[nikonf4] Re: Wedding photography

  • From: Mark Stein <mjstein63@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: nikonf4@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2011 20:42:51 -0500

Probably more... first off the casting directors look for the good characters (cases, low IQ, characters, etc). Also, the "fame" factor... normal people are more concerned with their law suit than being on tv.


On 1/4/2011 8:18 PM, WiltW@xxxxxxx wrote:
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: