Of course you can! Everyone does it all the time, in the forward direction at a pretty much set rate but that rate is perceptually variable: "Put your hand on a hot stove for a minute, and it seems like an hour. Sit with a pretty girl for an hour, and it seems like a minute. That's relativity." Albert Einstein Of course travel in the other direction has never been demonstrated for living matter and the mathematics of such travel produces no non-imaginary solutions at this "time." The "infinite dimensional" theory of the universe implies that even if reverse time travel were possible you could end up in an entirely different world by jumping to a time dimension that diverged from your current time at an even earlier time. Most other time travel theories produce the "Grandfather paradox" and therefore are logically impossible but "logic is the beginning of wisdom, not the end of it." I felt this thread need a bit of a divergence as it was getting too serious for any internet discussion.
The issue I have with this line of thought is that it seems completely disingenuous behavior to argue it. If you and I are trying to reach an agreement and I tell you that paying me "per post" is not something I value and care about you will not negotiate much (if at all) on that topic. Ideally you will be working with me on things I care about and focus on those. Now later, because I make a lot of posts now, it turns out I could have made more money if I had followed that option. It isn't really "fair' to accuse you of paying me less simply because I am a woman, when the mechanism I use to show I am payed less is a mechanism I told you I didnt value and I didnt push for when we agreed. Especially if I replaced that mechanism with other things that were added value in it's place.
@jackdoggy (just for you) it goes even earlier than that: In the beginning God created the universe setting everything up so as the USMNT would come into existence at the predetermined time in the predetermined manner to dominate the world's soccer scene. All was preset so that events would unfurl to make the greatest good possible. After that she just sat back and watched the events unfurl in the predetermined manner as the USWNT overcame every obstruction placed in their path. After achieving the predetermined world dominance she has now allowed events to unfurl further to see if what she made will eventually lead to the greatest good or will fade into the nebulous past as all other of humankind's greatest endeavors. It is hoped that the USWNT will rise out of the legal morass that has been placed in their path and show all humankind that they really are better than everyone else in all ways, not just on the soccer pitch.
Morgan v USSF, installment 8: The 2013-2016 quad ended. During that quad, the WNT had generated $55 from all of their games including the 2015 World Cup. During the same period, the MNT had generated almost $80 million from their games. On February 4, 2017, the WNTPA and USSF met again. The WNTPA said that it was focused on three guiding principles: 1. Guaranteed compensation for being a USSF contracted player; 2. A fair share of the financial upside that USSF gains from the WNT’s success; and 3. Respect for the players’ lifestyle and working conditions. They met again on February 8, 2017. The WNTPA made a revenue-sharing proposal: USSF would pay the WNT players at least 35% of the total of certain revenue streams identified in the proposal. The USSF rejected this proposal. (The MNT’s players association made a similar proposal to USSF, which USSF likewise rejected.) On February 9, 2017, the USSF made a proposal. The proposal was: 1. There would be 15 players on annual contracts; 2. The annual WNT salaries for contracted players would range from $70,000 to $90,000; 3. The annual salaries for allocated NWSL players would range from $56,000 to $66,000 (apparently additional to the WNT salaries); 4. There would be win and tie bonuses for friendlies (including, for wins and ties over opponents ranked 1-4, $9,000 for a win and $2,000 for a tie); a bonus for coming in first in She Believes; World Cup qualifying and match bonuses; and Olympic qualifying and Olympic Games bonuses; [My Comment: The decision does not set out the amounts of the bonuses for anything but friendlies v opponents ranked 1-4.] 5. A ticket revenue share of $1.50 per ticket sold at USSF controlled matches. On February 11, 2017 the USSF also proposed new "partnership" bonuses. These would be based on achieving certain targets in television rankings for WNT games, revenue received from SUM, and attendance at WNT games. (SUM pays the USSF for certain television broadcasting rights and certain bundles of intellectual property rights.) None of these bonuses are in the MNT CBA. On February 14, 2017, the WNTPA made a counterproposal. It was for: 1. 24 players on WNT contracts; 2. Annual salaries for contracted WNT players of $125,000; and annual NWSL salaries of $70,000 per year, increasing by $2,000 per year. [My Comment: The decision does not indicate whether the NWSL salaries were only for contracted WNT players or if there could be other allocated players they could cover.]; 3. Win and tie bonuses for friendlies, including for opponents ranked 1-4 win bonuses of $5,000 per win and tie bonuses of $1,000 per tie. The proposed bonus amounts were less than what the USSF previously had proposed. The She Believes, World Cup, and Olympic bonuses were the same as what the USSF had proposed; 4. The same ticket revenue share the USSF had proposed, except not limited to matches controlled by USSF; and 5. Post-World Cup, post-Olympics, and first place Four Nations Tournament bonuses (which the USSF had not proposed). [My Comment: The next installation will cover the last of the negotiations that ended with the WNTPA ratifying the current CBA on April 4, 2017. The installment after that will cover the CBA itself.]
I'm not a lawyer but at this point I've read so much from other experts that it really seems to me that she doesn't understand the Equal Pay Act that much. The "same establishment" factor is one of four big factors that can determine the case all on it's own. However, it's the employee that needs to establish that all four factors are true. She seems to be saying that there should be a presumption of "same establishment" and having two different player's unions would be really bad which makes no sense at all. Finally, I think (but I'm not sure) that the judge can only make a summary judgement on the undisputed facts. If the facts pertinent to the "same establishment" factor are disputed then he can't touch it. However, any of the other three factors (rate of pay, same skill, pay differences other than sex) can shut down the case. So basically the judge focused on the rate of pay because the CBAs are undisputed facts.
Except the "facts" are what the lawyers decide they are. There is no justice in the law and there is no "truth" in the law. Laws are written by lawyers to assure that no one but lawyers can make sense of it and to assure that the need for lawyers still exists. Lawyers take advantage of the English language's inherent ambiguity to make sure that laws require lawyers to interpret their meaning so the rest of the unwashed masses continue to funnel big bucks to the upholstered parasites we call lawyers. At this point I do not care what the "Judge" rules or what the lawyers of either side or neutral say or even what the "experts" say the judge or lawyers say. The result will be what those lawyers want it to be and that will only be known when they tell us what it is.
tl;dr: "THE JUDGE IS A MEAN OLD POOPYHEAD AND I DON'T LIIIIIIKE IIIIT" Alternatively, "The game is rigged (TM)"
Not singling you out, but this is often the stance that people who didnt win take. The process is flawed because it can't be omniscient. It's like the idea that is too often repeated "There is your side, there is their side and somewhere in between is the truth." This supposes that EVERYONE is wrong. But ultimately the judge is the one who's to decide what is correct, for good or bad.
@Patrick167 covered this in part but I think it needs pointing out that the negotiating history of the WNT shows that salary guarantees were more important to them then bonuses and the men don't have that guarantee. So the bonus argument is not provable. The fact that the men have a different pro club situation then the women doesn't mean anything. In fact these differences makes the Equal Pay and Title XI act a lot harder to apply because of the "differences other than gender" factor which excuses the employer. All that is left is to measure the total rate of pay and not even that favors the women. The important "aha" concept that needs to be kept in mind is that the Equal Pay act is designed to measure apples to apples. The more you start saying well the situation or the market or the needs for the women are different then the less of a reason to apply the act.
To paraphrase FoF, "It's all a hoax." I keep thinking I've heard that somewhere else over the past few years.
I said very early on that this would be decided by the lawyers and not by any "facts" or "reasoned discourse." At the time I first voiced that idea it looked quite a bit like the suit would favor the players. So winning or not winning has nothing to do with my statements. I'm just ready for this worthless argument to go away so we can get back to important things like "will the soccer league system for women survive the shutdown? And the very idea of the court system or our legal system having a hand in justice is simply ludicrousness.
Unfortunately it is not a hoax. It is very real it is just that all it will do is make lawyers richer.
I am amazed that people on the internet will post veiled personal attacks and think no one will notice. It seems to me that all you are mostly interested in is picking a fight. I do have to admit that you are quite good at doing that and I respond much more often than I should.
I kind of agree but unfortunately the lawyers are now firmly in control and they will wring every dollar the can out of both sides before they allow the turmoil caused by the suit to end or even really wind down.
That is one of my favorite quotes. Samuel Clemens was a writer that had deeper insights than most people realize. Another quote from him I really like is: "If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous, he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and a man." I have never met a dog I could not relate to. That cannot be said for humans.
You are taking yourself way too seriously, and your post that I responded to is entirely silly. There is anything but a conspiracy of lawyers looking to impose a realty on us. My instinct in such cases is to poke fun, which is quite different from seeking a fight. There are two adversarial groups seeking to persuade a third that one of their opinions is reality, and a third group seeking some sort of middle ground and annoyed at and by each of the other two. When a decision is handed down, it will not represent the collective evil of the worldwide lawyer conspiracy, just be another set of words for everyone to try to parse. If you want to found a movement to bring legalese more in line with common understanding, I'm with you. But the frustration does not justify an arbitrary rejection of the whole process-- merely streamlining and reforms. Rinse and repeat.
Yes, after consulting with various world renowned Theologians, I expressed the resulting hypothesis in one of the recent Olympic Qualifying threads - - - This is where the original Book of Genesis is incomplete - - - In the beginning, God was chillin, the first inclination was to create perfection...to create Complete and Total Awesomeness - obviously the USWNT. But what comes next, whats the 2nd Act?? So God exhaled, stepped back and thought keep it simple - I need a dude and a beautiful extraordinary being.....thus Adam and Eve.
Um what. USWNT's lawyer works on a contingency basis and they (WNT) have every motivation to keep this going as a unit. USSF could settle if they want to but Latham isn't pointing a gun at their head asking for money. Your takes on this are even weirder than your takes on christen press and how terrible she supposedly is. Judges are lawyers and have to interpret the evidence given to them.
Yeah no shit the process is decided by lawyers. Judges are lawyers, shocker. But I guess you have access to more of the evidence/facts of this case and more legal knowledge than the judge.
The Judge held that the women rejected the same bonuses that the men had in their CBA (not the same bonus structure). And he held this was an undisputed fact. Therefore, there must be, in the record: 1. Absolutely unrebutted testimony to this effect in a deposition or affidavit. Or 2. A document such as an offer sheet, letter, or email from US soccer offering these bonuses, and similar evidence from the women rejecting them or making a counteroffer which impliedly rejects them. Otherwise, the Court was arguably in error in taking away a disputed material fact issue from the jury, and making it the main basis of his Summary Judgment ruling.
Any evidence of this theory? Because most lawyers with millionaire clients would not be representing them on a contingent basis, at least not an entirely contingent basis. There might be an hourly fee plus a reduced contingency though.
Wouldn't the USWNT be against this? If a lawyer was on full contingency and won twenty cases they would be paid.....oh, never mind.