Borat... omg what? - by Oneiroscope
Stitch on 10/11/2006 at 20:53
Quote Posted by TheGreatGodPan
Even if everything they claim is correct, I'm still calling it frivolous. Yeah, there's a strict legal definition of the word "frivolous" or whatever, but that's what I consider it.
Here's hoping Daveh and Geebums are secretly manipulating you into participating in a phenomenally popular documentary about internet use amongst retarded kids.
Rug Burn Junky on 10/11/2006 at 21:07
Quote Posted by pavlovscat
words.
Oh yeah, and the results of a five minute old google search containing shit I already knew.I can only assume, if you actually are remotely familiar with the facts, that your interpretation is then lacking, because either you didn't know what the facts were, or you don't realize that IT DOESN'T FUCKING SUPPORT WHATEVER RETARDED POINT YOU WERE TRYING TO MAKE BECAUSE IT
WAS FOUND TO BE MCDONALD'S FAULT.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, contributory negligence and all that. Trust me, I understand that far better than you do, especially if you're using it to support your point (oy vey). Hell, I happened to have taken a couple of big tests on the subject. 90% of tort cases involve it in some fashion, and the only thing of note about the hot coffee case is that ignorant fucknuts like yourself who don't understand it keep bringing it up to point out absurdities which don't exist in the legal system or as a blanket misguided way to criticize plaintiffs.
People bringing up "hurr suing over hot coffee" is like a genetic marker for Tard.
Turtle on 10/11/2006 at 21:09
Quote Posted by Stitch
Agreed, but that's not really the issue here.
True.
I'm thinking if they're trying to keep their identities secret at this point, they're not going to want to step into a courtroom or in front of the media and admit that they were misinformed about the documents they signed when they made racist and sexist statements on camera.
Most likely they're fishing for settlements.
Convict on 11/11/2006 at 03:12
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
Plus, if their judgment were significantly impaired - especially at the prompting of the producers - then the act of consent may be invalid.
Does the legal issue of (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent) informed consent apply to this case? I don't know if it applies generally or only in specific instances such as surgery? (And differences in the law for the USA)
Para?noid on 11/11/2006 at 17:10
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
Thing is, that presupposes that you're being fundamentally honest with them.
Yeah, that was my assumption. It's a big movie; one would naturally assume that Cohen's management would want to play this shit straight.
Stitch on 11/11/2006 at 17:23
Problem is if they played their shit straight there wouldn't even be a Borat movie.
Aerothorn on 11/11/2006 at 18:22
RBJ needs to come to my school.
I've had two teachers make ignorant comments about the McDonald's Coffee case, and I tried to explain to one of them (the other is too unreasonable for me to even bother) the facts of the case but they just didn't understand, I think I sucked at explaining it.
TheGreatGodPan on 11/11/2006 at 22:45
Quote Posted by Stitch
Here's hoping Daveh and Geebums are secretly manipulating you into participating in a phenomenally popular documentary about internet use amongst retarded kids.
Legally speaking, I'm a retarded adult, so that documentary should be in the clear.
SD on 12/11/2006 at 05:26
Quote Posted by Convict
tricking gypsies
I don't see any reference to gypsies in that article :confused:
