Comments by "upabittoolate" (@upabittoolate) on "Is OCHO CINCO Being Screwed?" video.

  1. you & i are the same in that respect. you don't know who i work for or my experience. therefore, you're just someone running your mouth as well. the difference lies in rhetorical prowess & your lack thereof. present evidence if you may. since it's the internet, you can offer concrete or anecdotal. BUT, ad hominem attacks won't secure your case. i'll wait
    1
  2. beyond comprehension? again, you made yourself look foolish. like i said, there's no question in my mind that there is no clause in the contract about a legal name change. NONE. unless you wrote or signed the contract, read contract or where the typist, you don't know either idiot. what i'm saying is that they can't use these ridiculous levees to control the young brother.
    1
  3. that's not what i'm saying. i'm saying that you don't know either therefore you can't pontificate. i'm saying flat out, there's no clause about changing his name in the contract & i'd bet everything i have on that
    1
  4. cogently put. that's exactly what i'm sayin
    1
  5. there's no way in hell you call tell me that reebok's lawyers had the foresight to put "may not make legal changes to your given name" in the contract, if you saw that 1 coming, you're clairvoyant. the greater point is that they're trying to control the dude. that's whack
    1
  6. street lawyers? harness energy? i presented & supported an argument. nothing more. like the other cat said, the burden of proof is upon you. here are the facts, he gets fucked with all the time, you & i didn't read the contract, precedents regarding name changes have been set, the likelihood of the name change clause voiding a contract is minimal. i'm waiting for you to present something other than condescending rhetoric
    1
  7. *they never wrote the rule to be broken...the idiot still stands though
    1
  8. i admitted i don't know but i will say, with the highest degree of certainty that i can muster, that a legal name change wasn't a variable clause in the contract because no one saw that coming. if you'd say that you saw it coming you're either psychic or a liar. this nonsense about liability doesn't even apply because johnson hasn't breached anything or jeopardized reebok's ability to sell a product endorsed by the pitchman (johnson) because he changed his name. arguing that is dumb by you
    1
  9. i presented an argument just fine. you screamed contract & i told you why you were wrong. if you can run your mouth, i can run my mouth. this is america. you don't have the 'big bad corp.' experience either. on youtube, no one does. so either present (put up) or concede (shut up).
    1
  10. irrespective of that, a skilled lawyer or agent did not not make any contingent provisions for some off the wall shit like changing one's name. there's very little precedent for that. shamgod wells never made an inpact on american pro ball, abdul jabbar was gone before big contracts, chris jackson never had that problem nor did tariq abdul wahad (olivier st john). don't scream "contract violation" when they never the rule to be broken in the 1st place. idiot
    1
  11. reasonable people (not those with 20/20 hindsight like our rarelibra friend) would agree with me: legal name change isn't in the contract because NOBODY saw that 1 coming. so i suppose droning on about a contract is what's making rarelibra look dumb. then trying to attack another person's mental capacity on little or no basis is what's even more foolish. chomsky kicks serious ass btw
    1