If DX wanted to institute a tort action on a negligence theory he'd have to prove that the injury was proximately caused by the tongue waggler, that injury through tongue waggling is foreseeable, that a reasonable person would not have engaged in the dangerous activity of tongue waggling, and that the tongue waggler owed a duty of care to him that was breached. In jurisdictions which impose strict liability on tongue wagglers for the injuries caused - because the activity is inherently dangerous - all DX would have to prove was that his injury was proximately caused by the waggling.

Impressive.

Impressive.

And you can use that on the bar. Provided it fits the fact pattern, and you're insane.

I'm not sure duty of care fits up there in a positive tort, but I always had trouble putting together the elements of a tort. I'm impressed you still can.

Nah, I made all that up. The most important things to remember about the practice of law is to write with conviction and always cover your ass. ;)

My favorite legalese is "Upon information and belief".

My favorite legalese is "Upon information and belief".

We use, "upon knowledge, information and belief." Because we get paid by the word.

::coughNattercough::

So Nutty's a tongue waggling tort tart?

Tonguetwisting is subject to several of the same statutes, so stop speaking so silly!

The non-nattery part of my post got posted in Bureaucracy instead.

We use, "upon knowledge, information and belief." Because we get paid by the word.

We recently revised our affadavit language to strike the phrase "to the best of their knowledge and belief" as redundant. I mean, what else can a person attest is true?

(note for attorneys: this was based on case law in Texas.)

Not to interrupt the tort and tongue-waggling, but...

I would object to truncation of the process. We voted on a week as a reasonable length of time for process. I waggled my own personal tongue in the direction that a week was too short, but alas.

Because I knew we had a few more days until vote, I was putting off reading the whole of this thread and discussion, until I was ready to decide and had time. Whereupon I would have read, and declaimed all your opinions as bunk in favor of my One True Opinion. Truncation would have preempted my Opinion and would have negated the recently established process timeframe.

However, I can empathize with those who would withdraw a proposal, and since we have put the onus of phrasing on the proposer, it seems hardly fair to deny them a graceful exit. Still, the idea that a proposer could deliberately evade an impending defeat and moratorium for nefarious purposes seems problematic. Not DXM. He's not nefarious, just his penguin.

As for this particular issue, it seems to me that I would like to see it go to a vote with an overwhelmingly negative post response, just to see us disprove our vote yes tendencies.