LookieNoNookie
Posts: 12216
Joined: 8/9/2008 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri "Settled" lawsuits aren't necessarily indicative of winning/losing of those lawsuits. It sometimes comes down to the finances. If I can settle for $100M or continue to battle it out and pay $110M, it's smarter money to settle, even if I'm right. How can you be right if, as per your above sceenario, you would pay out 110 because you woud loose? Any idea why no one takes your moronic asanine crap seriously? Those numbers are purely hypothetical. With an "undisclosed settlement," we don't know how much money changed hands. Once again your limited power of deduction is shown. We know that by paying the money they were admiting guilt. If they admited guilt then the settelment will be in the same zip code as the suit claimed. We do know that Bill won $470M and won again in 2001 for the theft of oil from the Indian tribes. That's about it, though. No we know that you are full of shit. If, as you admit, they won in 2001 that would be prima facia evidence that they would have won in court. Get a phoquing clue. Thompson V, you should do similarly.
|