I found this reading this morning on TMZ.
Legal Threats Over
Roller Coaster Drum Stunt
The article explains how this guy is going to sue Motley Crue for stealing his cool idea. See, Tommy’s drum set flies around the stage. I have seen a version of it in previous tours, and it is very cool. Anyhow, an old roadie of theirs says it was his idea, and he never got any credit.
Guess what, he is going to win. How do I know that from reading a paragraph on TMZ? Well, because of this. Tommy’s legal team dismisses the claim on 2 fronts:
1) dude never pitched this idea, or any idea to the band
2) the idea dude pitched to us is totally different from what we are doing now
Seriously, that is their argument. (go ahead and use that link. If you just google ‘Tommy Lee’ and ‘lawsuits’, it pretty much breaks google with the amount of returns. Might as well google ‘sun’ and ‘yellow’.) Well, I threw in the ‘dude’s. Their’s has words like plaintiff, onomatopoeia, litigant, and all that jive. Do you see the flaw here? Read those two sentences again and see if anything pops out. The first sentence in negated by the second sentence. Obviously, for the second sentence to exist, the first sentence is a lie. I would imagine someone like Tommy Lee, who is not a stranger to jail, would have some pretty dope lawyers. Harvard guys, shiny shoes, Brooks Brother’s suits. This guy, though, is an idiot.
Strangely, this is my second piece on constructing a good argument. Weird. I am not a debate guy, or journalist in any sense. Simply put, this means y’all suck are arguing.
Here, an analogy. I really really like analogies, and I am wicked good at them. Ok, Motley’s defense is saying
1) I am NOT pregnant. Super not pregnant, and even the question offends me
2) and if I were pregnant, which I am, it is most defintely not Brad’s baby. I am pretty sure about that.
See – the first sentence is negated by the second one.
To be transparent and honest, which none of you deserve, I like Tommy Lee, and I love Motley Crue.