If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Miami Herald)   Woman is the only person to opt-out of company lottery pool. Office wins, decides to share with woman. Bonus: Woman who bought winning ticket was cut in line by man also buying tickets   (miamiherald.com) divider line 42
    More: Florida, Lucky Lady, Powerball  
•       •       •

9787 clicks; posted to Main » on 27 Mar 2013 at 3:12 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



42 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-27 01:57:11 AM
It's probably for the best they decided to cut her in even though she didn't pay, because she probably would have sued them if they didn't give her money.
 
2013-03-27 02:56:50 AM
Sounds like a decent story of good people being good people.

"Hey you didn't throw $2 in but we all in this together. "
rather than
"Were going to do this to avoid problems in the future"
 
2013-03-27 03:06:06 AM

FirstNationalBastard: It's probably for the best they decided to cut her in even though she didn't pay, because she probably would have sued them if they didn't give her money.


Yeah... my cynical first take, too

Nezorf: Sounds like a decent story of good people being good people.

"Hey you didn't throw $2 in but we all in this together. "
rather than
"Were going to do this to avoid problems in the future"


Ya know.... these are just folks like all of us, and if we don't feel lucky, and don't feel like we have 20 bucks to spare, pass that week when we've chipped in every week for the past year.
And then our co-workers do the right thing....
It's... stunning
 
2013-03-27 03:17:49 AM

FirstNationalBastard: It's probably for the best they decided to cut her in even though she didn't pay, because she probably would have sued them if they didn't give her money.


On what basis? Has the US really got so screwed up that people just sue on a whim, because I cannot see any legal basis for this.
 
2013-03-27 03:31:01 AM

Nezorf: Sounds like a decent story of good people being good people.

"Hey you didn't throw $2 in but we all in this together. "
rather than
"Were going to do this to avoid problems in the future"


Yeah, especially since they plan to reward the clerk who sold them the tickets, too.

25% tip is the new standard, right?
 
2013-03-27 03:34:58 AM

Pert: FirstNationalBastard: It's probably for the best they decided to cut her in even though she didn't pay, because she probably would have sued them if they didn't give her money.

On what basis? Has the US really got so screwed up that people just sue on a whim, because I cannot see any legal basis for this.


Wealth re-distribution is the hot new thing.
 
2013-03-27 03:35:06 AM

Pert: FirstNationalBastard: It's probably for the best they decided to cut her in even though she didn't pay, because she probably would have sued them if they didn't give her money.

On what basis? Has the US really got so screwed up that people just sue on a whim, because I cannot see any legal basis for this.



It seems nearly every major company pool win results in a lawsuit of some type. Sometimes it's someone who did pay in but didn't get a cut, sometimes it's someone who didn't pay in but wants a cut, sometimes it's when someone in the pool wins on a personal ticket, etc.

The problem is that unless there's solid evidence that someone should be cut out (I.E, list of contributors and a signed photocopy of the tickets proving that the winning ticket was bought with personal funds), the courts tend to award the money to anyone who makes a semi-believable claim.
 
2013-03-27 03:44:28 AM

the ha ha guy: Pert: FirstNationalBastard: It's probably for the best they decided to cut her in even though she didn't pay, because she probably would have sued them if they didn't give her money.

On what basis? Has the US really got so screwed up that people just sue on a whim, because I cannot see any legal basis for this.


It seems nearly every major company pool win results in a lawsuit of some type. Sometimes it's someone who did pay in but didn't get a cut, sometimes it's someone who didn't pay in but wants a cut, sometimes it's when someone in the pool wins on a personal ticket, etc.

The problem is that unless there's solid evidence that someone should be cut out (I.E, list of contributors and a signed photocopy of the tickets proving that the winning ticket was bought with personal funds), the courts tend to award the money to anyone who makes a semi-believable claim.


Beats the alternative:   kidnappings and murders.
 
2013-03-27 03:51:05 AM
maybe this group of people will be spared from the next sinkhole
 
2013-03-27 03:54:25 AM

robohobo: Pert: FirstNationalBastard: It's probably for the best they decided to cut her in even though she didn't pay, because she probably would have sued them if they didn't give her money.

On what basis? Has the US really got so screwed up that people just sue on a whim, because I cannot see any legal basis for this.

Wealth re-distribution is the hot new thing.


Not really. CEOs and the ultra wealthy have been doing it about forty years. The fad has just finally trickled down to the rest of us.
 
2013-03-27 03:57:38 AM
The "bonus" part is stupid. If the man would've waited there was absolutely no guarantee that the computer would have given him the winning numbers instead. A difference of even as much as one clock cycle in the computer means a whole new set of numbers. Lottery numbers aren't predetermined and in order like a scratch ticket.
 
2013-03-27 03:59:16 AM

SnarfVader: The "bonus" part is stupid. If the man would've waited there was absolutely no guarantee that the computer would have given him the winning numbers instead. A difference of even as much as one clock cycle in the computer means a whole new set of numbers. Lottery numbers aren't predetermined and in order like a scratch ticket.


My thoughts exactly.
 
2013-03-27 04:04:28 AM
they will all be broke in less than a year because of stupidity and missmanagement of the winnings, so the story is pointless. piss it away one way or the other, so why not just give it away to those that don't deserve it.

/thank you for funding my parks and recreation.
 
2013-03-27 04:13:03 AM

Nezorf: Sounds like a decent story of good people being good people.

"Hey you didn't throw $2 in but we all in this together. "
rather than
"Were going to do this to avoid problems in the future"


That and you can't have her being the only one to not shiat on the boss' desk then set it on fire.
 
2013-03-27 04:18:48 AM

Pert: FirstNationalBastard: It's probably for the best they decided to cut her in even though she didn't pay, because she probably would have sued them if they didn't give her money.

On what basis? Has the US really got so screwed up that people just sue on a whim, because I cannot see any legal basis for this.


Yes. There was a huge jackpot a few years back that was major news, 300+ million. Some crazy woman claimed she had the ticket made all sorts of appearances, and then it turned out that she didn't actually have the winning ticket. So when the real winners came forward she claimed that she was going to sue them. I don't know how it turned out.
 
2013-03-27 04:23:13 AM
"Was cut in line"?
 
2013-03-27 04:30:51 AM

SnarfVader: The "bonus" part is stupid. If the man would've waited there was absolutely no guarantee that the computer would have given him the winning numbers instead. A difference of even as much as one clock cycle in the computer means a whole new set of numbers. Lottery numbers aren't predetermined and in order like a scratch ticket.


Not necessarily.  Many process take more than one clock cycle, including the generation of random numbers in most architectures.

/pedant AWAY!
 
2013-03-27 04:43:53 AM
It said they each kicked in some money for her and wouldn't say how much. It didn't say they gave her an equal share. With 12 people each winning 83k, she could have easily gotten about 5-10k or so... twenties at the outside; still vn of them.

And they almost certainly wouldn't have won without the line cutter, but they wouldn't have won without 10 billion other completely random factors either; the line cutter in no way increased or decreased their odds of winning, or his odds of winning.
 
2013-03-27 05:16:30 AM
That was white of them.
 
2013-03-27 05:28:02 AM

The All-Powerful Atheismo: SnarfVader: The "bonus" part is stupid. If the man would've waited there was absolutely no guarantee that the computer would have given him the winning numbers instead. A difference of even as much as one clock cycle in the computer means a whole new set of numbers. Lottery numbers aren't predetermined and in order like a scratch ticket.

Not necessarily.  Many process take more than one clock cycle, including the generation of random numbers in most architectures.

/pedant AWAY!


Also they were purchasing multiple numbers.  Unless the winning number was the last one on the ticket, then he didn't have chance anyway.  Maybe the man was getting a ticket with pre-set numbers and not a random ticket as well.
 
2013-03-27 05:45:54 AM

FirstNationalBastard: It's probably for the best they decided to cut her in even though she didn't pay, because she probably would have sued them if they didn't give her money.


Maybe. But then I read the corporate "belief system " bullshiat banner right behind them. Perhaps that part of the executive decision of team building is to share your winnings.
 
2013-03-27 05:50:48 AM

wildsnowllama: robohobo: Pert: FirstNationalBastard: It's probably for the best they decided to cut her in even though she didn't pay, because she probably would have sued them if they didn't give her money.

On what basis? Has the US really got so screwed up that people just sue on a whim, because I cannot see any legal basis for this.

Wealth re-distribution is the hot new thing.

Not really. CEOs and the ultra wealthy have been doing it about forty years. The fad has just finally trickled down to the rest of us.


Is that what they meant by "trickle-down economics"?
 
2013-03-27 06:35:12 AM

The Snow Dog: "Was cut in line"?


Oh thank God I'm not the only one to notice. I'd more or less given up on my grammar nazi ways, since any criticism of language mangling results in a rebuke along the lines of 'anything you think is wrong is really language evolution.' If anything goes, that's hard to refudiate.
 
2013-03-27 06:51:49 AM

SnarfVader: The "bonus" part is stupid. If the man would've waited there was absolutely no guarantee that the computer would have given him the winning numbers instead. A difference of even as much as one clock cycle in the computer means a whole new set of numbers. Lottery numbers aren't predetermined and in order like a scratch ticket.


So what you are saying is that because of the slight delay caused by the man cutting ahead of her they won? Because thats what I got from the article.
 
GBB
2013-03-27 06:59:58 AM
BUTTERFLY EFFECT:
If she would have contributed to the lottery pool, they wouldn't have won.  More tickets = more time to process = different time-based random seed generator = different numbers on the 2nd half of the order.
 
2013-03-27 07:04:58 AM

quickdraw: SnarfVader: The "bonus" part is stupid. If the man would've waited there was absolutely no guarantee that the computer would have given him the winning numbers instead. A difference of even as much as one clock cycle in the computer means a whole new set of numbers. Lottery numbers aren't predetermined and in order like a scratch ticket.

So what you are saying is that because of the slight delay caused by the man cutting ahead of her they won? Because thats what I got from the article.


It was quite possibly a factor (one of myriads). Of course, the common implication in even mentioning the man is that the man would have got the winning ticket instead had he waited his turn. In other words, the man got "bad karma" for cutting in line. That part is bullshiat. It's the same excuse people use for playing slot machines that haven't won in awhile. Most people (myself included) are bad with statistics when it involves themselves.
 
2013-03-27 07:13:16 AM
It was less expensive to include her in the winnings than to deal with a lawsuit.  Their "generosity" was not benevolent by any means.  Giving her the money is an insurance policy against litigation...no more, no less.
 
2013-03-27 07:28:42 AM
What a trainwreck of a headline. Bad subby. No cookie for you.
 
2013-03-27 07:42:33 AM

Pert: FirstNationalBastard: It's probably for the best they decided to cut her in even though she didn't pay, because she probably would have sued them if they didn't give her money.

On what basis? Has the US really got so screwed up that people just sue on a whim, because I cannot see any legal basis for this.


I agree with Pert as that was my first thought too. The legal system has been screwed up. There have been numerous cases where someone opts out, the office wins (usualy a smaller prize, but still) and the person who opted out takes them all to court because 'they didn't mean to opt out' or 'I gave you all my 2 bucks' or 'I was gonna pay when you got back' or 'I've been paying every week for the last year, so I still deserve my money'. It was probably easier and cheaper for them to just give them some money, as the other party could easily find a lawyer to take the case for free and tie their money up in court for years if need be.

And I don't know if you've been paying attention, but people sue for stupid reasons all the Goddamn time. As long as their are lawyers willing to take BS cases for free just to shake the money tree and see what falls out, this will continue to be an issue. I remember a case where a woman at a Target tripped over some kids who were running around wild in the store, and said it was Target's fault the kids were not stopped from running around like a bunch of assholes. The farked up thing is that it was her kids. I don't remember the outcome, but of course it probably cost Target a bunch of money to defend this, unless they just settled for a lesser amount, which is what these shady lawyers hope for.
 
2013-03-27 07:59:29 AM
Jeezy Creezy that gas station is walking distance from my house.

/Bought tickets at the nearby Publix instead
//slashies are for losers
 
2013-03-27 08:30:43 AM
A bunch of us here pool a couple dollars each week for tickets, and wehave been doing it for a few years. There is one lady here, "Lisa," who has contributed a couple times in the past, but isn't a regular player, by any means.

Recently when the jackpot was really high, a couple of us were talking about it, joking that we'd be clearing out our desks soon if we won. Lisa heard us and chimed in "hey, you guys will share with me, right?"

We just looked at her. She said "you mean if you won ALL that money, you'd leave me here working and wouldn't share with me?"

Our reply was "goddamn right. Are you out of your mind?"
 
2013-03-27 09:13:22 AM
Laurie Finkelstein Reader

i.ytimg.com
Son of a biatch!
 
2013-03-27 09:23:58 AM

3rdtimearound: The Snow Dog: "Was cut in line"?

Oh thank God I'm not the only one to notice. I'd more or less given up on my grammar nazi ways, since any criticism of language mangling results in a rebuke along the lines of 'anything you think is wrong is really language evolution.' If anything goes, that's hard to refudiate.


What's wrong with you?  Get your grammar nazi boots back on, as some recent posts hurt my head.
 
2013-03-27 09:51:09 AM
Endive Wombat:
It was less expensive to include her in the winnings than to deal with a lawsuit.  Their "generosity" was not benevolent by any means.  Giving her the money is an insurance policy against litigation...no more, no less.

Or, you know, they don't want to look her in the eye every day knowing she might somehow resent them all for it (or worse, knowing she's chewing herself up inside for missing out).  It's not like they can quit their jobs on $80,000.
 
2013-03-27 09:51:54 AM
www.global-air.com

A scratch ticket for a game named ''Bah Humbucks'' was at the center of a lawsuit after the ticket, bought as an office Christmas gift, won $200,000.. (new window)
 
2013-03-27 09:58:29 AM
"cut in line"  and you heathens say there's no God.
 
2013-03-27 09:58:38 AM
20 bucks for a 120/1.75 million shot? I'd bug out also.

Also RNG DO NOT WORK THAT WAY
 
2013-03-27 10:16:44 AM

TripSixes: 20 bucks for a 120/1.75 million shot? I'd bug out also.

Also RNG DO NOT WORK THAT WAY


So you're saying if the dude didn't cut in line they would have won anyways?

/interesting theory
 
2013-03-27 10:54:27 AM
FTA:   After tax money is taken out, each player who cashes out figures to end up with around $83,333.33, Finkelstein Reader said.

hmm...  1,000,000 / 12 = $83,333.33.  And yet they think that is the post tax amount.  Math.  How does it work?
 
2013-03-27 12:28:29 PM
tl;dr

If the other employee isn't entitled to the lottery winnings due to her non-participation, the actual winners might be liable for a hefty gift tax.
 
2013-03-27 03:29:38 PM
a splendid story.
ruined, a bit, by the cheap and moranic comments on this thread.
 
2013-03-27 08:07:19 PM
Communists
 
Displayed 42 of 42 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report