-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Days later, the aftermath of the cookie lawsuit...
- Thread starter Brannon
- Start date
- Status
I told you guys... she's one of those neighbors... you know some of us had them when we grew up... the cooky neighbor whose house you are told to avoid... the cooky neighborhood who lost her mind if you ran across her grass as a little kid... you remember that neighbor...
Escape Goat
Member
All this over cookies... *shakes head*
I only appear to look stupid cause you're not using your head. That I can't do anything about.
As I said before, I am not on Young's side of the case. Nor am I on the side of the girls'. I am totally neutral and just simplying looking at the case objectively, which the majority here are not doing. Repeating again, both sides made errors with Young's side being the one to look at more seriously. I started on questioning and analysing the girl's action and have yet to start on questioning and analysing the old lady's actions. But since this thread already has an unswaggable lynch mob mentality, I'm not going to continue or bother anymore cause I know my insightful inputs will be fruitless here.
As I said before, I am not on Young's side of the case. Nor am I on the side of the girls'. I am totally neutral and just simplying looking at the case objectively, which the majority here are not doing. Repeating again, both sides made errors with Young's side being the one to look at more seriously. I started on questioning and analysing the girl's action and have yet to start on questioning and analysing the old lady's actions. But since this thread already has an unswaggable lynch mob mentality, I'm not going to continue or bother anymore cause I know my insightful inputs will be fruitless here.
Well clearly there's some merit to the woman's claim:
a) because the family offered to pay her for her medical bills
b) because the court awarded her the money.
...people just think she's a dumb hosebag because she made a bigger deal out of it (taking it to court because she was bothered by "trust" issues) than she needed to. This is the sort of scenario where forgiveness, not going to court, is most appropriate (and hence, the woman is now reaping what she's sown).
Then there's probably the issue of "she's a freak to have freaked out so bad," but that's a whole other story.
a) because the family offered to pay her for her medical bills
b) because the court awarded her the money.
...people just think she's a dumb hosebag because she made a bigger deal out of it (taking it to court because she was bothered by "trust" issues) than she needed to. This is the sort of scenario where forgiveness, not going to court, is most appropriate (and hence, the woman is now reaping what she's sown).
Then there's probably the issue of "she's a freak to have freaked out so bad," but that's a whole other story.
Escape Goat
Member
When the pain and suffering becomes too much she'll just eat her problems away with all the free cookies shes received :lol
NotMSRP said:
I don't know if you're just playing devils advocate, or if you're actually this stupid. I sincerely hope it's the former.
No one is denying that the girls made a bit of a mistake. The problem is that mistake is something that should be EASILY OVERLOOKED by anyone who's not a lawsuit hungry detriment to society.
Especially since in this case, it appears one of the defendants was even friends with her daughter. Imagine being sued by your friend's mother because you played a prank and scared the shit out of her. I can't even fathom the thought, that's just how low that is. Apologies would be made, offers to help rectify the situation, but a lawsuit? Alright, now imagine it wasn't a prank, and the only intention was that of good, but you made a mistake that caused a problem.
Your analogy that sometimes you do good things but get yelled at has to be the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard. Yes, I'm sure everyone on this board has been yelled at for trying to do something nice............ YELLED AT. Punished maybe, scorned, and had heads shaken at them. This is not a stern finger wagging, and a go to bed without dinner situation, the fucking bitch SUED them. Not even in the same fucking universe as getting mad at someone for making a mistake while trying to do something nice.
Just drop the arguement now, the bitch has no ground to stand on and neither do you, and you're simply appearing more and more stupid every time you attempt to shed some light on the subject. Just shut up.
More like imagine being sued by your friend's mother because you rang her doorbell a couple hours after sunset to drop some cookies off on her doorstep.
This woman deserves all the harassment she's getting. What a piece of human shit.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
SickBoy said:
the only reason why i believe that the court even awarded her the money was because that family had already offered to pay for her bills, and thus admitted their fault. if they hadnt previously offered, i dont think she would have won that money so easily.
UltimateMarioMan
Member
Can't say I feel the least bit sorry for the old woman.
The phoned death threats are extreme, but the true "pranks" (oreo crumbs, gourmet cookie baskets, empty cookie boxes, etc) thoroughly redeem humanity, imho.
Or, at the very least, those examples and the donations the two girls received must represent some kind of positive turning point for American society!
:lol
Or, at the very least, those examples and the donations the two girls received must represent some kind of positive turning point for American society!
:lol
DarienA said:
I don't know if I'm being lumped in here, but I do want to make it clear that I don't think the woman's position is justified. There's merit to the claim that the girls' actions landed her a medical bill, and that's about it (and even then, I mean, WTF? scared sick? Did she think the girls were al-Qaida or something?). I think it reflects well on the families that they were willing to cover that $900 bill. I also think it shows some feelings of responsibility on their end...
But to go to court for it, ludicrous.
I never said the girls should be sued or deserved to be sued. But they should have used their brains by delivering the cookies during daylight and face-to-face, as I previously mentioned. Delivering a gift in person or a drop-off gift, which one would have a greater impact on the receiving person? Using "common sense", you would know to not knock on someone's door at a time like 12am, unless it is an extreme emergency or have setup an appointment at such times. Just because I am friends with a certain neighbor doesn't mean I can knock on his/her door anytime of the 24 hours of the day I wish to do so. There are other people in the neighbor's household to also consider and that I may not be friends with. In simple words, display some good manners by going during daytime. Delivering cookies is not urgent and would have been best by what I said above. I said it is a minor mistake and not an issue worthy of a lawsuit. It would not be unreasonable to have some anxiety or fear from possible intruders but not emergency room worthy in this case. It would require at least the next step in intrusion to start having panic attacks.
You should now know if you haven't already that it is possible to offend someone when you want to help that someone. You should stop and think for a moment to consider if it is worth the risk of a possible backlash when assisting someone. Another valid example is the thread posting here on GAF. "Welcome to last week" or "old" or a redirect link. The backlash here is embrassment. In this cookie lawsuit, a scolding should have been the extreme backlash rather than the unnecessary lawsuit.
I know you guys only read skin-deep in my posts and don't really take the time to think deeper. That's okay. I'll just have to repeat the obvious for you so you don't have to do the hard work of reading. You guys are quick to jump the gun and would make terrible judges and jurors. Please stay far away from the legal system. Your mode of thinking does not capture the mode of thinking that the legal system is built upon or for. Emotional and irrational thinking that jumps to conclusions or shows sympathy are a no-no in the legal system.
You should now know if you haven't already that it is possible to offend someone when you want to help that someone. You should stop and think for a moment to consider if it is worth the risk of a possible backlash when assisting someone. Another valid example is the thread posting here on GAF. "Welcome to last week" or "old" or a redirect link. The backlash here is embrassment. In this cookie lawsuit, a scolding should have been the extreme backlash rather than the unnecessary lawsuit.
I know you guys only read skin-deep in my posts and don't really take the time to think deeper. That's okay. I'll just have to repeat the obvious for you so you don't have to do the hard work of reading. You guys are quick to jump the gun and would make terrible judges and jurors. Please stay far away from the legal system. Your mode of thinking does not capture the mode of thinking that the legal system is built upon or for. Emotional and irrational thinking that jumps to conclusions or shows sympathy are a no-no in the legal system.
D
Deleted member 1235
Unconfirmed Member
Cyan said:
Which is what's wrong with America. The fact that someone can think "Well that's a lawsuit" when two teenage girls deliver home baked cookies to a neighbour a wee bit late is astounding, to me anyway.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked