Fatter than Joey

Yeah -- We seem to be all over the map with "bad movie" -- I don't think bad should mean, something that we personally don't like, or movies like Airplane, that are dumb -- but really a great movie. I think the original poster is looking for movies that bombed beyound recognition -- I think of movies like Catwoman, Showgirls, Spice World, The Stupids, Speed2, etc... I don't think Johnny Dangerously, National Treasure, Independence Day are what the original poster is looking for -- at least that is my interpretation.

Eckersly + Smoltz = Aflac answer

Nice throw!

Cmon Sheets go yard. Anyone know Ben's bases loaded splits?

Anyone know why Bret's playing a solo show in Waukesha on June 8th? Why would anyone sign Bret Michaels to a gig, when we know TBA is in the area. I know he has a new show coming out -- he is probably pimping that I would guess.

5 stars all the way.

I used to watch the Clayton Moore show on reruns after school -- and then there was a cartoon as well, I think that they showed with Tarzan. I liked the Lone Ranger well enough, however, my favorite western serial was Have Gun Will Travel.

But in so doing, you must understand there is a vast audience that will be left without a place to speak their mind because they are afraid people will mock their grammer "grammer" should be "grammar" http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif Actually -- in all fairness, I think this community does a great job skipping over typos and mis-spellings, and focusing more on the content and message of posts.

Serial one-liners The ones I don't like are the ones that do not add anything to the thread. For example: Thread: -- "Whats your favorite movie" Post: -- Movies are stupid. Another example are the "remain calm/don't jump off the bridge" that seem to crop up whenever a thread pops up calling out a player or manager.

I dont think Airplane can be considered a "bad" movie. To me -- the answer to this question is a definitive one. The pure genius that is: Gymkata. For you younger cats, you need to see this movie, although its awesomeness may have kept it off of DVDs.

This is probably even a business-savvy move, as the media coverage will probably get him more customers when he opens the pumps again. It's probably business savy on a number of levels. Gas stations lose cash-flow when gas prices increase rapidly, essentially they have to replenish their stock for more than their last stock sold for. (They get it back when the prices drop). The other thing I would guess is that more people are putting their gas on the plastic, and that chips away at their margin as well.

If you read earlier discussions on this site, you'll see that Fatter Than Joey is no proponent of personal responsibility. This isn't at all true, at least how you intend -- If you actually read what I wrote, -- I believe that everybody has personal responsibility not just Josh Hancock, I believe Hancock has PR, the bartender, the tow-truck driver, etc. Now, I am not a proponent of establishing a government based on the fallacy that everybody is responsible enough to govern themselves. -- If that is what you were driving at, then you were spot on -- however that is not relevant to the thread. His opinions on this come as no surprise to me at all. This shows you are retaining something which is good. I fail to see how sliming FTJ helps make your point, or any point for that matter. This is sage advice. However, what Bwaz fails to mention -- is that sliming on the FtotheTtotheJ isn't going to help you at all with the ladies, as I am their catnip.

I used to work at a radio station that used "Still the One" by Orleans as it's theme. I hate that song.

If cars needed to be able to get 50 mpg in order to be competitive in the market, I bet that car manufacturers would find a way to make that happen. Maybe -- the thing about SUVs is that the SUV market is where all the gravy is for the auto manufacturers. My guess is that the auto industry hangs on to that tooth and nail.

Do you remember how bad the Spurs were the year before (without Robinson and Elliot)? I don't remember if they were a fringe lottery team or if they were really bad. They went something like this Playoffs Lottery Playoffs The year they won the lottery they blew hard -- I don't think they were the worst -- but I think they were in that top-3 group -- they weren't a long shot to win it, or at least that is how I recall it.

Lets say that the Spurs had lost Duncan for most of they year and they just missed the playoffs... This is exactly how they got Duncan -- They had gone to (and I think won a series) the playoffs, and then Robinson and Sean Elliot got hurt the following year and then they won the lottery and drafted Duncan -- and then made the playoffs everytime since.

There is a dude in our neighborhood that has been firing up a wood splitter (for a firepit) at 7AM in the morning on the weekends. That dude sucks.

FTJ I can see your points..but for the first time i just don't agree with you...its a sad day. Heh, A lamb strays from the flock http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif just don't let someone pull you over to the dark side, and have you start wanting to get Doug Davis back! -- I just my approval rating with you stays north of 90% It's all good -- we discussed our differences in a civil manner. This is a good example of a topic that people are going to have sensitivities on-- based on their personal experiences. I know I have mine. My only points are really... 1.) We shouldn't assume that Mr. Hancock is the scum of the earth w/o being privy to all the information, and perhaps we should be empathetic to a man who lost his son and perhaps the emotion that is fueling his actions is also skewing his perspective. Denial is one of the steps in the grieving process. Who knows what will happen in the next weeks and months, perhaps he will drop his suits, perhaps he will speak out on drunk driving. I just think it is way to early to judge him at this point. 2.) A lawsuit that stems from an accident where someone is killed is probably not frivolous. If a sober person would have driven into the back of that towtruck -- the towtruck company probably would have been sued as well. It is for the courts to decide if the towtruck driver was at fault. The Hancocks deserve their day in court. They may lose, and be countersued, but they deserve their shot. Josh Hancock made a lot of incredibly bad decisions. I don't deny that at all. He was judged responsible by the highest court and paid for it with his life. It is sad, but he could have prevented it.

FTJ, my lawyer will be calling in about 20 years. Fair enough http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

Now there is a chance that the bar is at some fault depending on Missouri law. However, what ever happened to personal responsibility? One last comment and then I am done here.... The bar has a personal responsibility as well. They are profiting from people buying beer and getting drunk. A bartender is not some sort of good samaritan. I am all for personal responsibility -- I just think both the server and the drinker need to exercise it.

I don't see how they even have a case against the bar. Perhaps he doesn't -- I suppose that the key will be to show that he was "visibly intoxicated". I assume that there will be a lot of witnesses that will be able to back up someone's side of the story. That's for the courts to decide. The bar did offer him a cab, which leads me to suspect he may have in fact been "visibly intoxicated". Bah FTJ, you're trolling now. Why? -- Because I don't agree with you? -- Whatever... Plus, in defending his BAC the taverns would simply ask to prove he didn't drink anything between the tavern and his car. The BAC won't be evidence, if I understand that MO law correctly. Certainly the bar will be able to defend themselves, and when all the facts are on the table, they may be untouchable. That will come out in court. As for the tow truck, you might be right that what I said wouldn't be a valid defense. I won't pretend to know whether it would be a valid defense or not. I just think that the father has a right to ask questions, and make sure that other parties were or were not partly responsible. But they are only starting this to help them when they get their balls sued off in a few months. Perhaps. I don't know their family -- but having been involved in a situation much like this I can tell you from my experience that there is probably a lot of emotion fueling what happens, and I would be skeptical that this lawsuit was a pre-emptive strike. My guess is that the father is sad/angry and wants some sort of justice for his son, and I find it natural for him to be prejudiced on his son's behalf. How would the towing company be anymore responsible than Hancock? Tow trucks have rules and regulations they have to follow to prevent accidents -- they have to get the vehicles off the road as quickly as possible, set up flares, etc... it could be possible that they are entirely responsible for this accident. When was the last time a drunk driver killed someone and then sued the bar for serving him too much? Bars are responsible. Would you think it is OK for a victim to sue a bar that served someone way too much alcohol? Each state has laws about this sort of thing. Truthfully, he's lucky that he only killed himself, and his family should leave it at that. I understand your sentiment - I don't think Josh was lucky by any stretch.

or he could have continued and slammed into a family of 4 and killed everyone...so it could go either way there. sure -- however that is not what happened -- Josh paid a price for driving drunk, I am sure if he would have survived, he'd be in a lot of hot water, and deservedly so -- but just because you are drunk does not make you automatically liable for everything. but it just seems like the dad is reaching.. He could very well be doing so -- I suspect that there is a lot of emotion behind what he is doing -- but I have a hard time hand-waving that away. if you're a bar owner, how are you supposed to know if someone is drunk or not? Well you can use those formulas, and keep track of what you serve a person -- that is how we did it when I was serving drinks. Josh certainly has a personal responsibility -- but so do bartenders. I am sure the laws are different from state to state -- but that is why states require liquor licences, and bartenders to get training, for this exact sort of situation.

I can understand grieving, but where do you draw the line? At the point you get your questions answered sufficiently I suppose. I don't see Mr. Hancock questioning the bar or the towing company's responsibility in this accident as frivolous. The tow truck could have been illegally situated, the bar probably broke the law in serving Josh beyond intoxication. Mr. Hancock, is not going to be able to look at this event with the perspective that others may be able to. He has a right to pursue this, and I think he probably is pretty convicted at this point that there are other parties that are partially responsible -- and that will be up to a judge/jury to decide.

This fits the criteria for being handed a drink and never being without a drink. He had 2x the BAC. I think it is obvious that the bar served him long after he was intoxicated. Bars have a responsibility in this sort of thing. OK, if the tow truck wasn't there then Hancock would have slammed into the next thing: Of course you do not know this at all. So, does it even matter if a tow truck was there? Of course, that is what he hit -- If the tow truck wasn't there, he could have gotten to his destination safely -- you cannot presume there would have been an accident. If they somehow get a favorable decision it can be used when they inevitably get sued by these people they are suing. Like perhaps the towing company and/or the bar are also responsible?

come on FTJ you only quoted part of my sentence.. Fixed that. I have a ton of friends that are cops, and my brother soon will be a cop. I have talked to them about this sort of thing, and the same response always comes back....if you drink and drive, and kill yourself, thats your own damn fault. I have a lot of family in law enforcement, they are entitled to their opinions, but they are not legal experts. You see this sort of line of reason when gals get drunk and then raped. Certainly getting drunk and unable to control your actions is not very responsible, and ultimately, Josh paid the highest price. Here is the thing though. Josh Hancock was drunk, but that does not make him automatically exclusively or entirely at fault for an accident. Without seeing the facts, it is impossible for us to conclude that Hancock's inebriation was entirely responsible for the accident. -- Certainly it may be the most likely conclusion -- but if a tow-truck is improperly situated -- sober people can hit it just as easily as drunk people.