4 ms·

>Who gives a shit and why? You know, I'll never understand the immediate and swift "who cares" response when people are discussing a subject as some sort of "E

by iamdave 10y ago

>Who gives a shit and why? You know, I'll never understand the immediate and swift "who cares" response when people are discussing a subject as some sort of "Excuse me but...". If there's a disagreement you wish to voice, voice it-let's not act like people aren't interested in it because of your disagreement. And as I've said, I've only read two articles on this whole thing and the entire ordeal seems sordid to me. I'm not a lawyer, so I wont even begin to pretend like I know what someone should or should not have done in the interests of their own defense, but the "backroom dealer" feel of the whole thing-personally speaking-reeks and doesn't quite sit well with me. I don't have all the answers to this, and I do plan to get more informed. And further, yes-I suppose if one were to argue using that Obi Wan "from a certain point of view" type of analysis-Gawker's wrongness is Germane so maybe this even falls to me to be more precise in my speaking: Gawker being in the wrong or Gawker being in the right doesn't change much of the strange sensation I feel when someone ostensibly brings sacks of money to the table in a lawsuit with the intent to win not on the merits of the case but by exhausting legal resources of their legal opponent.

will_brown 10y ago
>You know, I'll never understand the immediate and swift "who cares" response when people are discussing a subject as some sort of "Excuse me but...". If there's a disagreement you wish to voice, voice it-let's not act like people aren't interested in it because of your disagreement. Sorry Dave, not how I meant it. You stated a fact (Thiel spent a lot of money on the litigation), so its not like I disagree. And my "Who gives a shit", is not a dismissive "who cares", but an honest probing question: who is behind raising Thiel's financing as an issue. I back it up with legitimate instances of litigation financing no one else would care about (credit cards, loans, family, etc...). In other words the forces behind these disparaging articles about the concept of litigation financing is the result of the very same backroom deals and undue influence that is raised by the articles themselves (its pretty brilliant really). Yes, that last part is pure opinion. Further, I highlighted the actual legal mechanisms Gawker had to mitigate its legal costs. This is mostly because I think a major argument against Thiel financing is that he unnecessarily bleed Gawker, the counter is they bleed themselves by not settling. >with the intent to win not on the merits of the case but by exhausting legal resources of their legal opponent. 9 out of 10 cases settle, this case actually went to a judgment at trial, that is the very definition of winning a case on the merits. Its almost insanity that Gawker didn't settle it knowing they would be hit with punitive damages is found liable. Not to say you are part of the HN status quo, but HN takes a strong stance against settlements/pleas and this case epitomizes the concept of winning/losing on the merits. (For the record I am a strong advocate of both settlement and pleas)

by iamdave 10y ago

will_brown 10y ago

>You know, I'll never understand the immediate and swift "who cares" response when people are discussing a subject as some sort of "Excuse me but...". If there's a disagreement you wish to voice, voice it-let's not act like people aren't interested in it because of your disagreement. Sorry Dave, not how I meant it. You stated a fact (Thiel spent a lot of money on the litigation), so its not like I disagree. And my "Who gives a shit", is not a dismissive "who cares", but an honest probing question: who is behind raising Thiel's financing as an issue. I back it up with legitimate instances of litigation financing no one else would care about (credit cards, loans, family, etc...). In other words the forces behind these disparaging articles about the concept of litigation financing is the result of the very same backroom deals and undue influence that is raised by the articles themselves (its pretty brilliant really). Yes, that last part is pure opinion. Further, I highlighted the actual legal mechanisms Gawker had to mitigate its legal costs. This is mostly because I think a major argument against Thiel financing is that he unnecessarily bleed Gawker, the counter is they bleed themselves by not settling. >with the intent to win not on the merits of the case but by exhausting legal resources of their legal opponent. 9 out of 10 cases settle, this case actually went to a judgment at trial, that is the very definition of winning a case on the merits. Its almost insanity that Gawker didn't settle it knowing they would be hit with punitive damages is found liable. Not to say you are part of the HN status quo, but HN takes a strong stance against settlements/pleas and this case epitomizes the concept of winning/losing on the merits. (For the record I am a strong advocate of both settlement and pleas)