Woman sues when "100 Grand" prize turns out to be chocolate bar

[KarenMarie]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86
So let me get this right, if I somehow "screw" you on a deal, it's OK, as long as the term I verbally screwed you on has another meaning?

IE "will you (except/accept) this (faulty) wiring job?" verbally can mean to exempt, or agree to, complete opposites.

I would be smart enough to know EXACTLY what the deal included BEFORE entering into and deal or contract. That is the way it should be.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: KarenMarie

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Even if the station didn't advertise it (they are still responsible for content their DJs run) they still gained. Though if it was just a single bit, not much. However slight, the increased listeners will/should show on their ratings. Higher ratings = higher price/ad/sec.

Even if they don't make those gains, it was their intent.

Let's be clear here.

The DJ advertised "100 grand" specifically because it would be confused with "$100 grand".
The reason for ANY promo is the increase listeners.
The reason for more listeners is more revenue from sales.

Again, I am not saying that being unclear was not sh!tty. But everyone is assuming what was in the DJ's mind. And that he had it in his mind to purposely trick and embarrass this particular woman. Now.. while it is my opinion that he probably did... my opinion is not the rule of law. If she can PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt that a) he said one thousand dollars US cash ... or.. b) that he purposely meant to mislead or embarrass this particular woman I could understand that she would be pissed. Should she get $100,000 cash? Dunno... I would not award it to her, but some jury might.. but punitive damages?.. shows how greedy she is.

Everyone's assuming it, because: they saw the "toy yoda" thread/story and aren't as ignorant (see sig) or they just read the thread and said "oh, I'm not that dumb". Punitive damages are par for the course.

I can't see how b: isn't obvious. What'd he expect when he handed her a candy bar? Certianly not a "publishers clearing house" moment.

 

[Phoenix86]

Originally posted by: KarenMarie

Originally posted by: Phoenix86
So let me get this right, if I somehow "screw" you on a deal, it's OK, as long as the term I verbally screwed you on has another meaning?

IE "will you (except/accept) this (faulty) wiring job?" verbally can mean to exempt, or agree to, complete opposites.

I would be smart enough to know EXACTLY what the deal included BEFORE entering into and deal or contract. That is the way it should be.

Again, you only have the benefit of hearing the words on the radio.

edit: What contract? Was it posted anywhere before the giveaway?

 

[KarenMarie]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
I would be smart enough to know EXACTLY what the deal included BEFORE entering into and deal or contract. That is the way it should be.

Again, you only have the benefit of hearing the words on the radio.

If *I* heard on the radio that the 10th caller was gonna win a 100 grand? And I was the 10th caller and only got a candy bar...???? I would be pissed... sure. But I would be more pissed at myself for getting my hopes up without knowing exactly what a 100 grand was.

Again... he said 100 grand. she got a 100 grand. he was sh!tty for not being clear, and she was stupid for automatically assuming her defination of a 100 grand to be that she was getting cash, not a candy bar. If he said the winner would get a new car... and got a tonka toy... they are getting a new car, no? If nothing else is said... just a car... it could mean a new ford mustang or it could be a hot wheels car. I just think it is wrong to sue, cause I did not look further and just demanded that they follow my defination of what the prize was...

now... if anyone can prove that he planned to scew her, or said it was a cash prize, or whatever.... then i would probably be more open minded that the station/DJ should be punished. But I have zero sympathy for anyone who was not 100% sure what they were getting, and looking to get something they never had, was never explicity promised and did not lose.

But I am thinking that we are just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. Cause it looks like that although we understand where each other is coming from...neither will change the other's mind.

So... he is a :beer: for each of us.

 

[PieDerro]

I can't understand how punitive damages could possibly be awarded in such a case?! Punitive?! What for???

The issue of misrepresentation could go either way in the US i think (England and Australia would probably tend to decide that this was not a case of misrepresentation at all). But punitive damages are a whole different ball game. Punitive damages are rarely awarded in other common law countries, and only if there has been some gross negligence or aggravated conduct. Here, she made a phone call! Where is the aggravated conduct, gross negligence or anything that can be remotely equated to such?

 

[KarenMarie]

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: KarenMarie

Originally posted by: Phoenix86
So let me get this right, if I somehow "screw" you on a deal, it's OK, as long as the term I verbally screwed you on has another meaning?

IE "will you (except/accept) this (faulty) wiring job?" verbally can mean to exempt, or agree to, complete opposites.

I would be smart enough to know EXACTLY what the deal included BEFORE entering into and deal or contract. That is the way it should be.

Again, you only have the benefit of hearing the words on the radio.

edit: What contract? Was it posted anywhere before the giveaway?

As far as I have heard THIS is the closst to a contract as this story ever got. Someone else had inferred earlier in the tread that holding his contest automatically implied a conract.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: chowderhead
It is logical to assume that 100 grand = $100,000.

The DJ deliberately misled his listeners. Personal responsibilty? Where is the responsibility of the radio station which allowed this to happen in order to boost their ratings (remember that station managers have oversight over content)? How is someone stupid for thinking 100 grand = $100,000. The contract was deliberately misleading. The radio station and the DJ are wrong and they should pay up.

Fine. Then is it just a logical for me to sue a tabloid when I find out Satan did *not* cause Brad and Jen's breakup by appearing on a box of Cracker Jacks?

Fortune cookies have "lucky numbers" in them that 'mysteriously' match up with lotto drawings. Any "reasonable person" would assume they are getting some inside information and should play the big game. Should they sue for $415M when they don't win?

Ashton Crotchface hosts show where he "punks" people into thinking their cars are getting vandalized. I think afterwards, when they find out it was all a hoax, they should sue and really get their cars vandalized, because, dammit, that's what they were expecting to happen, right?

:roll:

umm, how are you damaged in any way in any of these three situations?

Great question!

How was this woman damaged by getting a free candy bar for making a phone call?

 

[goodoptics]

Originally posted by: KarenMarie

Originally posted by: Phoenix86

Originally posted by: KarenMarie
I would be smart enough to know EXACTLY what the deal included BEFORE entering into and deal or contract. That is the way it should be.

Again, you only have the benefit of hearing the words on the radio.

If *I* heard on the radio that the 10th caller was gonna win a 100 grand? And I was the 10th caller and only got a candy bar...???? I would be pissed... sure. But I would be more pissed at myself for getting my hopes up without knowing exactly what a 100 grand was.

Again... he said 100 grand. she got a 100 grand. he was sh!tty for not being clear, and she was stupid for automatically assuming her defination of a 100 grand to be that she was getting cash, not a candy bar. If he said the winner would get a new car... and got a tonka toy... they are getting a new car, no? If nothing else is said... just a car... it could mean a new ford mustang or it could be a hot wheels car. I just think it is wrong to sue, cause I did not look further and just demanded that they follow my defination of what the prize was...

now... if anyone can prove that he planned to scew her, or said it was a cash prize, or whatever.... then i would probably be more open minded that the station/DJ should be punished. But I have zero sympathy for anyone who was not 100% sure what they were getting, and looking to get something they never had, was never explicity promised and did not lose.

But I am thinking that we are just gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. Cause it looks like that although we understand where each other is coming from...neither will change the other's mind.

So... he is a :beer: for each of us.

According to this, He said "... a chance to Win 100 GRAND!!!". No "a" in front of "100".

As ZOXXO pointed out earlier:

The fraud lies within the difference in the two following statements. Can you spot it?

1 - I will give you 100 grand.
2 - I will give you a 100 grand.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: goodoptics

According to this, He said "... a chance to Win 100 GRAND!!!". No "a" in front of "100".

Well, according to that, *I* could be the winner of the "Rendevous with Destiny" contest, which is patently false, as I believe I had absolutely 0% chance of winning that. Can I sue?

 

[ZOXXO]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: goodoptics

According to this, He said "... a chance to Win 100 GRAND!!!". No "a" in front of "100".

Well, according to that, *I* could be the winner of the "Rendevous with Destiny" contest, which is patently false, as I believe I had absolutely 0% chance of winning that. Can I sue?

If you can hire a lawyer to file the papers, then sure you can sue but unlike the "100 grand" woman, you have no case.

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: goodoptics

According to this, He said "... a chance to Win 100 GRAND!!!". No "a" in front of "100".

Well, according to that, *I* could be the winner of the "Rendevous with Destiny" contest, which is patently false, as I believe I had absolutely 0% chance of winning that. Can I sue?

The whole point of this contest was to mislead someone and mock their reaction when they find out that they were deceived , and you know it.

You know perfectly well that it was not their intent to give away delicous candy to satisfy the hunger of their listeners.

Since they told her that she had won the contest your analogy has no relevance.

 

[huesmann]

Is she black?

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: goodoptics

According to this, He said "... a chance to Win 100 GRAND!!!". No "a" in front of "100".

Well, according to that, *I* could be the winner of the "Rendevous with Destiny" contest, which is patently false, as I believe I had absolutely 0% chance of winning that. Can I sue?

The whole point of this contest was to mislead someone and mock their reaction when they find out that they were deceived , and you know it.

You know perfectly well that it was not their intent to give away delicous candy to satisfy the hunger of their listeners.

Since they told her that she had won the contest your analogy has no relevance.

I have not once denied that was the *point* of the contest, nor has anyone else. But "Boo-hoo, they hurt my feelings and laughed at me" is no basis for a legitimate lawsuit.

How about this, I get the occasional phone call and junk mail about having won a "free" trip. But if I were to call and listen to the details, I'd found out there was a catch. Just like this woman found out there was a "catch" to the 100 Grand.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: goodoptics

According to this, He said "... a chance to Win 100 GRAND!!!". No "a" in front of "100".

Well, according to that, *I* could be the winner of the "Rendevous with Destiny" contest, which is patently false, as I believe I had absolutely 0% chance of winning that. Can I sue?

The whole point of this contest was to mislead someone and mock their reaction when they find out that they were deceived , and you know it.

You know perfectly well that it was not their intent to give away delicous candy to satisfy the hunger of their listeners.

Since they told her that she had won the contest your analogy has no relevance.

I have not once denied that was the *point* of the contest, nor has anyone else. But "Boo-hoo, they hurt my feelings and laughed at me" is no basis for a legitimate lawsuit.

How about this, I get the occasional phone call and junk mail about having won a "free" trip. But if I were to call and listen to the details, I'd found out there was a catch. Just like this woman found out there was a "catch" to the 100 Grand.

There are clear rules that regulate online and offline contests. Radio stations are regulated by the FCC.
FCC rules on contests
Licensees that broadcast or advertise information concerning a contest that they conduct must fully and accurately disclose the material terms of the contest and must conduct the contest substantially as announced or advertised. Contest descriptions may not be false, misleading or deceptive with respect to any material term. Material terms include those factors that define the operation of the contest and affect participation in the contest.

Look at this ruling
FCC pwns clear channel
In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, we find Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses,
Inc. ("Clear Channel"), licensee of Station KPRR(FM), El Paso, Texas, apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,000 for an apparent violation Section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules, which requires licensees, among other things, to fully and accurately disclose material terms of a contest. We find that Clear Channel conducted a contest, "So You Want to Win 10,000," without disclosing a material term of the contest, i.e., that the prize was 10,000 Italian lira, not $10,000.

So there have been cases where the FCC found the radio stations to be at fault because they did not disclose a material term of the contest - i.e. the winner would receive a candy bar.

Edit to note: that the $4000 appears to be a fine to the FCC and not a judgement for the woman in the El Paso case. The FCC found Clear Channel at fault and fined them. It is up to the party to sue to recover and in this case I hope she wins and they pay up.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: goodoptics

According to this, He said "... a chance to Win 100 GRAND!!!". No "a" in front of "100".

Well, according to that, *I* could be the winner of the "Rendevous with Destiny" contest, which is patently false, as I believe I had absolutely 0% chance of winning that. Can I sue?

The whole point of this contest was to mislead someone and mock their reaction when they find out that they were deceived , and you know it.

You know perfectly well that it was not their intent to give away delicous candy to satisfy the hunger of their listeners.

Since they told her that she had won the contest your analogy has no relevance.

I have not once denied that was the *point* of the contest, nor has anyone else. But "Boo-hoo, they hurt my feelings and laughed at me" is no basis for a legitimate lawsuit.

How about this, I get the occasional phone call and junk mail about having won a "free" trip. But if I were to call and listen to the details, I'd found out there was a catch. Just like this woman found out there was a "catch" to the 100 Grand.

There are clear rules that regulate online and offline contests. Radio stations are regulated by the FCC.
FCC rules on contests
Licensees that broadcast or advertise information concerning a contest that they conduct must fully and accurately disclose the material terms of the contest and must conduct the contest substantially as announced or advertised. Contest descriptions may not be false, misleading or deceptive with respect to any material term. Material terms include those factors that define the operation of the contest and affect participation in the contest.

Look at this ruling
FCC pwns clear channel
In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, we find Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses,
Inc. ("Clear Channel"), licensee of Station KPRR(FM), El Paso, Texas, apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,000 for an apparent violation Section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules, which requires licensees, among other things, to fully and accurately disclose material terms of a contest. We find that Clear Channel conducted a contest, "So You Want to Win 10,000," without disclosing a material term of the contest, i.e., that the prize was 10,000 Italian lira, not $10,000.

So there have been cases where the FCC found the radio stations to be at fault because they did not disclose a material term of the contest - i.e. the winner would receive a candy bar.
I hope she wins and they pay up.

*shrug* You're right. The station will have to pay, and the woman will be $100,000+ richer for a while. Doesn't change the fact that she's 100x more of a fvcking douche than the DJ who did this.

It's a sad state of affairs when the law sides with stupidity over common sense. Not that the fvcking FCC has any legal power to make and enforce laws, but that little inconvenience hasn't stopped them yet.

Oh well.

BTW, sorry I argued with you so much - you were obviously right about the "law" part at least, even if I disagree with you about whether it's right or not.

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt

Originally posted by: BroeBo
people can't take a joke anymore. losers. pfftt.

It's not a joke, it's truth in advertising. Consumers are protected from being mislead through false advertising, wordplay, bait and switch and 1,000 other dishonest tricks. The bottom line is: If you say you're giving something away, you damn well better give it away or you're completely exposed to a law suit.

The lady with the candy bar is almost certainly going to win or the station will settle the case for a fairly large sum. They promoted a 100 Grand giveaway, the FCC doesn't take kindly to stations promising things on the radio and then not coming through. I'd much rather be her lawyer than the lawyer for the radio station, they're screwed.

Werd. They were lying to their listeners. The dj led them to believe that they would win $100,000. The station is probably going to cut her a check for ~$150,000. Were this a just world, the dj would have to pay the the radio station back over the course of his life.

 

[preslove]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: goodoptics

According to this, He said "... a chance to Win 100 GRAND!!!". No "a" in front of "100".

Well, according to that, *I* could be the winner of the "Rendevous with Destiny" contest, which is patently false, as I believe I had absolutely 0% chance of winning that. Can I sue?

The whole point of this contest was to mislead someone and mock their reaction when they find out that they were deceived , and you know it.

You know perfectly well that it was not their intent to give away delicous candy to satisfy the hunger of their listeners.

Since they told her that she had won the contest your analogy has no relevance.

I have not once denied that was the *point* of the contest, nor has anyone else. But "Boo-hoo, they hurt my feelings and laughed at me" is no basis for a legitimate lawsuit.

How about this, I get the occasional phone call and junk mail about having won a "free" trip. But if I were to call and listen to the details, I'd found out there was a catch. Just like this woman found out there was a "catch" to the 100 Grand.

There are clear rules that regulate online and offline contests. Radio stations are regulated by the FCC.
FCC rules on contests
Licensees that broadcast or advertise information concerning a contest that they conduct must fully and accurately disclose the material terms of the contest and must conduct the contest substantially as announced or advertised. Contest descriptions may not be false, misleading or deceptive with respect to any material term. Material terms include those factors that define the operation of the contest and affect participation in the contest.

Look at this ruling
FCC pwns clear channel
In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, we find Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses,
Inc. ("Clear Channel"), licensee of Station KPRR(FM), El Paso, Texas, apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,000 for an apparent violation Section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules, which requires licensees, among other things, to fully and accurately disclose material terms of a contest. We find that Clear Channel conducted a contest, "So You Want to Win 10,000," without disclosing a material term of the contest, i.e., that the prize was 10,000 Italian lira, not $10,000.

So there have been cases where the FCC found the radio stations to be at fault because they did not disclose a material term of the contest - i.e. the winner would receive a candy bar.
I hope she wins and they pay up.

*shrug* You're right. The station will have to pay, and the woman will be $100,000+ richer for a while. Doesn't change the fact that she's 100x more of a fvcking douche than the DJ who did this.

It's a sad state of affairs when the law sides with stupidity over common sense. Not that the fvcking FCC has any legal power to make and enforce laws, but that little inconvenience hasn't stopped them yet.

Oh well.

How the fvck was she supposed to know that it wasn't $100,000. There's no fine print in radio, unless you count the fast talking dude at the end of car commercials. The dj broke a verbal contract, plain and simple. You can't pull a "read the fine print, moron" if there ain't no fine print.

 

[Zanix]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: DaveSimmons

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: goodoptics

According to this, He said "... a chance to Win 100 GRAND!!!". No "a" in front of "100".

Well, according to that, *I* could be the winner of the "Rendevous with Destiny" contest, which is patently false, as I believe I had absolutely 0% chance of winning that. Can I sue?

The whole point of this contest was to mislead someone and mock their reaction when they find out that they were deceived , and you know it.

You know perfectly well that it was not their intent to give away delicous candy to satisfy the hunger of their listeners.

Since they told her that she had won the contest your analogy has no relevance.

I have not once denied that was the *point* of the contest, nor has anyone else. But "Boo-hoo, they hurt my feelings and laughed at me" is no basis for a legitimate lawsuit.

How about this, I get the occasional phone call and junk mail about having won a "free" trip. But if I were to call and listen to the details, I'd found out there was a catch. Just like this woman found out there was a "catch" to the 100 Grand.

There are clear rules that regulate online and offline contests. Radio stations are regulated by the FCC.
FCC rules on contests
Licensees that broadcast or advertise information concerning a contest that they conduct must fully and accurately disclose the material terms of the contest and must conduct the contest substantially as announced or advertised. Contest descriptions may not be false, misleading or deceptive with respect to any material term. Material terms include those factors that define the operation of the contest and affect participation in the contest.

Look at this ruling
FCC pwns clear channel
In this Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, we find Clear Channel Broadcasting Licenses,
Inc. ("Clear Channel"), licensee of Station KPRR(FM), El Paso, Texas, apparently liable for a forfeiture in the amount of $4,000 for an apparent violation Section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules, which requires licensees, among other things, to fully and accurately disclose material terms of a contest. We find that Clear Channel conducted a contest, "So You Want to Win 10,000," without disclosing a material term of the contest, i.e., that the prize was 10,000 Italian lira, not $10,000.

So there have been cases where the FCC found the radio stations to be at fault because they did not disclose a material term of the contest - i.e. the winner would receive a candy bar.
I hope she wins and they pay up.

*shrug* You're right. The station will have to pay, and the woman will be $100,000+ richer for a while. Doesn't change the fact that she's 100x more of a fvcking douche than the DJ who did this.

It's a sad state of affairs when the law sides with stupidity over common sense. Not that the fvcking FCC has any legal power to make and enforce laws, but that little inconvenience hasn't stopped them yet.

Oh well.

It sounds like you're mad at the lady for being sue-happy. Why is she stupid for believing the radio man when he said 100 grand? I'd think there was 100 grand cash involved. People on the radio have given away large sums before around here.

Eh, the point is moot. We don't know enough details to say weather this lady fell for a cheap gag, or if she was playing dumb to sue the station.

Your posts have been cracking me up, btw.

 

[Zanix]

Originally posted by: huesmann
Is she black?

wtf... black people don't have lawers.... :roll::roll: :disgust::disgust::disgust:

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Continuity27
Ignorance is NOT an excuse people! If you don't know that "100 grand" is a candy bar, it's not anyone elses fault but your own. I could drive down a one way street and say I was ignorant of the sign, but will I get very far?

It may be a cheap way to get publicity or ratings, but that radio station/DJ should not have to pay $100,000. They should pay exactly what the deal was made for, "100 grand". If you assume that's money, that's your problem. As far as I know, most deals for large sums of money aren't made using slang terms.

B.S., the DJ was clearly trying to lead her to believe the prize was $100,000. When's the last time you heard someone say "you'll be a Clark bar richer?" He was toying with her emotions, he's an ass, and at very least she should get to kick him in the junk.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: preslove

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

*shrug* You're right. The station will have to pay, and the woman will be $100,000+ richer for a while. Doesn't change the fact that she's 100x more of a fvcking douche than the DJ who did this.

It's a sad state of affairs when the law sides with stupidity over common sense. Not that the fvcking FCC has any legal power to make and enforce laws, but that little inconvenience hasn't stopped them yet.

Oh well.

How the fvck was she supposed to know that it wasn't $100,000. There's no fine print in radio, unless you count the fast talking dude at the end of car commercials. The dj broke a verbal contract, plain and simple. You can't pull a "read the fine print, moron" if there ain't no fine print.

My point: The radio guy said "Call me and I'll give you a 100 Grand. She called - she got a 100 Grand. No one mentioned anything about money.

He broke no such "contract" - he apparently violated an FCC stipulation that said all contests must provide some detailed listing of the prizes being offered.

 

[KarenMarie]

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

My point: The radio guy said "Call me and I'll give you a 100 Grand. She called - she got a 100 Grand. No one mentioned anything about money.

He broke no such "contract" - he apparently violated an FCC stipulation that said all contests must provide some detailed listing of the prizes being offered.

That is my point, too.

He was a sh!t for not being clear... but that is about it. If the FCC wants to fine him for that.. kewl... give $10,000 to charity. or whatever the fine is.

As for her.. shame on her.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Continuity27
Ignorance is NOT an excuse people! If you don't know that "100 grand" is a candy bar, it's not anyone elses fault but your own. I could drive down a one way street and say I was ignorant of the sign, but will I get very far?

It may be a cheap way to get publicity or ratings, but that radio station/DJ should not have to pay $100,000. They should pay exactly what the deal was made for, "100 grand". If you assume that's money, that's your problem. As far as I know, most deals for large sums of money aren't made using slang terms.

B.S., the DJ was clearly trying to lead her to believe the prize was $100,000. When's the last time you heard someone say "you'll be a Clark bar richer?" He was toying with her emotions, he's an ass, and at very least she should get to kick him in the junk.

Now I'd support that instead of giving the b1tch money. :thumbsup:

 

[cKGunslinger]

In retrospect, I think the best plan of action is for her to get the money, buy an SUV without a back-up camera and LCD system, run over one of her kids in it, then sue Nissan for millions. :thumbsup:



(btw - fvck you, I can say that because I *do* have kids. )

(btw 2 - I'd link to the damn story to which I'm referring if the search feature actually worked)

 

[cubby1223]

She should get nothing, and have the 100 grand bar taken away from here.

This country has lost its sense of humor, plain and simple. And that is the worst part of the whole situation. So she was made a fool of for a day. Big deal. Happens to everyone at some point in their lives.