Re: Jonathan the exposer
Posted by Deborah on 5/14/08
Imitation, the most sincerest form of flattery, good job, BB. Sharon deserves it. On 5/14/08, BB wrote:
> 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.