update:Jen Psaki now a pundit at MSNBC, the real disinformation?

Maybe, arguably it spawned the discussion Tinman wanted to have. But why put that? Why put a POLL? Six votes deny your position. It's demeaning and I ask him: Tinman, remove it. Failing that the mod should remove it.

 

I forgot Tinman started this thread, he was just trolling.

Just look at all the other threads he started.

 

The Two ships Peerless, the Two Players Brooks, and “The Deal that Never Really Was”
By Myanna Dellinger

Dear readers:

The below guest blog was shared with us by Oren Gross, the Irving Younger Professor of Law with the University of Minnesota Law School:

Who amongst us has not taught the 1864 case of Raffles v. Wichelhaus, a.k.a. the two ships Peerless? The story of the ships (by some accounts there have been up to eleven ships bearing the same name!) has tantalized and captured the imagination of numerous generations of students learning about meeting of the minds.

You can imagine my delight when, taking a much-needed break from grading exams, I came across a modern version of the story involving three NBA teams and two players named Brooks.

The Washington Wizards, it seems, wanted to strengthen their roster by adding the Phoenix Suns forward Trevor Ariza. For its part, Phoenix was interested in Memphis Grizzlies players and the Grizzlies – in Wizards players. And so, the Wizards’ general-manager concocted a three-team trade and served as the go-between the Suns and the Grizzlies. As part of that trade, the Suns were to get two players from Memphis, namely Selden and Brooks.

Simple enough. Or so it seems. However, as Chris Herrington reported in the Daily Memphian on December 15, 2018, the deal fell apart or, in an insight worthy of contracts’ scholars, “maybe never quite was.”

The problem is that Memphis currently has not one, but two, players on its roster whose last name is Brooks. And whereas the Suns thought they were getting Dillon Brooks, the Grizzlies intended to trade MarShon Brooks. Thus, while “two Grizzlies sources confirmed to The Daily Memphian that it was MarShon Brooks, not Dillon Brooks in the deal. Media in Phoenix, however, insisted it was Dillon, not MarShon.”

As the two teams negotiated through the Wizards as the go-between, the miscommunication as to the identity of the player actually to be traded was not revealed until news of the deal leaked to the media.

The outcome? The three-team deal collapsed. As Herrington put it “the deal that never really was was nixed.”

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/c...rooks-and-the-deal-that-never-really-was.html

 

Again, strawman. I'm not worried. If anything, I'm encouraged.

Reposting my second response in this thread:
"I care because a free press is specifically mentioned in the 1st amendment and it's important to have quality journalists."

However, @HayesStreet street said it well:
"The world won't be worse with another smart woman having a forum to say what she thinks."

You asked why should anyone care. I told you why I care. I'm not sure why you continually take issue with my mention of the 1A. If you don't want to hear answers to your questions, perhaps you should stop asking questions.

 

WOW!

So now you are encouraged, really?

Thanks for letting me know to never engage with you anymore because you are not only nonsensical but dishonest as well.

 

Care to share what I've said that has been nonsensical and dishonest?

Let me save you the effort in your reply. You'll next say "You know exactly what you said and I don't have time or energy to replay it for you. If you want to read it, just go read it yourself." Translation: I have nothing.

As an aside, I believe it was you in the Red Pill thread where I caught you directly contradicting yourself within one post (which you never acknowledged). You said, "I never used the both sides do it" argument and literally three sentences later you said "both sides do it".

Feel free to not engaging. I understand how tiresome it must be to keep losing arguments and resorting to insults as your last stand. I find you entertaining.

 

You seem very proud of yourself do want a cookie now?

Are you going to let us know why you brought up freedom of the press and 1A in the 1st place?

 

It's called transitive reasoning.

(A) Psaki will become a (B) journalist
(B) journalism is supported by 1A (C)

I support A + B, I also support B + C. Therefore, you can infer that I also support A + C.

It's in response to YOUR question about why does anybody care about Psaki. If you don't care what I have to say about I care about, then stop asking why anybody cares.

You done yet?

 

LOL.

Do you think this makes sense because you used a big word?

You do know everybody can actually read what you said, right?

 

It makes because, well, ...logic. Feel free to point out the error ...but you don't.

 

Hello @HayesStreet - long time no see! 99er sighting!

 

Triggered people are super weird.

 

He got triggered like a woke person.

 

What's up Jackie?

 

this is probably not going to end well

 

Did you hear Kamala the other day?

 

LMAOOOOO
Diversity hire gets introduced to the real world for the first time. Face plants. She sounded a lot like Kamala -- deer in headlights, quick -- revert to reading notes even if they are not relevant!