Chicago Boyz

                 
 
 
What Are Chicago Boyz Readers Reading?
 

 
  •   Enter your email to be notified of new posts:
    Loading
  •   Problem? Question?
  •   Contact Authors:

  • CB Twitter Feed
  • Blog Posts (RSS 2.0)
  • Blog Posts (Atom 0.3)
  • Incoming Links
  • Recent Comments

    • Loading...
  • Authors

  • Notable Discussions

  • Recent Posts

  • Blogroll

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Chicagoboyz Billboard Series: 1

    Posted by Jonathan on September 16th, 2020 (All posts by )

    sue

     

    5 Responses to “Chicagoboyz Billboard Series: 1”

    1. phwest Says:

      I am constantly struck by how attorney advertising completely turns me off. Around here all the radio ads invariably include the words “large cash settlement” at some point in the ad. I certainly accept that civil law has its place, and helping people who have been legitimately harmed be made whole is a worthwhile vocation. But the ads never invoke that sentiment in me. They just feel like recruitment ads for plausible reasons to sue insurance companies.

      Some of this is probably just guilt by association (once you’ve heard the ads out their around talc and ovarian cancer that basically say “do have ovarian cancer and have ever used talcum powder?” to get in on the J&J lawsuits it’s hard to see legal ads as anything but trying to get as many possible claimants, no matter how weak the claim, as possible). My overall sense of civil tort law is that it is riddled with perjury and fraud, certainly the high-profile cases that involve matters I know something about strike me as fundamentally fraudulent. And every ad I see or hear just reinforces that.

      That billboard does distill this kind of advertising down to its essence though doesn’t it?

    2. Mike K Says:

      that basically say “do have ovarian cancer and have ever used talcum powder?” to get in on the J&J lawsuits it’s hard to see legal ads as anything but trying to get as many possible claimants,

      YUp. The ones that really tick off are the Boy Scout ones. The lawyer forced the Scouts to accept high risk scoutmasters, then sued when the inevitable happened. I’m not saying all gays are molesters but the ones I knew liked young boys.

    3. Lord Pepsi Says:

      Looks like a money maker.

      Always happy to see a lawyer making a solid living.

    4. Dan from Madison Says:

      That must be a particularly dangerous corner with not one but two ambulance chasers advertising there.

    5. Phwest Says:

      The Boy Scout ones make me see red. As an Eagle and a longtime adult volunteer, I can’t respond to them rationally, and whoever is funding them would not want to meet me in person.

    Leave a Reply

    Comments Policy:  By commenting here you acknowledge that you have read the Chicago Boyz blog Comments Policy, which is posted under the comment entry box below, and agree to its terms.

    A real-time preview of your comment will appear under the comment entry box below.

    Comments Policy

    Chicago Boyz values reader contributions and invites you to comment as long as you accept a few stipulations:

    1) Chicago Boyz authors tend to share a broad outlook on issues but there is no party or company line. Each of us decides what to write and how to respond to comments on his own posts. Occasionally one or another of us will delete a comment as off-topic, excessively rude or otherwise unproductive. You may think that we deleted your comment unjustly, and you may be right, but it is usually best if you can accept it and move on.

    2) If you post a comment and it doesn't show up it was probably blocked by our spam filter. We batch-delete spam comments, typically in the morning. If you email us promptly at we may be able to retrieve and publish your comment.

    3) You may use common HTML tags (italic, bold, etc.). Please use the "href" tag to post long URLs. The spam filter tends to block comments that contain multiple URLs. If you want to post multiple URLs you should either spread them across multiple comments or email us so that we can make sure that your comment gets posted.

    4) This blog is private property. The First Amendment does not apply. We have no obligation to publish your comments, follow your instructions or indulge your arguments. If you are unwilling to operate within these loose constraints you should probably start your own blog and leave us alone.

    5) Comments made on the Chicago Boyz blog are solely the responsibility of the commenter. No comment on any post on Chicago Boyz is to be taken as a statement from or by any contributor to Chicago Boyz, the Chicago Boyz blog, its administrators or owners. Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners, by permitting comments, do not thereby endorse any claim or opinion or statement made by any commenter, nor do they represent that any claim or statement made in any comment is true. Further, Chicago Boyz and its contributors, administrators and owners expressly reject and disclaim any association with any comment which suggests any threat of bodily harm to any person, including without limitation any elected official.

    6) Commenters may not post content that infringes intellectual property rights. Comments that violate this rule are subject to deletion or editing to remove the infringing content. Commenters who repeatedly violate this rule may be banned from further commenting on Chicago Boyz. See our DMCA policy for more information.