squistion

Exactly.

Wokey?

Who is being riled up about this? This name change is laughable more than anything else, as no one had been calling for it.

Hmm...

Don't you love it where they now suddenly care about "free speech" at Harvard?

He isn't and he never has been, which I one of the reasons I have him on ignore.

"No specific criminal justice proposals have been advanced at this time," a Justice Department spokesperson said when asked about the media reports." Well yeah, not only is it unconstitutional but how will they know who is a transgender when they purchase a gun? Seriously, will there be a national registry of those who identify as trans that they can check against?

One of the reasons I put him on ignore is that he goes out of his way to jump on every post I make just to criticize it and insult me.

Doesn't appear that way. https://www.youtube.com/live/3Rbt5CYH7UI

I gave you the answer, see my above post.

You would tell the NFL to continue the game in the rain after they have been put on notice of a potential lightening strike? Hope your malpractice insurance is current.

At least tens of millions if they were aware of a potential lightening strike and did not delay the game until the danger passed.

Good bolded question. It would cost the NFL tens of millions if they were aware of a potential lightening strike of fans or players and did not delay the game until the danger had passed. Thanks!

At FBGs they got like a dozen lawyers in the FFA. Maybe none here, but if so, let's ask one of them to weigh in: If you were legal counsel to the NFL, would you advise them to delay a game if there is a possibility of lightening striking a fan or a player?

Which is why they halted the game.

Or perhaps you an find some attorneys here to back your take on tort liability if a fan or player is struck by lightening if the NFL is aware of the potential danger.

The NFL's legal department would advise them to halt any game if there is a threat of a lightening striking of a fan or a player. It is something that is foreseeable and could be avoided by delaying the game - and to not do so could potentially lead to liability in the tens of millions (not to mention the bad publicity).

When there's lightning you know it always brings me down

Dude, you don't think the NFL's legal department has already advised them of this? Seriously. lol

I am not the one who spelled "Philly" as "Phily" in the thread title.

"Lightning strikes maybe once, maybe twice"

You apparently know nothing about tort liability It would be negligence on the part of the NFL to let a game proceed if they were aware of a possible lightening strike on a fan or a player. And the litigation costs if the NFL somehow prevailed (which I doubt) would still be in the millions (plus the bad publicity for allowing this to happen).

Irrelevant as I am sure the NFL's legal department has already instucted them to stop all games with the threat of lightening WITH NO EXCEPTION.