|
|
10-06-2020, 02:37 PM
|
#31
|
Registered User
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,284
|
Does it matter that following the race Fipke didn't contest that he owed Rosario the money? He seemed resigned to it. But obviously still very happy he'd won the B C Distaff.
__________________
"Just because she's a hitter and a thief doesn't mean she's not a good woman in all the other places" Mayrose Prizzi
|
|
|
10-06-2020, 03:04 PM
|
#32
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 969
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by v j stauffer
Does it matter that following the race Fipke didn't contest that he owed Rosario the money? He seemed resigned to it. But obviously still very happy he'd won the B C Distaff.
|
The opinion says "Fipke appealed the [double riding fee award] decision to CHRB, partially on the basis that the stewards did not have the authority to award a double jockey fee under the circumstances", so it sounds like he did contest that he owed the money.
What struck me is that, according to the opinion, Fipke didn't raise the statutory Section 19500 issue - the winning argument - until it reached the appellate court level. Not suggesting it was waived (it couldn't be) - more a comment on the quality of his representation at the board and lower court level.
|
|
|
10-06-2020, 05:50 PM
|
#33
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 8,798
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by VeryOldMan
The opinion says "Fipke appealed the [double riding fee award] decision to CHRB, partially on the basis that the stewards did not have the authority to award a double jockey fee under the circumstances", so it sounds like he did contest that he owed the money.
What struck me is that, according to the opinion, Fipke didn't raise the statutory Section 19500 issue - the winning argument - until it reached the appellate court level. Not suggesting it was waived (it couldn't be) - more a comment on the quality of his representation at the board and lower court level.
|
Correct.
|
|
|
10-06-2020, 05:51 PM
|
#34
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 8,798
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by castaway01
Well, he is an (uninformed) lawyer. That's his job. I think he gets paid by the word.
|
LOL. I resemble that remark!
|
|
|
10-06-2020, 05:53 PM
|
#35
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 8,798
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman
Now I'm really confused. Would not qualifying your remarks as the product of your own experience be a means of establishing they are NOT intended as the last word???????????????????????????????????
Surely this guy's distortions of my post have one of the monitors close to stepping in.
It's wrong, and it's ridiculous.
|
Mountainman, you capitalized "INVARIABLY". What does the word invariably, in capital letters, mean to you? That it's something that sometimes happens? Occasionally?
Seriously, you basically trashed my profession as full of amateurs. In that instance, "in my experience" doesn't really change the meaning.
|
|
|
10-08-2020, 01:52 PM
|
#36
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 4,655
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilanesp
Mountainman, you capitalized "INVARIABLY". What does the word invariably, in capital letters, mean to you? That it's something that sometimes happens? Occasionally?
Seriously, you basically trashed my profession as full of amateurs. In that instance, "in my experience" doesn't really change the meaning.
|
The true irony here is that this very response of yours slings around modifiers much weaker (and more dubious) than the full-blown caveat that clearly qualifies the post you attack.
I am not hopeful you will see that irony, sir.
Be well and best of luck.
Last edited by mountainman; 10-08-2020 at 01:57 PM.
|
|
|
10-08-2020, 10:38 PM
|
#37
|
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 8,798
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by mountainman
The true irony here is that this very response of yours slings around modifiers much weaker (and more dubious) than the full-blown caveat that clearly qualifies the post you attack.
I am not hopeful you will see that irony, sir.
Be well and best of luck.
|
That makes zero sense. If I say "in my experience, all the people I interacted with in West Virginia were a bunch of simpletons", a West Virginian would completely correctly take that as an attack on people from his state, and would not be mollified one bit by "in my experience". That caveat doesn't take away the sting at all.
(To be clear, that is not my experience with West Virginians. That's just an example.)
|
|
|
10-08-2020, 11:25 PM
|
#38
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 4,655
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by dilanesp
That makes zero sense. If I say "in my experience, all the people I interacted with in West Virginia were a bunch of simpletons", a West Virginian would completely correctly take that as an attack on people from his state, and would not be mollified one bit by "in my experience". That caveat doesn't take away the sting at all.
(To be clear, that is not my experience with West Virginians. That's just an example.)
|
Several flaws in your reasoning come to mind. But this must be getting tiresome to the rest of the board. So I will refrain.
|
|
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Rate This Thread |
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|