Re: Jonathan the defamer
Posted by BB on 5/14/08
The voice of defeat. Good. Don't read them. Don't respond. Excellent. Of course I admit when things are a stretch. If I didn't, I would be some kind of
mold 'scientist' or plaintiff attorney. Geeez... But, there remains that interesting little defamation twist.. I noticed you didn't
comment on those new theories of liability. Why? Didn't expand on your chicago
nonsense either. Why? Run for cover. Run for cover. The voice of defeat. On 5/14/08, Sharon wrote:
> Feeling just fine. Thank you for asking. Back to not reading your posts
> anymore. At least you admit it is far fetched to threaten Jonathan with claims
> defamation of character when you post under a pseudoname.
>
> On 5/14/08, BB wrote:
>> Dear,
>>
>> It is always interesting to me how your posts are full of vile and venom when
>> you are talking about free speech. You are the most unpleasant person I have
>> ever encountered. And you don't spell very well. Google has a nice tool you
>> can install on your browser that helps with that. Check it out.
>>
>> I'm not making any threats at all, I'm expanding on the thread started by
>> others, and exploring the ways of the law, which is after all the point of
>> this board. If you don't embrace this new theory of liability, well, okay. I
>> frankly think it seems like a stretch too, but the 'outing' factor really
>> introduces an interesting twist, worthy of further consideration. And let's
>> not forget the 'disclose mold before you sell your home to pay the judgment'
>> concept either. How do you feel about that?
>>
>> I'm also wondering if the vicious, relentless pursuit of an anonymous poster's
>> true identity (against his/her will) might qualify as cyberstalking.
>> Hmmmmm..... Another interesting thing to look into.
>>
>> Now, that 'chicago case'... what are you talking about? Can you be more
>> specific? I don't have any case in chicago. Or illinois. Are you confused? Do
>> you need help? Are you feeling okay?
>>
>> On 5/14/08, Sharon wrote:
>>> BB,
>>>
>>> You asked: "Now, isn't THAT interesting?"
>>>
>>> No, not in the least. You idiot. Nor is your idiotic attempt to threaten
>>> those inquiring minds who would like to know what human being writes all
>>> those hateful words you do about the sick and the weak. Don't think the
>>> threat of libel by a fictious pseudoname is detering in the least to those
>>> who might want to actually know your true identity for all the hateful
>>> words you have written while hinding behind a pseudoname. What's a matter,
>>> is the Chicago case getting a little too close for your comfort zone, "BB"?
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/14/08, BB wrote:
>>>> Sharon, my dear,
>>>>
>>>> You missed the interesting thread your friend myco started. He suggested
>>>> we all identify ourselves for the sake of mankind or something. This,
>>>> along with efforts by various weirdos here to identify the anonymous
>>>> posters (without their authorization, mind you), resulted in a discussion
>>>> about the application of defamation laws in situations where identities
>>>> suddenly become known. Now, isn't THAT interesting? What made it even more
>>>> interesting was my willingness to award 60&37; of any recovered damages to
>>>> the mean, nasty, savage plaintiff attorney I might retain to represent my
>>>> best interests. Proper motivation is important after all.
>>>>
>>>> This in turn opened the door to the question of whether a defendant,
>>>> forced to sell his home in order to pay damages related to a finding of
>>>> defamation, would be obligated to disclose the presence of mold. And,
>>>> additionally, if that notification was judged inadequate, would that
>>>> person then face additional, and perhaps humorously ironic, liabilities?
>>>>
>>>> So, you might want to think that over as you sign off on your posts, dear.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 5/14/08, Sharon wrote:
>>>>> BB,
>>>>>
>>>>> Have been avoiding reading your words of stupidity, but this one caught
>>>>> my eye. You can't claim defamation of character when you are an
>>>>> annonymous person. You idiot. I know, why don't you sue me? Oh wait,
>>>>> you would have to give up your identity. Don't think the courts would
>>>>> accept a complaint from "Plaintiff BB" and we all knows those pearls of
>>>>> wisdom, making fun of the sick, that you have been dropping on this
>>>>> board would NEVER be words a real person would care to own up to.
>>>>>
>>>>> You are an idiot.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sharon
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5/14/08, BB wrote:
>>>>>> Have you decided to cease your defamatory ways? Do you enjoy
>>>>>> litigation as much as I do?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/14/08, Jonathan wrote:
>>>>>>> Have you finished the work on your black helicopter?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 5/14/08, BB wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi Jonathan,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why do you say these defaming things? You seem to enjoy making
>>>>>>>> accusations of criminal behavior without any ability to support
>>>>>>>> it. Keep it up and I may decide to make your life really
>>>>>>> interesting.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 5/14/08, Jonathan wrote:
>>>>>>>>> BB, how does it feel knowing that you and your clients
>>>>>>>>> committed perjury and subornation of perjury?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/08, BB wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Or maybe I needed to get some maintenance done on my black
>>>>>>>>>> helicopter....
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/14/08, Family Under Attack wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> BB's identity is no big secret.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> During our trial, BB was absent from this chatboard.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> BB is absent again because State Farm is currently working
>>>>>>>>>>> on their Reply Brief in regard to our Appeal.
>>>>>>>>>>>
Posts on this thread, including this one
- BB's identity, 5/14/08, by Family Under Attack.
- Re: BB's identity, 5/14/08, by BB.
- Re: BB's identity, 5/14/08, by Deborah.
- Re: BB's identity, 5/14/08, by Jonathan.
- Re: BB's identity, 5/14/08, by BB.
- Re: BB's identity, 5/14/08, by Jonathan.
- Re: Jonathan the defamer, 5/14/08, by BB.
- Re: Jonathan the defamer, 5/14/08, by Sharon.
- Re: Jonathan the defamer, 5/14/08, by BB.
- Re: Jonathan the defamer, 5/14/08, by Sharon.
- Re: Jonathan the defamer, 5/14/08, by Mike B..
- Re: Jonathan the defamer, 5/14/08, by BB.
- Re: Jonathan the defamer, 5/14/08, by BB.
- Re: Jonathan the defamer, 5/14/08, by Sharon.
- Re: Jonathan the defamer, 5/14/08, by Deborah.
- Re: Jonathan the defamer, 5/14/08, by BB.
- Re: Jonathan the exposer, 5/14/08, by Deborah.
|
1996 - 2007. All Rights Reserved. Please review our Terms of Use, Mission Statement, and Privacy Policy.