Missed this one a while back:
[Moderating]
chiroptera, saying “fuck you” to other posters is against the Pit’s language rules. Please don’t do this again.
No warning issued.
[/Moderating]
Oh shit… now that was funny.
Speaking for my country, we really didn’t have a leg to stand on with that one.
Sorry, I should have read the rules more closely. Duly noted, won’t do it again.
Good luck. I’ve asked this question twice in the ethics thread and so far it has been roundly ignored.
Frequently, when a settlement is reached, part of the terms of the settlement is that the settlement is not to be discussed with outside parties. Kind of like Fight Club, but with lawyers, doctors, and assorted douchebags.
eta: I have no idea if that’s the case here, I didn’t follow that thread.
If so, then why is he talking about it? Usually it is the amount of the settlement or the details that are to be kept confidential, not the fact that there was a settlement. And if there was a legal finding of malpractice, I’m fairly sure that would be public record.
I don’t know. It could be any number of reasons. As an old law prof said - “there’s no such thing as boilerplate.”
And yet his lectures, handouts, and tests from year to year looked surprisingly similiar 
If there was a settlement, there would be no legal finding of malpractice. If the plaintiff had already won his case, why would he settle?
Is anyone else thinking of Psycho Beach Party?
Precisely the point I am trying to find out! Was there a settlement or was there a judgement?
His continued refusal to answer the question speaks volumes.
Yes, it says that “this is more information I am comfortable sharing with strangers on the internet”.
Nice thing about talking about yourself…you get to decide how much information you are comfortable with divulging. You get to decide what is enough, and what is too much. I know that I’ve erred a few times and revealed more than I wish I had. That doesn’t mean I am under any obligation to answer any and every question every two-bit message board sleuth wants to ask. And neither is jamiemcgarry.
That said, I’ll keep my opinion on his posts to myself at this time. I wonder what volumes that speaks?
Less than one, I’m afraid. V. IV, pp. 217-219.
Sorry.
Hey, I’m at least a 3-bit message board sleuth.
I’m amazed that people are actually arguing that the alcohol wasn’t a factor.
A) JM has already acknowledged that he is unsure as to whether it played a role.
B) Others have pointed out several (local) laws stating that had the accident occurred at that locality, his BAC would have led to some sort of OWI-type infraction
C) I’m of the camp mentioned upthread that’s inclined to believe that blowing a .06 at some undetermined point after the accident means you were above that at the time of the accident.
I’m also amazed people are defending JM’s stance against his surgeon.
A) All we’ve heard is JM’s very-biased account
B) JM is unwilling to elaborate as to the adjudication of his malpractice claim.
C) Based on this unwillingness, it’s only fair to operate under the assumption that there was a settlement, which by no means leads to a conclusion of malpractice.
D) When I’m a fucking heart surgeon, I will feel qualified to critique the doctor’s decision. I am not a fucking heart surgeon, and neither, to my knowledge, is anyone else posting in this thread.
E) All we have is JM’s totally unfuckingsubstantiated claim that there was malpractice. Why in the world are people endorsing this?
I find myself banging my head against the wall more so because of the people supporting this asshole, more than I am because of the asshole.
flyboy I’m not going to quote you because that can be somewhat annoying, but
+1
When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
When your only identity is your wheelchair, everyone looks like Tommy Udo.
Generally, people who are narcissists think they can get away with lies and bad explanations as well. Jamie’s trying to get away with lies and is now playing the “I don’t want to talk about it anymore” line. It’s just all lies, half truths, and attempts to mislead. I mean, he wants us to believe:
(1) He only drank 3 beers over the course of a few hours. Yet he “blows” a .06 some time after the accident.
(2) He took the corner in a neighborhood “a little fast”, hit the curb, crashed his car, and caused life threatening injuries. I don’t know what your neighborhoods are like, but you have to be doing a hell of a lot more than a “little fast” to do that.
(3) He was the victim of malpractice, yet his paralysis is a common complication of the emergency surgery he had to save his life. He’s been unable to provide any evidence of malpractice.
So yeah, that’s were we stand. He got drunk, sped through a neighborhood, and then sued the person who saved his life to make some cash. Which makes him just about the biggest shit stain of a human you can be.
It’s just like when McGwire went in front of congress and said he didn’t want to talk about the past. He didn’t want to talk about the past because he’s guilty as shit. Same with Jamie. He thought he could get some sympathy, but when the questions got tough he took his ball and went home. Why? Because the answers to those questions would definitively show that he is a little shit bag.
If it were just a matter of discomfort talking about his accident and settlement, you think he wouldn’t start a fucking thread asking for opinions on his accident and settlement.