Home Forums FineTunedMac Community Lounge "Terms and Conditions May Apply"

This is most commonly seen in the form of agreeing to resolve differences using "binding arbitration", and agreeing to not participate in any class-action lawsuits. I wonder why these are allowed - some rights you can't sign away, and those should be among them.

I apologize for being slow to respond, but I'm trying to clear my plate so I can devote my energy and attention to giving both you and V1 the consideration you deserve.

And strangely, those agreements say that you give up the right to sue if the company does something wrong...but the company does not give up the right to sue you if you do something wrong!

What's strange about that?

Here's another wrinkle: In Religious Arbitration, Scripture Is the Rule of Law. Shariah, anyone?

Wow. That's the most frightening news article I've read in a very long time.

Apparently the devout believers in this process don't mind having a bit of hypocrisy in the system:

"Some religious organizations stand by the process until they lose, at which point they turn to the secular courts to overturn faith-based judgments, according to interviews and court records."

Interesting...

That pretty clearly shows Northlake wasn't going with arbitration for Christian reasons, but because they thought it would give them a legal edge. (which it probably usually does) But as soon as that failed to produce legal results, they immediately abandoned it.

Doesn't it seem like there ought to be a way to use that against them in the future?

Previous case records are admissible in future cases unless overruled, so yes, it can be brought up that they argued against their own rules in any following case, which greatly weakens their position. It doesn't mean they can't BE a hypocrite, it just undermines their case when they do it.

"But three years ago, didn't your own legal team argue that this contract should be unenforceable?"

V1 didn't quote my post; he rewrote it! The highlighted text is added content, and his attribution is spurious. (I'd have posted immediately and saved myself an astonishing amount of time and effort had I realized from the get-go that you didn't realize. Oh, well. :shrug: )

Here, then, if it's still necessary...

Since "FTFY" was a new one on me I searched and found

• FTFY - Wiktionary: (Internet slang) Fixed that for you; appended to a modified quotation, as if the modification “fixes” the original statement

and

• Urban Dictionary: FTFY: Acronym for "fixed that for you."
  Often used sarcastically - not to fix an honest mistake, but to sarcastically disagree with someone,

both of which are representative definitions, suggest sarcasm, and when appended with a wear the title like a crown.

Cast in that light, then, both "condescending" and "denigrating" (in its "disparaging" sense) are appropriate characterizations of V1's post.

And what was his "fixing " my post if not presumptuous?


Looking back, I see that I interwove two responses, so I'll separate them.

As far as I can see, the problem I cited is confined to constituencies.

The problem V1 cited has two faces: officials who abuse their power, and constituencies that tolerate the abuse.

Being a cynic, I'll go with the constituencies being the more culpable of the two, because the officials, despicable as they and their abuses are, are just exhibiting their basic human nature, while those standing silently by and watching are, I think, abdicating theirs.