[nikonf4] Re: Wedding photography

  • From: WiltW@xxxxxxx
  • To: nikonf4@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, f4@xxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2011 20:18:36 EST

I have wondered if the TV judges get a higher percentage of cases with  
idiots for plaintiffs and defendents, than the court docket has for all  cases. 
 It always is distressingly amusing to see the airhead young adult  females 
with their nonsensical attitudes and logic.
 
--wilt  

 
In a message dated 1/4/2011 3:27:00 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,  
JayPax@xxxxxxxx writes:

This is  Judge Joe Brown, similar to Judge Judy and the original such
show, 'The  People's Court' with Judge Wapner.

These are real cases, but the way  the thing works (at least in the case
of the People's Court worked), the  parties sign an arbitration agreement
and the judge's ruling acts as an  arbitration award.  It is not a real
court, although the judges are  real judges, or maybe retired judges. And
the court's decision acts as an  arbitration award.  They also may pay
the side of the loser if there  is an award to the plaintiff, so at most,
only egos and feelings get  hurt.


-----Original Message-----
From:  nikonf4-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:nikonf4-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On  Behalf Of John Osthus
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 4:31 PM
To:  nikonf4@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [nikonf4] Re: Wedding photography

Um  ..this isn't a real trial is it?

It was entertaining but this is a TV  show, right?

My favorite part was the hot bailiff with the  sidearm.

Best,

JO

-----Original Message-----
From:  nikonf4-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:nikonf4-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On  Behalf Of tigermike@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 1:39  PM
To: nikonf4@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [nikonf4] Re: Wedding  photography

What's even funnier is that he always says this too.   "You know, your
mouth and attitude aren't helping you any.  I suggest  you just be
quiet."  Of course, they never do.  
I loved her  response when he said he used to do photography "yeah and
when was  THAT?!?!"


-----Original Message-----
>From: Jay Paxton  <JayPax@xxxxxxxx>
>Sent: Jan 4, 2011 11:08 AM
>To:  nikonf4@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [nikonf4] Re: Wedding  photography
>
>And of course, the defendants violated the first  rule of being in
court:
>
>
>"Don't p*** off the judge by  being a smart mouth."
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From:  nikonf4-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:nikonf4-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>On  Behalf Of tigermike@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2011 10:03  AM
>To: nikonf4@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: [nikonf4] Re: Wedding  photography
>
>The defendants were lying, they were hoping that  saying "we didn't meet
>her at a wedding show" would be enough to break  the plaintiff's case.
>Problem is, some people are just plain naive and  take verbal promises
of
>"you will get professional prints" as  that.  As the old addage goes,
>"you get what you paid  for."
>"How fast is your lens?  You are using a Rebel XT, and you  are a pro?
>Where's your 1-series, 7D, 5D, hell 10D?  The Xt is  your base model!
>Where's your 28-70?  How can you get a decent  photo with such a slow
>lens, the cheapest you can buy!"  LMAO, I  loved it!
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>>From:  Mark Stein <mjstein63@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>Sent: Jan 3, 2011 5:39  PM
>>To: nikonf4@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>Subject: [nikonf4] Re:  Wedding photography
>>
>>Nice to see bad pros slapped down,  but the plaintiff made her own  
>>mistakes...
>>
>>Why was there no mention of a  contract, which should have listed what 
>>the deliverables  were?   If she didn't meet them at a wedding show,
>then  
>>did she really see samples of their  work?
>>
>>
>>
>>On 1/3/2011 11:15 AM,  Frank Armstrong wrote:
>>>  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIiH9uxdE5M
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>




Other related posts: