teebax

I went through a butch phase shortly after I came out of the closet. I cut off all of my beautiful hair and wore my hair in close crop. I wore dress shirts and ties when I had to dress up, t-shirts and cargo shorts/pants when I didn't. You don't need to apologize for asking (I take any chance I can get to educate people about my culture), but I wish we'd get to the point where it didn't really matter. And, yes, butch is a look for some women. And they're not always gay, either. ETA: Patti, you and I have communicated enough that I know you mean nothing offensive by asking. I just re-read my post, and want to make sure I'm not coming off as irritated by your question.

I love you guys. What a freaking find! Of course, I had to Google Earth his address to see where this fine specimen actually resides. Is it possible for me to now have less sympathy for her now than I had before when my starting point was zero anyway? Why, oh why, is she still messing with this jackass? Who the hell steals money from someone while they're on a date together??

I'm glad they've finally reached the point where Will is back in San Fran. Knowing it was going to happen made the last two episodes drag a bit for me, as I want the show to get back to its origins. I liked the girlfriend, too, although she reminds me in appearance of Jennifer Carpenter from Dexter. And I'll never complain about a Toofer sigting! I'd like to see him join the cast as well.

I don't like three-case episodes. Some of my favorite JJ moments have happened during hallterviews. They are recognizing "agreeance" now? Once again, I weep. "Irregarding" had me coming out of my chair. I hope I never reach the point where I just accept what passes for English anymore. Regarding the laptop case, I had trouble mustering up any sympathy for the plaintiff. As discussed earlier, she made a series of horrible decisions. Not bad decisions; horrible ones. I've never understood how women who seem to have it together in other aspects of their lives make such terrible decisions when it comes to love. I can see being initially attracted to someone who's bad news. But the second you start digging up the skeletons, it's time to leave. And you sure as hell don't have a child with him. Oy vey. If you don't want someone to "ruin" your life, you don't put them in a position where they can. Lord knows, I've dated my share of losers. But they never got money from me, credit from me, and certainly not a baby from me (although I'm gay, so that one would be harder to accomplish).

I completely agree. The episode wasn't doing anything for me (although it did have some good lines) until Holt's plan was revealed. Then, of course, I had to watch the whole thing again and enjoyed it much more.

Someone else spoiled me about Archie Panjabi, so I'm interested to see how it goes, although I wish I hadn't known that. I like to surprised by shows, but it seems harder and harder for shows to keep things under wrap. Between promo departments showing us the best part of episodes before they air and showrunners making no attempt to surprise viewers anymore, it's hard to be surprised. I wasn't spoiled on Will's death last season, and it made the scene so much better because I didn't see it coming. I really miss Breaking Bad. They were great at keeping us in the dark. Anyway, I share all of your complaints about this episode. They ruined Elsbeth's character to the point where it made me cringe to watch. If I didn't know Jill's sexy voice I wouldn't have recognized her. She looked awful. I always thought their office space was kinda cool. I had no idea it was such a dump. How convenient that Diane still has that in at her old firm. Ugh. And I can't muster up an ounce of enthusiasm for Alicia running for SA. I'm still not sure what her motivation for doing it is. She just started a new firm that seems to be doing well and finding its way. And she's going to leave it to run for SA because the opponent isn't a nice guy? I'm not feeling it.

One of my favorite TV lines of all-time is from the show Psych when Shawn says to Gus, "Don't be the way Eriq Lasalle spells Eriq." Yep, that's all I have to add to this thread. I spent most of this episode rolling my eyes. I think this was the weakest of the season so far, for me.

Basically what she was talking about is fair market value, which is what is used by carriers after a vehicle is totaled. I'm fine with using the recently sold price when the seller is a dealer. Those aren't the same circumstances we were discussing before. I've never seen anyone prosectued for it. I think most folks who end up in jail for insurance fraud are insureds filing false claims or agents who collect premiums without turning them over to the carrier. A more likely result of lying on an application is a denied claim, or they'll pay it and then drop you like a hot potato.A diligent agent will ask pertinent questions before adding on a vehicle and/or a driver. This doesn't just protect the carrier, it protects the insured. It would suck to be paying for insurance and then find out you're not actually covered because you bought a policy you shouldn't have been allowed to purchase. I suspect that a lot of court show litigants are using direct writers: Geico, Progressive, The General, etc. There's nothing wrong with these carriers, but you can make changes online and, even when you call in, you're dealing with a CSR who may not be as seasoned or as diligent. I used to be with USAA, which is an awesome carrier. But it took all of five minutes to get a quote, and even they didn't ask me about ownership of vehicles and whether or not there were other licensed drivers in my household. There are many benefits to using an agent instead. Of course, I'm biased in my thinking about that. A lot of people would rather save a few bucks than pay to know they're properly insured. And for them, you get what you pay for.

Technically, you shouldn't be able to buy a car without a license because, at least in almost every state, you have to show proof of insurance in order to register a car. Most people get around this by being insured on someone else's policy. That really should only be done for people who live in the same household or dependent children who are away at school or in the military. This is what parents do when their teenagers start driving. It's what my folks did when I got my first car. What we see a lot of on JJ is people insuring cars for friends, cousins, lovers, the dude on the corner that spins the Liberty Tax sign, the guy who delivers their pizza, their nephew's girlfriend's baby daddy, the cashier at Walmart who is always nice to them, and the list goes on. Insurance companies will happily collect premiums from them. But if a claim should arise, they'd better hope to God they don't get an adjuster with connected brain cells (TM Judge Milian). Because they've given them an excuse to deny the claim and they could even be charged with insurance fraud, which carries pretty stiff penalties.

Yeah, I can totally see that. Of course, on the other hand, no one can control you unless you let them. These are grown adults now, so if they want to be independent, there is a whole world out there they could escape to. At some point, shortcomings become something beyond Mommy's fault.

This is one of my favorite new shows. I hope it's doing okay in ratings. The lack of comments here about this show makes me a little nervous that no one is watching it! Cristela is awesome. Her comedic timing is impeccable. Yes, it has the horrid laugh track, but I think it's okay on a show like this. After black-ish, this is my second favorite new comedy.

I agree with you about how the house should look, but I was okay with JJ's ruling on that case. It wouldn't have taken that long for the plaintiff to sweep up and wash the lazy Susan. The tarp is more troublesome, but that would require waiting to see if the landlord was being truthful. If the plaintiff had evidence of a leak, JJ may have ruled differently (although I think in that case the landlord should be given a chance to fix it). Also, something was off about that plaintiff. I think the defendant dodged a bullet when she didn't move in after all. I can't put my finger on it, but there was something really weird about the plaintiff. In the hallterview, the defendant said she should have trusted her instincts and not offered the lease, so I think she got the same vibe I got. He was really an ass. He didn't even seem embarrassed about the vile names he called his mother when she told the story. On national TV, he wasn't embarrassed. She puts her life savings into a bakery so that her kids, who've clearly not done anything productive with their lives, could have a business opportunity, and he bites the hand that feeds him? This POS who has fathered seven children without regard to how he's going to support them gets an opportunity most people would kill for, and he behaves like an ingrate. I wanted more background about that business. I would bet the mother started it because the kids were attempting to bleed her dry of all she'd worked for. It was said that she had bought (sorry, boughten) several cars for family members over the years. This is what leads me to believe he wasn't the only one mooching off of mama. At least her other kids were working in exchange for her generosity. I don't always root for JJ to tell off a defendant. In this case, I wanted JJ to make him cry. And I wanted Byrd to punch him in the face.

I'm sure people have completely lost it on JJ and told her off in that way. They'd never air it, though! They're not paying her $47 million a year to let some litigant make her look bad.

The best moment of the episode, for me, was the designers' completely unimpressed reactions to the BW hotel. Does that hotel not have suites? They just all seemed completely underwhelmed by their rooms. I think BW missed an opportunity there. Speaking of sponsors, I don't begrudge any sponsor that helps keep a show I like to watch on the air. And since no one else will admit it, I will. I've worn Mary Kay for years and really like it. My cousin even has a Mary Kay Mustang, which is really cool. Anyway, I'm allergic to a lot of makeup, so I was thrilled to find makeup I could wear without my skin reacting badly to it. That being said, I don't apply it with a paintbrush. I think the makeup issues this season have more to do with the makeup artists than with the makeup itself. I don't know much about Aldo. I have a pair of ankle boots that they, apparently, made. I can't even remember where I bought them. They're cute boots, but they're uncomfortable so I rarely wear them. From what I've seen on the show, I still don't know much about Aldo. Meh. I love Red Robin. They make one of my favorite chain restaurant turkey burgers. Their fries are fine, but I've never been able to take advantage of the "bottomless" aspect. I'm usually too full to even finish one basket, much less multiple ones. I don't understand why they chose to sponsor PR but, like I said before, I'm cool with any company that wants to help keep PR on the air. Except Samsung. My 50 inch Samsung TV died a month out of warranty and they refused to help me. So Samsung is DEAD to me right now.

I actually counted the words on my finger to see if that was it. After all the hype, I was expecting more. But I blame the ABC promo monkeys for that crap and not the show. That scene would have been more powerful if they'd not promo'd the hell out of what was going to happen. They do that with Scandal, too. It's annoying. I have said since day one that I much prefer Viola Davis with her natural hair. It's not just the wig itself that bothers me; it's the idea that she needs that in order to look sexy. I'm transitioning to natural after years of chemically relaxing and wearing weaves, and it's very freeing. I wish more shows with black women would portray them with natural locks. I caught her interview on ABC World News Tonight when she returned to Julliard to surprise the students. She looked fantastic with her natural hair. Back to the episode. The scene where the assistant commits suicide was shocking to me. I'm glad the promo monkeys didn't ruin it. And I always love to see Elizabeth Perkins. The case of the week was interesting. So this episode was my favorite so far of the season.

When a car is totaled, you get fair market value for it. They don't ask you how much you paid for it. What you paid only come into consideration when there's gap insurance, which will pay the difference between what the insurance company pays and what you owe, up to a certain percentage. Some policies are written as stated amount, but that's usually for classic cars or high-valued vehicles. Most physical damage policies are written as Actual Cash Value. Again, this is not "how much a person paid" value. It's how much the thing is worth. To use an example cited above, if my parents gift me a car, I paid $0 for it. But if you total my car, you're liable to me for the value of it. You don't get to pay me zero just because I paid zero, and If I found a bargain, you don't get the benefit of my bargain if you total my car. JJ doesn't follow the law of any particular state. She follows her own code of common sense. She has decided that it makes sense to award a judgment for what someone paid for a car. That's not how it's done in the real world, which is why you take your chances when you go on a TV court show.

I also question the validity of the physical book they're using. We've often had litigants come in with online printouts from KBB that didn't match. Of course, who knows what other factors they're typing in to come up with it? They may be saying their 1990 Ford Escort only has 30,000 miles and is in perfection condition.

I grew up in a similar situation, and there's no way my mother would let an outsider come in to clean her house. Don't get me wrong, I think there's nothing wrong with it, and I have a housekeeping service myself. But for my mother to hire a housekeeper? No way. I agree that the kids should be helping out. My mother had five kids so, in her mind, she had five junior housekeepers. I like that they addressed the difference in treatment between fathers and mothers in the workplace. I've seen this first-hand, but with single dads versus single moms. Seriously, they'll give a guy a trophy for raising his own freaking kid. It's crazy.

I don't think it's profiting. Making you whole is awarding you the value of your item at the time of the loss. Profiting would be if she awarded $2,500 for a car worth $1,900. It doesn't come up often because cars depreciate. So by the time a car is totaled, it's usually worth less than the person pays. In these rare cases, yes, the wronged party gets a bit of a bonanza. That's just them getting the benefit of having made a good deal. To put it a different way, if the other driver had liability on her car, the other driver's insurance would pay out fair market value, regardless of how much the plaintiff paid for the car. Can I just say that I'm loving this discussion, though? One thing I like about this message board is that we can disagree respectfully and learn from one another. It's refreshing. Maybe JJ's litigants should join our board! We might be able to stop them from looking how they look on TV!

I would comment, but there's so little action on this thread I sometimes think I'm posting in to a black hole! He was a piece of work, wasn't he? But he's apparently been successful in getting women to take care of him for his entire life. Why anyone would want to live that way, I have no idea. I like to have my own, but to each his own. If she was stupid enough to let him use her, I don't have any sympathy for her. With the added bonus of her suing for rent that (as JJ would say), you and I are paying for, I'd say they deserve each other.

I've never owned a fish tank, but I've siphoned water out of things. It wouldn't have taken that long for him to at least get the water level down below where the hole was. Not to mention, he should have done that prior to the day in question, anyway. Since he'd taped it previously, he hadn't even thought to just lower the water level until he could replace the tank? That was one of those cases in which I despised every single person who spoke.

I don't know when it originally aired, but I caught a case this morning in which a woman had given her son two credits cards to use for emergencies. Of course, he promptly ran up $7,500 on them. It turns out, one of the cards was for Best Buy. Who the hell has ever had a a Best Buy emergency? Well, this asshole. He'd gotten a 60 inch TV, a PS 3, and a new stereo system. Judge Acker pointed out that none of those things are necessities. The mother was a freaking idiot. If you're going to extend credit to someone to help them out, you don't give them the freaking card. If someone can't obtain a credit card on heir own, it's usually because they've mismanaged credit in the past. I cringe when people complain about poor people having nice shoes, cars, clothes, etc. I think it's unfair to judge someone based on a snapshot of their life. But I'm judging this ungrateful moron. You're on limited duty due to a car accident, your mom offers to help, and you use her to get expensive electronics instead of prepaying your rent, utilities, etc.? God, he was so disgusting.

He had told her he lied to his boss. She was caught up in the moment and forgot.I liked the pilot, so I'm looking forward to more. I love Casey, and even though I miss Happy Endings, I'm happy to see her and David Caspe working together again. Get thee a Dish Network Hopper. It tapes every network show in Prime Time every day. I am enjoying pilot season because I've gotten to check out all of the new shows. Seriously, I can't tout that DVR enough.

Why she didn't award that plaintiff the value of the car is a mystery. Yes, she paid less but she shouldn't be punished for having gotten a good deal. She lost a car that was worth $1,900 so that's what she shoud have been awarded.Future JJ litigants would be well-served to learn from that case. If JJ asks what you paid for a car, lie like a rug. Know what the KBB value is, and say that's what you paid!

JJ litigants!