Caliga weeps for the culinary delights that have been lost! :cry:
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/paula-deen-issues-video-apology-racial-slur-article-1.1379262
QuotePaula Deen fired from Food Network after admitting to using racial slur
Just after canceling an appearance on 'Today,' the celebrity chef and Food Network star issued a formal video statement to make amends for her use of the N-word. Alas, her home channel still gave her the boot.
By Margaret Eby AND Don Kaplan / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Stick a fork in this butterball — she's been deep fried and deep-sixed by the Food Network.
Celebrity chef Paula Deen, 66, was canned by the cable channel on Friday after releasing a groveling video apology on YouTube for using the N-word and cracking racist jokes at her Savannah, Ga., restaurant.
"I want to apologize to everybody for the wrong I have done. I want to learn and grow from this," she said in the 45-second video posted on YouTube. "Inappropriate, hurtful language is totally, totally unacceptable."
But the ham-handed apology was not enough to save her job with the Food Network.
Friday, officials at the channel, where Deen rose to fame with her brand of butter and deep-fried fueled down-home Southern cooking, said they would not renew her contract, which expires at the end of the month.
Between her TV work, speaking engagements, cookbooks, licensing and endorsements, Forbes estimates her wealth at $17 million. Network sources said she was paid between $10,000 and $20,000 for each episode of her various shows.
Deen's callous language ballooned into a humiliating scandal earlier in the week, when the star admitted in a deposition for a $1.2 million discrimination trial that she had "of course" used the N-word in the past.
In her deposition she also said: "It's just what they are — they're jokes ... most jokes are about Jewish people, rednecks, black folks ... gays or straights, black, redneck, you know, I just don't know — I just don't know what to say," Deen reportedly said in her defense. "I can't, myself, determine what offends another person."
The pork-and-butter loving Deen, 66, and her brother Bubba Hiers are being sued by former employee Lisa Jackson, who alleged sexual harassment and a hostile work environment at Deen and Hiers' restaurant, Uncle Bubba's Seafood and Oyster House.
Hoping to quell the controversy on Thursday, Deen's reps said her use of the word was the product of her upbringing in the deep South.
Word that Deen had been canned came on the same day that Deen backed out of a scheduled appearance on the "Today" show about the controversy."
"I have to say I was physically not able this morning," Deen said on another video. "The pain has been tremendous."
"I want people to understand that my family and I are not the kind of people that the press is trying to say we are,"" she said.
Is James her son?
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwac.450f.edgecastcdn.net%2F80450F%2F929thebull.com%2Ffiles%2F2013%2F01%2Fkaty-paula-3.jpg&hash=1393813c6586d785ae1500ecd10b9edfd9a8aee9)
Looks like that lady mask Arnold wears in Total Recall.
Quote from: Syt on June 22, 2013, 02:30:12 AM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwac.450f.edgecastcdn.net%2F80450F%2F929thebull.com%2Ffiles%2F2013%2F01%2Fkaty-paula-3.jpg&hash=1393813c6586d785ae1500ecd10b9edfd9a8aee9)
Looks like that lady mask Arnold wears in Total Recall.
Ha, I never noticed that.
"My restaurants will be closed for two weeks. Two weeks. Two weeks. Two weeks...."
From the audio of her apology, you'd think she killed somebody or something.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 24, 2013, 11:33:38 AM
From the audio of her apology, you'd think she killed somebody or something.
She has to really sell it if she wants back on air.
CNN phone interviewed a black preacher who is backing her. Dude did not really help her cause that much. "Everybody says that word. You can use the word as an insult or not." I'm sure she appreciates him trying, but should probably tell him to shut up.
She'll get another tv deal someplace after an appropriate amount of time has passed.
I read the title of this thread as: "Paula Deen fried by Food Network for racist comments" :lol:
The thing that strikes me about this is from what I have read this became public through the release of her answers to questions in a Deposition in a law suit. In Canada answers given in our equivalent (called an examination for discovery) are strictly confidential and can only be used for the purposes of the litigation. It would be a contempt of Court for a party to use the transcript in this way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fbFXl9-t90 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fbFXl9-t90)
I'd have preferred a normal video from Rocketboom, but it's topical.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2013, 11:54:02 AM
The thing that strikes me about this is from what I have read this became public through the release of her answers to questions in a Deposition in a law suit. In Canada answers given in our equivalent (called an examination for discovery) are strictly confidential and can only be used for the purposes of the litigation. It would be a contempt of Court for a party to use the transcript in this way.
But that only applies to the parties involved. If the transcript leaks out third parties can't generally be sanctioned.
Quote from: Barrister on June 24, 2013, 11:58:55 AM
But that only applies to the parties involved. If the transcript leaks out third parties can't generally be sanctioned.
What sorts of third parties are privy to a deposition?
I don't know if it's political correctness run amok, but in any case, it's good when bad things happen to people who teach people to cook so atrociously. She's probably responsible for the premature deaths of billions of pounds worth of people.
Quote from: Barrister on June 24, 2013, 11:58:55 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2013, 11:54:02 AM
The thing that strikes me about this is from what I have read this became public through the release of her answers to questions in a Deposition in a law suit. In Canada answers given in our equivalent (called an examination for discovery) are strictly confidential and can only be used for the purposes of the litigation. It would be a contempt of Court for a party to use the transcript in this way.
But that only applies to the parties involved. If the transcript leaks out third parties can't generally be sanctioned.
If it "leaks" out there is only one source for that occuring. ;)
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2013, 12:03:32 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 24, 2013, 11:58:55 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2013, 11:54:02 AM
The thing that strikes me about this is from what I have read this became public through the release of her answers to questions in a Deposition in a law suit. In Canada answers given in our equivalent (called an examination for discovery) are strictly confidential and can only be used for the purposes of the litigation. It would be a contempt of Court for a party to use the transcript in this way.
But that only applies to the parties involved. If the transcript leaks out third parties can't generally be sanctioned.
If it "leaks" out there is only one source for that occuring. ;)
Nope - minimum of two sources. ;)
Quote from: Barrister on June 24, 2013, 12:06:38 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2013, 12:03:32 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 24, 2013, 11:58:55 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2013, 11:54:02 AM
The thing that strikes me about this is from what I have read this became public through the release of her answers to questions in a Deposition in a law suit. In Canada answers given in our equivalent (called an examination for discovery) are strictly confidential and can only be used for the purposes of the litigation. It would be a contempt of Court for a party to use the transcript in this way.
But that only applies to the parties involved. If the transcript leaks out third parties can't generally be sanctioned.
If it "leaks" out there is only one source for that occuring. ;)
Nope - minimum of two sources. ;)
Yeah, because logically it makes sense for a person to reveal damaging statments they made during a discovery. :P
Since when does logic have to do with proving contempt of court? :p
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2013, 11:54:02 AM
The thing that strikes me about this is from what I have read this became public through the release of her answers to questions in a Deposition in a law suit. In Canada answers given in our equivalent (called an examination for discovery) are strictly confidential and can only be used for the purposes of the litigation. It would be a contempt of Court for a party to use the transcript in this way.
In the United States, deposition transcripts (and all other discovery materials) are not confidential unless a party has specifically moved the court for a protective order restricting the use of such materials.
As a practical matter, it is common for the parties to a lawsuit to agree in advance that a party can designate transcripts confidential, and to restrict their dissemination, but it is not required.
And since deposition transcripts must usually be filed in full in connection with motions for / against summary judgment, if they are cited in part, unless the transcript was designated confidential it would be expected to end up on the public record as a matter of course.
Quote from: ulmont on June 24, 2013, 12:36:34 PM
And since deposition transcripts must usually be filed in full in connection with motions for / against summary judgment, if they are cited in part, unless the transcript was designated confidential it would be expected to end up on the public record as a matter of course.
Interesting. Here only the material portions of a transcript can be used for such purposes and it would be considered an abuse of process amounting to a contempt of court to make further portions of the transcript public through filing in support of a motion.
Even at trial only material portions of the transcript are entered into evidence.
I have no idea who she is.
That sucks but she once used donuts as hamburger breads. That lardass culinary sodomite was emblematic of everything wrong with the current Western diet. The stores by and large don't sell real food anymore, and if they accidently do, it's tucked away in the produce aisles to the sides.
Quote from: Legbiter on June 24, 2013, 01:38:29 PM
The stores by and large don't sell real food anymore, and if they accidently do, it's tucked away in the produce aisles to the sides.
That is the way it has always been...at least since I have been alive. Real food around the edges, processed crap in the middle.
Quote from: Valmy on June 24, 2013, 04:53:48 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on June 24, 2013, 01:38:29 PM
The stores by and large don't sell real food anymore, and if they accidently do, it's tucked away in the produce aisles to the sides.
That is the way it has always been...at least since I have been alive. Real food around the edges, processed crap in the middle.
So food is only real if unprocessed?
Quote from: DGuller on June 24, 2013, 12:02:55 PM
I don't know if it's political correctness run amok, but in any case, it's good when bad things happen to people who teach people to cook so atrociously. She's probably responsible for the premature deaths of billions of pounds worth of people.
I actually have no problem with how she cooked. A large portion of her dishes were Southern comfort food classics. A few were retarded and I think just her buying into the "anti-healthy" schtick (for example a sandwich that instead of buns uses two glazed Krispy Kreme Donuts, I don't think anyone has ever actually eaten that without realizing they were crossing the line from human into inhuman monster.)
I agree with the Julia Child philosophy on cooking. She viewed it as her job to show the recipe that had the richest, best flavors, not the most healthy. On the flipside, she never advocated you eat what she showed you 7 days a week, she left it up to you to decide how often to eat rich foods. FWIW (and while Deen isn't one of them) a lot of fine dining chefs who make heavy use of rich, fatty ingredients are pretty open about the fact that their food is "occasion meals" and not what you should eat every day of the week.
Plus, if you see a recipe and want a healthier version, it's common sense how to make it. Substitute low fat margarine for butter, substitute whole eggs with eqg whites etc.
Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2013, 05:13:49 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 24, 2013, 04:53:48 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on June 24, 2013, 01:38:29 PM
The stores by and large don't sell real food anymore, and if they accidently do, it's tucked away in the produce aisles to the sides.
That is the way it has always been...at least since I have been alive. Real food around the edges, processed crap in the middle.
So food is only real if unprocessed?
Yes, I know millions of North Americans disagree with that concept. But that is one of the reasons there are so many fat North Americans.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2013, 06:00:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2013, 05:13:49 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 24, 2013, 04:53:48 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on June 24, 2013, 01:38:29 PM
The stores by and large don't sell real food anymore, and if they accidently do, it's tucked away in the produce aisles to the sides.
That is the way it has always been...at least since I have been alive. Real food around the edges, processed crap in the middle.
So food is only real if unprocessed?
Yes, I know millions of North Americans disagree with that concept. But that is one of the reasons there are so many fat North Americans.
So I guess goodbye to most foods that one can store for more than a day. And an increase in disease you get from raw milk. Yay!
Well, "unprocessed" is kind of a broad brush. Practically nothing has no "processing" involved. Unless you buy your chickens with the feathers still on.
Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2013, 06:09:11 PM
So I guess goodbye to most foods that one can store for more than a day. And an increase in disease you get from raw milk. Yay!
:lol: From one extreme to the other.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 24, 2013, 06:10:58 PM
Well, "unprocessed" is kind of a broad brush. Practically nothing has no "processing" involved.
Yep, exactly my point.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2013, 06:12:30 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2013, 06:09:11 PM
So I guess goodbye to most foods that one can store for more than a day. And an increase in disease you get from raw milk. Yay!
:lol: From one extreme to the other.
There's a reason humans have been processing food for millenia. :mellow:
Mm, I can't be sure the science supports that CC. I think it's best to eat wholesome foods, but there are good processed foods. Processed foods are loaded with cheap sugar (HFCS in the U.S. from the corn glut) and also are specifically formulated by legions of food scientists to hit all kinds of pleasure centers in the brain. To do this you basically need lots of sugar, lots of salt, lots of empty calories that don't fill you very much and lead to overeating.
That being said, food processing is scientifically neutral. So I have to break it down into "reasonable objections to processed food" and "woo-based crystal energy healing objections" (we'll call those "crazy" objections.)
Reasonable objection: Foods like the cheeto (puff version especially). Highly processed corn glop, full of salt, no real nutritional value, no resemblance to any natural food, not very filling, high calories relative to satiety provided etc. It's reasonable to say that is junk food you either should abstain from or eat almost never.
Unreasonable objection: You can buy these "pre-mixed" smoothies in the frozen food aisle here. Basically it's a bag of frozen slush, you put it in a blender and blend and it turns into a creamy cold smoothie. If you look at the ingredients for the good ones, it literally just lists fruits and fruit juices. Nothing else. But purists will say "it was processed!!!!!!!! it's not real food unless you bought the fruit from the produce aisle and blended it yourself!" Now, the pre-mixed smoothie falls into the same category as pre-boiled eggs and "microwavable potatoes" (a regular potato sold in cellophane wrap at a markup over normal potato price) in that they're doing a small amount of work for you and overcharging for it, but there is nothing unhealthy about those pre-mixed smoothies just because they've gone through industrial processing.
If you're the first type of objector I'm in agreement, the second, not so much.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 24, 2013, 06:13:43 PM
Mm, I can't be sure the science supports that CC. I think it's best to eat wholesome foods, but there are good processed foods. Processed foods are loaded with cheap sugar (HFCS in the U.S. from the corn glut) and also are specifically formulated by legions of food scientists to hit all kinds of pleasure centers in the brain. To do this you basically need lots of sugar, lots of salt, lots of empty calories that don't fill you very much and lead to overeating.
This is mainly the type of foods I am talking about. I agree that it is possible to have some degree of processing and still have healthy food. The problem is that most processed food is not.
I actually think portions might be a bigger issue. Most places I go, they give be double, if not triple, the amount of food that I actually want. Combine that with guilt over wasting food and...ugh.
Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2013, 06:20:15 PM
I actually think portions might be a bigger issue. Most places I go, they give be double, if not triple, the amount of food that I actually want. Combine that with guilt over wasting food and...ugh.
Portion size is also obviously a problem, which is why I did not claim that processed foods are the only reason there are fat people in North America.
To pick a nit, the use of HFCS in the US is not a result of a corn glut (plenty of other uses for corn), but rather because of the import quotas on cane sugar.
We all got convinced back in the day that meat and fat were bad for us and started shoving corn flakes down our throats instead. Don't forget this:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F0%2F06%2FWonder_Bread_Open.JPG&hash=0ceeb911a701d12a4414ceb737013d7c3a98503a)
Nothing but air, sugar and empty carbs.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 24, 2013, 06:27:35 PM
To pick a nit, the use of HFCS in the US is not a result of a corn glut (plenty of other uses for corn), but rather because of the import quotas on cane sugar.
Dont those two things work together to create cheap fructose and dear sugar?
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 24, 2013, 06:30:00 PMNothing but air, sugar and empty carbs.
But it has 8 essential nutrients! It says so, right on the bag!
Great, now I want some of her gooey butter cake. THANKS Y'ALL
@otto,
Had one if those burgers with the Krispy Kreme buns once.
Was at state fair.
Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2013, 06:20:15 PM
I actually think portions might be a bigger issue. Most places I go, they give be double, if not triple, the amount of food that I actually want. Combine that with guilt over wasting food and...ugh.
Most places I go give me half as much as I want.
Quote from: katmai on June 24, 2013, 07:40:40 PM
@otto,
Had one if those burgers with the Krispy Kreme buns once.
Was at state fair.
Inhuman monster. :mad:
Quote from: Legbiter on June 24, 2013, 01:38:29 PM
That sucks but she once used donuts as hamburger breads. That lardass culinary sodomite was emblematic of everything wrong with the current Western diet.
No she wasnt and isnt. Apparently you've not spent a large amount of time in the South.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2013, 06:00:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2013, 05:13:49 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 24, 2013, 04:53:48 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on June 24, 2013, 01:38:29 PM
The stores by and large don't sell real food anymore, and if they accidently do, it's tucked away in the produce aisles to the sides.
That is the way it has always been...at least since I have been alive. Real food around the edges, processed crap in the middle.
So food is only real if unprocessed?
Yes, I know millions of North Americans disagree with that concept. But that is one of the reasons there are so many fat North Americans.
It is lack of discipline that makes us fat. I'm not fat, and look at the garbage I eat. Today, for example, I ate a bag of Chester's (the Cheeto cheetah's) hot fries and eight chocolate chip cookies. But I'll be fine because of DISCIPLINE.
I'm really getting sick of the lack of discipline displayed by others. LOSE. FUCKING. WEIGHT. PLEASE.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 24, 2013, 08:22:04 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2013, 06:00:04 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2013, 05:13:49 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 24, 2013, 04:53:48 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on June 24, 2013, 01:38:29 PM
The stores by and large don't sell real food anymore, and if they accidently do, it's tucked away in the produce aisles to the sides.
That is the way it has always been...at least since I have been alive. Real food around the edges, processed crap in the middle.
So food is only real if unprocessed?
Yes, I know millions of North Americans disagree with that concept. But that is one of the reasons there are so many fat North Americans.
It is lack of discipline that makes us fat. I'm not fat, and look at the garbage I eat. Today, for example, I ate a bag of Chester's (the Cheeto cheetah's) hot fries and eight chocolate chip cookies. But I'll be fine because of DISCIPLINE.
I'm really getting sick of the lack of discipline displayed by others. LOSE. FUCKING. WEIGHT. PLEASE.
Yeah because you're showing some healthy discipline...
Garbon am I a bad person cause I will laughs ass off when Ide is diagnosed as a diabetic?
Impossible person.
Quote from: Maximus on June 24, 2013, 07:53:54 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2013, 06:20:15 PM
I actually think portions might be a bigger issue. Most places I go, they give be double, if not triple, the amount of food that I actually want. Combine that with guilt over wasting food and...ugh.
Most places I go give me half as much as I want.
Sadly, he's not joking. :(
Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2013, 06:09:11 PM
So I guess goodbye to most foods that one can store for more than a day. And an increase in disease you get from raw milk. Yay!
There's very little disease from raw milk, AFAIK. I've never had it, but I suppose I'll try to get some when I'm living in dairyland. Don't they sell it under the table in Union Sq. and shit?
Quote from: merithyn on June 25, 2013, 12:05:26 AM
Quote from: Maximus on June 24, 2013, 07:53:54 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2013, 06:20:15 PM
I actually think portions might be a bigger issue. Most places I go, they give be double, if not triple, the amount of food that I actually want. Combine that with guilt over wasting food and...ugh.
Most places I go give me half as much as I want.
Sadly, he's not joking. :(
Start going to places with a buffet table. :contract:
Quote from: Ideologue on June 24, 2013, 08:22:04 PM
It is lack of discipline that makes us fat. I'm not fat, and look at the garbage I eat. Today, for example, I ate a bag of Chester's (the Cheeto cheetah's) hot fries and eight chocolate chip cookies. But I'll be fine because of DISCIPLINE.
I'm really getting sick of the lack of discipline displayed by others. LOSE. FUCKING. WEIGHT. PLEASE.
This is something I personally don't get. Eating well doesn't require discipline. It feels good all on its own. It may require a lot more cash, unfortunately.
Quote from: DGuller on June 25, 2013, 12:59:13 AM
This is something I personally don't get. Eating well doesn't require discipline. It feels good all on its own. It may require a lot more cash, unfortunately.
Is joke?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 25, 2013, 01:08:31 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 25, 2013, 12:59:13 AM
This is something I personally don't get. Eating well doesn't require discipline. It feels good all on its own. It may require a lot more cash, unfortunately.
Is joke?
Not.
Then how do you square your Burger King consumption?
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 25, 2013, 02:06:47 AM
Then how do you square your Burger King consumption?
With a couple of pints of blueberries.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 25, 2013, 12:32:39 AM
Start going to places with a buffet table. :contract:
:D
I started doing that once the eldest two boys hit 13.
In DG's defense, the BK Stacker is NOT that big of a sandwich. I've heard people compare it to Wendy's Baconator, which is a much bigger sandwich. :sleep:
Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2013, 05:13:49 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 24, 2013, 04:53:48 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on June 24, 2013, 01:38:29 PM
The stores by and large don't sell real food anymore, and if they accidently do, it's tucked away in the produce aisles to the sides.
That is the way it has always been...at least since I have been alive. Real food around the edges, processed crap in the middle.
So food is only real if unprocessed?
That is a colloquialism. You know what I mean.
Quote from: Valmy on June 25, 2013, 09:15:34 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2013, 05:13:49 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 24, 2013, 04:53:48 PM
Quote from: Legbiter on June 24, 2013, 01:38:29 PM
The stores by and large don't sell real food anymore, and if they accidently do, it's tucked away in the produce aisles to the sides.
That is the way it has always been...at least since I have been alive. Real food around the edges, processed crap in the middle.
So food is only real if unprocessed?
That is a colloquialism. You know what I mean.
Then I think you need better grocery stores.
Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 09:33:20 AM
Then I think you need better grocery stores.
Why? The ones I use are pretty great.
The system makes sense, as the bakery and deli sections have employees working there. If those sections were in the middle, they'd be in the way.
Quote from: Valmy on June 25, 2013, 09:50:24 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 09:33:20 AM
Then I think you need better grocery stores.
Why? The ones I use are pretty great.
Because yours apparently only have real food on the periphery.
There's plenty of real food in the center, it's just in boxes and cans.
Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 10:05:23 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 25, 2013, 09:50:24 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 09:33:20 AM
Then I think you need better grocery stores.
Why? The ones I use are pretty great.
Because yours apparently only have real food on the periphery.
English, do you speak it? I said it was a colloquialism, not meant to be taken literally.
Quote from: Valmy on June 25, 2013, 10:14:00 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 10:05:23 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 25, 2013, 09:50:24 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 09:33:20 AM
Then I think you need better grocery stores.
Why? The ones I use are pretty great.
Because yours apparently only have real food on the periphery.
English, do you speak it? I said it was a colloquialism, not meant to be taken literally.
So let me get this straight, you supported Legbiter's hyperbole with a statement from yourself that wasn't really supportive of the hyperbole. :hmm:
Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 10:16:39 AM
So let me get this straight, you supported Legbiter's hyperbole with a statement from yourself that wasn't really supportive of the hyperbole. :hmm:
You got it completely wrong then. I was not supporting Legbiter's hyperbole. I was refuting his little thesis was evidence of anything since that is always how it has been. And it just makes sense, you want the perishable stuff out on the edges not left to languish on a shelf in the middle of the store.
Quote from: Valmy on June 25, 2013, 10:20:11 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2013, 10:16:39 AM
So let me get this straight, you supported Legbiter's hyperbole with a statement from yourself that wasn't really supportive of the hyperbole. :hmm:
You got it completely wrong then. I was not supporting Legbiter's hyperbole. I was refuting his little thesis was evidence of anything since that is always how it has been. And it just makes sense, you want the perishable stuff out on the edges not left to languish on a shelf in the middle of the store.
Well you were refuting that it has been a recent change but I didn't realize you were also refuting the entire statement. :D
Quote from: Caliga on June 25, 2013, 09:11:08 AM
In DG's defense, the BK Stacker is NOT that big of a sandwich. I've heard people compare it to Wendy's Baconator, which is a much bigger sandwich. :sleep:
It's not, it is rather small, which is one of the reasons I like it. I had those big Whopper-sized burgers were the bread comes apart in your hand, and which are too tall to bite comfortably. In any case, while it's not a good food, I never order fries or soda with it, which I guess is the real shit when it comes to fast food.
Yep, exactly.
btw I ate at Paula Deen's restaurant in the Harrah's Cherokee Casino the other week. It actually wasn't that great... nobody I was with was that impressed with it. Like I ordered a 'lowcountry sampler' and I was expecting a lowcountry boil, but all of the seafood was breaded and deep fried and there was fried cod in it. :wacko: I believe Paula would be angry if she knew that's how they served it, since a lowcountry boil is a classic dish from Savannah and it's not even remotely prepared that way. :mellow:
Quote from: Caliga on June 25, 2013, 11:53:46 AM
btw I ate at Paula Deen's restaurant in the Harrah's Cherokee Casino the other week. It actually wasn't that great... nobody I was with was that impressed with it. Like I ordered a 'lowcountry sampler' and I was expecting a lowcountry boil, but all of the seafood was breaded and deep fried and there was fried cod in it. :wacko: I believe Paula would be angry if she knew that's how they served it, since a lowcountry boil is a classic dish from Savannah and it's not even remotely prepared that way. :mellow:
MORE BUTTER Y'ALL
Quote from: Caliga on June 25, 2013, 11:53:46 AM
btw I ate at Paula Deen's restaurant in the Harrah's Cherokee Casino the other week. It actually wasn't that great... nobody I was with was that impressed with it. Like I ordered a 'lowcountry sampler' and I was expecting a lowcountry boil, but all of the seafood was breaded and deep fried and there was fried cod in it. :wacko: I believe Paula would be angry if she knew that's how they served it, since a lowcountry boil is a classic dish from Savannah and it's not even remotely prepared that way. :mellow:
Is that like Frogmore stew? 'Cause that's yummy, and deep-frying it would be wrong.
Should I read this thread?
Nah, neverwintermind.
Quote from: fhdz on June 25, 2013, 11:58:54 AM
Quote from: Caliga on June 25, 2013, 11:53:46 AM
btw I ate at Paula Deen's restaurant in the Harrah's Cherokee Casino the other week. It actually wasn't that great... nobody I was with was that impressed with it. Like I ordered a 'lowcountry sampler' and I was expecting a lowcountry boil, but all of the seafood was breaded and deep fried and there was fried cod in it. :wacko: I believe Paula would be angry if she knew that's how they served it, since a lowcountry boil is a classic dish from Savannah and it's not even remotely prepared that way. :mellow:
MORE BUTTER Y'ALL
MAH HEART
Cal, the Ide of food. No wait, they're both foodtards.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on June 25, 2013, 12:20:03 PM
Is that like Frogmore stew? 'Cause that's yummy, and deep-frying it would be wrong.
Yes, same thing. One of the best meals I ever had was a lowcountry boil at a place on Tybee Island.
Quote from: Caliga on June 25, 2013, 11:53:46 AM
btw I ate at Paula Deen's restaurant in the Harrah's Cherokee Casino the other week. It actually wasn't that great... nobody I was with was that impressed with it. Like I ordered a 'lowcountry sampler' and I was expecting a lowcountry boil, but all of the seafood was breaded and deep fried and there was fried cod in it. :wacko: I believe Paula would be angry if she knew that's how they served it, since a lowcountry boil is a classic dish from Savannah and it's not even remotely prepared that way. :mellow:
What is lowcountry boil?
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 25, 2013, 01:41:40 PM
Quote from: Caliga on June 25, 2013, 11:53:46 AM
btw I ate at Paula Deen's restaurant in the Harrah's Cherokee Casino the other week. It actually wasn't that great... nobody I was with was that impressed with it. Like I ordered a 'lowcountry sampler' and I was expecting a lowcountry boil, but all of the seafood was breaded and deep fried and there was fried cod in it. :wacko: I believe Paula would be angry if she knew that's how they served it, since a lowcountry boil is a classic dish from Savannah and it's not even remotely prepared that way. :mellow:
What is lowcountry boil?
Typically shrimp (often swapped for crawfish in some areas), corn, potatoes, and sausage boiled in water with heavy spices.
Here's Paula Deen's recipe, in fact:
http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/paula-deen/low-country-boil-recipe/index.html
And an Alton Brown crawfish boil recipe showing the similarity, and also more detail on what spices are used:
http://www.foodnetwork.com/recipes/alton-brown/crawfish-boil-recipe/index.html
Quote from: ulmont on June 25, 2013, 01:48:13 PM
Typically shrimp (often swapped for crawfish in some areas), corn, potatoes, and sausage boiled in water with heavy spices.
Ah yeah. That's the stuff :mmm:
Quote from: ulmont on June 25, 2013, 01:48:13 PM
Typically shrimp (often swapped for crawfish in some areas), corn, potatoes, and sausage boiled in water with heavy spices.
That sounds good.
Sounds like it would work with fried shrimp too though. /shrug
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 25, 2013, 02:25:32 PM
Sounds like it would work with fried shrimp too though. /shrug
I think the whole point is to get the spices and pork flavor to permeate the other foods. You won't get that with fried shrimp.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2013, 01:23:29 PM
Interesting. Here only the material portions of a transcript can be used for such purposes and it would be considered an abuse of process amounting to a contempt of court to make further portions of the transcript public through filing in support of a motion.
"[A] strong presumption of public access applies to evidence admitted at trial or considered by the court to decide the merits of a case."
I finally saw a link to the Deen transcript, and as expected it was filed on the public record as an attachment:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/148813272/Transcript-of-the-Testimony-of-Paula-Deen-Date-May-17-2013
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 25, 2013, 02:13:12 PM
Quote from: ulmont on June 25, 2013, 01:48:13 PM
Typically shrimp (often swapped for crawfish in some areas), corn, potatoes, and sausage boiled in water with heavy spices.
That sounds good.
It's excellent.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 25, 2013, 02:29:52 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 25, 2013, 02:25:32 PM
Sounds like it would work with fried shrimp too though. /shrug
I think the whole point is to get the spices and pork flavor to permeate the other foods. You won't get that with fried shrimp.
Not without making it hellishly soggy in the process, no.
EDIT: and cc, it's not like there weren't grounds pursuant to our federal rule 26 to seal that transcript: "The court may, for good cause, issue an order to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense"
Quote from: ulmont on June 25, 2013, 02:33:37 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 24, 2013, 01:23:29 PM
Interesting. Here only the material portions of a transcript can be used for such purposes and it would be considered an abuse of process amounting to a contempt of court to make further portions of the transcript public through filing in support of a motion.
"[A] strong presumption of public access applies to evidence admitted at trial or considered by the court to decide the merits of a case."
As it is here. The difference between our systems appears to be that the whole of the transcript is admitted into evidence there whereas only the material portions are admitted here.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 25, 2013, 02:25:32 PM
Sounds like it would work with fried shrimp too though. /shrug
No, it was completely different. It wasn't *bad*, it just wasn't what I wanted and expected I would be getting.
Quote from: The Brain on June 25, 2013, 01:07:43 PM
Cal, the Ide of food. No wait, they're both foodtards.
Wrong.
What was Ide the Ide of before you corrected yourself? :)
Quote from: Ideologue on June 25, 2013, 07:38:21 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 25, 2013, 01:07:43 PM
Cal, the Ide of food. No wait, they're both foodtards.
Wrong.
What was Ide the Ide of before you corrected yourself? :)
Here's to your future Ide!
QuoteThe woman did not have a family history of heart or hormone problems. But she told her doctors that, since the age of 15, she had not drunk any water — soda (specifically cola) was the only liquid she consumed. She drank about 2 liters (2 quarts) of cola daily, she said.
After abstaining from soda for just one week, the woman's potassium levels and heart electrical activity returned to normal.
Drinking too much cola may cause excess water to enter the bowels, which in turn leads to diarrhea, and loss of potassium, the researchers said. High amounts of caffeine can also increase urine production and decrease potassium reabsorption, the researchers said. Potassium plays a role in helping a person's heartbeat, and low levels of potassium may cause heart rhythm problems.
After searching for other similar cases, the researchers found six reports of excessive cola consumption that were thought to be related to adverse medical problems, including heart rhythm problems.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 25, 2013, 02:36:57 PM
The difference between our systems appears to be that the whole of the transcript is admitted into evidence there whereas only the material portions are admitted here.
That is also what usually happens here, although if a lot of the transcript is relevant, the whole thing might be attached.
I noticed that the transcript does not have any confidentiality designation on it, and the testimony that got Deen into trouble does not seem to be the sort of thing that would be covered by a confidentiality order in any case.
This poor, stupid woman needs to take the opportunity of the DOMA ruling to sit down, shut the fuck up, and let the news cycle forget her.
Quote from: Caliga on June 25, 2013, 11:53:46 AM
btw I ate at Paula Deen's restaurant in the Harrah's Cherokee Casino the other week. It actually wasn't that great... nobody I was with was that impressed with it. Like I ordered a 'lowcountry sampler' and I was expecting a lowcountry boil, but all of the seafood was breaded and deep fried and there was fried cod in it. :wacko: I believe Paula would be angry if she knew that's how they served it, since a lowcountry boil is a classic dish from Savannah and it's not even remotely prepared that way. :mellow:
Heh, I just saw an article that this restaurant (as well as the other Paula Deen restaurants in Harrah's other properties) will be changing its name to 'The Restaurant' until they can figure something else out. Given the location I'm thinking "Injun Joe's" might work. :)
Quote from: Caliga on June 26, 2013, 11:43:17 AM
Quote from: Caliga on June 25, 2013, 11:53:46 AM
btw I ate at Paula Deen's restaurant in the Harrah's Cherokee Casino the other week. It actually wasn't that great... nobody I was with was that impressed with it. Like I ordered a 'lowcountry sampler' and I was expecting a lowcountry boil, but all of the seafood was breaded and deep fried and there was fried cod in it. :wacko: I believe Paula would be angry if she knew that's how they served it, since a lowcountry boil is a classic dish from Savannah and it's not even remotely prepared that way. :mellow:
Heh, I just saw an article that this restaurant (as well as the other Paula Deen restaurants in Harrah's other properties) will be changing its name to 'The Restaurant' until they can figure something else out. Given the location I'm thinking "Injun Joe's" might work. :)
"Big Jim Crow's".
Are there any Sambo's still in operation in the south?
There's only one left and it's in Santa Barbara. The next time I'm there I'll go out of my way to eat there. :cool:
The ones we saw in South Carolina always cracked me up when we went to see my aunt/uncle in Columbia. I think we ate breakfast there a couple times.
Fortuntely there are still plenty of Bojangles down there for you to crack up at. :showoff:
Quote from: Caliga on June 26, 2013, 01:02:33 PM
Fortuntely there are still plenty of Bojangles down there for you to crack up at. :showoff:
My aunt always loved that place. Every time I see the name I hear her southern voice saying it :D
I got Bojangle's once. My food was tepid.
Quote from: derspiess on June 26, 2013, 01:14:29 PM
My aunt always loved that place. Every time I see the name I hear her southern voice saying it :D
Same with me and 'Cracker Barrel' (except it's my wife's grandma's voice).
I could go for some Cracker Barrel chicken and dumplings.
I can always go for CB's breakfast food, especially their big ass country breakfast, but southern fried steak? Hurl.
Bro they have these multigrain pancakes with nuts and craisins, served with honey, that are the FREAKING BOMBDIGGITY.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 26, 2013, 01:31:20 PM
I can always go for CB's breakfast food, especially their big ass country breakfast, but southern fried steak? Hurl.
Chicken fried steak with gravy is the food of the saints. :pope:
Milanese is great. Chicken fried steak isn't.
Quote from: fhdz on June 26, 2013, 08:55:58 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 26, 2013, 01:31:20 PM
I can always go for CB's breakfast food, especially their big ass country breakfast, but southern fried steak? Hurl.
Chicken fried steak with gravy is the food of the saints. :pope:
You are so gonna be a member of an axis.
Quote from: PDH on June 26, 2013, 09:02:09 PM
Quote from: fhdz on June 26, 2013, 08:55:58 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 26, 2013, 01:31:20 PM
I can always go for CB's breakfast food, especially their big ass country breakfast, but southern fried steak? Hurl.
Chicken fried steak with gravy is the food of the saints. :pope:
You are so gonna be a member of an axis.
He already is.
Quote from: fhdz on June 26, 2013, 08:55:58 PMChicken fried steak with gravy is the food of the saints. :pope:
You're no longer Catholic, correct?
Chicken fried steak, if done correctly, rules.
You can all suck it.
(don't eat too much though that shit will kill you)
Quote from: derspiess on June 26, 2013, 09:00:09 PM
Milanese is great. Chicken fried steak isn't.
Is that the Argentinian in you speaking? :p
I really try to eat as little processed food as possible. Probably lunch meat is the worst I use and I don't eat that very often. I buy cookies, crackers, ice cream which aren't great but I'm not trying to become a monk about foods. It's hard to find bread without a lot of salt or some crap in it. I sometimes make my own bread too though. Too many foods contain artificial or natural flavors which as far as I've read those are sometimes suspect items. Some of the foods and additives allowed by the US FDA are banned in Europe.
I love cereal and try to buy brands that have the least or even no additives. Shredded Wheat is one, just contains wheat. Oatmeal, cream of wheat have little or no additives. I buy bags of couscous, cracked wheat, semolina and cook those into vegetables, or eat them as is. I also buy dried beans, peas, lentils, etc.
The food industry is a huge lobbying group, has a lot of power, too much sway and influence over the watch dogs, IMO. And too much of the stuff they feed us is crap. So I try hard to get food that has no crap or the least, or buy organic though I don't put a lot of priority on organics.
Quote from: KRonn on June 27, 2013, 10:43:35 AM
Probably lunch meat is the worst I use and I don't eat that very often.
You better watch what you say or you're going to turn up mysteriously run over by the Wienermobile. :(
Quote from: KRonn on June 27, 2013, 10:43:35 AM
I really try to eat as little processed food as possible. Probably lunch meat is the worst I use and I don't eat that very often. I buy cookies, crackers, ice cream which aren't great but I'm not trying to become a monk about foods. It's hard to find bread without a lot of salt or some crap in it. I sometimes make my own bread too though. Too many foods contain artificial or natural flavors which as far as I've read those are sometimes suspect items. Some of the foods and additives allowed by the US FDA are banned in Europe.
I love cereal and try to buy brands that have the least or even no additives. Shredded Wheat is one, just contains wheat. Oatmeal, cream of wheat have little or no additives. I buy bags of couscous, cracked wheat, semolina and cook those into vegetables, or eat them as is. I also buy dried beans, peas, lentils, etc.
The food industry is a huge lobbying group, has a lot of power, too much sway and influence over the watch dogs, IMO. And too much of the stuff they feed us is crap. So I try hard to get food that has no crap or the least, or buy organic though I don't put a lot of priority on organics.
There's differences between organic/gm and banned food additives. Just to talk about food additives, it appears a lot of countries just ban certain additives for no reason. For example until the 1970s cyclamates were commonly used in the United States as an artificial sweetener the same as saccharin or aspartame, but they were banned based on a study that associated cyclamates with lab rats getting tumors. The study was painfully flawed, and cyclamates continued to be used in Canada and Europe with no ill effects in humans.
But then later Canada banned saccharin on the basis of animal tests that were also very flawed and ultimately proved to not be a problem.
In both cases a small number of flaw tests got a substance banned, and in both cases even when newer research showed the ban was wholly unjustified, neither country has ever reversed its respective ban. It gets to be really hard due to bureaucratic inertia to reverse a ban once something is banned, same reason the U.S. didn't allow silicone in breast implants for ages. Totally unjustified ban, but once it was in place it was hard to make it go away.
So just because something is banned in one country and not another isn't really a sign of anything. The authorities in all the countries have shown they are haphazard and frankly, stupid, about what they ban and why.
Yeah Otto, I agree with what you say regarding how some of the bans on food are done. But I just try to use as little of the processed stuff where possible. I don't go out of my way to buy organic because I figure eating the right foods goes a long way towards doing the better thing anyway.
One thing that drives me nuts is all the salt that goes into foods. Soups, bread, cereal. I'm fine with little or no salt in most foods, and prefer it, because I like the taste without the salt. I think since I use so little salt that I'm fine with something like unsalted soup or canned veggies, but people are probably so accustomed to having heavy salt in foods that the non or low salt stuff tastes bad to them.
Quote from: Caliga on June 27, 2013, 10:48:41 AM
Quote from: KRonn on June 27, 2013, 10:43:35 AM
Probably lunch meat is the worst I use and I don't eat that very often.
You better watch what you say or you're going to turn up mysteriously run over by the Wienermobile. :(
Like those poor women. :(
I got bored enough at work to read the indictments against Paula Dean and her brother (who sounds like a world-class prick). It ain't pretty, that's for sure, and it ain't about the "n" word.
http://www.atlawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Jackson-v.-Deen-et-al.-Complaint.pdf (http://www.atlawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Jackson-v.-Deen-et-al.-Complaint.pdf)
Quote from: merithyn on July 01, 2013, 09:19:14 AM
I got bored enough at work to read the indictments against Paula Dean and her brother (who sounds like a world-class prick). It ain't pretty, that's for sure, and it ain't about the "n" word.
http://www.atlawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Jackson-v.-Deen-et-al.-Complaint.pdf (http://www.atlawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Jackson-v.-Deen-et-al.-Complaint.pdf)
That isn't an indictment, an indictment is when you've been formally accused of a crime, typically it is handed down by a grand jury. An indictment usually comes after substantial investigative work and then analysis of evidence has been performed by an empaneled grand jury. What you're reading is a complaint, in a civil (not criminal) matter. It is one side of the case's statement of facts, it is basically what one party is alleging happened and their justification for bringing civil suit against the named defendants. That means it isn't really evidence at all, it's just a set of claims.
Some of which may have been supported by information obtained in later depositions or submitted evidence, but you'd have to be following the case itself to know that.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 01, 2013, 09:28:51 AM
That isn't an indictment, an indictment is when you've been formally accused of a crime, typically it is handed down by a grand jury. An indictment usually comes after substantial investigative work and then analysis of evidence has been performed by an empaneled grand jury. What you're reading is a complaint, in a civil (not criminal) matter. It is one side of the case's statement of facts, it is basically what one party is alleging happened and their justification for bringing civil suit against the named defendants. That means it isn't really evidence at all, it's just a set of claims.
Some of which may have been supported by information obtained in later depositions or submitted evidence, but you'd have to be following the case itself to know that.
:mellow:
I don't fucking care, Otto. The complaint, the indictment. What the fuck ever. It looks ugly, and it aint about the "n" word.
So you don't care that you've portrayed something as a criminal charge when it's a civil matter? And you don't care that you presented something as a statement of facts when it's actually the unsubstantiated claims of someone with a pecuniary interest in the matter? A large portion of cases like this are settled for relatively small amounts precisely because much of the claims can never be substantiated. You brought a totally unsubstantiated set of claims in and acted as though it was a factual telling of what was going on in their restaurants. It may or may not be, but until it's been argued in court I think it's very strange that you're so shocked by the details of the complaint, it seems like you had no idea that a plaintiff's attorney just types whatever their client tells them happened into a complaint, and that just because something is in a complaint doesn't really mean anything.
Lisa Jackson is white by the way, the racial discrimination stuff was never her claiming she was discriminated against based on her race. But rather it "offended her" to hear anti-black racial discrimination because she has an adopted nephew or something who is black or half-black or something.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 01, 2013, 09:35:06 AM
So you don't care that you've portrayed something as a criminal charge when it's a civil matter? And you don't care that you presented something as a statement of facts when it's actually the unsubstantiated claims of someone with a pecuniary interest in the matter? A large portion of cases like this are settled for relatively small amounts precisely because much of the claims can never be substantiated. You brought a totally unsubstantiated set of claims in and acted as though it was a factual telling of what was going on in their restaurants. It may or may not be, but until it's been argued in court I think it's very strange that you're so shocked by the details of the complaint, it seems like you had no idea that a plaintiff's attorney just types whatever their client tells them happened into a complaint, and that just because something is in a complaint doesn't really mean anything.
No. :mellow:
QuoteLisa Jackson is white by the way, the racial discrimination stuff was never her claiming she was discriminated against based on her race. But rather it "offended her" to hear anti-black racial discrimination because she has an adopted nephew or something who is black or half-black or something.
Didn't read it, did ya'?
Quote from: merithyn on July 01, 2013, 09:44:29 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 01, 2013, 09:35:06 AM
So you don't care that you've portrayed something as a criminal charge when it's a civil matter? And you don't care that you presented something as a statement of facts when it's actually the unsubstantiated claims of someone with a pecuniary interest in the matter? A large portion of cases like this are settled for relatively small amounts precisely because much of the claims can never be substantiated. You brought a totally unsubstantiated set of claims in and acted as though it was a factual telling of what was going on in their restaurants. It may or may not be, but until it's been argued in court I think it's very strange that you're so shocked by the details of the complaint, it seems like you had no idea that a plaintiff's attorney just types whatever their client tells them happened into a complaint, and that just because something is in a complaint doesn't really mean anything.
No. :mellow:
Ignore him, he's just being obnoxious. :hug:
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2013, 09:48:06 AM
Quote from: merithyn on July 01, 2013, 09:44:29 AM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 01, 2013, 09:35:06 AM
So you don't care that you've portrayed something as a criminal charge when it's a civil matter? And you don't care that you presented something as a statement of facts when it's actually the unsubstantiated claims of someone with a pecuniary interest in the matter? A large portion of cases like this are settled for relatively small amounts precisely because much of the claims can never be substantiated. You brought a totally unsubstantiated set of claims in and acted as though it was a factual telling of what was going on in their restaurants. It may or may not be, but until it's been argued in court I think it's very strange that you're so shocked by the details of the complaint, it seems like you had no idea that a plaintiff's attorney just types whatever their client tells them happened into a complaint, and that just because something is in a complaint doesn't really mean anything.
No. :mellow:
Ignore him, he's just being obnoxious. :hug:
I know. :hug:
Obnoxious or not, he's got a point. The accusations haven't been investigated yet so may not be credible.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 01, 2013, 11:11:24 AM
Obnoxious or not, he's got a point. The accusations haven't been investigated yet so may not be credible.
It's obnoxious as it misses what Meri was saying and instead just focuses on the fact that she used the wrong word.
I think it's focused on the impression that Meri's already judged them guilty(which using the wrong word didn't help).
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2013, 11:12:26 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 01, 2013, 11:11:24 AM
Obnoxious or not, he's got a point. The accusations haven't been investigated yet so may not be credible.
It's obnoxious as it misses what Meri was saying and instead just focuses on the fact that she used the wrong word.
'Tis the Languish way. I'm just too fucking tired to care enough to "debate" it.
My point: Paula Dean's brother is an asshole, and she's a moron for not taking better care of her business under him. I read her statement (or whateverthefuckOttoinsistsitbecalled) and it's pretty clear that she's lying about the whole thing. Her responses of "I don't know" are total crap.
Had she been an adult, owned up and said, "Yeah, we were raised that this is okay, we're learning that it's not, and we're going to make some very real changes," I'd have backed her. Instead, she's lying about all of it, crying that everyone is picking on her little brother, and basically acting like a 66-year-old child. Based on that, no tears for her losing everything.
I've gotta' guess that those who are supporting her have no idea what she and her brother are accused of. (To be fair, usually, I'm a big supporter of waiting until all of the facts come out, but her brother admitted to most of the accusations, so I don't have a problem saying that.)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on July 01, 2013, 11:18:52 AM
I think it's focused on the impression that Meri's already judged them guilty(which using the wrong word didn't help).
I said that the accusations weren't pretty, and that they weren't about the n-word. I said that Bubba sounds like a prick.
None of that is changed if you take out indictment and replace it with accusation.
Besides, I didn't use the wrong term, since I wasn't acting as a lawyer and using legalese:
QuoteDefinition of INDICTMENT
1a : the action or the legal process of indicting b : the state of being indicted
2: a formal written statement framed by a prosecuting authority and found by a jury (as a grand jury) charging a person with an offense
3: an expression of strong disapproval
Quote from: merithyn on July 01, 2013, 11:26:23 AM
Besides, I didn't use the wrong term, since I wasn't acting as a lawyer and using legalese:
QuoteDefinition of INDICTMENT
1a : the action or the legal process of indicting b : the state of being indicted
2: a formal written statement framed by a prosecuting authority and found by a jury (as a grand jury) charging a person with an offense
3: an expression of strong disapproval
I think using the word that way would make sense if you'd then posted some of the articles of people badmouthing her. Doesn't quite fit the link you posted.
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2013, 11:28:01 AM
I think using the word that way would make sense if you'd then posted some of the articles of people badmouthing her. Doesn't quite fit the link you posted.
I dunno. I kind of saw the complaint as just a whole lot of badmouthing, and then asking for money for having had to deal with it.
I mean, I believe that they're justified badmouthing based on what both Bubba and Paula have said about it, but it's still badmouthing.
Quote from: merithyn on July 01, 2013, 09:44:29 AMDidn't read it, did ya'?
This is why, while I think I've made good faith efforts to tolerate the people I dislike on this forum, it doesn't typically work for me. I can't stand when someone is wrong, and then basically pulls a bunch of bullshit because they feel they shouldn't be called out for being wrong. I did read the complaint, what you obviously are unaware of is the amended complaint or any of the actual developments in the case.
In response to Lisa Jackson's original complaint, the defendants lawyers raised some very good points. Namely, a white person is not typically entitled to protection under racial anti-discrimination statutes, nor can they sue for damages under such statutes when said discrimination was focused simply at their coworkers but never them directly (which any anti-black racial discrimination would not be directed at a white employee.) That meant that in all reality even if everything she claimed in her original complaint were true, she'd be unlikely to win a judgment on the racial discrimination claim (the sexual harassment claim and others, sure.) So they filed an amended complaint, in which Jackson revealed she had two nieces that were bi-racial with a black father, thus justifying her racial discrimination claim.
Additionally, under deposition it was revealed some of the specific claims in the original complaint were actually not true (in that Jackson's deposition testimony directly contradicted claims made in her original complaint.)
I'd wager a decent bit of coin that Bubba Hiers is an asshole that is sexually inappropriate at work, and he's probably racist too. I'd wager Deen is racist as well. They are from Georgia, I'm surprised they can even read or write. But that's a far cry from believing Jackson has evidence beyond a preponderance of the evidence to win a suit against them, it'll all depend on how the other employees testify and what proof she has documented. Given that her own testimony conflicted somewhat with her original complaint, it'll definitely be the case that she may have lost credibility.
Further, there is the legal issue of whether or not Bubba's restaurant is properly linked to Lady & Sons and Paula Deens business, because it appears the actual ownership structure is strange enough that they may not be. I also believe the suit seeks $1.2m in total damages, so even if they prevailed that would be a relatively minor hit to Deen's estimated $17m+ fortune (her house alone is worth over $13m.) No one should feel sorry for a 66-year old multimillionaire who is still generating income from at least three restaurants and is entitled to continual royalty payments from cookbook sales and etc. Even if she's never paid a dime again for television appearances or sponsorship I strongly suspect she'll be able to perpetuate at least a six-figure a year income into perpetuity on top of the large fortune she's already amassed.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 01, 2013, 11:50:28 AM
This is why, while I think I've made good faith efforts to tolerate the people I dislike on this forum, it doesn't typically work for me. I can't stand when someone is wrong, and then basically pulls a bunch of bullshit because they feel they shouldn't be called out for being wrong. I did read the complaint, what you obviously are unaware of is the amended complaint or any of the actual developments in the case.
So the solution is to make up shit that the person clearly wasn't meaning to say?
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 01, 2013, 11:50:28 AM
This is why, while I think I've made good faith efforts to tolerate the people I dislike on this forum, it doesn't typically work for me. I can't stand when someone is wrong, and then basically pulls a bunch of bullshit because they feel they shouldn't be called out for being wrong.
What "bullshit" did I pull to say that I shouldn't be called out for being wrong? I said that I didn't fucking care. The same goes for your opinion of me (or anything else, for that matter). :)
QuoteI did read the complaint, what you obviously are unaware of is the amended complaint or any of the actual developments in the case.
In response to Lisa Jackson's original complaint, the defendants lawyers raised some very good points. Namely, a white person is not typically entitled to protection under racial anti-discrimination statutes, nor can they sue for damages under such statutes when said discrimination was focused simply at their coworkers but never them directly (which any anti-black racial discrimination would not be directed at a white employee.) That meant that in all reality even if everything she claimed in her original complaint were true, she'd be unlikely to win a judgment on the racial discrimination claim (the sexual harassment claim and others, sure.) So they filed an amended complaint, in which Jackson revealed she had two nieces that were bi-racial with a black father, thus justifying her racial discrimination claim.
Additionally, under deposition it was revealed some of the specific claims in the original complaint were actually not true (in that Jackson's deposition testimony directly contradicted claims made in her original complaint.)
I'd wager a decent bit of coin that Bubba Hiers is an asshole that is sexually inappropriate at work, and he's probably racist too. I'd wager Deen is racist as well. They are from Georgia, I'm surprised they can even read or write. But that's a far cry from believing Jackson has evidence beyond a preponderance of the evidence to win a suit against them, it'll all depend on how the other employees testify and what proof she has documented. Given that her own testimony conflicted somewhat with her original complaint, it'll definitely be the case that she may have lost credibility.
Further, there is the legal issue of whether or not Bubba's restaurant is properly linked to Lady & Sons and Paula Deens business, because it appears the actual ownership structure is strange enough that they may not be. I also believe the suit seeks $1.2m in total damages, so even if they prevailed that would be a relatively minor hit to Deen's estimated $17m+ fortune (her house alone is worth over $13m.) No one should feel sorry for a 66-year old multimillionaire who is still generating income from at least three restaurants and is entitled to continual royalty payments from cookbook sales and etc. Even if she's never paid a dime again for television appearances or sponsorship I strongly suspect she'll be able to perpetuate at least a six-figure a year income into perpetuity on top of the large fortune she's already amassed.
Which part of this contradicts what I said? I said that the case wasn't about the n-word (which you seem to agree with), that her brother was a prime asshole (which you also seem to agree with), and that the accusations weren't pretty (which they aren't - and you seem to agree with).
In fact, you just used a whole lot more words (as is your wont) to say the same thing.
Quote from: garbon on July 01, 2013, 11:52:45 AMSo the solution is to make up shit that the person clearly wasn't meaning to say?
I tire of continually trying to understand the barbs people are throwing at me. Please explain your assertion here.
Quote from: merithyn on July 01, 2013, 12:03:08 PMWhich part of this contradicts what I said? I said that the case wasn't about the n-word (which you seem to agree with), that her brother was a prime asshole (which you also seem to agree with), and that the accusations weren't pretty (which they aren't - and you seem to agree with).
In fact, you just used a whole lot more words (as is your wont) to say the same thing.
Right, and what I didn't do was present it as though all of this stuff actually happened. You quite clearly were in total ignorance that the complaint was just one party's assertions, and not based on anything verified at that point by any third parties. Even bringing it up is an irrelevancy, especially since some of it has been contradicted by the plaintiff subsequently.
My sister just shared n Facebook, courtesy of "Rednecktube LLC USA":
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/1000380_482620531812988_1212646216_n.jpg)
:rolleyes:
It seems they have not listened to much rap since the 1980s. It is basically pop music now.
Quote from: Valmy on July 01, 2013, 02:14:33 PM
It seems they have not listened to much rap since the 1980s. It is basically pop music now.
:yes:
Rap/Hip-Hop is essentially pop made by black people.
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 01, 2013, 12:24:24 PM
Right, and what I didn't do was present it as though all of this stuff actually happened. You quite clearly were in total ignorance that the complaint was just one party's assertions, and not based on anything verified at that point by any third parties. Even bringing it up is an irrelevancy, especially since some of it has been contradicted by the plaintiff subsequently.
:lol:
Okay, Otto.
Syt, are you saying racism against whites is not racism, but justice?
Quote from: Siege on July 01, 2013, 02:39:48 PM
Syt, are you saying racism against whites is not racism, but justice?
I think he is questioning the thesis that rap and hip hop is racist against whites not that racism against whites is not racism.
Actually, I'm questioning my sister's common sense. :P
Quote from: merithyn on July 01, 2013, 02:25:24 PM
Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on July 01, 2013, 12:24:24 PM
Right, and what I didn't do was present it as though all of this stuff actually happened. You quite clearly were in total ignorance that the complaint was just one party's assertions, and not based on anything verified at that point by any third parties. Even bringing it up is an irrelevancy, especially since some of it has been contradicted by the plaintiff subsequently.
:lol:
Okay, Otto.
As an outside observer, it did seem this way.
Wot's all this then?