[Moe The Bartender]

Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!


Wow apparently the IMing several mods gave you about harassing people and making wild "capricious" accusations out of left field was not enough. Please stop attacking me. I've never initiated any correspondence with you whatsoever and am tired of your unprovoked attacks that are uncalled for.

If I would have known that you also got an "A" in Cultural Anthropology, I would have left you alone. Lighten up "pal", I'm just funning with you. You, just like Roger Clemens last night, are serving up meatballs and people are knocking them out of the park. After our encounter, I read several of your other posts and was not surpised by your tirade.

The one thing I agree with you about, is that Shaq is not being greedy just because he wants more money, and he should be commended if he gives lots of that to charity. However, the color of the skin of the rich people he is getting the money from is not important.

[SilentOneX]

Originally posted by <b>Moe The Bartender</b>!
The one thing I agree with you about, is that Shaq is not being greedy just because he wants more money, and he should be commended if he gives lots of that to charity. However, the color of the skin of the rich people he is getting the money from is not important.

Don't forget Shaq has been giving out gifts that cost more than what we can afford to his teammates every Christmas. It seemed like that he actually do himself a wise mind to use the money for better than getting himself to be one of greediest son of b!tches alive.

[kflo]

Originally posted by <b>SilentOneX</b>!



Don't forget Shaq has been giving out gifts that cost more than what we can afford to his teammates every Christmas. It seemed like that he actually do himself a wise mind to use the money for better than getting himself to be one of greediest son of b!tches alive.

with shaq's generosity, he still has far more disposable income than just about any other player in the league.

[Moe The Bartender]

Originally posted by <b>jstempi</b>!

*edited*

You're ok by me Tempi. However, I do like to have a little fun on here now and again. I think people hate the Lakers for the same reason people hate the Cowboys...success breeds jealousy. In a way, if all this goes down with the Lakers, I will miss the intensity I had for those games, especially when LA came to San Antonio.

[LB26matrixns]

Originally posted by <b>jstempi</b>!


How bout a link?

No....how bout you link me. You are the one who came in flying out of left field arguing that I was wrong. You prove me wrong.

That was not a written amendment in the contract and would have only been a verbal gentleman's agreement...not legally enforcable if you didn't know. Such as the alleged agreement Kobe would have with the Clippers to play some games at the Pond in Aneheim or the alleged "agreement" Shaq had with the Lakers for the extension he wanted if he got GP and Malone to come to the Lakers.

LOL the first two have no connection to the third one. No....you're wrong. It would be a REAL agreement, enforceable. What is the appoint to agreeing to anything that isn't enforceable. That sounds weaker than a promisory estoppel-type promise

Exactly, your assertion is not logical because although remotely possible it would never happen, therefore it cannot happen. And what are you crying to the mods for? I am simply using an exaggerative story to help you understand. No where did I say you were an alien. Quit trying to whine to the mods to get them to edit me because it isnt warranted. You are not an alien and I am not attacking you by calling you one. Learn to read

Additionally, I did not initiate you. I responded to jokeaward and then you responded to me, so you "initiated" me.

Post 94 sir. Before it I told you you were wrong. I did not initiate you beyond that. You respond with "guess you must have failed contracts"

Once again you're failing to see logic. Would it ever happen? I doubt it. Would it be possible IF it were within the will of both Kobe and Sterling? Of course. I however disagree with Jokeaward because I do not believe it to be within the will of those two. Therefore under the present circumstances it lacks to condition precedent to be possible.

Why not go to the mods. The second thing you said to me was:

"Well, then I guess you'll have to spend your inheritance elsewhere and go without."

This before I ever said anything besides "you are wrong"....I fail to see how "you are wrong" justifies two attacks like the ones just stated.

Too bad you cant provide evidence for your assertions and I have. Does that work in law school"

*edited*

Wow this is brilliant...except you missed this:

[b]Ahhhh you have no idea how contracts work. If it doesn't offend a gap filler you're fine. Sterling could, thought I don't know why he would, agree to pay Kobe and the alternative performance could be Kobe going to prison. Bargained for Legal Detriment? Section 71 and 81 of the restatement of contract......

I Donald Sterling could promise to pay you Kobe Bryant, and you Kobe bryant could promise that you will perform by either playing or going to prison and filling out token paperwork for Sterling (in effect being Sterling's secretary).

[1] Did the promisee
[a] Do something not previously obligated to do; OR
[b] Refrain from something previously privileged to do

AND

[2] Did the
[a] Promise induce the detriment
Detriment induce the promise

Analyze the second of TWO ALTERNATIVE PERFORMANCE CONSENTED TO BY DONALD STERLING.

1a. Kobe would be obligated to go to prison separate of sterling, but he would not be obligated to fill out sterling's paperwork

2a. Sterling's promise to pay Kobe even if he goes to prison would be induced by Bryant's detriment of filling out the paperwork, but more importantly induced by Bryant's willingness to engage in the agreement at all

2b. The detriment of Bryant promising filling out the paperwork, if he should happen to go to prison, so that the deal could go through would induce Sterling's promise since Kobe would be in effect saying NO DEAL UNLESS YOU AGREE TO PAY ME EVEN IN PRISON

But you, in your insulting fashion, never asked me for particulars. Of course Kobe can't perform his basketball obligations by going to prison. But you can have the freedom to contract almost anything. You show me a provision of the CBA that says that owners cannot further facilitate the signing of an "at-risk" player by promising to have another possible performance in case the risk becomes reality.

Am I saying they did agree to this? NO! Someone else said that. I'm saying they COULD if they wanted to. They could agree to alternative performances, with the particular performance triggered by a condition precedent (Kobe going to prison) and the promises would not be illusory, and there would be mutuality of obligation.

This would be an "argument".....I didn't merely tell you you were wrong. I typed a rather eloquent and well thought out argument to back up my claim. Ironic that this post was the one you didn't quote isn't it?

Sterling is not gonna do favors for a particular team. Get over it.

*edited*

What are you talking about? What other team would be involved. I was talking about something he'd do to get Kobe to sign with the CLIPPERS.....not another team. Where do you get another team?

[LB26matrixns]

Originally posted by <b>jstempi</b>!


Well, now you have apparently given up your weak arguments and denigrated yourself to posting baiting laker hate, which is off topic. And you are not pointing out the Lakers demise, you are trying to convince me that the NBA will allow an unallowable amendment in Kobe's contract. No wonder why you dont comprehend all this...you dont even know what the discussion is about. Sad.

HOW BOUT THEM BULLS?!?!?!

Laker hate is ALWAYS on topic.

I was speaking of my other posts on this board....not the direct conflict we are having. Get the concept? See Ive made other posts about the Lakers.....they're all over the board.

Bulls will be better than the Lakers LOL. In fact....who won't be better? Charlotte? Maybe?

[LB26matrixns]

Originally posted by <b>Moe The Bartender</b>!


If I would have known that you also got an "A" in Cultural Anthropology, I would have left you alone. Lighten up "pal", I'm just funning with you. You, just like Roger Clemens last night, are serving up meatballs and people are knocking them out of the park. After our encounter, I read several of your other posts and was not surpised by your tirade.

The one thing I agree with you about, is that Shaq is not being greedy just because he wants more money, and he should be commended if he gives lots of that to charity. However, the color of the skin of the rich people he is getting the money from is not important.

Wow I thought Minstrel told you that that topic was done. Way to try to slip it in hoping I say something you can latch onto and proclaim "see, I'm right...he is a bigot." Something like "I met this white girl, and she was really smart." To which I'd expect you to respond "what are you saying....only white girls are smart. Ignorant! Racist!" LOL.

The only people you'll see opposing me besides yourself are Laker fans......I don't expect Laker fans to like or agree with me. But I'm not serving up meatballs if they disagree and I knock their arguments out of the box.

Also.....JStempi is the one yapping about taking cultural anthropology. I believe I aced that class despite barely showing up like in 1997....but I never said anything about it.

[jstempi]

Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!

No....how bout you link me. You are the one who came in flying out of left field arguing that I was wrong. You prove me wrong.

Apparently you dont understand. You are saying the NBA has a list of amendments that are NOT allowable. Lets see a link as evidence, otherwise there is no need to prove you wrong. I have already provided you links of the uniform player contract and a list of allowable amendments. Didn't law school teach you that when you make an assertion you need to provide evidence? I can see it now:

LB26matrixns: "It is clear that the defendent killed the victim with a knife."

Judge: "What is your evidence? The body has not been found and neither has the murder weapon."

LB26matrixns: "Well...prove me wrong. I am right and you are wrong. Please give me my A now."

You have the burden of proof when you maintain a factually based defense, hello?

LOL the first two have no connection to the third one. No....you're wrong. It would be a REAL agreement, enforceable. What is the appoint to agreeing to anything that isn't enforceable. That sounds weaker than a promisory estoppel-type promise

Well, provide me some evidence that there was a written agreement and that it was in MJ's contract. I maintain that there was no such clause. Lets see some proof of your assertion, or did e-lawdegree.com not teach you about "evidence" yet?

Post 94 sir. Before it I told you you were wrong. I did not initiate you beyond that. You respond with "guess you must have failed contracts"

If by initiate you mean personally attack, then you have a very weak argument. If it were a personal attack, it would have been edited. Failing contracts does not mean one is stupid, its just means they dont know the substance of the course...thats not a personal attacks against you, it is just an observation. Its like telling someone that they dont know hoops, thats not a personal attack.

Once again you're failing to see logic. Would it ever happen? I doubt it. Would it be possible IF it were within the will of both Kobe and Sterling? Of course.

Thats the point, it would never be in the will of DTS, so get over it.

I however disagree with Jokeaward because I do not believe it to be within the will of those two. Therefore under the present circumstances it lacks to condition precedent to be possible.

Thank you for giving up and admitting that I am right.

Why not go to the mods. The second thing you said to me was:

"Well, then I guess you'll have to spend your inheritance elsewhere and go without."

This before I ever said anything besides "you are wrong"....I fail to see how "you are wrong" justifies two attacks like the ones just stated.

Well I was backing up my man blaze (who is already banned - lol). So I broke the rules and attacked you (which were edited) after you broke the rules and went off topic. Crying to the mods about the latest comments is silly because they are not personal attacks. Again, I did not call you an alien, I simply used a story to get my point accross and it didn't attack you.

Wow this is brilliant...except you missed this:

[b]Ahhhh you have no idea how contracts work. If it doesn't offend a gap filler you're fine. Sterling could, thought I don't know why he would, agree to pay Kobe and the alternative performance could be Kobe going to prison. Bargained for Legal Detriment? Section 71 and 81 of the restatement of contract......

I Donald Sterling could promise to pay you Kobe Bryant, and you Kobe bryant could promise that you will perform by either playing or going to prison and filling out token paperwork for Sterling (in effect being Sterling's secretary).

[1] Did the promisee
[a] Do something not previously obligated to do; OR
[b] Refrain from something previously privileged to do

AND

[2] Did the
[a] Promise induce the detriment
Detriment induce the promise

Analyze the second of TWO ALTERNATIVE PERFORMANCE CONSENTED TO BY DONALD STERLING.

1a. Kobe would be obligated to go to prison separate of sterling, but he would not be obligated to fill out sterling's paperwork

2a. Sterling's promise to pay Kobe even if he goes to prison would be induced by Bryant's detriment of filling out the paperwork, but more importantly induced by Bryant's willingness to engage in the agreement at all

2b. The detriment of Bryant promising filling out the paperwork, if he should happen to go to prison, so that the deal could go through would induce Sterling's promise since Kobe would be in effect saying NO DEAL UNLESS YOU AGREE TO PAY ME EVEN IN PRISON

But you, in your insulting fashion, never asked me for particulars. Of course Kobe can't perform his basketball obligations by going to prison. But you can have the freedom to contract almost anything. You show me a provision of the CBA that says that owners cannot further facilitate the signing of an "at-risk" player by promising to have another possible performance in case the risk becomes reality.

Am I saying they did agree to this? NO! Someone else said that. I'm saying they COULD if they wanted to. They could agree to alternative performances, with the particular performance triggered by a condition precedent (Kobe going to prison) and the promises would not be illusory, and there would be mutuality of obligation.

This would be an "argument".....I didn't merely tell you you were wrong. I typed a rather eloquent and well thought out argument to back up my claim. Ironic that this post was the one you didn't quote isn't it?

I didn't feel the need to make my reply an entire page. I did reference your proposal and indicate it was ridiculous and would never happen. Again, it is speculatory and a near impossibility.

What are you talking about? What other team would be involved. I was talking about something he'd do to get Kobe to sign with the CLIPPERS.....not another team. Where do you get another team?

Well, since it went over your head, let me explain again. DTS is not going to help Kobe out to the benefit of one team (which could be the Clippers or whoever if you agree that Kobe is wanting a clause in his contract to get paid if he goes to jail).

[jstempi]

Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!


Laker hate is ALWAYS on topic.

I was speaking of my other posts on this board....not the direct conflict we are having. Get the concept? See Ive made other posts about the Lakers.....they're all over the board.

Bulls will be better than the Lakers LOL. In fact....who won't be better? Charlotte? Maybe?

Your post was neither in the flow of conversation or relating to the thread topic. Do you get the concept?

And nobody knows who will be better than the Lakers because Kobe hasnt signed yet and other team's rosters arent set yet either, but this is a topic for another thread.

[jstempi]

Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!

Also.....JStempi is the one yapping about taking cultural anthropology. I believe I aced that class despite barely showing up like in 1997....but I never said anything about it.

*edited*

[LB26matrixns]

Originally posted by <b>jstempi</b>!
Apparently you dont understand. You are saying the NBA has a list of amendments that are NOT allowable. Lets see a link as evidence, otherwise there is no need to prove you wrong. I have already provided you links of the uniform player contract and a list of allowable amendments. Didn't law school teach you that when you make an assertion you need to provide evidence? I can see it now:

LB26matrixns: "It is clear that the defendent killed the victim with a knife."

Judge: "What is your evidence? The body has not been found and neither has the murder weapon."

LB26matrixns: "Well...prove me wrong. I am right and you are wrong. Please give me my A now."

You have the burden of proof when you maintain a factually based defense, hello?

I claim to be no expert on a document I have never read....but what you don't seem to get is that Sterling and Kobe could be entering into an entirely separate agreement. I never said amendment.....you did.....I said to entirely separate possible performances. You provided a link. what does that mean.

What you're doing is like this:

"your honor, that man breached a contract with me"

"well lets see the law that you base your claim on"

"Your honor, here's the restatement of contract, you find it."

LOL what provides that there can not be an agreement with two separate performances?

Well, provide me some evidence that there was a written agreement and that it was in MJ's contract. I maintain that there was no such clause. Lets see some proof of your assertion, or did e-lawdegree.com not teach you about "evidence" yet?

LOL god you are bitter.

I didn't have a personal conversation with Jordan....the agreement was talked about on television. The agreement said MJ could play wherever and whenever he wanted. Yes I am aware that the Bulls let Eddy Curry play at the rucker, etc. But he has to get approval. He can't just go and sign up to play in a summer league in Japan without the Bulls approval. Or did you think that that was just his free right? Jordan however could. He could play wherever and whenever he wanted. Do I have proof? No I do not....because it isn't something recent. This was WELL before the internet. There is no LINK on it. It happened in the late 1980s. I could do what you just did and link you to the entire world of basketball news and tell you to find it LOL.

The rest I'll respond to later

[Moe The Bartender]

Originally posted by <b>jstempi</b>!


Oh, so you dont show up to classes...that explains everything.

Check out that meatball Moe!

I can't believe I'm siding with a Laker fan

Actually, Laker Fan has shown a lot of class after whacking the Spurs 4 straight. I'm through with Matrix for now, but I'll be monitoring his posts for accuracy and brevity.

[LB26matrixns]

Originally posted by <b>jstempi</b>!
If by initiate you mean personally attack, then you have a very weak argument. If it were a personal attack, it would have been edited. Failing contracts does not mean one is stupid, its just means they dont know the substance of the course...thats not a personal attacks against you, it is just an observation. Its like telling someone that they dont know hoops, thats not a personal attack.

Yes it is a personal attack. It is a slew of negative comments completely unnecessary to get the message across.

Thats the point, it would never be in the will of DTS, so get over it.

I never said it would be.....you get over it.