- 385
- 13
- Joined
- May 29, 2003
I totally agree with you...but I'm talking about the article itself. I'm simply poking some fun at the writer of the story who wrote itafter the fact that it happened.Originally Posted by Paul Is On Tilt
Can we agree on something here?Originally Posted by KGdakid21
But the example makes no sense considering where the injury occurred.
Stipulations such as motorcycle riding and snowboarding were put into Monta's contract. Those stipulations were put in Monta's contract before Monta got hurt. The injury, which was caused by an action that was prohibited in Monta's contract, is after the fact. The location of where Monta sustained the injury is after the fact.
Are those true?
You agree?
Ok, good. That's why the article mentioned motorcycle riding and snowboarding.
Therefore, the writer would know of ALL the stipulations in Monta's contract and he could choose the most appropriate ones for the situation which hasalready occurred.
That being said, the writer should know that even though snowboarding is a prohibited activity, Monta wasn't performing that activity in Mississippi in theSummer. He could have said motorcycle riding or jumping on a trampoline.
For example, if he hurt himself in Colorado in the Winter and the story read "if he injured himself in a prohibited activity such as snowboarding or scubadiving" the example would make no sense. Granted scuba diving is already outlawed in his contract, he wouldn't be doing it in the Winter in Coloradowould he?