damnum absque injuria

October 31, 2007

This Just In: Water is Wet

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 11:06 pm

And the L.A. Times refuses to correct major factual errors. Too bad about Rutten, though. Just as I was beginning to think there might be hope for the guy.

October 28, 2007

Crass Monkey

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 8:37 pm

Ladies, if rude, obnoxious men who hoot, holler and grab their crotches remind you of some other, less evolved species of primates, you may be on to something.

Let’s Get Lives

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 7:27 pm

Memo to Former Artist Formerly Known as Artist Formerly Known As Prince: not all publicity is good publicity.

October 25, 2007

Indian Givers

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 8:17 pm

If this guy doesn’t even get to sue for his jackpot, while Sandia Resort and Casino happily keeps its money because they were too lazy or too stupid to maintain their own slot machines, no one in his right mind should ever gamble on an Indian reservation again. Their idiot attorney, Paul Bardacke, basically admits as much:

The slot machine has a disclaimer that says it pays a maximum of $2,500 and warns that malfunctions void all winnings, said Paul Bardacke, Sandia’s lawyer.

Neato. So if [no, make that since] Sandia’s staff is too stupid or too lazy to maintain its own machines, any innocent party’s winnings don’t count. But if that same lack of maintenance results in anyone losing a game they should have won, well hey, that’s just the way the cookie crumbles. Heads they win, tails you lose. Christ on a crutch, don’t these guys make enough money even when their machines work properly?

As for the disclaimer, give me a friggin’ break. If I’m ever dumb enough to gamble there, remind me to wear a pin on my shirt that no one will read, saying “Maximum Loss: $500.”

Not content to come off as a garden-variety moron, Bardacke goes on to liken casinos to banks:

Bardacke said Sandia offered Hoffman the maximum payout of $2,500. “If he had gone into a bank and deposited $1,000 and got back a deposit slip that said a million dollars, he doesn’t get to keep the balance,” said Bardacke. “It doesn’t work that way.”

No shit, Sherlock. That’s because banks are … oh, I dunno, what’s the word for it … banks???!!! No one deposits money in a bank expecting to “win” anything except the interest. If a bank employee screws up and gives you a higher interest rate than the bank intended, guess what? You get to keep the interest.

On the flip side, if any of Sandia’s customers had gone into a bank and deposited $1,000, they’d be entitled to withdraw $1,000 (more or less, once you add any interest and subtract any banking fees) anytime they like. So by their idiot attorney’s logic, I guess anyone who lost money gambling at Sandia should be entitled to “withdraw” it back, less a $12.00/month banking fee.

Just when you think that this moron of an attorney can’t possibly say anything stupider, he once again fails to disappoint. Bardacke continues:

“He knew it was wrong; he knew it was incorrect,” Bardacke said of the “jackpot.” “That’s why he took a picture of it immediately.”

Right, ‘cuz no one ever tries to document anything that’s right, only stuff they know is bogus. Just to prove it’s bogus, of course. Why would anyone take a picture of anything that legitimately proved they were entitled to money, when it’s so much easier just to trust a shady casino and its retarded lawyer?

October 24, 2007

Caption Needed

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 10:43 pm

Being Evil

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 9:55 pm

Kate gets a spanking, and not the kind she (allegedly) likes.

October 21, 2007

Disposable Pets

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 11:54 am

One more reason to hate Hillary: even Socks the Cat was a prop. If you like people who get pets to make themselves look warm and fuzzy, then ditch them when the need to look warm and fuzzy subsides, Hillary’s your girl.

UPDATE: More here via the guy who doesn’t really blend puppies, reminding us that Buddy, the other former first pet, didn’t fare so well after President Clinton and her husband left office, either.

October 16, 2007

Quote of the Day

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 11:36 pm

Venomous Kate, on the alleged advantages of public vs. home schooling:

I suppose if you believe the purpose of an education is to teach a child to deal with being treated like crap then, sure, the public school system provides many more opportunities for such experiences to be told to shut up, put up with bullies and disregarded by someone whose approval they seek.

Am I truly supposed to think that’s a good thing?

October 15, 2007

Me Not Chinese, Me Play Trick?

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 11:21 pm

Me put lead in your lipstick?

From the sound bites I heard on the radio, my first thought was “that’s it, the day Coca-Cola begins outsourcing its business to China is the day I switch to Pepsi.” Then, after reading the story and finding it has nothing to do with China, and everything to do with some kook fringe group that says, apparently with a straight face, that “The latest [uncited, natch] studies show there is no safe level of lead exposure.” Dude. There is a safe level of cyanide exposure. It’s very low, of course, but to argue that there is no safe level of anything is to remove yourself from anything approaching rational debate. Then again, you pretty well did that, Marky-Mark, by joining up with a group that calls itself the “Connecticut Coalition for Environmental Justice.”

Repeat after me: the dose makes the poison.

October 11, 2007

Google Sucks

Filed under:   by Xrlq @ 9:00 pm

I never got Google’s permission to say that, so if they believe their own frivolous arguments, let them sue me.


Powered by WordPress. Stock photography by Matthew J. Stinson. Design by OFJ.