[murky]

My sympathy is 100% with Dawkins on this one, and it has nothing to do with my opinion of him as a coach.

Stanford comes across as cheap and petty in this dispute.

[murky]

My sympathy is 100% with Dawkins on this one, and it has nothing to do with my opinion of him as a coach.

Stanford comes across as cheap and petty in this dispute.

[BostonCard]

My sympathy is 100% with Dawkins on this one, and it has nothing to do with my opinion of him as a coach.

Stanford comes across as cheap and petty in this dispute.

I'm withholding sympathy pending more facts.  Maybe Stanford is petty and cheap, or maybe Dawkins is greedy and conniving (and those are not mutually exclusive), or maybe both parties acted in good faith but there was a misunderstanding.  Either way, I think we need more info before any of us declares our sympathy.

BC

[BostonCard]

My sympathy is 100% with Dawkins on this one, and it has nothing to do with my opinion of him as a coach.

Stanford comes across as cheap and petty in this dispute.

I'm withholding sympathy pending more facts.  Maybe Stanford is petty and cheap, or maybe Dawkins is greedy and conniving (and those are not mutually exclusive), or maybe both parties acted in good faith but there was a misunderstanding.  Either way, I think we need more info before any of us declares our sympathy.

BC

[fullmetal]

I think that's correct--the general public doesn't know enough to start casting stones.

[fullmetal]

I think that's correct--the general public doesn't know enough to start casting stones.

[2006alum]

There's an amazing amount of speculation in this thread based on very little information. We haven't seen the complaint, the contract, the written severance ​agreement if any, Stanford's filings in response, etc. All we have is one newspaper story based on Dawkins' statement to the press and another from Stanford. And Stanford's said they hadn't seen the complaint yet.

+1. I've worked for a judge who was fairly prominent and whose decisions were reported on relatively regularly - the media's capacity to utterly bungle reporting on a lawsuit is impressive. From describing the arguments wrong, to incorrectly explaining the significance, to literally just getting the basic facts incorrect, I have come to trust almost no legal reporters. Adam Liptak for NY Times is very good, as is Josh Gerstein for Politico. Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern for Slate are also good, although they're more opinion-y in their writing. That's about it for regular legal reporting, I'm afraid to say. The rest is pretty garbage.

I'd recommend waiting until the complaint comes out and then StanfordMatt or someone else qualified can translate. I also wouldn't trust what either party's counsel says to the media, and therefore what the media is reporting, because the PR spin purposefully twists and distorts the arguments and the facts, and the media often buys it wholesale. It's not irrational to mislead, either, because the court of public opinion also counts. See what happened to O'Reilly. Therefore counsel on both sides have an incentive to spin within an inch of an outright lie.

[2006alum]

There's an amazing amount of speculation in this thread based on very little information. We haven't seen the complaint, the contract, the written severance ​agreement if any, Stanford's filings in response, etc. All we have is one newspaper story based on Dawkins' statement to the press and another from Stanford. And Stanford's said they hadn't seen the complaint yet.

+1. I've worked for a judge who was fairly prominent and whose decisions were reported on relatively regularly - the media's capacity to utterly bungle reporting on a lawsuit is impressive. From describing the arguments wrong, to incorrectly explaining the significance, to literally just getting the basic facts incorrect, I have come to trust almost no legal reporters. Adam Liptak for NY Times is very good, as is Josh Gerstein for Politico. Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern for Slate are also good, although they're more opinion-y in their writing. That's about it for regular legal reporting, I'm afraid to say. The rest is pretty garbage.

I'd recommend waiting until the complaint comes out and then StanfordMatt or someone else qualified can translate. I also wouldn't trust what either party's counsel says to the media, and therefore what the media is reporting, because the PR spin purposefully twists and distorts the arguments and the facts, and the media often buys it wholesale. It's not irrational to mislead, either, because the court of public opinion also counts. See what happened to O'Reilly. Therefore counsel on both sides have an incentive to spin within an inch of an outright lie.

[CTcard]

There's an amazing amount of speculation in this thread based on very little information. We haven't seen the complaint, the contract, the written severance ​agreement if any, Stanford's filings in response, etc. All we have is one newspaper story based on Dawkins' statement to the press and another from Stanford. And Stanford's said they hadn't seen the complaint yet.

I agree that at this point any opinion on the matter says more about the world viewer of the opinion holder than anything about the facts of this case.


Though I would make the small correction that the Mercury News article claims it was based upon the filing by Dawkins at the Santa Clara Superior Court. My understanding is that those are available public documents but that (at least at Santa Clara) they are not available online.

[CTcard]

There's an amazing amount of speculation in this thread based on very little information. We haven't seen the complaint, the contract, the written severance ​agreement if any, Stanford's filings in response, etc. All we have is one newspaper story based on Dawkins' statement to the press and another from Stanford. And Stanford's said they hadn't seen the complaint yet.

I agree that at this point any opinion on the matter says more about the world viewer of the opinion holder than anything about the facts of this case.


Though I would make the small correction that the Mercury News article claims it was based upon the filing by Dawkins at the Santa Clara Superior Court. My understanding is that those are available public documents but that (at least at Santa Clara) they are not available online.

[czaja]

[quote author=CompSci87 link=topic=16802.msg192103#msg192103 date=1492795346]
There's an amazing amount of speculation in this thread based on very little information. We haven't seen the complaint, the contract, the written severance ​agreement if any, Stanford's filings in response, etc. All we have is one newspaper story based on Dawkins' statement to the press and another from Stanford. And Stanford's said they hadn't seen the complaint yet.

+1. I've worked for a judge who was fairly prominent and whose decisions were reported on relatively regularly - the media's capacity to utterly bungle reporting on a lawsuit is impressive. From describing the arguments wrong, to incorrectly explaining the significance, to literally just getting the basic facts incorrect, I have come to trust almost no legal reporters. Adam Liptak for NY Times is very good, as is Josh Gerstein for Politico. Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern for Slate are also good, although they're more opinion-y in their writing. That's about it for regular legal reporting, I'm afraid to say. The rest is pretty garbage.

I'd recommend waiting until the complaint comes out and then StanfordMatt or someone else qualified can translate. I also wouldn't trust what either party's counsel says to the media, and therefore what the media is reporting, because the PR spin purposefully twists and distorts the arguments and the facts, and the media often buys it wholesale. It's not irrational to mislead, either, because the court of public opinion also counts. See what happened to O'Reilly. Therefore counsel on both sides have an incentive to spin within an inch of an outright lie.
[/quote]

Completely agree.  Legal reporting is often woefully inaccurate and misleading - frankly to the point of being a disservice to the public.  I think it's because at a superficial level it seems easy to grasp what's going on in a given case if you just parachute in and write about a hearing, oral argument, etc.  I mean - they're talking in English and using words I generally understand (unlike, say scientific journals).  However, most reporters lack either the context or experience to fully understand what's going on at a given stage of litigation.  For example, I would venture to say most legal reporters couldn't explain the difference between summary judgment vs. a motion to dismiss.  Unless the reporter is either a lawyer or someone with a lot of experience (and track record) of good legal reporting, it's mostly hot garbage.

Regarding this case - I agree with the opinions above that there's basically no way to know who the "bad guy" is (if there even is a bad guy).  We just need to wait for more facts/briefing to come out to have any idea.

[czaja]

[quote author=CompSci87 link=topic=16802.msg192103#msg192103 date=1492795346]
There's an amazing amount of speculation in this thread based on very little information. We haven't seen the complaint, the contract, the written severance ​agreement if any, Stanford's filings in response, etc. All we have is one newspaper story based on Dawkins' statement to the press and another from Stanford. And Stanford's said they hadn't seen the complaint yet.

+1. I've worked for a judge who was fairly prominent and whose decisions were reported on relatively regularly - the media's capacity to utterly bungle reporting on a lawsuit is impressive. From describing the arguments wrong, to incorrectly explaining the significance, to literally just getting the basic facts incorrect, I have come to trust almost no legal reporters. Adam Liptak for NY Times is very good, as is Josh Gerstein for Politico. Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern for Slate are also good, although they're more opinion-y in their writing. That's about it for regular legal reporting, I'm afraid to say. The rest is pretty garbage.

I'd recommend waiting until the complaint comes out and then StanfordMatt or someone else qualified can translate. I also wouldn't trust what either party's counsel says to the media, and therefore what the media is reporting, because the PR spin purposefully twists and distorts the arguments and the facts, and the media often buys it wholesale. It's not irrational to mislead, either, because the court of public opinion also counts. See what happened to O'Reilly. Therefore counsel on both sides have an incentive to spin within an inch of an outright lie.
[/quote]

Completely agree.  Legal reporting is often woefully inaccurate and misleading - frankly to the point of being a disservice to the public.  I think it's because at a superficial level it seems easy to grasp what's going on in a given case if you just parachute in and write about a hearing, oral argument, etc.  I mean - they're talking in English and using words I generally understand (unlike, say scientific journals).  However, most reporters lack either the context or experience to fully understand what's going on at a given stage of litigation.  For example, I would venture to say most legal reporters couldn't explain the difference between summary judgment vs. a motion to dismiss.  Unless the reporter is either a lawyer or someone with a lot of experience (and track record) of good legal reporting, it's mostly hot garbage.

Regarding this case - I agree with the opinions above that there's basically no way to know who the "bad guy" is (if there even is a bad guy).  We just need to wait for more facts/briefing to come out to have any idea.

[Goose]

Regarding this case - I agree with the opinions above that there's basically no way to know who the "bad guy" is (if there even is a bad guy).  We just need to wait for more facts/briefing to come out to have any idea.

I completely agree that many of us are speculating based on three sentences in a Wilner report. Not much "meat" there. Unfortunately, these kinds of cases often settle out of court with a gag order on the settlement. For that reason, I expect we will probably never know what the actual situation was.

[Goose]

Regarding this case - I agree with the opinions above that there's basically no way to know who the "bad guy" is (if there even is a bad guy).  We just need to wait for more facts/briefing to come out to have any idea.

I completely agree that many of us are speculating based on three sentences in a Wilner report. Not much "meat" there. Unfortunately, these kinds of cases often settle out of court with a gag order on the settlement. For that reason, I expect we will probably never know what the actual situation was.

[JJJ]

Therefore counsel on both sides have an incentive to spin within an inch of an outright lie.

It's exquisite phrasing like this that makes me enjoy being a part of this special board. (Although I must admit pictured a breaking ball in my mind as I read it.)

[JJJ]

Therefore counsel on both sides have an incentive to spin within an inch of an outright lie.

It's exquisite phrasing like this that makes me enjoy being a part of this special board. (Although I must admit pictured a breaking ball in my mind as I read it.)

[dabigv13]

[quote author=2006alum link=topic=16802.msg192119#msg192119 date=1492814379]
Therefore counsel on both sides have an incentive to spin within an inch of an outright lie.

It's exquisite phrasing like this that makes me enjoy being a part of this special board. (Although I must admit pictured a breaking ball in my mind as I read it.)
[/quote]

+1 some really fine writers on this board.

[dabigv13]

[quote author=2006alum link=topic=16802.msg192119#msg192119 date=1492814379]
Therefore counsel on both sides have an incentive to spin within an inch of an outright lie.

It's exquisite phrasing like this that makes me enjoy being a part of this special board. (Although I must admit pictured a breaking ball in my mind as I read it.)
[/quote]

+1 some really fine writers on this board.

[OutsiderFan]

We have a gigantic problem brewing in society.  The disparity between the accuracy of information provided by technologies preferred to decimate information today - combined with poorly developed critical thinking skills as a result of too many people relying on such technologies for their information - and the complexity and nuance of what is actually going on, is frightening.

It should come as no surprise that matters of legal jurisprudence would be virtually impossible for people in this society to be capable of understanding properly.  In this Dawkins case, you need to know the law, what is exactly in the contract, and understand the complaint.  Drawing your own conclusions without knowing all of this information, is ludicrous.  Precious few people do, but I'm sure the masses have already decided who is guilty and who isn't, based on their own biases, without being accurately informed.

People are doing this in society all the time today and it's putting everyone at risk. 

[OutsiderFan]

We have a gigantic problem brewing in society.  The disparity between the accuracy of information provided by technologies preferred to decimate information today - combined with poorly developed critical thinking skills as a result of too many people relying on such technologies for their information - and the complexity and nuance of what is actually going on, is frightening.

It should come as no surprise that matters of legal jurisprudence would be virtually impossible for people in this society to be capable of understanding properly.  In this Dawkins case, you need to know the law, what is exactly in the contract, and understand the complaint.  Drawing your own conclusions without knowing all of this information, is ludicrous.  Precious few people do, but I'm sure the masses have already decided who is guilty and who isn't, based on their own biases, without being accurately informed.

People are doing this in society all the time today and it's putting everyone at risk. 

[oldalum]

  Drawing your own conclusions without knowing all of this information, is ludicrous. 

+1  !!

[oldalum]

  Drawing your own conclusions without knowing all of this information, is ludicrous. 

+1  !!

[CTcard]

The disparity between the accuracy of information provided by technologies preferred to decimate information today -

Now there is a turn of phrase - brilliant for the times.

[CTcard]

The disparity between the accuracy of information provided by technologies preferred to decimate information today -

Now there is a turn of phrase - brilliant for the times.

[OutsiderFan]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=16802.msg192152#msg192152 date=1492872474]
The disparity between the accuracy of information provided by technologies preferred to decimate information today -

Now there is a turn of phrase - brilliant for the times.
[/quote]

Was that a Freudian slip, or just a product of the spell-checker?  Maybe both...

[OutsiderFan]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=16802.msg192152#msg192152 date=1492872474]
The disparity between the accuracy of information provided by technologies preferred to decimate information today -

Now there is a turn of phrase - brilliant for the times.
[/quote]

Was that a Freudian slip, or just a product of the spell-checker?  Maybe both...

[gasdoc51]

A seminal thought, could disseminating information mean decimating information in the Trump Era

[gasdoc51]

A seminal thought, could disseminating information mean decimating information in the Trump Era