Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Mon, 7 Mar 1994 19:32:50 -0600 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
> by Robert Whitaker <[log in to unmask]>
> I would add one more comment about Maine considering a restraining order
> or other legal action against Hockey East: drop it. While Maine may not
> agree with the punishment, the decision has been made by the league's
> governing body. Maine should accept it and walk out of this season with their
> heads held high. There's no more to it--just accept it and move on towards
> next season.
I'm glad this attitude wasn't the norm 220 years age. "Just be quiet and
pay your tea tax" may have changed history.
> Should Maine decide to move with some legal action against the league, then
> they should be prepared to suffer the consequences. A legal defeat for Maine
> would be humiliating and embarrassing. I think just suggesting legal action
> against the league is stretching the limits. If Maine went through with it,
> the matter most likely would not be decided until well after the season was
> over.
This is precisely the reason that restraining orders are needed at times.
Until the courts find a way turn rectify situations retroactively, it is
vital to follow the most-reversible path unless it is clearly unconscionable.
> Getting a restraining order would simply send the message that Maine
> still can't accept responsibility for their actions.
I haven't heard anyone suggest that Maine isn't responsible. Their point is
that innocent players should not suffer for administrative errors.
> Just a few weeks ago, we saw an Olympic women's figure skater, in the face
> of mounting evidence that may have disqualified her, file a lawsuit that
> left the Olympic Committee with no choice but to back down and allow her
> to compete.
If their actions were defensible, the lawsuit would have had no effect.
> I think it is a shame that people simply refuse to accept
> responsibility for their actions.
Not relevant to the discussion.
> So, when they feel they're being unfairly
> treated (which is an inevitable fact of life),
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It is if they don't stand up for themselves.
> they file some outrageous
> lawsuit ^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^
By whose definition?
> to intimidate those who made the decision...and frighten them into
> changing their minds.
Or to achieve justice.
> But in the course of that, a tremendous amount of
> respect and admiration is lost...
Not from me. I admire those who stand up for themselves.
>--Robert A. (Sid) Whitaker
Cheers,
Mike
+----------------------------+----------------------------------------+
| Michael Patrick Bresina | America's always had a problem |
| [log in to unmask] | with illegal aliens. Ask any Indian. |
+----------------------------+----------------------------------------+
|
|
|