# Arrogant Freeloading "Information" Seeking Asshats! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 12, 2009, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115 "2009-05-12T00:39:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 17
**Author:** ![sinjin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ebca7d/32.png) [@sinjin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sinjin)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/321 "2009-05-14T01:13:31Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > Okay, I haven’t posted but I’ve been following this saga from the beginning, but I can’t recall if this has been asked: why hasn’t **Stoid** considered settling out of court? Because her boyfriend wouldn’t accept her ridiculous original offer and as far as I can tell from her subsequent posts she refused to budge. I could be wrong. I only know what I’ve read here. [Stoid split deal](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=391428) To those following along at home I think this is the first relevant thread. And it’s not very long!!🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/322 "2009-05-14T01:18:31Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > Do you really, truly think it was HIM that wouldn’t settle? For real? I figured I covered the other possibility when I said “or they couldn’t come to an agreement.” 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/323 "2009-05-14T01:24:27Z")
> [@ivn1188](#): > > Where you are getting confused is that the statement was not offered to prove that he said “Don’t pay the bills”, but to prove that he instructed you not to pay the bills. A subtle yet highly important distinction. If I follow where you seem to be going, you appear to be distinguishing between him “saying” it and his conveying his meaning in a manner other than to have “said” it. That he “instructed” me in a some other nebulous and unidentified fashion that does not qualify as “an assertive statement”. The definition of an assertive statement includes speech, writing, and non-verbal communication (perhaps he gestured at the bills and then made “no” motions to convey his meaning). His testimony is that he (somehow) conveyed to me that he did not want the bills paid. It seems to me that there is no way for him to have “instructed” me if he did not “assertively state” in writing, or orally, or by gesture or act, that he did not want the bills paid. Are you saying that his assertion about the bills is not “an assertive statement”? Because that’s the only distinction I’m seeing, please clarify if you intend some other. ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/324 "2009-05-14T01:26:27Z")
> [@sinjin](#): > > [Stoid split deal](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=391428) Wait, wait, wait… so I’ve been treated to reading the rantings of a lunatic because said lunatic wanted to screw her spouse out of a good chunk of his equity in a house, and he didn’t willingly bend over and accede??? HA ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/325 "2009-05-14T01:26:46Z")
Oh, and it’s possible that you are unclear on what he was trying to prove, which was that he did in fact say it. His contention was that he said it and I ignored it. The fact is that he never said it, so the “controverted issue” is whether he conveyed his desire that I not pay the bills or he didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![FrustratedIdiot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/77aa72/32.png) [@FrustratedIdiot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FrustratedIdiot)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/326 "2009-05-14T01:31:57Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Oh, and it’s possible that you are unclear on what he was trying to prove, which was that he did in fact say it. His contention was that he said it and I ignored it. The fact is that he never said it, so the “controverted issue” is whether he conveyed his desire that I not pay the bills or he didn’t. Whether a statement counts as hearsay depends on whether the out-of-court statement is being offered to prove the truth or falsity of \*what was asserted \* in that out-of-court statement. A verbal act is not encumbered by the general prohibition against hearsay. ---
**Author:** ![sinjin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ebca7d/32.png) [@sinjin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sinjin)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/327 "2009-05-14T01:39:20Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > Wait, wait, wait… so I’ve been treated to reading the rantings of a lunatic because said lunatic wanted to screw her spouse out of a good chunk of his equity in a house, and he didn’t willingly bend over and accede??? > > HA Heh, I think that pretty much sums it up. Now both are bankrupt, there are no assets to divide and she’s appealing on a technicality. Note IANAL, just a casual internet observer. I’m sure I’ve missed the nuances. Still seems like a pyrrhic victory at best. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ea5d25/32.png) [@Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Scrappy_Hero_Pup)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/328 "2009-05-14T01:45:03Z")
I am in Los Angeles, five blocks from LASC. I promise that I will faithfully attend every day of proceedings and report back to you all in a dedicated thread. **Stoid,** what is your case name, number, and judge? ---
**Author:** ![Enderw24](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ba9def/32.png) [@Enderw24](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enderw24)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/329 "2009-05-14T02:36:54Z")
> [@Spoons](#): > > Hate to perpetuate the hijack, but I’ve got to contribute one of my favorites: [_Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc_](http://tabberone.com/Trademarks/CourtCases/9thCircuitCOA/MattelVsMCARecords.shtml)., 296 F.3d 894, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. The judge begins with “If this were a sci-fi melodrama, it might be called Speech-Zilla meets Trademark Kong,” and ends with “The parties are advised to chill.” Oh yeah, Judge Kozinski. He has some great lines in his opinions. Last month we had him as a guest speaker at a media law CLE I help coordinate and he was extremely interesting. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/330 "2009-05-14T02:37:05Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > Wait, wait, wait… so I’ve been treated to reading the rantings of a lunatic because said lunatic wanted to screw her spouse out of a good chunk of his equity in a house, and he didn’t willingly bend over and accede??? > > HA I understand your confusion about who was screwing who, or trying. He felt the same way you do. Your point of view is entirely understandable. So when two people disagree about what’s fair, what should they do? Try to kill each other? Destroy everything in sight screaming they’re right? Well, civilized people turn to sources outside their own minds and opinions, and ideally, in a situation regarding property rights, they turn to experts and the law, which is what I did. Intitially, I found an ATTORNEY who specializes in this sort of thing, wrote a whole manual about it. It’s 187 pages, so I don’t think this is a big copyright problem: > [@](#): > > 3.7.2. **How do the owners calculate the buyout price?** > The value of each owner’s share in the property is called “Cotenant Equity” and is the sum of > the owner’s Capital Contributions and profit share. Cotenant Equity is the price for an owner’s > share in the event of a buyout or the amount of an owner’s proceeds in the event of a sale. > **Guide 3.7.2.A.–Calculating Cotenant Equity** > Assume Elm Street appreciates from $200,000 to $250,000. In addition to Initial Capital > Contributions of $14,500 by the Smiths and $10,500 by Laura, the owners made Additional > Capital Contributions (Section 3.3.4) of $3,000 by the Smiths and $2,000 by Laura. They also > agreed that the Smiths would get credit for $594 in Monthly Capital Contributions (Section 3.3.6). > Step 1: Calculate Total Equity > Appraised Value $250,000 > **Cost Of Sale (6.5%) \<16,250\>** > Mortgage Balance \<175,000\> > **Total Equity $58,750** > > Step 2: Calculate Capital Contributions > Initial Capital Contributions $25,000 > Additional Capital Contributions 5,000 > Monthly Capital Contribution 594 > Total Capital Contributions $30,594 > > Step 3: Calculate Total Profit > Total Equity $58,750 > Total Capital Contributions \<30,594\> > Total Profit $28,156 > > Step 4: Calculate Davidson Cotenant Equity > Davidson Initial Capital Contribution $10,500 > Davidson Additional Capital Contribution 2,000 > Davidson Profit Share > (45% X 28,156) 12,670 > Total Davidson Equity $25,170 > > Step 5: Calculate Smith Cotenant Equity > Smith Initial Capital Contribution $14,500 > Smith Additional Capital Contribution 3,000 > Smith Monthly Capital Contribution 594 > Smith Profit Share > (55% X 28,156) 15,486 > Total Davidson Equity $33,580 > > This relatively simple calculation yields each owner’s buyout price. _It also approximates the > amount each would receive if Elm Street were sold_. Actual proceeds would be different if the > sale price were not exactly $250,000 or the _ **costs of sale** _ were not exactly 6.5%. Calculating > Cotenant Equity is more difficult if the property value stays the same or goes down. Appendix > B explains this process. > **3.7.3. Why subtract “costs of sale” in a buyout?** > The calculation of Cotenant Equity should always include the subtraction of the approximate > seller closing costs even though these costs will not actually be paid in a buyout. This > procedure prevents the purchasing owner from **paying more in a buyout** than the selling owner > **would receive in a market sale**. For an illustration, see Example B.5.A. in Appendix B. AND… > [@](#): > > **B.5. SUBTRACTING DISPOSITION EXPENSE** > Note that in all of the preceding examples, we subtract “Disposition Expense” from the sale > proceeds prior to calculating equity. **It is essential to subtract projected costs of sale, even if > the equity share ends in a buyout rather than a sale. If you don’t, a loss can look like a profit, > and an owner who is bought out may get more money than he deserves.** > > **Example B.5.A.–Failure To Subtract Disposition Expense on Buyout** > Suppose that in Guide B.3.A., “Disposition Expense” had not been deducted. Without this > adjustment, “Total Equity” would have been $35,000 instead of $21,350, and the loss would > have looked like a profit. > Appraised Value $210,000 > Cost of Sale \<0\> > Loan Balance \< 1 75,000\> > Total Equity $35,000 > Total Smith Contribution \<18,094\> > Total Davidson Contribution \< 1 2,500\> > Total Owner Contribution \< 3 0,594\> > Profit to Split $4,406 > The price for the Smiths to buy Laura out would have been: > > Davidson Additional Capital Contributions $2,000 > Davidson Monthly Capital Contributions 0 > Davidson Initial Capital Contributions 10,500 > Davidson Profit (45% of $4,406) 1 , 983 > Davidson Cotenant Equity $14,483 > Laura receives $14,483, a profit of $1,983. **Now suppose the Smiths sell soon afterward.** > Sale Price $210,000 > Cost of Sale \<13,650\> > Amount Paid To Laura \<14,483\> > Loan Balance \< 1 75,000\> > Net Proceeds $6,867 > **The Smiths would lose $11,227, over 62% of their investment, even though Laura made a > profit. Subtracting the Disposition Expense avoids this inequity**. But wait! There’s more! C. Robert Nattress & Assocs. v. Cidco, 184 Cal. App. 3d 55 - available online, I think this [link](http://web.lexis-nexis.com/research/retrieve?y=&dom1=&dom2=&dom3=&dom4=&dom5=&crnPrh=&crnSah=&crnSch=&crnLgh=&crnSumm=&crnCt=&cc=&crnCh=&crnGc=&shepSummary=&crnFmt=&shepStateKey=&pushme=1&tmpFBSel=all&totaldocs=&taggedDocs=&toggleValue=&numDocsChked=0&prefFBSel=0&delformat=CITE&fpDocs=&fpNodeId=&fpCiteReq=&_m=1f1578d265f4f3621bff3bff2d418497&docnum=1&_fmtstr=FULL&_startdoc=1&wchp=dGLzVtz-zSkAW&_md5=ada31b9933be9bc2ad91002368c85ea3&focBudTerms=cite%28184+Cal.+App.+3d+55%29&focBudSel=all) will work. The focus of the case is right of first refusal, not calculating buyouts between cotenants. But if you read it, you will see that it applies. (I thought it was an SC decision, only appeals. Good enough.) And here’s the key part: > [@](#): > > "That leaves only the difference of 40,582 between the Nattress Associates offer \*(what Stoid's Ex would receive if the house were sold)\*and the purchase price offered by Michels and Magnon \*(Stoid)\*. Under the Nattress Associates proposal, Sutherland \*(Stoid's ex)\* would be required to pay the amount of the difference, 40,582, to C. Robert Nattress \*(some unknown realtor) \*as a real estate commission, so Sutherland (stoid’s ex) would receive the same net amount under the Michels/Magnon (stoid) proposal as under the Nattress Associates (unknown third party sale) offer. The question is whether the failure of the (Stoid) Michels/Magnon proposal to include the additional $ 40,582 caused their proposal not to be “on the same terms and conditions” (Fair) offered by the Nattress Associates as was required by the right of first refusal (see fn. 1, ante). We conclude the proposal by Michels and Magnon (stoid) to pay Sutherland (her ex) the same **net price he would have received under the Nattress Associates offer (third party),** which was accepted by Sutherland, was “on the same terms and conditions” offered by the Nattress Associates as that phrase was used in the lease provision granting the right of first refusal. > > Perhaps the most persuasive consideration is the somewhat **absurd** result that would obtain otherwise: Michels and Magnon (Stoid) would have had to offer a **n additional** $ 40,582 which would have gone not to (unknown realtor) Nattress but to (Stoid’s Ex) Sutherland, so that in effect in order to meet the Nattress Associates offer, Michels and Magnon (Stoid) would have had to make an offer more favorable to (ex) Sutherland than that made by the Nattress Associates. No such result could have been intended by the drafters of the lease provision containing the right of first refusal." AND, at the end… > [@](#): > > Moreover, when the only material difference between the triggering offer (the likely sale to third party) and the offer proposing to exercise the right of first refusal is the amount of the real estate commission payable under the triggering offer but not under the offer purporting to exercise the right of first refusal, the question of whether or not the exercising offer is on the same terms and conditions as were contained in the triggering offer should be determined on the basis of the reasonable expectations of the parties. Thus, the question in the Hartmann case should have been whether when the real estate broker and owner entered into the agreement calling for the payment of a commission to the broker, the parties contemplated the real estate broker would be entitled to payment of his commission if the holder of the right of first refusal made an offer that would yield the same net amount to the owner. Whatever the answer to that question might have been in Hartmann, it is quite clear the answer in the case at bench is that they did not. The contract for purchase and sale between Sutherland and Nattress Associates, including the provision for payment of a real estate commission to C. Robert Nattress, was made expressly subject to the right of first refusal held by Michels and plaintiffs have freely conceded throughout this case that the nonexercise of the right of first refusal was a condition precedent to the duty of Sutherland to sell the property to the Nattress Associates or its nominee or to pay C. Robert Nattress a real estate commission. As concluded earlier, it could not reasonably have been anticipated by any party that to meet (make a fair offer to Stoid’s Ex) the Nattress Associates offer **would require an offer more favorable in net effect to the owner than the Nattress Associates offer itself (Stoid’s Ex would receive from anyone else on planet earth if they sold the house)**. Now, you and my ex and anyone else is entitled to disagree with the opinions of Mr. Sirkin and Fourth District court of California, of course, and feel that Ex should have received twice as much from me as anyone else, leaving me in 2009 with a house worth half as much, and if I sold it (even prior to going underwater) having to pay all the commissions. Maybe that’s why it’s a good thing you aren’t making the laws, frankly. Because in this disagreement with my ex about what he should receive, the only authoritative words that anyone on either side ever found addressing the issue at all were the words quoted above. And those authorities say that it’s my **ex** who was looking to rip ME off, they just used words like “absurd” and “inequity”. And he was SO dedicated to ripping me off that filed a lawsuit that, even without the economic insanity going on, would have eaten up every extra penny he was so sure he was entitled to receive, and was wrong about. So…I’m the greedy lunatic? Sure. Ok. Absolutely. I’m convinced. ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/331 "2009-05-14T02:49:23Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > Your analogies may be inapposite ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/332 "2009-05-14T03:05:22Z")
> [@niblet\_head](#): > > One time my parents got in a huuuuuge fight. A fight so huge the cops were called. > > Over how to fill up the ice cube trays correctly. You tilt the tray at a 33.3 degree angle and put the spout of the faucet at the higher end in the middle, waiting for the water to trickle down and fill the lower slots, at which point you return the tray to center, tap once to get out bubbles, and carefully place it back in the freezer. Anyone who says any different is a stupid fucking whore who couldn’t make ice at the goddamn fucking North Pole even if Santa his motherfucking self gave her super ice making powers. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 3:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/333 "2009-05-14T03:05:58Z")
Stoid, I think what you need to do - and here I am quite honestly not being snarky, but offering a very honest and heartfelt opinion - is drop the case, drop everything, and move as far from southern California as you can without needing a passport and never, ever go back. If you insist on warm weather, Charleston, SC is very nice. Seriously. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/334 "2009-05-14T03:08:15Z")
> [@FrustratedIdiot](#): > > Whether a statement counts as hearsay depends on whether the out-of-court statement is being offered to prove the truth or falsity of \*what was asserted \* in that out-of-court statement. A verbal act is not encumbered by the general prohibition against hearsay. That’s why I find this so eye-crossing. He’s trying to prove he said what he said by saying he said it! ---
**Author:** ![ENugent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/4af34b/32.png) [@ENugent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ENugent)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/335 "2009-05-14T03:18:04Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > That’s why I find this so eye-crossing. > > He’s trying to prove he said what he said by saying he said it! Yep. Just like one way to prove that you didn’t run the red light is to testify that the light was green when you went through. Testimony is evidence. Get over it. ---
**Author:** ![FrustratedIdiot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/77aa72/32.png) [@FrustratedIdiot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FrustratedIdiot)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/336 "2009-05-14T03:30:16Z")
> [@ENugent](#): > > Yep. Just like one way to prove that you didn’t run the red light is to testify that the light was green when you went through. Testimony is evidence. Get over it. ENugent is right. Admissible evidence doesn’t necessarily have great probative value. Instead, its probative value must not be \*substantially \* outweighed by the possibility of undue prejudice/delay/confusion/etc. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/337 "2009-05-14T03:34:59Z")
> [@ENugent](#): > > Get over it. Nothing to get over. As I explained, this was merely an exercise. Whether it was hearsay or not is incidental to the fact that its a lie. ---
**Author:** ![FrustratedIdiot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/77aa72/32.png) [@FrustratedIdiot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FrustratedIdiot)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/338 "2009-05-14T03:37:09Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > Nothing to get over. As I explained, this was merely an exercise. Whether it was hearsay or not is incidental to the fact that its a lie. Nothing says you can’t impeach the other party. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/339 "2009-05-14T03:39:08Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Stoid, I think what you need to do - and here I am quite honestly not being snarky, but offering a very honest and heartfelt opinion - is drop the case, drop everything, and move as far from southern California as you can without needing a passport and never, ever go back. If you insist on warm weather, Charleston, SC is very nice. > > Seriously. Well, okay. Thank you for sharing your thoughts. Although I can’t imagine what you believe that would accomplish or how being in the only place I’ve lived in my entire life, among friends I’ve had for 40 years, and my family, and everything I care about…is bad and should be shed. But sincerely offered attempts to be helpful are always nice, so thanks. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [May 14, 2009, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/340 "2009-05-14T03:42:04Z")
Oh, and South Carolina isn’t “warm weather” it’s in the south. It’s a sweatbox torture chamber of icky wet heat. Gak! ( My sis lived in Key West for awhile…in February it was lovely. In May it was a nightmare. An ocean that’s hotter than pee? What kind of sick joke is that? LA is warm weather. San Diego is warm weather. Santa Barbara is warm weather. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115.md?page=16) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115.md?page=18)