Quotable quotes

[dbcooper]

[quote="Rod Stewart on "Da Ya Think I'm Sexy"]It was only a pop record, but you’d have thought I’d poisoned the water supply.[/quote]

[Sandy]

"Most people know that Trump is more full of shit than the entire combined intestinal tract of the Fat Acceptance movement." -King Crockoduck, hier:

[Aresen]

Five out of six Russians would agree Russian roulette is safer

[pistoffnick]

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen
the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by
discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the
wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting
class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away
people's initiative and independence. You cannot help people permanently
by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves. .....
Reverend William J.H. Boetcker, (1873–1962)

[Warren]

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen
the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by
discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the
wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting
class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away
people's initiative and independence. You cannot help people permanently
by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves. .....
Reverend William J.H. Boetcker, (1873–1962)

Can I get that stitched on a pillow?

[lunchstealer]

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen
the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by
discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the
wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting
class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away
people's initiative and independence. You cannot help people permanently
by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves. .....
Reverend William J.H. Boetcker, (1873–1962)

Can I get that stitched on a pillow?

You should etch it on some leatherwork.

[D.A. Ridgely]

You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot strengthen
the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot bring about prosperity by
discouraging thrift. You cannot lift the wage earner up by pulling the
wage payer down. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting
class hatred. You cannot build character and courage by taking away
people's initiative and independence. You cannot help people permanently
by doing for them, what they could and should do for themselves. .....
Reverend William J.H. Boetcker, (1873–1962)

Can I get that stitched on a pillow?

You should etch it on some leatherwork.

The point being that you should do it yourself rather than expect embroidered pillow handouts for the rest of your life.

[dbcooper]

Nicolas Cage’s Taken was such a Taken that it was called Stolen.

[pistoffnick]

“When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself anti-Fascism. My own belief, more than once set afloat from this spot, is that it will take us, soon or late, into the stormy waters of Fascism. To be sure, that Fascism is not likely to be identical with the kinds on tap in Germany, Italy and Russia; indeed, it is very apt to come in under the name of anti-Fascism.” – H.L. Mencken (1938)

[JD]

"It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience." -- Albert Einstein.

Ironically, this can be rephrased as, "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."

[the innominate one]

Even more ironically, this can be rephrased as "do not needlessly multiply entities", which is Ockham's Razor.

[pistoffnick]

One of the greatest delusions in the world is the hope that the evils in this world are to be cured by legislation. – Thomas B. Reed

[JD]

In light of the Harrier Jet's well-documented function in attacking and destroying surface and air targets, armed reconnaissance and air interdiction, and offensive and defensive anti-aircraft warfare, depiction of such a jet as a way to get to school in the morning is clearly not serious...

(Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc.)

[Fin Fang Foom]

In light of the Harrier Jet's well-documented function in attacking and destroying surface and air targets, armed reconnaissance and air interdiction, and offensive and defensive anti-aircraft warfare, depiction of such a jet as a way to get to school in the morning is clearly not serious...

(Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc.)

I read that in law school. The court made the wrong decision.

[Mo]

In light of the Harrier Jet's well-documented function in attacking and destroying surface and air targets, armed reconnaissance and air interdiction, and offensive and defensive anti-aircraft warfare, depiction of such a jet as a way to get to school in the morning is clearly not serious...

(Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc.)

I read that in law school. The court made the wrong decision.

It would have been lit if the guy won, but got a demilitarized Harrier, which would just end up being a shitty jet.

[Fin Fang Foom]

In light of the Harrier Jet's well-documented function in attacking and destroying surface and air targets, armed reconnaissance and air interdiction, and offensive and defensive anti-aircraft warfare, depiction of such a jet as a way to get to school in the morning is clearly not serious...

(Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc.)

I read that in law school. The court made the wrong decision.

It would have been lit if the guy won, but got a demilitarized Harrier, which would just end up being a shitty jet.

Yeah, that's the thing. There's no reason Pepsi couldn't have given him the jet.

[JD]

In light of the Harrier Jet's well-documented function in attacking and destroying surface and air targets, armed reconnaissance and air interdiction, and offensive and defensive anti-aircraft warfare, depiction of such a jet as a way to get to school in the morning is clearly not serious...

(Leonard v. Pepsico, Inc.)

I read that in law school. The court made the wrong decision.

Yeah, I can definitely see a good argument for that. I'm sort of surprised that it wasn't enough for Pepsi to point out that the jet wasn't actually in the Pepsi Points catalog and therefore couldn't technically be actually ordered, though.

I ran across Leonard while reading about Carlill v. Carbolic Smoke Ball Co., which sounded much more clear-cut. (tl;dr version: A company made a product called the Carbolic Smoke Ball and said in ads "If you use it as directed and still get the flu, we'll pay you £100, and we have £1000 on deposit to show how serious we are." A woman used it, got sick anyway, tried to claim her money, and the company basically tried to get out of it by saying, "Uh, we weren't serious about that.")

[JD]

Yeah, that's the thing. There's no reason Pepsi couldn't have given him the jet.

Well, other than the fact that they would have been giving away a roughly $33 million jet for about $700,000. Then they might be faced with more people trying to do the same, and then the question would have been "do they have to keep doing it, or could they argue that there was only one on offer", I guess.

Also, I really wonder where Leonard found the investors willing to put up the money. "What's that? You saw a commercial, so you want us to loan you several hundred thousand dollars so you can buy a fighter jet? Sure, let me get my wallet."

[Fin Fang Foom]

Yeah, that's the thing. There's no reason Pepsi couldn't have given him the jet.

Well, other than the fact that they would have been giving away a roughly $33 million jet for about $700,000. Then they might be faced with more people trying to do the same, and then the question would have been "do they have to keep doing it, or could they argue that there was only one on offer", I guess.

Also, I really wonder where Leonard found the investors willing to put up the money. "What's that? You saw a commercial, so you want us to loan you several hundred thousand dollars so you can buy a fighter jet? Sure, let me get my wallet."

They made the offer, he accepted, and Pepsi could have made good. Courts aren't supposed to evaluate business decisions on whether or not they are dumb.

[Warren]

Yeah, that's the thing. There's no reason Pepsi couldn't have given him the jet.

Well, other than the fact that they would have been giving away a roughly $33 million jet for about $700,000. Then they might be faced with more people trying to do the same, and then the question would have been "do they have to keep doing it, or could they argue that there was only one on offer", I guess.

Also, I really wonder where Leonard found the investors willing to put up the money. "What's that? You saw a commercial, so you want us to loan you several hundred thousand dollars so you can buy a fighter jet? Sure, let me get my wallet."

They made the offer, he accepted, and Pepsi could have made good. Courts aren't supposed to evaluate business decisions on whether or not they are dumb.

You fucking lawyers. So no one can make a humorous advertisement ever?
Claiming that PepisCo made a good faith offer is a Shyster, Shyster, and Golddouche argument.

[Mo]

If they made it 7 billion, the joke would work just as well and also be unattainable.

[Fin Fang Foom]

Yeah, that's the thing. There's no reason Pepsi couldn't have given him the jet.

Well, other than the fact that they would have been giving away a roughly $33 million jet for about $700,000. Then they might be faced with more people trying to do the same, and then the question would have been "do they have to keep doing it, or could they argue that there was only one on offer", I guess.

Also, I really wonder where Leonard found the investors willing to put up the money. "What's that? You saw a commercial, so you want us to loan you several hundred thousand dollars so you can buy a fighter jet? Sure, let me get my wallet."

They made the offer, he accepted, and Pepsi could have made good. Courts aren't supposed to evaluate business decisions on whether or not they are dumb.

You fucking lawyers. So no one can make a humorous advertisement ever?
Claiming that PepisCo made a good faith offer is a Shyster, Shyster, and Golddouche argument.

No. Humor will be illega in lawtopia. Thebonly residents will be attorneys who know better than to make jokes and engineers who wouldn't think a huge multinational being forced to buy a multirole attack aircraft for a lunatic would be funnier than an ad aimed at kids.

[Warren]

Yeah, that's the thing. There's no reason Pepsi couldn't have given him the jet.

Well, other than the fact that they would have been giving away a roughly $33 million jet for about $700,000. Then they might be faced with more people trying to do the same, and then the question would have been "do they have to keep doing it, or could they argue that there was only one on offer", I guess.

Also, I really wonder where Leonard found the investors willing to put up the money. "What's that? You saw a commercial, so you want us to loan you several hundred thousand dollars so you can buy a fighter jet? Sure, let me get my wallet."

They made the offer, he accepted, and Pepsi could have made good. Courts aren't supposed to evaluate business decisions on whether or not they are dumb.

You fucking lawyers. So no one can make a humorous advertisement ever?
Claiming that PepisCo made a good faith offer is a Shyster, Shyster, and Golddouche argument.

No. Humor will be illega in lawtopia. Thebonly residents will be attorneys who know better than to make jokes and engineers who wouldn't think a huge multinational being forced to buy a multirole attack aircraft for a lunatic would be funnier than an ad aimed at kids.

It's plenty funny, but it loses at 'And Then What?'

[Sandy]

Yeah, that's the thing. There's no reason Pepsi couldn't have given him the jet.

Well, other than the fact that they would have been giving away a roughly $33 million jet for about $700,000. Then they might be faced with more people trying to do the same, and then the question would have been "do they have to keep doing it, or could they argue that there was only one on offer", I guess.

Also, I really wonder where Leonard found the investors willing to put up the money. "What's that? You saw a commercial, so you want us to loan you several hundred thousand dollars so you can buy a fighter jet? Sure, let me get my wallet."

They made the offer, he accepted, and Pepsi could have made good. Courts aren't supposed to evaluate business decisions on whether or not they are dumb.

You fucking lawyers. So no one can make a humorous advertisement ever?
Claiming that PepisCo made a good faith offer is a Shyster, Shyster, and Golddouche argument.

No. Humor will be illega in lawtopia. Thebonly residents will be attorneys who know better than to make jokes and engineers who wouldn't think a huge multinational being forced to buy a multirole attack aircraft for a lunatic would be funnier than an ad aimed at kids.

It's plenty funny, but it loses at 'And Then What?'

And then you have enough fuel to take off, fly to school, and land. Then hope school has a lot of JP-8.

[Shem]

I suspect he won over investors with "you'll put up 700K, and we'll settle with Pepsi for 15 million." I'm sure they realized their miscalculation when stuff like this came out:

Among other claims made, Leonard claimed that a federal judge was incapable of deciding on the matter, and that instead the decision had to be made by a jury consisting of members of the "Pepsi Generation" to whom the advertisement would allegedly constitute an offer.