Yeah, I'm almost sure all the idiots out there doing their planking have that subtext in mind. Especially all the people of color who see all these people of every color doing it. Yeah, that's it. Just another subtle way the man is pulling us down. Thanks for telling me.

Yeah, probably 90% of the woman on OKC claim passion is the most important aspect of a relationship. I find I'm more attracted to the ones who choose dedication.

My experience has been that women are far more willing to bad mouth and embellish about a guy than guys do about women. Not sure why that is, but I liken it to having a discussion with someone who practices revisionist history - ALL THE TIME. Personally, if I have a sour experience, I've already wasted enough time,…

One problem right off the bat with the book is the fact that she accepts Scientology's definition of the word, when the word wasn't even coined by L Ron. He stole the the word and redefined it from an obscure German manuscript. If I recall correctly, the German book was published in the twenties. I have held an…

Yeah I gotta go with the flow (npi) on this one. I've been all over the world, often staying in one city or another for weeks at a time (job stuff) and SF bums are by far the craziest, most dangerous, and just general all-out badass. I once got robbed at gunpoint by a pile of rags sleeping in a doorway in SF. Plus,…

I completely see your pointless argument. And your argument is indeed based on the motion (or don't you read your posts.) "He's asking the judge to check this woman's credentials and have her removed if she's not necessary because the plaintiff's lawyer has a history of using her for nefarious purposes." Your words…

My "incredibly general assumptions" were made based on the obvious ignorance of the law you displayed in making your argument. Attorneys should know better than to make claims of past behavior by opposing counsel in motion papers for a myriad of reasons. Certainly he could say something to the judge verbally. But…

Right now I have Kanazawa in a run-away. Strauss-Kahn still gets a trial. And we don't know everything.

@baldvicky: You obviously know nothing of the law and of trials. Get a book, read up on Motion Practice, and you MIGHT start to understand how many ways you're wrong.

@neonclaws: That's the great thing about the law. Inferring is essentially meaningless. And in fact, judges don't make decisions based on inference. That's a quick trip to getting your decisions overturned.

Since nobody here has read the actual motion, all of this is bullshit. So what if the paralegal has large breasts. What if she's drop dead gorgeous. (not that they're same thing, they're not) Is he going to protest that this beautiful woman serves no purpose? What if she has a visible handicap? Is that reason…

The idea of a paralegal never sitting at counsel's table is bullshit. I'm a paralegal, and I've sat at counsel's table in three of the five trials I've worked on. And when I wasn't at the table I was sitting right behind them in the gallery. And I've always sat there when working arbitrations, be they international…

I find it especially enlightening that next to this article deriding the objectification of the female form, is the listing of an item on Jezebel called "Thighlights", Your ticket to Melbourne's Annual Parade of Thighs. Ostensibly about Australian Rules Football Tournament.

I don't know about the "an actress is only as good as her mammary glands" statement. I think the Fox piece of crap says more about how she actually ISN'T any good as an actress, and the only thing she HAD going for her was her admittedly attractive body.

Classic foot bullet. Personally I don't know of any geniuses that are capable of so perfectly shooting themselves in an extremity. Kudos to you Mr. Adams. Oh, by the way, start saving your pennies, because your syndication is about to drop out from under you like a hanging platform.