OT Two things
 

The first, an April 15th classic;

http://www.macnelly.com/editorial_im...-1040form.html

The second, a question. Say a kid gets killed and a settlement is reached
in a wrongful death lawsuit, who gets more money, the father of the kid
or the lawyers ?

http://tinyurl.com/3y22y

--
Ken Fortenberry

OT Two things
 

Ken Fortenberry wrote in message ...
The first, an April 15th classic;

http://www.macnelly.com/editorial_im...-1040form.html

The second, a question. Say a kid gets killed and a settlement is reached
in a wrongful death lawsuit, who gets more money, the father of the kid
or the lawyers ?




My view is that the family gets ALL the money, then they pay the
lawyers for their services. If you view the lawyers as taking 'some of
the settlement', you might as well begrudge anyone who gets paid at
any time from that money: the barber, mechanic, the mortgage holder...

--riverman

OT Two things
 

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

The first, an April 15th classic;

http://www.macnelly.com/editorial_im...-1040form.html

funny


The second, a question. Say a kid gets killed and a settlement is reached
in a wrongful death lawsuit, who gets more money, the father of the kid
or the lawyers ?

easy answer in nc... the father.

but here's one for you. case is in north carolina. father makes the
decision to employ lawyer on the typical contingency fee contract - 33%
of recovery, plus reimbursement of costs. say it's a difficult case.
say it goes to trial. lawyer has advanced costs in excess of $50,000 for
appropriate experts, depositions, investigation, etc..., and spent more
than 1000 hours of professional and office staff time in preparing for
trial and in the trial of the case... and, say, the verdict in North
Carolina is that the defendant was negligent, but that the boy (over 12)
was 10% at fault in causing the event and his death, so the jury says
the boy is contributorily negligent. so, there is no recovery at all in
north carolina. so...since you were talking shares of money, who do you
think absorbs the 50k and the 1000 hours of work?

jeff

http://tinyurl.com/3y22y

OT Two things
 

(riverman) wrote in message . com...
Ken Fortenberry wrote in message ...
The first, an April 15th classic;

http://www.macnelly.com/editorial_im...-1040form.html

The second, a question. Say a kid gets killed and a settlement is reached
in a wrongful death lawsuit, who gets more money, the father of the kid
or the lawyers ?




My view is that the family gets ALL the money, then they pay the
lawyers for their services. If you view the lawyers as taking 'some of
the settlement', you might as well begrudge anyone who gets paid at
any time from that money: the barber, mechanic, the mortgage holder...

--riverman



The barber, the mechanic, the mortgage holder etc. all have a price
and you know what it is going in the door.
The lawyer is the one that says " how much have you got? "

OT Two things
 

Jeff wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:

The second, a question. Say a kid gets killed and a settlement is reached
in a wrongful death lawsuit, who gets more money, the father of the kid
or the lawyers ?

easy answer in nc... the father.

The Ohio case in question was settled out of court, why would an out
of court settlement in North Carolina necessarily be any different ?

but here's one for you. case is in north carolina. father makes the
decision to employ lawyer on the typical contingency fee contract - 33%
of recovery, plus reimbursement of costs.
lawyer lost the case snipped
so...since you were talking shares of money, who do you
think absorbs the 50k and the 1000 hours of work?

Yeah, poor thing, the lawyer rolled the dice and lost, I don't have
a problem with that. ;-) What frosts my shorts is when this is
portrayed as some sort of "public service" instead of being portrayed
for what it is, a failed money-grab by institutionalized scum.

--
Ken Fortenberry

OT Two things
 

Jeff M notes:
who do you
think absorbs the 50k and the 1000 hours of work?

yup, people tend to overlook that detail and also the fact that when you need
one, a lawyer can be the only useful professional to turn to. Odd how people
don't look askance at other specialized professionals in the same light.
Tom

OT Two things
 

BJ Conner wrote:


The barber, the mechanic, the mortgage holder etc. all have a price
and you know what it is going in the door.
The lawyer is the one that says " how much have you got? "

....without equivocation bj, you're simply full of ****. your gross
generalizations continue to astound me... but, i guess every toad is
entitled to croak the song that defines its nature...

jeff

OT Two things
 

Tom Littleton wrote:

Jeff M notes:

who do you
think absorbs the 50k and the 1000 hours of work?


yup, people tend to overlook that detail and also the fact that when you need
one, a lawyer can be the only useful professional to turn to. Odd how people
don't look askance at other specialized professionals in the same light.
Tom

you know tom, there is no doubt some lawyers are ****s and deserve
criticism for their conduct. it's the lemming-like generalizations that
**** me off. if anyone wants to say a specific lawyer is a thief or
charges too much or is an idiot, fine. state the name, let's get the
facts, and maybe i'll agree. i might even know the person named. same
with doctors, dentists, barbers, engineers, biologists, newspaper
reporters, politicians, bankers, programmers, electricians, college
profs, trout guides, lab scientists, mayors, generals, mechanics,
architects, hooters waitresses... if there is a particular professional
practice that offends someone's sense of right, ok, name it. you might
be surprised at how many lawyers might agree... but to make crass
general statements about all lawyers, or to make assumptions about a
particular lawyer based on those generalizations, particularly in this
venue, is simply a sign of a weak mind. ...

jeff

OT Two things
 

Jeff Miller wrote:
Tom Littleton wrote:

yup, people tend to overlook that detail and also the fact that when
you need
one, a lawyer can be the only useful professional to turn to. ...

That's one of the stupider sentences ever posted here. When I need
someone to suck the **** out of my septic tank there ain't but one
useful professional I can turn to. What's your point ?

you know tom, there is no doubt some lawyers are ****s and deserve
criticism for their conduct. ...

Funny how a remarkable newspaper blurb posted here causes a lawyer
to publicly defend his profession. If someone posted a tirade against
computer weenies or freelance writers I would not feel compelled to
defend them or accuse divorce lawyers of having weak minds.

--
Ken Fortenberry

OT Two things
 

Ken Fortenberry wrote:




The Ohio case in question was settled out of court, why would an out
of court settlement in North Carolina necessarily be any different ?

i have little knowledge of ohio practices. when i tried to access your
chicago trib site, it required a registration of some sort, so i bailed.
i assumed it reported a bizarre chicago circumstance. i have no ****ing
clue what might happen in that place - but i wouldn't be surprised.

anyway, i never read whatever it was that piqued your uniquely thin, but
interesting, skin. given my admitted stupidity and cluelessness, i
thought i'd stick with what i know...and, since your question was posed
in a non-specific form, i gave the answer i knew.

out-of-court settlements - if you mean a settlement negotiated without
any formal legal process being instituted - typically involve a 25%
contingency fee. many settlements are negotiated on the "eve" of trial.
they aren't really "out of court", and occur only after substantial
work, trial readiness, and the threat of a jury's assessment of the case.

in my little backwater, there is one lawyer advertising a 10%
contingency fee. i wouldn't employ him, but he's there, available to
anyone who wants to engage him. many of us (in nc) accept cases on a
contingency basis in which we agree to charge a 33% contingency only on
the sum recovered above that which some insurance company has offered
the client before we were employed. go get your best deal from the
insurance industry, take it if you believe it fair; if it's not
perceived as fair, hire the lawyer, who only earns an income on what
he/she got for you that you wouldn't/couldn't have gotten for yourself.




Yeah, poor thing, the lawyer rolled the dice and lost, I don't have
a problem with that. ;-) What frosts my shorts is when this is
portrayed as some sort of "public service" instead of being portrayed
for what it is, a failed money-grab by institutionalized scum.


this response betrays a superficial, visceral process at work. i don't
think my reply portrayed anything as a "public service". it sure didn't
meet your description. i thought we were talking money. you seemed
****ed because you don't like lawyers in general (and individually),
don't like the contingency fee system of employing lawyers in
particular, and find it unreasonable that someone voluntarily decides to
employ a lawyer on terms that entitle the lawyer to collect a sizeable
sum as a fee if a substantial recovery is actually obtained. there are
legitimate arguments/complaints about the contingency fee system. so
far, your invective in our little conversation is without substance.

responsible lawyers in this and every other state use written employment
agreements which describe the fees and the services. they are contracts
like any other, except easier to read and understand. each party can
decline the terms, accept the terms, or negotiate the terms. ...no one
is coerced. you can enter into an hourly rate services contract instead
of a contingency fee contract if you wish. plus, every injured person
is free to negotiate an acceptable settlement with the insurance company
or the adversary without employing a lawyer.

"money-grab", "institutionalized scum"... not particularly insightful or
instructive or persuasive... but cute.

jeff

OT Two things
 

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

When I need
someone to suck the **** out of my septic tank there ain't but one
useful professional I can turn to.

damn... i'd never have thought that was a job you had to hire out...;)


Funny how a remarkable newspaper blurb posted here causes a lawyer
to publicly defend his profession.

oh jeezus... almost as funny as a freelance weenie's tirades in defense
of what i consider less worthy issues. it's all in the perspective,
isn't it? btw, i never read your newspaper blurb...

If someone posted a tirade against
computer weenies or freelance writers I would not feel compelled to
defend them or accuse divorce lawyers of having weak minds.

perhaps, but i doubt many will accept this assertion, given the
compulsive nature of your tirades and accusations against top posters
and spammers - a worthy effort indeed - not to mention your endearing
method of communicating with those you label as rednecks or
eco-unfriendly.

jeff

OT Two things
 

On 15 Apr 2004 22:21:36 GMT, (Tom Littleton) wrote:

Odd how people
don't look askance at other specialized professionals in the same light.


Some people. Maybe even most people, but there are a lot of
professions that I look askance at and wonder what the actual cost of
their services would be.

--

rbc:vixen,Minnow Goddess,Willow Watcher,and all that sort of thing.
Often taunted by trout.
Only a fool would refuse to believe in luck. Only a damn fool would rely on it.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

OT Two things
 

Jeff Miller wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:

Funny how a remarkable newspaper blurb posted here causes a lawyer
to publicly defend his profession.

... it's all in the perspective,
isn't it? btw, i never read your newspaper blurb...

It's absolutely HILARIOUS that the mere rumor of a newspaper blurb
would cause a lawyer to pontificate at length on a fly fishing
newsgroup and somewhat amazing that he'd do so for FREE. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

OT Two things
 

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote


Funny how a remarkable newspaper blurb posted here causes a lawyer
to publicly defend his profession. If someone posted a tirade against
computer weenies or freelance writers I would not feel compelled to
defend them

i think that observation is truly ironic. while your adoption of an
indiscriminate attack on an entire profession in the face of your empirical
experience with at least two of its members that must have, in all fairness,
indicated to you that decent human beings, whose company you have apparently
enjoyed, do practice law, with an obvious effort to be true to their duties
and fair in matters economic, is in itself not surprising, given the modus
opperandum of your internet persona (we lawyers have a weakness for latin,
no matter how poorly spelled), and the possibility that this entire
confrontation finds its origin in simple boredom, an objective observer can
only wonder at how the paucity of passion that you feel for your own work
is revealed by your suggestion that a similar attack on your endeavors would
fail to elicit a defensive response. that portrays you as a poorer man than
i had imagined you to be. my opinion is that we are not, as someone
famously said, "what we eat"; we are what we do for a living.

oh, well, i suppose i could have just said "**** you, forty", and had
about the same effect upon your thought processes.

syfitons
wayno

OT Two things
 

chuckling is good, but you probably should re-read our "OT" thread
before you resort to more misplaced hyperbole. initially, i responded
to your posted question (and to its implicit comment)...not the "rumored
newspaper blurb" - though, i'm sure i've probably heard/read similar
stuff before. ...and, as you know, there's always a price paid. :)

jeff

Ken Fortenberry wrote:



It's absolutely HILARIOUS that the mere rumor of a newspaper blurb
would cause a lawyer to pontificate at length on a fly fishing
newsgroup and somewhat amazing that he'd do so for FREE. ;-)

OT Two things
 

Ken feels compelled:
That's one of the stupider sentences ever posted here.

oh c'mon, it hardly comes close. My point, that you seem to miss, is that
personal injury lawyers are merely specialized professionals, doing their job.
It is amazing that they receive group criticism from people outside the
profession who haven't a ****ing clue what/how they operate.
Tom

OT Two things
 

Wayne Harrison wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:

... If someone posted a tirade against
computer weenies or freelance writers I would not feel compelled to
defend them

... while your adoption of an
indiscriminate attack on an entire profession in the face of your empirical
experience with at least two of its members that must have, in all fairness,
indicated to you that decent human beings, whose company you have apparently
enjoyed, do practice law, with an obvious effort to be true to their duties
and fair in matters economic, is in itself not surprising, given the modus
opperandum of your internet persona (we lawyers have a weakness for latin,
no matter how poorly spelled), and the possibility that this entire
confrontation finds its origin in simple boredom, an objective observer can
only wonder at how the paucity of passion that you feel for your own work
is revealed by your suggestion that a similar attack on your endeavors would
fail to elicit a defensive response. ...

Holy **** !! That's one hell of a sentence. Have you been taking lessons
on turgid, incomprehensible run-on sentences from our resident expert ?

Anyway, I did not indiscriminately attack an entire profession, I posted
a rhetorical question and a newspaper blurb, the latter Jeffie didn't even
bother to read by the way, and so now I'm waging weak minded attacks on
all lawyers.

An objective observer might have cause to wonder why some lawyers are so
sensitive and defensive.

snip
oh, well, i suppose i could have just said "**** you, forty", and had
about the same effect upon your thought processes.

Yeah, but there's something to be said for a good tirade, hope you
enjoyed writing it as much as I enjoyed reading it. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

OT Two things
 

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote
Holy **** !! That's one hell of a sentence. Have you been taking lessons
on turgid, incomprehensible run-on sentences from our resident expert ?

actually, i did that intentionally, in preparation for the unveiling of
my new internet persona, "really serious and self-important lawyer guy".
after all, some people clearly enjoy the dr.jeckyll/mr.hyde syndrome.

Anyway, I did not indiscriminately attack an entire profession, I posted
a rhetorical question and a newspaper blurb, the latter Jeffie didn't even
bother to read by the way, and so now I'm waging weak minded attacks on
all lawyers.

yfitons
a. wayne harrison, attorney at law.

OT Two things
 

"Wayne Harrison" wrote in news:MoRfc.4782$6m4.349637
@twister.southeast.rr.com:

yfitons
a. wayne harrison, attorney at law.


I always thought it was THE wayne harrison, attorney at law ;)

Scott

OT Two things
 

oh c'mon, it hardly comes close. My point, that you seem to miss, is that
personal injury lawyers are merely specialized professionals, doing their
job.
It is amazing that they receive group criticism from people outside the
profession who haven't a ****ing clue what/how they operate.
Tom

It was a noble try, Tom. But when the graduate of IU's glass navel is
occluded, a constant from everything I've ever seen him post, he's unable to
see anything but shades of sepia or hear anything but the rumbling of his
own peristalsis.

FWIW, attorney's working on contingency basis were of help to me in the
aftermath of my auto accident and injuries. One of the two recovered no
more than I could have without him but was able to prevent me having to pay
for treatments that someone else should have. The other was able to get
more from a workers's comp carrier than I would have. Neither
misrepresented his capabilities or his fees. While I would have liked a
greater recovery, I don't feel that they did anything less than their best.

--
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
Drowning flies to Dark Star

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/i...age92kword.htm

OT Two things
 

Jeff Miller wrote in message news:iSEfc.21421$XP2.8627@lakeread06...

**** me off. if anyone wants to say a specific lawyer is a thief or
charges too much or is an idiot, fine.
....
if there is a particular professional
practice that offends someone's sense of right, ok, name it. you might
be surprised at how many lawyers might agree...

....Ok, I'll try...but first, let me say I've known many fine
lawyers (just had Easter dinner at one's in-laws that we're
friends with), and when my wife and I almost made some life
changes (that would have involved moving) two years ago, my
plan was to go to law school...(for anyone work-related to me,
I'm very happy we stayed!)

Of course, what is below is an outsider's view. I've never
personally hired a lawyer, been in court, been on a jury, etc.
I freely admit my perceptions can be wrong.

0. Legalese. It seems like half of what lawyers get paid to do
is to translate the client's needs into the correct legal mumbo
jumbo. From an outsider's perspective, this amounts to simply
"protecting one's profession". A relatively smart person should
be able to handle most of their own court proceedings themselves,
and should certainly be able to understand the rest without a
lawyer. (actually, I enjoyed hearing the NPR and other news stories
about the trial of Zacharias Moussoui (whatever the spelling)
because it was clear the the judge wanted to help him in every
way possible to defend himself, which is what he chose to do.
That gives me hope!)

1. "ambulance chasers". I can't watch TV without hearing ads for
"hurt in a car wreck? Call the STRONGARM! We'll get you the money
you deserve!" Of course, he's in heavy competition with the
"DYNAMIC DUO". Anyways, for most of us out here, the public face
of lawyering that we see is 99% these asinine radio and car ads.
So forgive us if that's what comes to our mind when we hear the
word "lawyer".

2. Our whole sue-happy society. Our system
has gotten to the point that no one can be human, make an honest
mistake, without at least fearing the impending lawsuit. And
insurance companies seem to feel this too as they are quite
willing to pay immediate settlements as long as you'll waive any
right to any further claims. My mom was once in a fender bender
and the other's insurance company offered her $2K without her
even asking! Since when was life supposed to work perfectly?
And since when are we supposed to hit the lottery just because
it didn't? Of course, all of the above is a statement about
society in general. However, from my perspective the whole
problem stems from the way the judicial and lawyering system is
set up, and it doesn't appear that lawyers have any notion to
try to change it. If the unscrupulous money chasers are a small
percentage of the profession, then why don't we hear the majority
calling for changes in our system? Rather, what I see is that
they defend it, while the rest of the world shakes their heads
at our system.

3. Mega-damage awards, and the corresponding fees awarded to
the lawyers. This is all absolutely ridiculous, as any person
with common sense can see. NO ONE "deserves" $150M for a wrongful
death of a daughter, or whatever! Now before you say that all I
want to do is let companies off the hook, I am NOT against
punitive damages. I'm just against giving them to the plaintiff
and their lawyer. Neither deserve to suddenly "hit the jackpot".
Reward good honest work? Absolutely, let's give the lawyers two,
maybe three times their hourly rate. Reward the plaintiff for
bringing the case? Ok, give them two, maybe three times a middle
class income for their time. Give them enough support if they
have some long-term disability to live with. But make them
sudden millionaires? That I can live without. Same for the
lawyers. If they can't win half their cases (which would let
them average a good wage if they're getting 2x for every winning
case), then maybe they are taking too many frivolous cases, or
just should find other work.

So where would punitive damages go? To the public coffers.
Probably into some special funds to help mitigate the "public"
damage, or to help oversee the industry better that just "lost",
or whatever.

But the way our system is now, the public face of lawyering that
most of us see is a system that wastes tremendous amounts of
money, channels that money to the wrong receipients, and as far
as we can tell is not interested in trying to reform itself. And
all this money doesn't come from nowhere, it comes from each of us
through our insurance premiums, costs of goods, etc., and so it
shouldn't be a surprise that we do get cynical.

Jon.

OT Two things
 

From: Greg Pavlov

On 15 Apr 2004 14:50:02 -0700, (BJ Conner)
wrote:

The barber, the mechanic, the mortgage holder etc. all have a price
and you know what it is going in the door.

That is usually true of the barber, somewhat true
of the mortgage holder, and often untrue of the
mechanic.

Basically because the mechanic usually does'nt know the extent of the problem
when you first bring the car in. In MA, they are required to give an estimate
after diagnosis, and must not exceed the estimate by more than 10% without the
express permission of the customer. Maybe I'm just lucky, but I haven't had a
problem with a mechanic in many years.


George Adams

"All good fishermen stay young until they die, for fishing is the only dream of
youth that doth not grow stale with age."
---- J.W Muller

OT Two things
 

Jonathan Cook wrote:

...Ok, I'll try...
cogent analysis snipped
But the way our system is now, the public face of lawyering that
most of us see is a system that wastes tremendous amounts of
money, channels that money to the wrong receipients, and as far
as we can tell is not interested in trying to reform itself. And
all this money doesn't come from nowhere, it comes from each of us
through our insurance premiums, costs of goods, etc., and so it
shouldn't be a surprise that we do get cynical.

Excellent summary to which I would add;

4. The perception that if you have enough money you can get away with
murder. Literally. It's not that our system of jurisprudence is for sale
exactly, it's that it costs lots of money, much more than John Q. Public
could ever hope to muster, to have a chance of a level playing field in
our courts. Expensive lawyering beats cheap, or free, lawyering most of
the time and while that's why good lawyers become expensive lawyers it
is a terrible indictment against our legal system.

--
Ken Fortenberry

OT Two things
 

Jeff Miller wrote in message news:LpEfc.21161$XP2.17592@lakeread06...
BJ Conner wrote:


The barber, the mechanic, the mortgage holder etc. all have a price
and you know what it is going in the door.
The lawyer is the one that says " how much have you got? "

...without equivocation bj, you're simply full of ****. your gross
generalizations continue to astound me... but, i guess every toad is
entitled to croak the song that defines its nature...

jeff

Sorry your so upset jeff.
If you can find out wheather Brittanie Cecil's family contacted the
lawyers or the lawyers contacted the family I like to know. It's that
later in so many cases that has raised the public esteem for your
profession.
Most professions police themselves to some extent and throw out the
trash. Some professions seem to worship them.

OT Two things
 

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in
message ...
...Expensive lawyering beats cheap, or free, lawyering most of
the time and while that's why good lawyers become expensive lawyers
it
is a terrible indictment against our legal system.

Expensive plumbering beats cheap, or free, plumbering most of the time
and while that's why good plumbers become expensive plumbers it is a
terrible indictment against our plumbing system. Ho hum.

As Adam Gopnik noted, being smarter than you sound is usually better
than sounding smarter than you are. He could have added that it's
also better than trying to convince yourself that you have a reason to
live by deliberately ****ing off what few friends you have left via a
haphazard jumble of trite banalities and pretending that it's the
result of a nonexistent point of view.

If you are serious about making a living by writing and, more
importantly, expect to be taken seriously, then you should understand
something. It probably doesn't make much difference what it
is......but something. Then, write about that.

Wolfgang
who, frankly, doesn't hold out much hope for someone who aspires to be
an asshole but can't manage any more than ass.

OT Two things
 

Wolfgang wrote:

Expensive plumbering beats cheap, or free, plumbering most of the time
and while that's why good plumbers become expensive plumbers it is a
terrible indictment against our plumbing system. Ho hum.

That's a stupid analogy. It's not reasonable for the rich to expect
better treatment from the courts than the poor.

As Adam Gopnik noted, being smarter than you sound is usually better
than sounding smarter than you are. He could have added that it's
also better than trying to convince yourself that you have a reason to
live by deliberately ****ing off what few friends you have left via a
haphazard jumble of trite banalities and pretending that it's the
result of a nonexistent point of view.

And THAT is just plain stupid. I realize you rarely read the nonsense
you spew here but when you spout spurious accusations about someone
else's "reason to live" you've crossed the line between manikin
nuisance and offensive jerk.


If you are serious about making a living by writing and, more
importantly, expect to be taken seriously, then you should understand
something. It probably doesn't make much difference what it
is......but something. Then, write about that.

I understand this, no student of human nature unfortunate enough
to have read your self-aggrandizing, masturbatory screeds here would
be the least bit surprised to discover that you stand about 5 foot nil.
Your particular pathology is so transparent and predictable it's been
given a syndrome name in the vernacular.

Although, to be fair, I must admit I have never actually seen you
stick your right hand into your vest.

--
Ken Fortenberry

OT Two things
 

I never thought I'd see the day when I'd agree with both Wolfgang and
Fortenberry. :-)

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

OT Two things
 

In article .net, rw56
says...
I never thought I'd see the day when I'd agree with both Wolfgang and
Fortenberry. :-)



Of course it's rather like watching a battle to the death between
Hitler and SH. It's fun to watch, but how can you root for one
over the other?

- Ken

OT Two things
 

From: Greg Pavlov

(George Adams)
wrote:

Basically because the mechanic usually does'nt know the extent of the
problem
when you first bring the car in. ...

Compared to the uncertainty of what a defendant, a jury,
a judge, or even the plaintiff may do, and the uncertainty
of what the evidence may show once every one has dug into
it...

Exactly. And that is precisely why legal fees can escalate very quickly, and it
is very difficult to estimate them at the start.


George Adams

"All good fishermen stay young until they die, for fishing is the only dream of
youth that doth not grow stale with age."
---- J.W Muller

OT Two things
 

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
...
Wolfgang wrote:

Expensive plumbering beats cheap, or free, plumbering most of the time
and while that's why good plumbers become expensive plumbers it is a
terrible indictment against our plumbing system. Ho hum.

That's a stupid analogy.

That's not an analogy. That's a statement of fact. Care to dispute it?

It's not reasonable for the rich to expect
better treatment from the courts than the poor.

You've never been rich.....or poor. Proudly ignorant.....that much I'll
grant you.

As Adam Gopnik noted, being smarter than you sound is usually better
than sounding smarter than you are. He could have added that it's
also better than trying to convince yourself that you have a reason to
live by deliberately ****ing off what few friends you have left via a
haphazard jumble of trite banalities and pretending that it's the
result of a nonexistent point of view.

And THAT is just plain stupid. I realize you rarely read the nonsense
you spew here

You don't know ****. I ALWAYS read what I post here. I'm a reader.

but when you spout spurious accusations about someone
else's "reason to live" you've crossed the line between manikin
nuisance and offensive jerk.

Hm.....you find me offensive. I got a shiny new nickel say I'm not the
only one here who finds that amusing. :)

If you are serious about making a living by writing and, more
importantly, expect to be taken seriously, then you should understand
something. It probably doesn't make much difference what it
is......but something. Then, write about that.

I understand this, no student of human nature unfortunate enough
to have read your self-aggrandizing, masturbatory screeds here would
be the least bit surprised to discover that you stand about 5 foot nil.

Well, that IS interesting. Most people who HAVE met me would venture that
I'm a bit taller than that. What's your best guess?

Your particular pathology is so transparent and predictable it's been
given a syndrome name in the vernacular.

Although, to be fair, I must admit I have never actually seen you
stick your right hand into your vest.

Blah, blah, blah. O.k., I confess. I REALLY don't get it. You get EXACTLY
what you want and then you don't seem to like it. What's up with that?
Think about it......take your time. :)

Wolfgang

OT Two things
 

"rw" wrote in message
link.net...
I never thought I'd see the day when I'd agree with both Wolfgang and
Fortenberry. :-)

That's because you're stupid. Don't worry about it.

Wolfgang

OT Two things
 

wrote in message
...
In article .net, rw56
says...
I never thought I'd see the day when I'd agree with both Wolfgang and
Fortenberry. :-)



Of course it's rather like watching a battle to the death between
Hitler and SH. It's fun to watch, but how can you root for one
over the other?

Ah, life as a spectator! :)

Some people aspire to more.......but don't you worry about it.

Wolfgang
who realizes that letting one's reach exceed one's grasp is not for
everybody.

OT Two things
 

Wolfgang wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
Wolfgang wrote:

Expensive plumbering beats cheap, or free, plumbering most of the time
and while that's why good plumbers become expensive plumbers it is a
terrible indictment against our plumbing system. Ho hum.

That's a stupid analogy.

That's not an analogy. ...

EOT for me.

--
Ken Fortenberry

OT Two things
 

Jonathan Cook wrote:



Of course, what is below is an outsider's view. I've never
personally hired a lawyer, been in court, been on a jury, etc.
I freely admit my perceptions can be wrong.

fair enough...


0. Legalese. It seems like half of what lawyers get paid to do
is to translate the client's needs into the correct legal mumbo
jumbo. From an outsider's perspective, this amounts to simply
"protecting one's profession". A relatively smart person should
be able to handle most of their own court proceedings themselves,
and should certainly be able to understand the rest without a
lawyer. (actually, I enjoyed hearing the NPR and other news stories
about the trial of Zacharias Moussoui (whatever the spelling)
because it was clear the the judge wanted to help him in every
way possible to defend himself, which is what he chose to do.
That gives me hope!)

actually, the trend since the 70s has been away from "legalese" in
contracts, legal writing, and court matters - thanks mainly to sensible
folks who also happened to be lawyers and law profs. still, there are
some concepts, rules, etc. rooted in the common law we brought over from
merry old england that persist in the jurisprudence, but they are rare.
i'm unsure what you mean by "legal mumbo jumbo". i suspect you are
basing this opinion on fiction novels or tv programs, but your state's
system may be geared to old, settled practices rooted in legalese. i
can only say it is not the case in nc. a lawyer would look and sound and
be regarded as foolish if he or she used the archaic latin terms or
legalese in any trial before a jury or judge.

with regard to your other complaint, i'm not sure "legalese" is what you
mean. i think a relatively smart person can handle their own court
proceedings. many do. your real complaint seems aimed at the fact that
there are rules and procedures and institutional knowledge that apply to
court proceedings which limit the ability of those ignorant of the
rules/procedures etc. to represent themselves. but, isn't that true
with regard to the work of all professionals? accountants? engineers?
doctors? dentists? architects? race car mechanics? the rules and
procedures generally have a common sense purpose to assure stability,
reliability, uniformity, etc in court matters. most aren't complicated
to understand or apply. but they don't come imprinted in a 2 page
do-it-yourself brochure either.

it is far from unusual for a judge to be helpful to an unrepresented
party in court. it's a daily event in my county.



1. "ambulance chasers". I can't watch TV without hearing ads for
"hurt in a car wreck? Call the STRONGARM! We'll get you the money
you deserve!" Of course, he's in heavy competition with the
"DYNAMIC DUO". Anyways, for most of us out here, the public face
of lawyering that we see is 99% these asinine radio and car ads.
So forgive us if that's what comes to our mind when we hear the
word "lawyer".

agreed. it's a troubling issue to any lawyer who deeply cares about the
ideals and image of his/her profession - and there are more of us than
you probably think. i believe such lawyer advertising was and is
resisted by a majority of lawyers. we were/are criticized for that
resistance; now we're criticized and suffering for what the "free
speech" has wrought. it's certainly not pretty. it originated from a
greedy few wielding a valid constitutional argument; it is still the
province of what i consider a greedy few. i despise any type of direct,
mail, television, or radio solicitation... i've never thought of clients
as "customers". most organized state bars and attorneys continue in
their attempts to control unseemly and deceptive ads. the first
amendment prevents most broad regulatory attempts.

still, i'm also troubled that you and others i consider thinking people
are content to accept such tv or radio content as defining the character
of an entire profession. kinda like saying osama defines the muslim
population. i'd wager the tv and radio characters comprise less than 10%
of the licensed attorneys. certainly there are lawyers in your community
who serve without pay in numerous civic, government, community, and
charitable organizations? certainly, there are lawyers in your community
whose reputation grew from ability and their hard, honest work on behalf
of clients or governments, and not from some smarmy tv ad?


2. Our whole sue-happy society. Our system
has gotten to the point that no one can be human, make an honest
mistake, without at least fearing the impending lawsuit. And
insurance companies seem to feel this too as they are quite
willing to pay immediate settlements as long as you'll waive any
right to any further claims. My mom was once in a fender bender
and the other's insurance company offered her $2K without her
even asking! Since when was life supposed to work perfectly?
And since when are we supposed to hit the lottery just because
it didn't? Of course, all of the above is a statement about
society in general. However, from my perspective the whole
problem stems from the way the judicial and lawyering system is
set up, and it doesn't appear that lawyers have any notion to
try to change it. If the unscrupulous money chasers are a small
percentage of the profession, then why don't we hear the majority
calling for changes in our system? Rather, what I see is that
they defend it, while the rest of the world shakes their heads
at our system.


the term "sue-happy" is one of those words generously used by critics of
the civil justice system. i don't believe it is an accurate claim based
on facts. i think the data actually shows the opposite of your belief.
the number of lawsuits per capita has remained at about the same level,
if not declined, over the past 10 or more years.

the statistics on litigation indicate that overall personal injury
litigation has been decreasing in this country. "Tort lawsuit filings
decreased 9% since 1992, according to the country's most accurate and
comprehensive overview of state court litigation statistics. (Examining
the Work of State Courts, 2002, a joint project of the Conference of
State Court Administrators, the Bureau of Justice Statistics and the
National Center for State Courts' Court Statistics projects.)"

data reported by the Rand Institute in 1991 indicated each year one in
six Americans sustained an injury serious enough to cause some economic
loss. Yet for the typical injury, the injured person does not even
consider the notion of seeking compensation from some other person or
entity. Only 10 percent ever file a claim,which includes informal
demands and insurance claims. Only two percent file a lawsuit. The study
concludes that these statistics are at odds with any notion that we live
in an overly litigious society. See, Compensation for Accidental
Injuries in the United States,Rand Institute for Civil Justice (1991).

http://www.newsaic.com/mwcivil.html

(the link has supporting cites - best i could do in a hurry)

but, no question, the fear and threat of lawsuits is a motivating force.
i hope you agree, some of that is a good thing to the extent it
motivates responsible, reasonable behavior.

we've developed on a foundation of principled personal freedoms and
responsibilities. if you intentionally or negligently hurt someone, what
is your responsibility to them? what is the value of your child? folks
seem to have no problem accepting a painting's value or a yacht's value
or a building's value at millions of dollars, and, if that stuff is
damaged, they have no problem with damage reimbursements at those
levels; but, for some reason, your mom or daughter deserve a lesser
consideration? is it unscrupulous for a lawyer to suggest to a judge or
jury that your mother or child is worth as much money as air force one?
how do we reconstruct your mom or child?

the insurance industry is among the wealthiest and most influential in
our country. it has done a remarkable public relations job carping
about a litigation or cost crisis, much of it through direct ads in
mailings, as well as in the print and tv media. it's just not so. the
industry rarely offers the full value they believe is reasonably due a
deserving claimant. it would be interesting to have the statistics on
the claim reserve vs. claim paid data for cases in your area. you should
read some of the trial testimony and facts in bad-faith cases brought
against insurance companies for denying valid claims for payment in
first-party cases (payments due their own insureds). in those cases, you
get to see the ugly innards of insurance decision-making.

what defines or demarcates a lawyer to you as an "unscrupulous money
chaser"? that's one of those ad hominem remarks that does little to
advance a constructive dialogue.

3. Mega-damage awards, and the corresponding fees awarded to
the lawyers. This is all absolutely ridiculous, as any person
with common sense can see. NO ONE "deserves" $150M for a wrongful
death of a daughter, or whatever! Now before you say that all I
want to do is let companies off the hook, I am NOT against
punitive damages. I'm just against giving them to the plaintiff
and their lawyer. Neither deserve to suddenly "hit the jackpot".
Reward good honest work? Absolutely, let's give the lawyers two,
maybe three times their hourly rate. Reward the plaintiff for
bringing the case? Ok, give them two, maybe three times a middle
class income for their time. Give them enough support if they
have some long-term disability to live with. But make them
sudden millionaires? That I can live without. Same for the
lawyers. If they can't win half their cases (which would let
them average a good wage if they're getting 2x for every winning
case), then maybe they are taking too many frivolous cases, or
just should find other work.

So where would punitive damages go? To the public coffers.
Probably into some special funds to help mitigate the "public"
damage, or to help oversee the industry better that just "lost",
or whatever.

But the way our system is now, the public face of lawyering that
most of us see is a system that wastes tremendous amounts of
money, channels that money to the wrong receipients, and as far
as we can tell is not interested in trying to reform itself. And
all this money doesn't come from nowhere, it comes from each of us
through our insurance premiums, costs of goods, etc., and so it
shouldn't be a surprise that we do get cynical.


it's the generalized, uninformed vitriol that ****es me off. you, and a
few others have offered *some* reasonable criticisms and comments ...
though most are directed at unique or abnormal circumstances. fees
aren't awarded...they are usually a product of a voluntarily executed
contract describing the terms of employment.

you also overlook the jury in your comments, and i think your
conclusions are generated from anecdotal or extremely limited instances.
most data-based studies seem to reach a contrary conclusion.

here's an interesting article that seems balanced in its arguments...
supports some of your concerns, disputes others.

http://www.dukemagazine.duke.edu/alu...2/lit.txt.html

punitive damages are intended as punishment for egregious, wanton
misconduct. they are extremely rare and difficult in proof. some state
laws do provide for payment of the punitives to the state or charitable
agencies. there are constitutional limits on punitive damages, and many
states impose caps. nc limits punitives to 3 times the compensatory
damages or 250,000, whichever is greater... still, i think there is a
problem with the state taking or diverting all of an individual's
property, i.e., the punitive damage award, without sharing in the risk
and cost of the recovery of those damages.

thanks for taking the time to express your personal views in a rational
way. though i disagree with many of your statements, i appreciate and
respect your comments. i think if you spent some time investigating your
state's organized bar (the regulatory/licensing agency, and the
voluntary bar association), you would find them discussing in a
positive, constructive manner many of the issues you raise. you would
also find a lot of genuinely good, honest, idealistic, dedicated people.
i'm sure there will be some assholes too.

jeff

OT Two things
 

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Wolfgang wrote:

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:

Wolfgang wrote:

Expensive plumbering beats cheap, or free, plumbering most of the time
and while that's why good plumbers become expensive plumbers it is a
terrible indictment against our plumbing system. Ho hum.


That's a stupid analogy.


That's not an analogy. ...


EOT for me.

I've always thought it's funny when someone has to announce his
departure, obviously in a snit. Why not just stop posting to the thread?
Is it like anyone else cares? I've done it once or twice, and felt
rather silly afterward.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

OT Two things
 

Jeff Miller wrote:

punitive damages are intended as punishment for egregious, wanton
misconduct. they are extremely rare and difficult in proof. some state
laws do provide for payment of the punitives to the state or charitable
agencies. there are constitutional limits on punitive damages, and many
states impose caps. nc limits punitives to 3 times the compensatory
damages or 250,000, whichever is greater... still, i think there is a
problem with the state taking or diverting all of an individual's
property, i.e., the punitive damage award, without sharing in the risk
and cost of the recovery of those damages.

The right-wing cause of "tort reform" is an attempt to make real damages
just a part of doing business (as usual).

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

OT Two things
 

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
...
Wolfgang wrote:
"Ken Fortenberry" wrote:
Wolfgang wrote:

Expensive plumbering beats cheap, or free, plumbering most of the time
and while that's why good plumbers become expensive plumbers it is a
terrible indictment against our plumbing system. Ho hum.

That's a stupid analogy.

That's not an analogy. ...

EOT for me.

Buh bye! :)

Wolfgang

OT Two things
 

"Jeff Miller" wrote in message
news:eq%fc.25518$XP2.23164@lakeread06...


...thanks for taking the time to express your personal views in a rational
way. though i disagree with many of your statements, i appreciate and
respect your comments. i think if you spent some time investigating your
state's organized bar (the regulatory/licensing agency, and the
voluntary bar association), you would find them discussing in a
positive, constructive manner many of the issues you raise. you would
also find a lot of genuinely good, honest, idealistic, dedicated people.
i'm sure there will be some assholes too.

remainder snipped in the interest of brevity

Good stuff, Jeff. You should do this for a living. :)

Nevertheless, a bit of perspective from the other side of the bar.......as
it were.

First, I simply do not understand the controversy over attorneys advertising
in the mass media. I recall that it was considered a major issue here a few
years ago, but was never clear about why anyone objected. If their
advertising is representative of their professional skills (by no means a
certainty, but there it is, right out there in front of God and everybody)
one can simply eliminate the vast majority of those who choose to make fools
of themselves publicly (and who are a minuscule minority of practicing
attorneys, judging by the listings in the yellow pages) can simply be
eliminated from consideration by anyone needing legal assistance. Of
course, one could argue that the ads are produced by someone else but,
obviously, they will never be aired unless approved and paid for by the
customer. Bottom line is that the educated consumer's choices are made
easier.

Second, with regard to "legalese", it should be noted that a lot of what
appears to be arcane and deliberately obfuscatory is simply archaic. It
doesn't take a legal scholar to know that the law is to a great extent
tradition and precedent bound. Linguistic forms that are obscure and
confusing to many today were quite clear to those literate persons who
depended on them a few decades to a couple of centuries ago. The robber
barons (many of them with only minimal formal education) would never have
become what they were without a fundamental grasp of the legal issues facing
them......and how to work them to their own advantage. If the legal system
as a whole is guilty of anything here.....and it is.....it is simply a
failure to reform its language into a modern idiom, a fault shared by
virtually every entrenched bureaucracy. At any rate, anyone who didn't
entirely waste the taxpayers money from first grade through high school
should be able to deal with most of what comes his or her way without
assistance. To be sure, there are numerous examples of egregious
obfuscation (financial institutions in general are especially culpable), but
the blame for this can hardly be laid entirely at the feet of the legal
system as a whole.

Third, lawyers may or may not make a great deal more money than the rest of
us. They appear to be no more or less forthcoming about their personal
finances than most other people. We had a couple of plumbers here at the
house for about three hours a couple of weeks ago. They left us with a
clear kitchen drain. All it took was jamming $500 dollars through it.
Handing over $500 dollars and not having something shiny, new and fun to
show for it sucks. At the remove of a couple of weeks it is possible, if
not necessarily pleasant, to state that a sink full of slimy ****....and the
prospect of such being a permanent condition....sucks worse. In a similar
vein, I've recently had occasion to solicit the services of an attorney in
order to avoid payment of over $8,000 resulting from a bureaucratic
cluster****.....a sum for which I am not legitimately responsible but would
have found extremely difficult, if not impossible, to avoid for reasons that
I won't go into here. Suffice to say that the average citizen is more or
less powerless in dealing by telephone with faceless and unsympathetic
bureaucrats whose sole function is to get the money. An attorney, on the
other hand, gets their immediate and undivided attention. Assuming that
his efforts are successful (and I have good reason to have faith in him),
his services are worth a lot to me. ****, I'd much rather give him the
entire amount than pay it to the *******s trying to gouge it out of me.

Fourth, as has been noted, there are few situations in which anyone in this
country can be compelled to have professional legal representation. I'm no
authority, but as I understand it, here in Wisconsin that can only happen to
someone who has been legally declared incompetent by a court of law, and
that's not an easy thing to bring about. When push comes to shove, any
****wit who wants to can bring a knife to a gunfight.

And last (for now, anyway), I have little patience with the idiotic
arguments against large damage awards. Consumers pay for EVERYTHING....it
makes no difference whatsoever how the books are shuffled. People become
millionaires as a result of losing a loved one or a limb or two? Good! The
only reform needed is to take the money directly from the pockets of the
millionaires and billionaires who control the machinery whereby such
incidents occur and do so without a shred of personal legal responsibility
for their actions. The U.S. government's recent milking of the cash cow
that is the cigarette industry was as disgusting as it was predictable.
About the only thing that could have mitigated this vomitous charade would
be setting aside enough funds to ensure the execution of top tobacco
industry executives (as many as it might take, and for as long as necessary)
to get the rest to see the light. It should not be necessary to add that
there are many other legitimate candidates in virtually every industry.

Wolfgang

OT Two things
 

Wolfgang wrote:



First, I simply do not understand the controversy over attorneys advertising
in the mass media. I recall that it was considered a major issue here a few
years ago, but was never clear about why anyone objected.

my objection: 1) it's rarely necessary for a competent professional to
advertise his/her services; 2) the advertising is generally not
representative of competency or ability; 3) it actually serves to delude
and misinform almost as much if not more than it serves to provide
useful information for consumers of legal services; 4) it reduces or
detracts from the genuine ideals of a great profession by focusing
energy and thought on commercialism; 5) it marginalizes lawyers, making
them seek ever better and more competitive ads for the sole purpose of
increasing caseloads instead of being better professionals; 6) it allows
the inexperienced and incompetent to gain footholds they neither deserve
nor ought to occupy; 7) it's about GREED!! pure and simple, not about
helping educate or serve or rendering assistance. There's more, but you
get my drift.

i don't advertise beyond having my name in the phone book with a small
(very small) yellow page descriptor of my areas of practice. i worked a
lot of years learning my profession and discovering what i believe to be
its true value. i'll never be rich, i make a decent living, but nothing
extraordinary and probably less than many of the non-lawyers here. i
think i'm typical of the mainstream of private lawyers.



Second, with regard to "legalese", it should be noted that a lot of what
appears to be arcane and deliberately obfuscatory is simply archaic. It
doesn't take a legal scholar to know that the law is to a great extent
tradition and precedent bound.

you've said it better than i...


Third, lawyers may or may not make a great deal more money than the rest of
us.

most make a decent living; but, probably not what many in the public
assume. i'd venture many insurance agents have larger incomes than the
typical attorney's income after operating expenses.


Fourth, as has been noted, there are few situations in which anyone in this
country can be compelled to have professional legal representation. I'm no
authority, but as I understand it, here in Wisconsin that can only happen to
someone who has been legally declared incompetent by a court of law, and
that's not an easy thing to bring about.

also, abused and neglected children receive their own appointed counsel
in nc.


And last (for now, anyway), I have little patience with the idiotic
arguments against large damage awards. Consumers pay for EVERYTHING....

jon's argument seemed rooted in notions of a human being's worth or
value, unscrupulous money-grabbing, as well as the popular complaint
about the shifting & absorption of costs because of civil litigation.
it's interesting that many trust juries to make correct decisions about
whether a life should be snuffed out, but on the other hand don't trust
them to assess the value of a human life or the issues in a civil case
where only money is at issue.

anyway...off to work for a while, then heading east to see if i can have
a talk with a few puppy drum...

jeff

OT Two things
 

"Jeff Miller" wrote in message
news:ib9gc.25630$XP2.8290@lakeread06...


Wolfgang wrote:



First, I simply do not understand the controversy over attorneys
advertising
in the mass media. I recall that it was considered a major issue here a
few
years ago, but was never clear about why anyone objected.

my objection: ....There's more, but you
get my drift.

Sure. But all this does is confirm that your profession is subject to the
same natural laws as any other. If advertising legal services highlights
the shortcomings of some of the practioners, then we can only hope that
physicians, airline pilots, power plant operators, chemical engineers, etc.,
will follow suit.......so to speak.

i don't advertise beyond having my name in the phone book with a small
(very small) yellow page descriptor of my areas of practice. i worked a
lot of years learning my profession and discovering what i believe to be
its true value. i'll never be rich, i make a decent living, but nothing
extraordinary and probably less than many of the non-lawyers here. i
think i'm typical of the mainstream of private lawyers.

Well, having fished, walked, talked and drunk beer with you, I'd aver that
your last assertion above is preposterous. As to the rest of it, I'm in no
position to offer an opinion of legitimate interest to any thinking human
being. :)

Second, with regard to "legalese", it should be noted that a lot of what
appears to be arcane and deliberately obfuscatory is simply archaic. It
doesn't take a legal scholar to know that the law is to a great extent
tradition and precedent bound.

you've said it better than i...

Only because I did and you didn't.

Third, lawyers may or may not make a great deal more money than the rest
of
us.

most make a decent living; but, probably not what many in the public
assume. i'd venture many insurance agents have larger incomes than the
typical attorney's income after operating expenses.

Oddly enough, I once worked as an insurance agent......for Mutual of Omaha.
One can only hope that North Carolina has a liberal food stamp program.
:)

Fourth, as has been noted, there are few situations in which anyone in
this
country can be compelled to have professional legal representation. I'm
no
authority, but as I understand it, here in Wisconsin that can only
happen to
someone who has been legally declared incompetent by a court of law, and
that's not an easy thing to bring about.

also, abused and neglected children receive their own appointed counsel
in nc.

Of course. Good point. I hadn't thought of minors. I'm not sure what the
law says about legal representation for them here in WI, but I suspect they
have little say in the matter.

And last (for now, anyway), I have little patience with the idiotic
arguments against large damage awards. Consumers pay for EVERYTHING....

jon's argument seemed rooted in notions of a human being's worth or
value, unscrupulous money-grabbing, as well as the popular complaint
about the shifting & absorption of costs because of civil litigation.

Again, of course. And we all know that in a general sense a human being's
worth is incalculable. However, I suspect even Jon knows that no two
individual human lives are necessarily of equal worth. In fact, no one but
an abject fool can be unaware that valuation begins somewhere around that of
half a jar of cold **** and ranges upward. Feigned (or worse yet, REAL)
allegiance to various philosophical and religious absurdities
notwithstanding, no one but a congenital idiot really believes that that
life of a child and that of say.......oh......a serial rapist or the chief
executive officer of a major mutinational corporation......are of equal
value. Money grabbing? Puhlease!


it's interesting that many trust juries to make correct decisions about
whether a life should be snuffed out, but on the other hand don't trust
them to assess the value of a human life or the issues in a civil case
where only money is at issue.

Interesting? You've got a gift for understatement, my friend. The absolute
refusal to think is always FASCINATING.

anyway...off to work for a while, then heading east to see if i can have
a talk with a few puppy drum...

Well then, by the time you read this you will doubtless have earned
congratulations on a day well spent.......or condolences......for something
or other. In either case, I offer mine. :)

Wolfgang
who planted raspberries today!