:rolleyes: I guess you wrote “assuming the club did anything racist in the first place” in invisible ink in that post?
No dude, you can’t spin it your way - if you actually read the visible ink, I predicted near the top of the thread that an arrangement would be reached without admission of wrong doing by the club.
Sorry, better luck next time.
What did you mean by "it is a good first step of contrition that the club can use to attract others so that they can show they have sincerely changed their ways"? What ways could they show as changed if they don’t admit to them?
They acknowledge the contracts were breached which is already common knowledge.
Internally, they accept that they are signaling that people are free to interpret the rest of it the way they want to, and they are free to deny it.
This is standard practice when resolving disputes out of court. I won’t be drawn into a debate about it. It is how people mutually agree to allow the other side to save face while moving on to resolving matters.
google “without admission of wrongdoing” for 370 or so examples.
ETA: As I noted way upthread, the real resolution is the outcome of the makeup of the club’s members in the future. If everyone is satisfied with that, then it is fine to have a tacit agreement to not beat anyone up about the past.
Which of these involves contrition? Which involves attracting others?
You figure it out, I am sure you are smart enough.
If you are just going to be a smartass and not explain yourself when asked politely, why bother responding at all?
Frankly, I am not sure you are not being a smartass.
I am not seeing anything but one liners from you, no evidence that you attempted to figure it out on your own, or even confirm my claim that this is standard negotiating settlement practice, let alone have read and understood my lengthy posts upstream.
Or understood the part where I said “I will not be drawn into a debate about this”.
Your username is not helping you in this case 
So? I asked you to explain it. Do you want me to understand or not?
I have no questions about whether it is standard negotiating practice.
So your position is that you feel entitled to make assertions that must go unquestioned? Feel free, but don’t be surprised when others disagree.
I think of it as a musical term (see Bach) but if you think of it like this, I again wonder why you believe yourself to be immune from counterpoint.
So, if you dont admit your guilty…you are guilty?
Catch 22 genius!
Honestly, if you can’t understand it or even explain what it is you don’t get, no, I don’t give a fuck whether you get it or not.
I have no questions about whether it is standard negotiating practice.
sure, the same people who have gone on for 400 posts or whatever without making any sort of prediction about the actual outcome like I did. Few cared enough to comment on my detailed predictions when I made them, why would I care if they pipe up now to disagree after I turned out to be pretty close?
Didn’t know enough about music to know the term, thanks for sharing. I alwasy thought of it in the other sense.
I am not immune to counter point - I asked throughout for people to counter my prediction with their own. You can rant about how you don’t understand, but if you don’t make sense, then who gives a shit? And frankly, in this thread, in the pit, that has been the level of most of the discourse anyway, and I tried to rise above and give a predicted outcome and explain why. Read my posts again and again until you get it, the answers to your questions now are already there, or between the lines.
If that is not enough, then maybe your local community college will have “negotiating for business 101” or something similar - take that course and then come back if you still don’t get it.
You did read the google search I mentioned, right?
Day care rejects invitation to return to pool.
There aren’t enough eyerolls in the world for that last bit.
DAMN! This club *is *exclusive! When I tried to use the link I got an ‘Error 403’ message telling me that I am “forbidden” to access thier site. I am a middle class White guy and I can’t even look at the site. 
I thought I put it simply enough. Here it is again.
I honestly and truthfully don’t get. Help me out here. Is this one the one about contrition?
Is this one the one about attracting others?
I don’t see it, but the other way around makes no sense at all.
Like I said, take a class that teaches negotiating 101 and then get back to me. You are asking me the equivalent of if 1 + 1 = 2 and you haven’t proved you did anything besides ask the same question repeatedly. Yawn.
Because you refuse to answer them. And it would be very easy to do so. So I am left to assume that you simply can’t. Just answer the questions. What are you afraid of?
Dude (or dudette, I don’t know which), thi sis the Pit.
If you want answers to general negotiating tactics in settling potential lawsuits, then I suggest GQ.
As for being left to not understand, too bad. It is the pit. Virtually every thread in the Pit has some nuance I don’t understand, do I cry about it? No, and neither should you.
You could tell me I don’t understand what I say, that would be coming from someone who admits you don’t understand what I say, about something I already wrote about in depth at the top of the thread.
Maybe some of the legal eagles on this thread will come back and teach you. But I don’t have the time or the interest to do so when you still have not shown that you have done 5 seconds work to look into what I already pointed you towards.
It appears that a lawsuit is a foregone conclusion.
I love the quote from the appellant lawyer (who will likely make a boatload in the settlement)
Great lesson to teach your kids: “when wronged, sue the fuckers…”
I assume you mean plaintiff’s lawyer. And you should also read the article, because I doubt he will make a dime off this case…
(emphasis added).
What is wrong with that lesson? Teaching kids that the law is there to protect people, and that no one is above the law? Or that the law, rather than griping on a message board, or sucking it up, or other methods is a way of resolving disputes?