OK with me...Martindale caused me mental anguish in front of 500 people and he had a microphone to boot.
What's that you say?...he didn't call me a nigger?...How do you know?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
I do have a dog in this fight. I live in America, and I do not like the fact that Lawyers have helped to make rampant lawsuits a way of life and a "hopeful windfall" for those who find a way to make money off of being offended or injured. I pay taxes. American courts cost all of us lots of money. I didn't like it at all when the woman spilled McDonalds coffee on her crotch and sued for two million and won. How much money did that cost whichever state tried the case? I don't like it that a woman I know sued the state of Alaska and won $250,000.00 because she burned her pinky in the french fryer on the ship I was working on. In my opinion she should have been more careful, and the state should have paid the medical bills and given her ample time off to heal. End of story. But oh the "mental anguish" and the subsequent big bucks!!
And even though these black men men were thoroughly insulted, I do not agree that they should be awarded MONEY in a lawsuit for their plight, and that is my opinion. My values do not have to be your values. But in a discussion forum, we exchange opinions.
This is a discussion forum EX10, and I simply do not agree with the fact that they want to sue. This thread includes the element of "to sue or or not to sue?", and I am commenting on it. And so, I am stating my opinion. It differs from yours, and I am not sorry. Am I supposed to agree with those seeking the law suit just because you say I should? I do not agree with it, and maybe you do. But I won't agree with it just because they were hurt by that guys' terrible words. I think they would be making a far bigger statement by holding their heads high and shining it on, making themselves far far above such blatant bigotry. I would respect these people more if they did that. To go for the money just seems to taint their cause. Throws a shadow over their integrity, a shadow which would not exist if they just forgave and pittied the poor redneck moron for his activities as a "lewd fellow of the baser sort..."
P.S.
I had dropped my desire to comment anymore on this, with Socks and I making our peace, agreeing to disagree, until I read your post. Then I just had to come on back. But now really Sis, we do come here to debate and comment, do we not? I love you, and think of this as a bro/sis spat. Love you...
Edited by Jonny LingoLink to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Ok, Jonny, not we're "gettin down to the heart of the matter...".to quote Don Henley.
I think you are gloriously missing the point. You are making a huge assumption, and assertion, that the men who were the recpients of this grossly unacceptable social behavior in these our United States (where freedom rings for all,) are sueing, "just for the money." (pardon the quote, I don't know if you said it or not, it's just the implication, sorry)
You are judging their motives, and that's what I take issue with.
How do you know what their motivation is? Have you ever been subjected to such gross public humiliation? Just because your race is a minority? that has a bad history of being mistreated, (persecuted, misjudged, etc. think of more adjectives if you will) in this our fine country?
The issue is far deeper than you make it out to be. That's what I take issue with.
Yeah, and ps love you too, that's why we can talk like this. We know each other and are ok with who we are. Hugs.
Edited by ex10Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
Thanks for the love and the hugs, and I mean that. But, even though I have not been subjected to 300 years of racism, I still believe that love and forgiveness and "shining on" such an insult better serves the cause of exposing and helping to resolve the evils of racism. I believe it is better than "asking for the money". It's like saying; "Hey, I don't care about money, I just care about what is right. It was terribly wrong for Richards to do to me what he did, but he is an ignorant man and I forgive him and I hope he turns the corner some day". And with head held high, he moves on, above the fray, and untouched by the crime...
My opinion.
Edited by Jonny LingoLink to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Maybe you think that, Jonny, but some things are worth fighting for. I happen to think this cause, is worth it. We all pick and choose our battles. Maybe it ain't yours. Fine. But it is somebody elses. And they deserve a platform.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
So, the Lawsuit is the answer as to how to fight it? I never said not to fight for it. I have systematically said that I do not believe that the Lawsuit is the way to fight for it. I believe that the law of the love of God in Christ Jesus (which includes forgiveness-and certainly excludes the "request for money") is the way to fight for one's cause. I believe that the lawsuit very often taints one's motives. Apparently, it has been determined by Society Today that the Lawsuit is "the way to fight for ones cause"? Well, I do not go by what Society Today tells me when it comes to methods in how to win a battle or a cause.
The Media, in this case, has given these guys an awesome platform with lots and lots of attention in the news. And their cause is just and I believe in it. Except, too bad they have asked for money. I think it hurts them :(
Edited by Jonny LingoLink to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Just for the record, Jonny....
That settlement was granted because McDonald's ticked the jury off by being callus - they offered to pay a sum not even equal to her damages (Skin grafts) in the least. (This was the third lawsuit of its kind and McDonalds was tired of it so they low-balled her to send a message to future would be opponents.)
The jury awarded the amount of ONE day of coffee sales for all the McDonald's in the US
Then even that seemed to be too large a number.....so they brought it down a notch.
Carry on......
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
And so. Maybe we are getting closer to the issue here:
Some believe, and maybe you, that the lawsuit which ends with a monetary reward, is a means of making a statement, an impact and a way to "put the hurt" (in his/her pocketbook) on the perpetrator of whatever crime. And that the one asking for money doesn't really "want money", but just wants justice.
I believe that in the case of the company that hurt and killed people in the true life story of "Erin Brockovitch" (watch the movie if you haven't), that a lawsuit that was filed and won, and that this was a just way to deal with the crime. It really was an excellent way to make those money hungry bastards pay for what they did to American Citizens like you and me.
I believe that the lawsuit suit filed against the ficticious insurance company in the John Grisham novel "The Rain Maker" (read the book) was just and a good way to punish the evil doers in that story. No doubt, the story mirrored many a real life situation over and over in these our United States. My wife's brother, as an attorney, became a "rainmaker" in Amarillo Texas, when he sued an insurance company for defrauding a large number of poor Mexicans who were wronged and robbed by an insurance company. He procured for a group of fifty or so, a handsome sum from a company who ripped them off of their dollars, and who did not supply the services promised.
But, and this is a Big But, and where we diverge in our opinion I suppose, I think that there is a HUGE difference between having been given cancer from a Corporation that taints the water with cancer causing chemicals, and a stupid individual, who in his frustration because of his personal failure as a comedian, calls some black men the "n" word in retaliation to their heckling. Yes that "N" word represents hundreds of years of racism and inhuman crime. But, I still believe ( and we are simply talking about our beliefs here), their mind set, taught to them by our white society, is that "we should sue for money". I just think it's wrong. I just think that it is counter productive...
And so, we disagree...
Edited by Jonny LingoLink to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Another point that maybe you happen to miss Jonny, and that is the factor of 'forgiveness' ain't something that is required in a _court of law_. You can't mix the court of law and personal forgiveness and expect them to be irrevocably intertwined.
Personal forgiveness is ... personal. And if someone wants to 'take the high road' and forgive his transgressors in the legal system, well hey, that's his right, and maybe the perps might be shamed by it, and learn to do better. But to make that a kind of prerequisite in our legal system, ... ahhh, ..... no. As for one thing, it's not the state's job to shake its finger at us and go, "Now now now, shouldn't you *forgive*? What would Jesus do?", that sort of thing.
Oh by the way, your taxes do not pay for civil suits. That is up to the 2 'contestants' in the matter. That is part of what the monetary part of the lawsuits cover.
Now its true that the system needs some major sort of tort reform for sure, beginning with a cap upon what lawyers can leach---err I mean earn off of the settlements. I think it does in any event.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Whatever, Jonny. Review 8th grade civics. Our court system was established so that citizens, CITIZENS, not subjects, not slaves, could air grievances.
Seems these citizens have a grievance to be aired.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
For the record, Jonny - I was just informing you - not agreeing or disagreeing. remember I have no dog in this fight anymore.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
I am just saying; Skip the "court of law", I don't care about the court of law. If you skip it, you won't have to worry about whether the court says "forgive ot not forgive". Leave the government out of it. Take the High Road, rely on God to take care of "you and yourn" and move on down the line fighting the real battles in life like taking care of your wife, kids, mortgage, health insurance, and let the a$$holes be a$$holes, while you are not "amongst them". I love that kind of noble honor. Hold your head up and move on, for their karma will come back on them...I guess I still believe in spiritual repercussions, for, man and his laws will never right any wrongs. Lawyers fix things? Fuggedaboudit...
And as you like to say, "whatever Jonny." I'm done here on this thread...
Edited by Jonny LingoLink to comment
Share on other sites
Weout1200
Okay. Kramer sez the "N" word (ominous fanfare here) to 2 blacks in his audience. Does he owe an apology...maybe yea, maybe nay. That I'm willing to debate. But should he pay for "mental anguish"?
Puh-leese NO!!! Didn't this ambulance chaser have to track the 2 "victims" down? Here we are, living in the Litigation Nation, where every little alleged, percieved offense is easily solved with a jury award.
The lawyer talked them into seeing deep pockets, a possible settlement, & ALL ABOARD!!!...THE LAWSUIT TRAIN!!!
This is a perfect case of where these two worms should study the lyrics to The Eagles' "Get Over It" & take heed & that ambulance chaser should slither back under the rock she came from.
And Jonny is correct...what goes around does come around. Michael Richards wasn't funny anyway...as it was, his career was circling the bowl...
Edited by Weout1200Link to comment
Share on other sites
J0nny Ling0
The
Edited by Jonny LingoLink to comment
Share on other sites
HAPe4me
lawsuits and settlements often are brought because there is real loss. It is not necessarily to make a statement or win a point. Most often it is to claim compensation for monetary loss. Such loss does not have to be of life or limb. There is a monetary value, which the courts can determine, of things like "loss of companionship", "loss of future earnings", "mental anguish" on and on. One can be totally forgiving, but still seek compensation without it being a matter of greed.
If there is no loss, hopefully, the courts will also determine this. It is a citizen's right to bring suit, and it is far better than stalkng, lynching or otherwise taking matters into your own hands.
My parents had not considered suing the driver of the semi that crossed the line and hit my sis headon and killed her. They figured insurance covered the bills, and in their hearts, they had found a way to forgive the careless driver.
Their church's attorney (not a party to the case) told them they might wish to reconsider because there was definable monetary loss to them and also to my sister's friends due to the loss of their daughter's life. They did file a suit, and received a settlement. Getting money for themselves was NOT a part of their consideration.
Knowing that money in no way replaced their personal loss, they donated 95% of it to several places, not the least of which was a perpetual scholarship fund at Lawrence University where Susie had graduated from, and also a memorial circle there which has become a place of solace to future generations of students. Many of the girl's friends still (20 years later) write this time of year to let us know they stopped by sometime the past year and prayed for good to come from this terrible loss. I think it has.
~HAP
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Let's all keep talkikng around in circles. Tis much more comfy to talk about the problems with our legal system, how we all feel, what our religious beliefs are, and what we would do if we were king, than the real issue.
:B)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
hah! I'll believe that when I see it!
It's quite obvious there are a lot of opinions as well as sides on this story... I'm reminded of the old "..until you've walked a mile in their shoes" saying... I don't care who you are or where you've lived... until you've walked a mile in their shoes... you don't know.
So many horses have been beaten to death on this thread I'm thinking about reporting some of you to the A.S.P.C.A.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
Linzee heads to Greasespot Gems!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ex10
Aw, but Tommy, we were having so much fun.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
The truth of the matter is that while we are fighting and bickering everyone who is involved in this matter is getting some sort of payoff:
Michael Richards is getting attention - albeit a lot of negative attention but attention all the same.
The two men may or may not get money but they are getting seen on national TV and the web
The attorney - welll she gets her name in the media
The media - they get the story
All this and next week there will be some other news story to fight about. Another someone getting their 15 minutes of fame. And all this Michael Richards stuff will be old hat and forgotten as we move on to the next media fodder.
Not that the issues arent' important - just not worth gettting all torn up over.
IMHO
OK OK Maybe I'm not so humble.....LOL
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.