[scaredyclassic]

Like dividers on the freeway. Why pay for that.

It’s reasonable to pay for those.

I don’t know if this is a decent case. But it seems like it might have some value.

Once you build the pier you have a duty to maintain it maybe regulate crazy shit going on on it.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=Blogstar]Come to think of it I bet there are laws about how close to the pier one can swim. Maybe a couple hundred yards?[/quote]

City should put out buoys to make restricted area.

[scaredyclassic]

There’s risk to being on the roadways. But we don’t accept the risk of behavior that is grossly negligent. If the fishermen were toying with that shark on the line and saw the swimmers approaching the shark and had the opportunity to cut the shark loose well that doesn’t seem much different than running someone off the road.

City liability a different issue but we can sort that out later.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=CDMA ENG]Well then… I’ll admit to being a jerk…

I have laughed at guys jumping out of the water when a fin pops of of the water and everybody pulls their feet and hands in.

I have been laughed at in turn.

Perhaps its just a sick joke that us water-men share.

What no one has considered so far is that despite the danger… Those Native Californians put their own lives at risk and went to the aid of that man.

And let me add… Almost every time there is a shark bite rescue it was made by a civilian. Not a professional. As the civilian is always the first to the scene.

Surfing is a sport that transcends all lines (yes I realize he was a swimmer but I am using surfing as the sample set). Poor, rich, educated or not, and ethnic, and is a good sample set of all Californians. Never once have I seen people swim away from the danger of someone in need. Every single time I have seen someone hurt, risk or not, and with no connection to the injured, have been quick to the aid of that person.

So I reject the idea that Native California are uncaring. In fact I would say that we are above the norm in terms of a caring society. I can say that having literally lived all over this country.

Simple fact is every time you get into the water there is a risk factor associated with it. Whether or not the fisherman added to that risk is irrelevant. Period.

Part of the reason I stay here in CA is for the culture and the people.

That is a compliment to us all.

CE[/quote]

Personally I’m scared of the water. You guy are all excused from my jury.

[scaredyclassic]

it’s not a native californian thing, though. I think globally, people find fear funny. except for me. because im so scared. im scaredycat! scaredy will never laugh at your fear.

[scaredyclassic]

the fishermen took his chances going swimming that a random freeswimming shark might bite him. But he didn’t take the risk of some fisherdudes who were fighting witha hooked shark would allow their fishing to intersect with his swim path. Clearly the fishermen had a better vantage point to recognize the impending danger from the higher point of the pier.

no more pier fishing unless there is a pier monitor/cop who is financed by pier fishing fees. or the city can get insurance for this kind of crap.

[scaredyclassic]

well maybe it’s not worh 500k. probably not. i don’t know what the damages are. be a lot better obviously for the case if he got a body part chewed off…

still, on the other hand, his level of fear was probably off the charts. as far as emotional distress claims go, assuming the fishermen’s acts were intentional, it’s hard to get better than startling a dude swimming along with a hooked shark…

the fishermen needed to cut that baby loose. before the swimmers got too close…

[scaredyclassic]

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/snow-white-doesnt-live-here-anymore/201304/laughing-the-scary-stuff-humor-and-fear

why do my kids think it’s hilarious to scare me?

fear and its safe resoltuion must be encoded deep in our DNA under HAHA!

[scaredyclassic]

from the video it sounds like the fishermen had the shark hooked for a while and were trying to reel him in. As plaintiff’s lawyer I’d argue the city shoudl not permit shark fishing in an area where people are swiming. If there were signage prohibiting shark fishing, then the city knew of th edanger and probably should have taken more steps to prohibit the fishermen from fishing for sharks. if there were no signage there should have been signage and the city was negligent for failing to prohibit shark fishing.

either way, seems liek a sympathetic case, because the fishermen think it’s hilarious that a shark they have ont he line is “jumping right on top” of the swimmer. That ‘s probably enough to get the jury worked up enough to want to stop people from shark fishing right there.

i’ll settlefor 500k.

[scaredyclassic]

It’s a thin line between comedy and tragedy. I recall being an intoxicated teen over 30 years ago and reading some “funny” comic strip in a news paper and weeping actual tears at the cruelty and sadness embodied in the “JOKES” .. really more crying at the thought that the artist thought other people might find it funny, then laughing at myself for weeping.

I was pretty intoxicated though. Normally I can handle reading the comics section without bawling.

The fishermen sound like douche bags on the tape. I expect they will be sued for failing to fish with reasonable care as they had hooked the shark and the swimmers came by. Also the municipality for allowing it in the pier. Settle with the city.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=CA renter]Don’t forget the church’s tax-exempt status. That’s a tax expenditure, so one could argue that they do get federal funds.

[/quote]

They get a double tax-exemption. Not only are their net profits not subject to income tax, contributions made by donors are deductible for many people. In some localities, real estate owned by religious organizations are exempt from property taxes.

While calculations of the dollar value of these exemptions is difficult, it’s been estimated the cost of religious tax exemptions is as high as $71,000,000,000 per year. That’s double the amount spent on the two largest tax subsidies for other industries (financial and utilities).[/quote]

Yeah but in terms of productivity 71 billion is nothing for the number if immortal souls safely shepherded into heaven who otherwise would be roasting in hell. I’d say easily we’d be willing to pay as Americans 10 million per soul safely saved by churches. We are making out like bandits. We should probably be paying the churches directly.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=SK in CV][quote=bearishgurl]
You can find what you’re looking for in Mission Hills (SD 92103), although it might be smaller than what you say you need/want (~2600 sf) for your price range. [/quote]

No, she can’t. Not with her lot size requirement.[/quote]

Temecula wine country. Sort of. http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/33670-Pauba-Rd-Temecula-CA-92592/2106137295_zpid/

This place is walking distance to some schools 1 mile to elem. Scool. Very bikeable right near Temecula country like but less than a mile from stuff maybe two miles to the freewat.

This one’s not very nice and price is high. Just drove by it last night taking kid to a piano lesson. Cool area.

Not sure there’s any feeling of belngingness though

[scaredyclassic]

I saw a rusty rustic steel driveway gate I really liked. Yeah…rust! I love rust.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=UCGal][quote=FlyerInHi]

What was the cause of death? Had he lived clean, I think that he would have lived to a couple decades longer or more (old age is never a cause of death).

87yo is nothing. I insist on living to at least 100, I’m not money hungry, but living a long time is why I need a solid nest egg. I might not get my wish… but i think that, based on family history, I might make it.

I’m 47. I think that I would enjoy watching the world for another 53 years or more.[/quote]

You do understand that the bodies ability to reproduce new cells diminishes with age. And that’s predetermined genetically with something called telomeres. Google it. I hope you have long telomeres… but even long ones will eventually give out.

Additionally, brain function, cognition, memory decline with age – not necessarily full blown dementia, but just general decline. My 87 year old stepmom is starting to show signs of memory loss. Not full blown dementia – but has to write things down more than she used to. This is a woman who was teaching graduate students up till last year – very sharp… but you can’t stave off memory loss forever.

Financial planning for extended age is good. (I planned for age 100 in my retirement plans) But looking around me at parents, step parents, friends, in-laws, etc…. at some point the quality of life declines.

My grandmother effectively died of old age. She was 92 years old. Woke up, went to use the restroom, and died there. Apparently, this is very common. So unless you plan on giving up sh*tting, it could happen for you. Cause of death was listed as heart failure. (Not heart attack) – basically, her heart was no longer beating, so it failed.

My step granddad died at 96. He was lucid and very physically active till about 88. His health started declining as his cognition started declining and he moved in with his younger sister, and eventually into a nursing home. He had very little quality of life the last 3-4 years.

My FIL died at age 90 a year ago. He’d had dementia and loss of mobility for years. No quality of life.

My MIL is 87 and starting to decline physically. Arthritis, etc. She’s always been active, but doesn’t move as fast and has much poorer balance these days. Mentally dementia moved in about 2-3 years ago. She won’t admit it – but family needs to manage her affairs because she’s no longer capable.

You can hope to live to 100 or more with great quality of life. But sheer will, exercise, eating correctly aren’t enough. Sometimes the body and brain have other plans. Be realistic, hope for the best, plan for the worst.[/quote]

I don’t feel peppy this week. Maybe it’s my telomeres shortening. I was lying in bed with my wife tucked in and a teen came in to say goodnight. He was laughing at us. I think we looked like the old people in the willy wonka movie. Lying in bed. Old.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=mike92104][quote=scaredyclassic]

And the constitution seems to want to keep religions out of govt decisionmaking. [/quote]

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ”

It doesn’t say anything about keeping religion out of government decisions.[/quote]

What has the US supreme court and the founding fathers told us about the meaning of the phrase “establishment of a religion” over the last few hundred years.

[Author]

Posts