As you may have heard, we had some server problems. They promise us everything's going to be better this week, though.
So we're giving out our prestigious Second-Best Meltdown Of The Week award. (The new SFist server wins the First Best Meltdown of the Week award). Our nominees:
*That guy who flipped out about his children seeing sex things in the Castro that got mocked on the Daily Show.
*Poor KTVU, after realizing they broadcast an entire interview of a guy calling himself Mike Litoris.
*Perennial favorite BART, for the train that got stuck in the Transbay Tunnel for 40 minutes on Monday.
*Perennial favorite MUNI, for breaking a jaywalking pedestrian's leg.
*Cody's Books on Telegraph closing because of the Internet.
*The girl who killed two members of the Tongan royal family.
*Gavin Newsom, at the SFPartyParty photographer.
*Matt Gonzalez's law firm, for forgetting to show up in court.
and our winner..... the Chron! For the front-page typo on Tuesday. Thanks for playing, everyone!
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
Why do you keep repeating that Gonzalez & Leigh "forgot" to show up in court, when they never received the notice from the court about the hearing?
You can't "forget" something you were never notified about.
If they gave the court their new address, and the court didn't get it into the system, and there's a written record that they notified the court of their new address, then that's the court's error, not the law firm's.
Maybe you should change your link to read the court "forgot" to notify the law firm of the hearing - which would be a bigger story, if it were true. But I guess it doesn't matter to you if it's true or not.
lene/ D3Voter -- I don't usually write these long explanations about things, but you seem very upset about this, both here and on another chatboard, so I figured I'd try to clear some things up.
First of all, there seems to be some confusion as to who wrote the two posts in question -- I wrote this post ("Week in SFist"), and my co-editor Eve wrote the other post ("I Don't FEEL Tardy"), where you've posted a number of other comments. So I hope that clears that up.
Secondly, the reference to G&L's scheduling woes in the "Week In SFist" post is intended as a joke -- I am well aware that G&L filed a change of address with the First Appellate District in the Wong v. SFUSD case (since I filed it, back when I worked at G&L). I understand that the oral argument in that case has been rescheduled for next month.
And finally, I'm still on good terms with the guys at G&L; I left there amicably. (I wanted to do more patent litigation, which is why I'm now at the UC.) If you have any more questions about my employment history or career path, feel free to email me directly at rita@sfist.com.
My apologies, then, for missing the insider joke. I didn't get it.
Please feel free to delete the comments.
Oh nooo, the last link is busted.
easily fixed, Kerbot2000! Try now.
Yikes. I've got to start following this stuff more regularly. I admit that I don't mind having that photo of me you folks posted distributed (that's about 30 lbs ago, by my count), but these SFIST posts makes me wince. Let me try to clear this up.
Rita - you have to admit, lene's got a point. Until you explained it, nobody would have been able to tell, from your post, that my (not Matt Gonzalez's) failure to show up at the Court of Appeal hearing was based on the Court's mistake in sending notice to our old addess, which we notified the Court of eight months ago. And don't be taking all the credit for filing the new address notice with the Court of Appeal, chief. You didn't file it - I did (although it would be a wee bit disingenuous for me to suggest that you didn't play a role in making sure that this got done).
And while I'm mid-rant, can you explain to Eve what a "Notice of New Address" means? Seriously, I'm in no position to know whether she is still sending requests for mail forwarding to the places she lived and worked years ago, but I'm convinced that back on planet Earth, most folks don't do that.
In any case, I'm delighted the Court of Appeal rescheduled the hearing. I take that as pretty strong evidence that the Court recognized that we were not at fault, and that the case is important. All's well that ends well. Ok, back to work.
Well, if I've learned anything from this experience, it's that we had a good reason for putting up the conflict-of-interest wall for posts about where I work (even for fun week in review posts).
I distinctly remember drafting the change of address form for the case (for Whit's signature), for what it's worth -- but no big deal. We'll all be eager to hear how the oral argument goes next month.
Hey, no worries, chief. I figure you folks can handle a little lighthearted ribbing for nonsensical observations as well, or better, than most. And given Matt's atoraxia with respect to this kind of stuff, I see no need to overreact to any perceived contretempts. I hope that my post fairly communicated an amiable tone (it was early in the morning, and I should be cut some slack for pre-caffeinated responses, I think), but maybe I came across as excessively critical? I thought I was kindly clearing up a few mistakes. Hell, maybe folks involved in a topic should avoid comment on stuff on the site. That seems kind of boring to me, though, W.