teebax

My thoughts exactly. Nina may be a little flighty, but she's not dumb. I had a hard time believing she'd fall for this prank. I thought Carlos and Boring Larry were the real stars of this episode. Boring Larry dancing in the bar was really funny to me.

So she's a professional TV litigant? Don't they check backgrounds before they put people on? I wanted to know what kind of TV it was that cost $4,000. I know she bought it in 2011, but that seems high for a TV, even back then. I bought a 46 inch TV for my den that year and it was only about $800. If she showed up late to a dinner party at my house demanding a to-go plate, I'd have thrown her out on her ass. The dancing thing happened because she was inebriated. And it was Beyoncé.

Homeowners isn't my specialty, but I think so. Insurance policies cover people's stupidity all the time, as long as they're not intentionally complicit. While she did give up her keys to a stranger, she didn't intend for said stranger to rip her off. I had a friend who left his car running while he ran into a Circle K to get smokes. Someone jumped in his car and took off. His insurance paid for the damages once the car was recovered. Granted, he didn't hand the guy his keys, like this plaintiff probably would have, but what he did was really stupid. Unfortunately, people do that sort of thing all the time.

I was so excited for the pig case because i thought it'd be something new. I should know better. Typical greedy breeder who doesn't give a rat's ass about the actual animals adding a bunch of ridiculous clauses to a contract. Petunia couldn't get off my screen fast enough. She's a pig breeding pigs. How appropriate. The washer/dryer case was more of the same as well, with the added twist of "won't somebody think of the children?" How are those kids supposed to survive without a washer and dryer? By the way, if he financed it through Conn's that place is barely a step above Rent-A-Center. They recently opened one here, and the ads promise they can finance anyone. So he's probably paying steep interest on those appliances she feels so entitled to have. I almost wept when the plaintiff mentioned his pension. If I had stayed in the Army. I'd be drawing one by now myself. I didn't want to do another war tour after having done three. But a little part of me regrets not sticking it out for 14 more years and earning a pension. At least the GI Bill helped me get my degree and have a nice civilian career. Anywho... Happy Veteran's Day, everyone! That high as a kite teenager who seems to think the plaintiff deserved to have her shit stolen was a piece of work. I wish JJ had questioned her more only to see her get a verbal beatdown for being so irresponsible. I understood the ruling, but I think we've seen similar cases before in which JJ rules for the plaintiff since the defendant had a duty to care for the stuff and not let a bunch of thieves in the house. Oh well. I don't know why the plaintiff didn't just file a homeowners claim. Oh, that's right. JJ litigants never have insurance.

I liked the whole Happy Endings crew, so I'm glad to see they're all working on other shows, although I miss having them all together.

I didn't remember the female contestant from last night - still don't. Was the haircut she got really severe? I watch every episode and just have no recollection of her. I do remember Ben, and I didn't like him at all, especially after his "war between the states" answer. I'm looking forward to Julia being on. I am not looking forward to Arthur, although he didn't bother me as much during the other tournament he was in (was it decades?) as he did during his original run. I'm also wondering how many 5-time winners they'll have for the next tournament, considering the abysmal start this season is off to.

I love me some MM. That she got emotional (and it looked very real to me) is a testament to the fact that she's a great person who hasn't let fame cloud her judgment. JJ would have been SCREAMING at that mother. And, not that she wouldn't have deserved a tongue-lashing, screaming wouldn't have spoken to the core of her. Screaming at her would have just let her tell herself the judge just didn't like her or understand her. MM talked to her mother-to-mother. MM made sure to tell her that she's also a Catholic who believes in baptism but would never let that come between her and her children, once they're grown. I also liked when MM said no God that she can think of would want the mother to be behaving the way she was. And that no God would condemn children to burn in hell simply because their parents chose not to baptize them. Like I said, I hope upon re-watch she gets a clue, but based on what the daughter said in her hallterview, she probably won't.

Thank you for posting this more eloquently than I could have. Yes the defendant is a delusional fool desperately trying to hold on to the one man she thinks will have her (I'm of the rather be alone and happy than married and miserable camp), but that plaintiff was being a fool too. Once she knew he was married, why not just walk away? Why reach out to the wife and then ask if they can all meet up? Who does that? I've unwittingly dated two married women who, apparently, wanted to live out their gay fantasies with me. The second I found out they were married, I was gone. I don't need to understand what happened on a deep philosophical level or have group therapy sessions with the couple. You get out and cease contact. No, she didn't deserve the beat down; the husband did. But, damn, girl. At what point are you going to gather your self-respect and bounce?

Both cases were really sad to me. I can't even imagine having a mother who is that petty and vindictive. You don't get to thrust your religious beliefs on your grown children and their children. She's a ridiculous, sad, stubborn woman. I hope upon viewing the episode she rethinks her position, but I doubt it. MM was spot on. She'd rather be right in her own mind than have time with her daughter and grandkids. And then she countersues for gifts she bought in the past? Today is my mom's 75th birthday. I don't know how many more she's going to have, although she's in good health. There's no way we'd let our religious differences come between us. She's a born-again and I'm an agnostic and a lesbian. And she's never once tried to force her beliefs on me during my adulthood. I just can't imagine how her daughter feels. But I'm glad she stood her ground. That mother is a bully. Then we had the horse case. It was as sad as I expected. It's one of those rare cases in which I liked both sides. That was such a freak thing to happen. I agreed with the verdict, but felt bad for the plaintiff and the defendants.

I guess I can be relieved that my favorite NFL team, is playing tonight for MNF. So I won't see this episode for a while. That's good, because I don't feel like crying.

Is Arthur Chu in this tournament?

The original clue did have the apostrophe. The way the original clue was worded, it was asking for a team. Considering that two of the contestants completely misread the clue tells me it wasn't a great clue (although during my initial viewing, it was obvious to me what they wanted). Perhaps the category is what made one say fleur de lis and one say vine, but that's not what the clue asked for.

Insurance goes up when rates go up, so it may go up every year, but it shouldn't by very much, unless your driving record or credit score changes. My point is that it's less expensive for full coverage on an older car than it is on a new one.

You don't answer based on the category; you answer based on the clue. The clue was looking for a team, not a logo. That Alex said either would be acceptable doesn't make the answer being accepted any more fair. The judges were wrong, and she shouldn't have won. Charlie didn't need to be in the ballpark. If they'd ruled appropriately, he would have won regardless of his incorrect answer. I can't say with certainty Charie will be back, but I think it would be unfair if he's not. And the writers need to word their clues much better, so as to eliminate these types of debates. That clue could have easily been written differently to avoid the ambiguity.

We call them litigants!There are a lot of uninsured and underinsured drivers out there. That's why it's important to adequately insure your own vehicle. Unless you have a car you can afford to replace with cash in the event of an accident, full coverage is imperative. In most states, uninsured coverage is just for bodily injury, not property damage. So it's a good idea to carry comp and collision as well. Also, the less valuable the car is, the lower the premiums will be.

The defendant was worse, but only by a small margin and only because he vandalized the plaintiff's car,especially in front of his son. But I thought the plaintiff was going to get himself thrown out in the beginning by being a douchebag to MM.

I got it right away, but I was the only one in my room (3 other people) who did. We all came out of our seats when they accepted fleur de lis and agreed it shouldn't have been accepted. I think we'll see Charlie again.

If they had said "this Nfl team logo..." I'd agree. But they said "this nfl team's logo" which means they're looking for the name of the team, not the logo.

I came here to say the same thing. There was a weird editing cut right before thry revealed the responses, so I imagine there was some discussion about it. The now ex-champ was robbed.

I just don't understand why nobody thought to get out of the car and look at which light was out! Those HID headlights are not cheap to replace. She probably could have gotten them to replace it if she'd made the deal contingent on it.

I hope Violet stays gone. I know it won't happen, but I really despise that character. If she's so tired of living hand to mouth why doesn't she get a freaking job and help out? Someone whose family rallied around her when she got knocked up while still in high school should be a lot more grateful than she is. Did Kristy screw up? Absolutely. But if she had some help maybe she wouldn't have been in a position to screw up in the first place. And I respect that she didn't call her dad for money, even though it left her homeless. More of Baxter, please. And not just because it's an awesome last name. :-)

The hallterview in that case made me sad because Entitled Erika's friend said she still hopes they can be friends someday. She was probably the best friend Entitled Erika will ever have, and Miss Entitled blew that friendship over $2,000. I suspect if Erika had even offered to pay a portion of that loan (er, gift), her friend would have been happy. She made her friend feel like a sucker, which is why she got sued and embarrassed on national TV. I don't always agree with JJ's "My America" schtick, but I agree with her comment about this case. One person having success doesn't entitle another to a portion of it. Erika chose to have five children, and one of the ramifications of that is that she may not be able to afford all of the things her friend, who only has two, can afford. One's life isn't necessarily better than the other; they just made different choices. That her friend made choices that left her with more disposable income doesn't entitle Erika (heh) to borrow from her and not pay it back. Here's a personal anecdote: My sister and her hubby have six kids. They support them with no financial assistance from the government or our family. They both manage to work full-time (so it can be done), and their children are well taken care of. I have no children. I have a nicer house than my sister, a fancier car than my sister, and have traveled more extensively than my sister has. And you know what? Neither of us would trade our lives for the other's. She loves being a mom and has six great kids and a really cool hubby to show for it. I go to her house and can tolerate the chaos for about two or three hours tops and then retreat to the sanctity and quiet of my own. She comes to my house for Sunday football games and, after a few hours, is ready to return to her chateau of chaos. My point is that different people make different choices, and how dare Entitled Erika begrudge her friend for having made different choices than she did.

As usual, I haven't seen my episodes yet. But it's posts like these that make me want to risk a speeding ticket when I drive home from the office. I have no idea what you're talking about in the above post, AngelaHunter, but I can't wait to find out! Hopefully, I can find my front door on my way in. JJ should be sponsoring this forum. I'm sure I'm not the only one who only still watches so I can enjoy the snark here.

I was completely lost during yesterday's case of the Volkswagen with the light indicator problem. So, this is an indicator on the dashboard that tells you which light is out. Did they ever explain why they couldn't just look at the car and tell which light was out? Even in the daytime, I can tell the difference between a headlight that is shining and one that isn't. I feel like I missed something there.

I agree that the litigants seem much less trashy. The lady with the .99 cent plate from Ikea made me glad to be able to afford to live alone. What a nightmare she'd be to live with. Like the sucker I am, I was totally expecting this to be some fancy-dancy plate from an invaluable set of fine china. What a nutjob. I'm still recording this show, but it's the last of my court shows I watch. TPC, JJ, and then Hot Bench. I still think it'd be better served by an hour-long, three-case format, like TPC has. The cases just feel rushed because of the time set aside for deliberations.