8 ms·
If I am a boxing manager sitting at the corner of the ring to encourage my guy during the fight, I don't do him a good service by leaping into it and taking wil
by grellas 14y ago
If I am a boxing manager sitting at the corner of the ring to encourage my guy during the fight, I don't do him a good service by leaping into it and taking wild swings at the opposing fighter, or at the ref, or at any crazy person from the crowd who also happens to want to jump in spoiling for a brawl. The result in such a case is not likely to bode well for either me or my fighter and I stand a good chance of being made to look ridiculous in the process.
In a sense, like the manager above, Mr. Carreon has thrown himself personally into a fight that was not his fight but that of his client. He has made it personal and now finds himself suing in spray-gun fashion hoping to hit the nearest target connected with the events, whether the law supports him strongly, feebly, or perhaps not at all - all the while standing forth in a public spotlight that magnifies his every action whether good, bad, or indifferent. There is no winning for him in that situation, whatever the merits of his claims.
The most valuable asset of a lawyer is his reputation. I won't presume to tell Mr. Carreon how best to defend his but, whatever else he does, he needs to be very careful not to exacerbate a situation that already is very difficult for him. Whatever wrong may have been done to him, the solution does not lie in a lawsuit of the type that has been filed here.
- lmkg 14y agoShould/can Funny Junk fire Carreon at this point for his foolish behavior? If they do so, how much does Carreon's own cases depend on his relationship with Funny Junk, and what are the consequences? If I were FJ I would be pretty pissed, because Carreon is using FJ's case for his own personal benefit, and in so doing is dragging his client's name into a potential second shitstorm above and beyond the first one they already signed up for. I'm curious how that relationship will pan out, and what alternatives are available to each party.
- alttab 14y agoAnd even more hilarious if FunkyJunk sues him for tarnishing their site's reputation by acting like an idiot on their behalf.
- JackC 14y agoYeah, you can (just about) always fire your lawyer. The right to have the lawyer of your choosing -- or not -- is pretty fundamental. If they're working on a contingency ("I get X% of anything we recover"), you'll have to pay them a fair hourly rate for the work they've already done. (Incidentally, this makes it pretty tough to hold lawyers to non-compete agreements, because their clients have a right to keep working with them even if they switch firms.) Now, whether FunnyJunk likes or doesn't like the publicity this is bringing them is a separate question. You got me on that one.
- chris_wot 14y agoFunny Junk has already exhibited foolish behaviour. What makes you think they aren't egging him on?
- raquo 14y agoA more general lesson out of here: sunk costs are sunk, and Martingale strategy never pays off (it only pays back, and even then – if you're lucky). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale_(betting_system) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martingale_(betting_system) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost
- AncientPC 14y agoActually, the Martingale system does pay off if you have unlimited resources. However casinos artificially create limited resources by setting table limits.
- abduhl 14y agoTable limits exist to segregate gamblers based on betting patterns, except where set by law. A pit boss will almost always allow you to place a bet over the limit if you clear it with him first and, if not, will direct you to the nearest table with higher limits. They allow this precisely because the Martingale system does NOT pay off,
- jesserosenthal 14y agoThe definition of losing in gambling is running out of resources. If you stipulate infinite resources, you're stipulating that you can't lose. In which case, clearly, you have a much better chance of winning.
- Jesse_Ray 14y agoThere are two mistakes in your reasoning. First, according to your definition of losing, gambling away 99% of your life savings would not count as a loss. A better definition would be: having fewer resources at the end of an act of gambling than you had before the act. Second, you have assumed that infinite comes in only one size. To see the error in that, consider these infinite sets: {1,2,3,...} and {2,4,6,...}. The first set contains all counting numbers and the second set contains only even counting numbers. Both sets are infinite, but the second set is only half the size. With these corrections in mind, it should become clear that you can start with infinite resources, lose half of your resources and therefore lose at gambling, but still walk away with infinite resources.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- uvTwitch 14y agoI think Matthew Inman put it best: "It's interesting to watch a man with his dick in a hornet's nest try to solve the problem by tossing his balls in as well."