Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 23:08:18 -0700
Reply-To: Karl Wolz <wolzphoto@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Karl Wolz <wolzphoto@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
Subject: Re: Haughty lawyers...Uugh (was libel, retraction etc)
Hey, Joel.
I got the copyright on peanuts! You owe me big time!
Karl Wolz
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joel Walker" <jwalker17@EARTHLINK.NET>
To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 1:14 PM
Subject: Re: Haughty lawyers...Uugh (was libel, retraction etc)
> > What I'd like to know, is how the Hell did all this start? Anyone
> else
> > confused about the abhorrent pointlessness of this whole thread?
>
> why, no ... it's perfectly simple:
>
> someone named Bill asked or complained on the list that he had never
> received his "birth certificate" (hereafter referred to as Exhibit A)
> from a certain lawyer no. 1 in Massachusetts. that's what started the
> ruckus.
> shortly thereafter, lawyer no. 2, the right honorable reprobate from
> Georgia slashed out with his worthless advice of suing lawyer no. 1
> for alledged crimes and misdemeanors involving mail fraud, vanagon
> pornography, and the selling on national secrets concerning
> Neiman-Marcus cookie recipes.
> almost immediately, lawyer no. 3, the esteemed and often
> underestimated shyster from California, bespoke his tupence-worth of
> legal advisory concerning the whole mess, but in particular the
> vanagon pornography, in a valiant but futile attempt to point out the
> uselessness of advice from lawyer no. 2 in regard to lawyer no. 1 and
> the aforementioned Exhibit A.
> whereupon, lawyer no. 2, smarting intensely from such affrontery,
> issued statements proclaiming himself to be above the Law and/or
> Common Sense and An Expert on All Matters, Universal and Otherwise,
> and demanded a retraction and apology from lawyer no. 3 forthwith.
> Lawyer no. 3, therefore, felt called upon to further inflame the issue
> and proclaim his sine qua non ultimatum of "Eat me!" before the court
> of public vanagon opinion.
> Non-Lawyer no. 1 then attempted to mollify the issue by humor, poking
> fun at lawyers et all and lawyers in general.
> Lawyer no. 3 attempted rebutal, but in his own way, to continue
> mollification.
> Non-Lawyer no. 2 took offence at said mollification by lawyer no. 3,
> stating that such mollification was beneath the dignity of such
> offices and, in a word, haughty.
>
> as it stands right now, the score is
> Lawyer No. 1 ---------------- 5 (for staying out of this mess)
> Lawyer No. 2 ---------------- 0
> Lawyer No. 3 ---------------- 0
> Non-Lawyer No. 1 ---------- 0
> Non-Lawyer N0. 2 ---------- 0
>
> but we expect the participants to attempt to run up the score during
> the 2nd period, while the referees are on break. also expected are
> additional Non-Lawyers taking the field and confusing the issue, not
> to mention making it very difficult to tell the players from the fans
> without a score card. :)
>
> cold drinks! cold drink! getchure red hots, right here!! peanuts!
> (i got the sales concession! you want peanuts, you gotta pay me!).
> :)
> unca joel
| 
