You guys are forgetting the ulimate challenge player...Ruthie! She kicked major butt on most of the challenges she was on. Always a strong player, and she didnt have to resort to mind games to do it.
Actually I liked Ruthie too although I wouldn't call her my absolute favorite I have enjoyed seeing her on the challenges and yeah she pretty much had to be a strong competitor to counteract some of the others mind games.
[QUOTE=iamnemesis666;22366]You guys are forgetting the ulimate challenge player...Ruthie! She kicked major butt on most of the challenges she was on. Always a strong player, and she didnt have to resort to mind games to do it.[/QUOTE]
Is this the same Ruthie who was crushed by Beth early during Gauntlet 2.:sarcastic_hand:
Ruthie was crushed by Beth, but it was a challenge that was very weight biased. I like Ruthie too, but when she got her head straight and quit drinking, there was no 'tv personality.'
[quote=goldenwarrior63;22374]Oh it's Ashli![/quote]
ok ok I thought so but thats a funny pic of her...on the show I thought she was coyote ugly but now I'm not so sure (maybe its because I've seen all the dogs on Hollywood, with the exception of Bri)
[QUOTE=good brooklyn;22382]Ruthie was crushed by Beth, but it was a challenge that was very weight biased. I like Ruthie too, but when she got her head straight and quit drinking, there was no 'tv personality.'[/QUOTE]
I didn't realize she had quit drinking. When I stopped in at Saddle Ranch for CR's birthday bash last year, Ruthie was there in a corner with Adam (Paris). Neither of them was feeling any pain. Must be a recent sobering, which, given the proclivities of the RW/RR crowd, is always a good idea.
she may be drinking now. i don't know. i don't follow their lives that closely. but she did sober up at some point. and her personality on the challenges is a lot more sober than on her season.
[QUOTE=iamnemesis666;22391]V1...it would appear that you may be just a bit biased toward certain cast (ie Beth). Is she one of your clients or something? just curious[/QUOTE]
Actually, if anything, I'm biased against viewing things in favorable terms for her. I just happen to know lots of facts about her on the challenges that no one other than Beth knows. I've also represented her in the past in contracts and other things including litigation matters. She is one of my closest friends and we are also business partners in her production company.
I've never even hinted that I thought she was the best player on the challenges. That clearly is not the case. In the past 2 1/2 years, she has become one of the more feared players because has become a much better athlete after finally learning how to train. The physical improvement added some depth to her mental game and the fact that production is able to rely on her to give them good TV.
she's obviously very athletic. but she's definitely depicted as a villian (think of the witchy laugh MTV played over and over again and on the following challenge how they instigated the nehemiah speech about not letting beth wash his windows). she may be a great person in real life but all we have to go on is the challenges and how they're edited. Beth = villian. Tonya = villain. adam (rr) = villain. danny (denver) = future domestic abuser.
V1, is calling Danny a future domestic abuser considered slander? He hasn't actually (physically) abused anyone yet. so since it's a prediction, it can't be slanderous, right?
[QUOTE=good brooklyn;22487]V1, is calling Danny a future domestic abuser considered slander? He hasn't actually (physically) abused anyone yet. so since it's a prediction, it can't be slanderous, right?[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
Slander: A type of defamation. Slander is an untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that [I][B]harms the person's reputation or standing in the communit[/B][/I]y. Because slander is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement. If the statement is made via broadcast media -- for example, over the radio or on TV -- it is considered libel, rather than slander, because the statement has the potential to reach a very wide audience. [/QUOTE]
Truth is the ultimate defense, but the law is a mercurial and often fickle mistress.
Are you precognitive? If so, then you could argue truth as your defense. You have only done your duty in reaching out to warn Melinda (not that you would be the first to do so).
If you are a psychologist, psychiatrist or clinical social worker, then you also might have truth on your side (albeit only as an evaluation of the character "Danny" as shown by MTV). Of course, if you are a professional AND wrong, then you are in deep shit on two fronts, first for damaging his reputation and, second, the licensing boards will not be happy.
If you are just "anyone on the street" expressing an opinion; however, then you are reasonably safe, since such opinions in the eyes of the court are not reasonably expected to affect his community standing. Opinions are like ********... etc, etc.., even to the court. That is not to say that some lawyer, somewhere, would not take the case for billable hours, but I can almost guarantee no attorney would take it on a contingency basis.
Please send me your address so that I can bill you for the above advice. ;)
Lets say Danny and Melinda went and got a marriage license today...
What if Melinda wins powerball tonight and then rushes to the internet to email all her friends and tell them the great news. On her way to hotmail she ends up on vevmo and reads the above accusations. She rips the marriage license in two, walks out the door - [I]never to return![/I]
Can Danny sue [I]good brooklyn[/I] for tortuous interference in the amount of 50% of the $268,000,000 Lottery Pot + punitive damages x3? :wink2:
[quote=bacchus;22519]Lets say danny and melinda went and got a marriage license today...
What if melinda wins powerball tonight and then rushes to the internet to email all her friends and tell them the great news. On her way to hotmail she ends up on vevmo and reads the above accusations. She rips the marriage license in two, walks out the door - [I]never to return![/I]
can danny sue [I]good brooklyn[/I] for tortuous interference in the amount of 50% of the $268,000,000 lottery pot + punitive damages x3? :wink2:[/quote]
y
e
s
[QUOTE=Bacchus;22521]Hahaha...that is what I thought! lol[/QUOTE]
Of course you can sue anyone for practically anything. The probability of actually seating a jury for such a case? .025%, imo. But, considering the likely court costs for depositions, travel, attorney fees... probably about $25,000 just to have the cast bounced at the end for insufficient grounds/evidence.
But, let's go back to first principles. The allegation is: [B]"danny (denver) = future domestic abuser"[/B] constitutes libel. Good Brooklyn gets my services at no cost because there is no "Danny" in the Denver cast.... Hence, there can be no libel since no readily identifiable aggrieved party can be found.
Now wasn't that a fun addition to our day? ;)
[QUOTE=Insider;22572]is anyone going to point out that Danny isnt from Denver? lol
A U S T I N.
:) just sayin.[/QUOTE]
Insider, if you don't read my posts....
well let's just say your life may become interesting.
just sayin :big_boss:
Danny from Austin, since he is in the discussion, seems very mean, and like a sore loser. I liked him on Austin, wait scratch that, everything about that season was terrible. Except for Johanna.
She is another one of my favorites. She seems sweet, I actually would love to meet her, smart, and athletic.
Back on track, Katie Doyle. If anyone doesn't enjoy her well you must be crazy. I think she is one of the truest players on these shows. I think her fights are the most entertaining to watch. She is also quite funny at times. Despite her not being the most physical, I think deep down she is super smart and that she could beat a lot more people than it seems.
[QUOTE=Dartagnan;24440]Back on track, Katie Doyle. If anyone doesn't enjoy her well you must be crazy. I think she is one of the truest players on these shows. I think her fights are the most entertaining to watch. She is also quite funny at times. Despite her not being the most physical, I think deep down she is super smart and that she could beat a lot more people than it seems.[/QUOTE]
I agree and I love it when she gets so ****** she gets all spitfire like and shit...she is freaking entertaining.
[quote=Dartagnan;24440]Back on track, Katie Doyle. If anyone doesn't enjoy her well you must be crazy. I think she is one of the truest players on these shows. I think her fights are the most entertaining to watch. She is also quite funny at times. Despite her not being the most physical, I think deep down she is super smart and that she could beat a lot more people than it seems.[/quote]
Exactly! She isn't the most physical but she definitely lights up the challenge she is on because she is entertaining. Katie is one of the vets you love to see on the cast list because you know it's gonna be interesting to watch. Her and Coral make a good team too lol
Pages