What "stalemate"?Then how do you propose the stalemate end?
East gambled on DOH, and clearly lost.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Don’t miss out on the best deals of the season! Shop now 🎁
What "stalemate"?Then how do you propose the stalemate end?
What "stalemate"?
East gambled on DOH, and clearly lost.
Are you kidding me? I propose that the side violating ALPA policies for their selfish gain cease and desist. If that's "not gonna happen" then you should be prepared for the consequences. And that's not a threat; it's a prediction.Then how do you propose the stalemate end?
Are you kidding me? I propose that the side violating ALPA policies for their selfish gain cease and desist.
Are you kidding me? I propose that the side violating ALPA policies for their selfish gain cease and desist. If that's "not gonna happen" then you should be prepared for the consequences. And that's not a threat; it's a prediction.
I wish I did have too much time. Hope you mean my David (USAPA) against Goliath (ALPA) I like the ending. Anger? Mois? Honey I haven't been angry in a long time. It wastes way to much energy. Your reply about confidence is most reassuring. Thank You. I appreciate the complement. However if I'm part of the, what did you say? beasties was it? Then I needed a new identity. So beast 1 it is for you only. Have a good evening.
I still don't see us any closer to unifying. It's still a stalemate. But thats my opinion.
Isn't Prater supposed to meet face to face tomorrow with Jack? That should be interesting.
Woah. Will that meeting be on Pay Per View? Did someone tell the UFC because they could certainly use a boost after Randy Couture abruptly quit: http://www.presstelegram.com/sports/ci_7153499
I say Stephan lasts 30 seconds tops before he goes down hard. Anyone got the Prater-Stephan odds from Vegas?
You are purposefully trying to cloud the issue, when in reality it is simple: East agreed to binding arbitration. Briefs were exchanged. A hearing was held. More briefs were exchanged. A binding decision was issued."Policies?" Are those the same policies in the Constitution and ByLaws? I thought they were "Guidelines". Seems to me that for some its policies and others it's guidelines.
......as for the trouble you people are trying to course..."malicious mischief" is a good term for it.
You are purposefully trying to cloud the issue, when in reality it is simple: East agreed to binding arbitration. Briefs were exchanged. A hearing was held. More briefs were exchanged. A binding decision was issued.
Closer to unifying? Unfortunately no. Stalemate? That remains to be seen.
I mostly agree with that, though the AWA in bankruptcy argument has no facts to support it. You guys hinge that all on statements Parker has made AFTER the merger was completed, when SEC law doesn't bind him to honesty.