Disqus - Latest Comments for TheNish

Re: Don’t hate us ’cause we’re beautiful

receiver — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 16:18:23 -0000

It's an op/ed piece, isn't it? I thought that was the section is was placed in.

Re: Dunkin' Donuts to build four restaurants in Montgomery

receiver — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 15:11:40 -0000

6.0 billion. Wow. Nice to have that .0 there, just to drive that home. Regardless, bring on the Dunkin' Donuts!

Re: Love and Le Creuset and BBQ

receiver — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 12:29:55 -0000

My favorite thing to fire up on the grill is hotdogs. The wife loves them, and I feel like it takes me back to simpler times. No job, no worries, just a grilled up, almost blackened dog on a bun. It's about to get real up on my back porch this weekend, matter of fact!

Re: http://awkwardlyawesome.tumblr.com/post/1705439279

receiver — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 09:48:52 -0000

Hold plank? What's that mean?

Re: http://christinahaberkern.tumblr.com/post/1619872179

receiver — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 13:56:19 -0000

Yay for fuse boxes. You get any others that might have been blown out fixed? :-)

Re: http://savagemike.tumblr.com/post/841888308

receiver — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 16:33:20 -0000

Fair enough.

Re: http://savagemike.tumblr.com/post/841888308

receiver — Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:30:38 -0000

Hey. Not really going off half-cocked. Sorry it came out that way.

Parents install programs like this. I know it's only rainbows and wishes to think that parents can (or are generally interested) in monitoring their children's internet activity--especially at such a tender young age--but isn't that, ideally, what we'd like to see happen? And is a program like this actually geared at 5-8 year old children?

I understand that most churches (I grew up in a pentecostal one, and now attend an episcopal one) try to basically indoctrinate their children, and keep them in their youth departments, so they can become good tithing adults.

Basically, my real grump is at the general lack of good parenting.

Re: Oy with the poodles already! - 6 hours, 18 deer carcasses, 2 large diet cokes,...

receiver — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 10:26:23 -0000

At least it's not Franklin.

Re: Something in a Shade of Grey

receiver — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:39:22 -0000

Ha! We share cake days! (Ten years apart, goodness sakes.)

Re: Something in a Shade of Grey

receiver — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 11:00:07 -0000

Happy Cake Day. I was confused, was it the 17th or the 18th? But it doesnt matter!

Re: still stomping my feet

receiver — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 11:36:08 -0000

You see my string of posts, for you, darling? (And I gotta say, I dont feel inadequate...but I do have a huge ... ego ...)

:-)

Re: Oy with the poodles already! - While talking to receiver earlier I told him I was...

receiver — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 13:06:48 -0000

Did you see the Vicks Vapor INhaler post for you?

Re: FFFFUUUUUUU

receiver — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:57:44 -0000

Sue the city. :-)

You can ask your new lawyer friend to look at these, if you want, but I'd check with a local KY guy (or gal!) first.

*******************************************************

CITY OF DAWSON SPRINGS, Kentucky, Appellant, v. Wanda Lee REDDISH et al., Appellees.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

344 S.W.2d 826; 1961 Ky. LEXIS 259

March 24, 1961.

CASE SUMMARY
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant city challenged the judgment of the trial court (Kentucky), which found in favor of appellee injured parties, after a jury trial. The city contended that the injured parties' complaint failed to provide adequate notice of a claim against the city, pursuant to Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 411.110.

OVERVIEW: The injured parties notified the city that the injured parties, except one unnamed party, suffered injuries when their car drove over a manhole cover protruding above the street surface. The notice stated that the injured parties, except one unnamed party, intended to claim injuries and property damages against the city. The trial court in favor of the injured parties. The court affirmed the judgment as to the named injured parties, but reversed as to the unnamed injured party because there was no statutory notice given of her claim, and the giving of notice under § 411.110 was a mandatory prerequisite. The injured parties' notice adequately set out the time, place, character, and circumstances of the injuries, even though it did not mention the exact place on the street, did not state the time of day, and did not state how the manhole was caused to protrude from the street. Because the city's objections to jury instructions were so general, they failed to apprise the trial court of the reasons for the objection and did not meet the requirements of Ky. R. Civ. P. 46.

OUTCOME: The court affirmed the trial court's judgment with respect to the injured parties who were mentioned in the notice of intent to bring an action against the city. The court reversed the trial court's judgment with respect to the injured party who was unnamed in the notice of intent to bring an action against the city.

CORE TERMS: street, notice, protruding, manhole, statutory notice, actual notice, surface, notified, riding, clerk

***************************************************

Just a passing thought...

Re: on notice:

receiver — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:09:42 -0000

At one time, I LOVED maxim. Hiroki (the food tester) was amazing.

I try to keep my work posts nipple free; that's what the second blog is for.
:-)

Shane

Re: on notice:

receiver — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:16:36 -0000

Ashley Tisdale was for you. :-)

I don't post Maxim photos, generally. Much classier, I am: I like Esquire. :-D

Re: anyway, I'm going to be a sexy blogger this year

receiver — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 11:42:53 -0000

http://bayd.info/dwn/domatu...

Re: anyway, I'm going to be a sexy blogger this year

receiver — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 11:42:20 -0000

Maybe a nun! Just for fun! And, in a decision of complete lack of taste, your dude can go as a priest, with the kneeling altar boy attached to his crotch...I'll have to google that costume for you...

Re: anyway, I'm going to be a sexy blogger this year

receiver — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 11:36:59 -0000

Great. Now, the real question: what slutty costume will you be wearing this Halloween? :-)

Re: anyway, I'm going to be a sexy blogger this year

receiver — Tue, 06 Oct 2009 11:32:21 -0000

Yay! She's back! :-) This nice streak had me confused...

Re: I just want to DIAF.

receiver — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:19:24 -0000

And now, having peeked through your flickr, i know what DIAF means. :-)

Re: Oy with the poodles already! - Here’s my fat ass from last week. TAKE THAT...

receiver — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:20:45 -0000

And that the off the shoulder-ness of the green top is hot.

Re: Oy with the poodles already! - Here’s my fat ass from last week. TAKE THAT...

receiver — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 15:20:18 -0000

:-) Technically, we can't acknowledge or affirm that, as you aren't currently displaying it. But we do think the boss lady is off her rocker.

Re: Oy with the poodles already! - Here’s my fat ass from last week. TAKE THAT...

receiver — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:28:17 -0000

Photo = proof o' ballin stature.

Re: I can't take people seriously if they don't use gmail, so if you're not losing your shit right now...

receiver — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 12:21:26 -0000

I only knew that people were having issues. I use Outlook as a client, so I
didn't know...

:-)

Re: I can't take people seriously if they don't use gmail, so if you're not losing your shit right now...

receiver — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 16:09:22 -0000

Uhm, I use gmail. No problems here, what's going on?