The end/point of the timing, not of the billboard itself.
Wouldn't dream of it.
Of course. That's all any of us are setting out beyond the bare facts.
Sounds like the Coalition of Reason wants to make demands and tell Lamar how to run their (private) business.
They could just find a new advertiser and stop whining. Troy Tatum is right, they just want to start a fight. Having half of their money refunded is equitable. Stop with the victim card and move on.
The customer is always right!
:up: ...except if the customer has an atheist agenda! :down: . . . . We have freedom of religious expression :up: ...until we express a freedom from said religion :down:
...Spoze it depends on which way the breeze wants to blow Oz? :Wamba:
I don't. Never did. Never said I did. Never will say it.
Without question. Blinding nearly.
What I've resisted is the attempt by several likely well meaning people to paint my point as something other than what it is or to cast it in a light that isn't mine.
Whoever told you that fooled you.
They're getting half their money back for the unused time. They should stop whining and move on.
You could be their spokesperson :allsmile:
Having their money refunded isn't equitable? They had their billboard up it just didn't run as long as they hoped so they're whining about it and playing the victim card.
Projecting again?
I'd say the same thing if it were a Christian billboard. Stuff happens, you're getting refunded. Find another billboard to advertise on and stop :allsmile:
Rather, I find the choice they made in poor taste. And you think all sorts of things are in poor taste. You only just noted it.Sure, you just have a problem with when they choose to speak their minds. How generous.
Because everyone knows that when you object to one thing someone brings up about a holiday it's suspicious unless you then launch into a polemic on every single other thing, even if no one asked you.Enough to make you overlook them in the glare, apparently...
Or you could go with what I actually said. Depends on if the agenda is to be reasonable or to advance your bias under the veneer of that.Your "point" (such as it is) seems to be: "This bothers me, they shouldn't have done it, tut-tut-tut. Have they no decency, at long last?"
Because nothing says precious and delicate like attempting to reason with those who object to your point of view. lain:If your sensibilities are precious and delicate enough to be upended by retail advertising at Christmastime
Where you seem to be a half step from invoking the Nazis.you seem to be acting like either a weak sister or a grandstander.
No, I'd say breach should involve penalty. They didn't get what they paid for. The value of what they did get isn't for the injuring party to determine.Having half their money refunded, equitable solution or not?
Rather, I find the choice they made in poor taste.
Because everyone knows that when you object to one thing someone brings up about a holiday it's suspicious unless you then launch into a polemic on every single other thing, even if no one asked you.
Or you could go with what I actually said. Depends on if the agenda is to be reasonable or to advance your bias under the veneer of that.
Where you seem to be a half step from invoking the Nazis.
No, I'd say breach should involve penalty. They didn't get what they paid for. The value of what they did get isn't for the injuring party to determine.
Say the atheists had scheduled a race and the promoters only had half the course protected so the runners had to stop running and go home before the intended end point. No one would suggest half a race was meeting any part of the obligation. There's potentially a bit of that in this, especially in light of their missing the beginning date to begin with.
Agreed. We all have things that make us roll eyes. And bully for whatever that is, yours or mine.At this rate the only response that makes any kind of sense is "bully for you."
But I didn't. I only returned to answer others who seemed determined to make all sorts of general and particular objections the point.Not really. Just bizarre that someone who's usually reasonable decided to make a mountain out of this particular molehill.
You think it takes a mind reader to see that repeated attempts to set a simple objection in lights like "delicate, precious, weak sister" as being reflective of a different context requires ESP? lain:I see you've got your mindreader cap on. Again.
So you think I really am a mind reader. Well, no. I have no idea about your family history in that particular. But you missed the actual inference, which was the first person who brings in the Nazis, almost always a grotesque overkill with little value as a parallel, is the loser.All due respect but screw you. Considering the losses my family took that's an insult I rarely if ever use, and it's beneath you.
The beach itself is proof. And attempt to mitigate doesn't go to punatives for breaking faith to begin with. So it's more a matter of determining damages. There's not much Llamar can do except show they made some (if insufficient) attempt to mitigate. Now had Llamar offered a later four week window of their choice and subject to the availability of the sign in question coupled with the return of the money I think no court would have had a problem suggesting the parties settle and return.Then the CoR can certainly sue for damages if they can prove injury in court...
The strongest stick the atheists have is that Llamar's admission of pressure from outside parties gives the appearance of Llamar being both the breaching party and a party to a conspiracy to infringe upon their freedom of speech, which is more serious and could, if argued well enough and finding support move into a more serious penalty phase, now that I mull it.I see absolutely nothing wrong with Lamars simply refunding the unused funds. If CoR feels the need to create a bigger stink they have recourse.
The problem with legal departments is that often what's said/admitted to by agents of a company isn't done through them, that counsel is typically brought in after the fact. Here, if the early reports of the Llamar admissions are correct that appears to be the case. Not a chance in Hades I'm going to let them say anything of the sort, raise that suspicion at all...though if I'm right about that aim of using the holiday they'd already have suspected/counted on it and would then subpoena records and/or people who would confirm the pressure.I bet it would get tossed or settled with minimal financial gain. I'm sure Lamar has a legal department that knows what they're doing
I said much the same thing to Fly early, which was actually my point in stopping by the thread. But there appear to have been two particulars, a beginning/end date and a duration declared in the contract. The arguments would be over preeminence of terms and fault, if Llamar wants to take a stab at defending against actual breach.Hence the refund. No one is arguing the initial delay. The CoR simply demanded to go beyond their end date to compensate. Perhaps Lamars had prior obligation with another client...
Rather, I extrapolate from established facts. That's the nature of speculation of any sort.And yet your argument ventures bravely well beyond any established facts.
You absolutely do. The billboard makes no mention of atheists feeling alienated around the holidays. That's a read in. Reasonable? Depends on the perspective. And I noted a problem with that read in and the timing, among others.Mine does not.
Rather I assert that the timing of the add speaks to a calculation that best explains it. Just so, the presence of a birthday cake may represent a bake sale, but the odds are better that someone is about to officially age a year.You presume to know the rationale, strategy and expectations of the ad-makers based on nothing more than the timing of the ad.
And I note people who can't advance argument or even the appearance of it without name calling lack a fundamental faith in either their reason or position.Unfortunately your proclivity towards specious argumentation appears proportional to your stated prejudice.
It really is.It is disappointing.
Rather, I extrapolate from established facts. That's the nature of speculation of any sort.
You absolutely do. The billboard makes no mention of atheists feeling alienated around the holidays.
Rather I assert that the timing of the add speaks to a calculation that best explains it.
The beach itself is proof.
And attempt to mitigate doesn't go to punatives for breaking faith to begin with. So it's more a matter of determining damages. There's not much Llamar can do except show they made some (if insufficient) attempt to mitigate. Now had Llamar offered a later four week window of their choice and subject to the availability of the sign in question coupled with the return of the money I think no court would have had a problem suggesting the parties settle and return.
The strongest stick the atheists have is that Llamar's admission of pressure from outside parties gives the appearance of Llamar being both the breaching party and a party to a conspiracy to infringe upon their freedom of speech, which is more serious and could, if argued well enough and finding support move into a more serious penalty phase, now that I mull it.
Interesting case.
The problem with legal departments is that often what's said/admitted to by agents of a company isn't done through them, that counsel is typically brought in after the fact. Here, if the early reports of the Llamar admissions are correct that appears to be the case. Not a chance in Hades I'm going to let them say anything of the sort, raise that suspicion at all...though if I'm right about that aim of using the holiday they'd already have suspected/counted on it and would then subpoena records and/or people who would confirm the pressure.
How dare you find interest in such things. :sibbie:I said much the same thing to Fly early, which was actually my point in stopping by the thread. But there appear to have been two particulars, a beginning/end date and a duration declared in the contract. The arguments would be over preeminence of terms and fault, if Llamar wants to take a stab at defending against actual breach.
Like I said, an interesting case. Lots of potential (by which I mean billable time potential). lain:
If by underhanded you mean secretive and by secretive you mean the more innocuous failure to make plain or public, okay. A thing can be in poor taste without anything nefarious attaching.There is much speculation of underhanded motives on your part. I do not partake.
Were you the one who said he didn't know many atheists who were bothered by the holidays? I thought it was Fly. I've been having this conversation with you and fly and Granite and rex and fool and a couple of others, but only one of you separated from the alienation bit. I thought it was Fly. If it was you then no.And is that an argument I have made?
Best explains the timing. The advertising follows whenever they do it.Best explains? The best explanation is that they wanted to advertise their website.
If you conflate finding something in poor taste with condemnation and underhanded with clever, okay. Otherwise, I've set out very particular reasons for why I found the dates that were set to be used read as a play for additional press and why another reading of that date was less reasonable. Agree, disagree, but it's not dart throwing.That you presume underhanded motive is an extra-curricular you have endeavored, and to condemn that presumed underhanded motive.
Or are you a lion? (see what I did there with the ante?)That I am tired of winter. Yes it is
They might be using the pause to drum up a better offer while saving legal fees and getting additional free press. If we hear about a settlement once everyone is done talking about it that'll be the likely reason why.I hear you and I agree that CoR has legal recourse. So far, they've just been whiny about it. They should either sue or move on...
Admission or not I'll bet you they got complaints and all you need is the ability to demonstrate that coupled with the severance of the period and you have at least strong circumstantial evidence which, despite the common mistake on the point, can be enough for a conviction, especially in civil court.They claim to have the admission but they're the only ones saying so as far as I know...:think:
The silence on the denial side of Llamar would tend to argue they're telling the truth, but it doesn't really matter if they do so long as they can produce proof at some point.Supra. They have an admission because the CoR or the Friendly Atheist say so?...
Many's a day I find myself wishing I'd been more concerned about that.How dare you find interest in such things. :sibbie: