View Full Version : 3 questions
Josey Wales
03-10-2007, 05:26 PM
1. What the fuck just happened here?
2. Why the fuck was I suspended ....AGAIN?????
3. Why is that psychotic bitch STILL a moderator?
When a doctor finds a cancer of any type - his first inclination is to cut the fuckin' out!
It's time for this psycho bitch to go!!!
Mr.88
03-10-2007, 05:29 PM
Dude you've had some really funny lines in the past.
I'd like to see some in the future but as of now you seem to be bent on pursuing a "one and done" policy.
Josey Wales
03-10-2007, 05:31 PM
Dude you've had some really funny lines in the past.
I'd like to see some in the future but as of now you seem to be bent on pursuing a "one and done" policy.
Just had to be said.
I'm done.
I'm over it.
GOD I HATE HER!!!
Okay, finished.
Thanks for the wakeup!
bluecollar
03-10-2007, 05:42 PM
You love her.
What a sordid affair.
Buck up, In my teens, in my twenties,thirties, 40'5 now 50's I drive by U. of Arizona and see the young beauties breaking out the skin in homage to Sun.
God ... AV again?
So great to see this site has turned into "Ban the Unpopular."
VoyC8ter
03-10-2007, 05:50 PM
Hey Josey, I waited to post until you got FREE! FUcking JYP!!
So now we tell these stupid fucks that we were "Soldiers once and young" hahaha
so no body could piece together that we knew of each other due to the military but werent wearin each others bitch...hahaha
well, lets see how long it takes that bitch to realize my name is all in admiration for her...
damned Lefty anyway...cant seem to keep the bitches happy! Figures fucking lame ass!
See ya in the papers Cowboy...
Hey Mike WTF??? I thought surely you wouldve at least figured it out...well, now youve just pissed me off and whether you like my input or not Ill keep coming back! so fuck you too!
Peace!
bluecollar
03-10-2007, 05:59 PM
Is this a more strained and genetically gone to dead end strand, or where are the MARINES?
God ... AV again?
So great to see this site has turned into "Ban the Unpopular."He was posting under 2 nics; even Mike has acknowledged that.
VoyC8ter
03-10-2007, 06:09 PM
Hey Kuni
I CAN READ YOU and I aint two nicks...Gawd
are you retarded or what??
yeah and thanks again MIKE!
Josey Wales
03-10-2007, 06:27 PM
Hey Josey, I waited to post until you got FREE! FUcking JYP!!
So now we tell these stupid fucks that we were "Soldiers once and young" hahaha
so no body could piece together that we knew of each other due to the military but werent wearin each others bitch...hahaha
well, lets see how long it takes that bitch to realize my name is all in admiration for her...
damned Lefty anyway...cant seem to keep the bitches happy! Figures fucking lame ass!
See ya in the papers Cowboy...
Hey Mike WTF??? I thought surely you wouldve at least figured it out...well, now youve just pissed me off and whether you like my input or not Ill keep coming back! so fuck you too!
Peace!
Hey Krypt.....DOH!.....I mean VOICE HATER! How the fuck ya been? Prison life was tough. Glad to be free again. It will probably last about 1 or 2 days anyway, huh?
A Voice
03-10-2007, 07:27 PM
Hey Kuni
I CAN READ YOU and I aint two nicks...Gawd
are you retarded or what??
yeah and thanks again MIKE!
Gee, I think you'd at least attempt to be smarter and try to post from a different locales. Josey Wales, Krypto and VoyC8ter are all posting from the exact same IP address.
VoyC8ter - will join Krypto in permanently banned
Josey Wales - gets another week off.
A Voice
Hey Kuni
I CAN READ YOU and I aint two nicks...Gawd
are you retarded or what??
yeah and thanks again MIKE!Not as retarded as someone who logs on under 2 nics and has a conversation with himself.
Have fun being able to only to read this while you are banned. And I suggest that you reflect on your stupidity; and when you came back, maybe you will show signs of sanity then.
And had I pulled the crap you did with 2 nics and got banned; I would not be doing the same shit again when I got back unless I wanted to be banned again. A Voice has shown that she has a bigger set, then most of the men on the Right here have and has no problem pulling the trigger.
Tayken
03-11-2007, 12:37 AM
Hey Krypt.....DOH!.....I mean VOICE HATER! How the fuck ya been? Prison life was tough. Glad to be free again. It will probably last about 1 or 2 days anyway, huh?
You really need to go to Banned Camp when you get hit with her little vendettas. All is running well in her mind. She is silencing all conservatives and letting spammers like Doc have a field day.
The sad thing is Lib is just too big of a pussy to admit he fucked up by bringing her aboard.
How in the world was DBS (formerly Arianna Online) able to exist before No. 5 became a moderator? Now watch little balless suckups like Kuni and Ding Dong (Dingo) come to her defense with their pathetic bullshit.
dewey189
03-11-2007, 05:21 AM
She is silencing all conservatives and letting spammers like Doc have a field day.She hasn't tried to "silence" me and I'm a fiscal conservative.
cephalagic
03-11-2007, 10:30 AM
1. What the fuck just happened here?
2. Why the fuck was I suspended ....AGAIN?????
3. Why is that psychotic bitch STILL a moderator?
When a doctor finds a cancer of any type - his first inclination is to cut the fuckin' out!
It's time for this psycho bitch to go!!!
I've heard it said that insanity is doing the very same thing over and over again yet expecting different results.
Anyway, surely you have something of more substance to offer in your posts than a repetition of personal insults against a moderator? Nobody forces you to post anything; nobody forces you to come to this site; nobody forces you to constantly direct vulgar language at a moderator.
My bet is that if you did not use the forum simply as a place to vent profanities against a moderator then you would not get banned. Is that too difficult to do?
Tayken
03-11-2007, 12:41 PM
She hasn't tried to "silence" me and I'm a fiscal conservative.
Not quite the same now, is it?
A Voice
03-11-2007, 08:37 PM
You really need to go to Banned Camp when you get hit with her little vendettas. All is running well in her mind. She is silencing all conservatives and letting spammers like Doc have a field day.
The sad thing is Lib is just too big of a pussy to admit he fucked up by bringing her aboard.
How in the world was DBS (formerly Arianna Online) able to exist before No. 5 became a moderator? Now watch little balless suckups like Kuni and Ding Dong (Dingo) come to her defense with their pathetic bullshit.
5. Individuals may not use multiple log-ins, that is, the same person may not post using more than one name. However, when suspended, a poster may use a second log-in for the sole purpose of communicating with the moderators if they desire.
Josey is using multiple log-ins. I am enforcing our rules. Grow up.
JackTheReaper
03-11-2007, 10:23 PM
When a doctor finds a cancer of any type - his first inclination is to cut the fuckin' out!
aV is the DBS doctor. You are the cancer grown out of control. As you say, any type of cancer needs to be cut out. Add 2 and 2..........
You a type 4 cancer or what?
JackTheReaper
03-11-2007, 10:26 PM
You really need to go to Banned Camp when you get hit with her little vendettas. All is running well in her mind. She is silencing all conservatives and letting spammers like Doc have a field day.
The sad thing is Lib is just too big of a pussy to admit he fucked up by bringing her aboard.
How in the world was DBS (formerly Arianna Online) able to exist before No. 5 became a moderator? Now watch little balless suckups like Kuni and Ding Dong (Dingo) come to her defense with their pathetic bullshit.
God Tayken. All you know how to sing is one sour note. Bet you'll soon be telling us that aV is a Clinton did it, right?:rolleyes:
Since I've been a rather harsh critic of aV, I'll level another criticism here...
She was far too lenient with Josey in this matter. He knows the rules. He broke them once and suffered a penalty. He came back and deliberately did the same thing.
He should be permanently gone...in all his incarnations.
This is a blatant case of Undermoderation...:mad:
Islanders_for_the_cup_04
03-12-2007, 12:00 AM
Gee, I think you'd at least attempt to be smarter and try to post from a different locales. Josey Wales, Krypto and VoyC8ter are all posting from the exact same IP address.
VoyC8ter - will join Krypto in permanently banned
Josey Wales - gets another week off.
A Voice
Gee Voice, you're biased toward those that hate you. Normally people get a month for that. At least in the case of FBWC.
A week?
Yeah those people are correct. You're biased and clearly moderating with an agenda. :)
dewey189
03-12-2007, 05:11 AM
Not quite the same now, is it?As what? A social conservative who votes for big government, big spending Republicans?
dewey189
03-12-2007, 05:12 AM
Since I've been a rather harsh critic of aV, I'll level another criticism here...
She was far too lenient with Josey in this matter. He knows the rules. He broke them once and suffered a penalty. He came back and deliberately did the same thing. He should be permanently gone...in all his incarnations. This is a blatant case of Undermoderation. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
Tayken
03-12-2007, 07:46 AM
Josey is using multiple log-ins. I am enforcing our rules. Grow up.
LOL. No you need to grow up and get thicker skin. I can't believe you posted that.
Tayken
03-12-2007, 07:47 AM
God Tayken. All you know how to sing is one sour note. Bet you'll soon be telling us that aV is a Clinton did it, right?:rolleyes:
Jack, you are the reason that I take my vitamins, exercise, and try to live a healthy life style. I really don't want to ever end up like you.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't.Of course, you can interpret it that way if you want to...
I've never been against moderating from the stance of it being evenhanded and consistent. The lady is using the "office", though, as an extension of her ego. It hasn't been either "light" moderating (which it should be) nor "evenhanded" (which is what posters here deserve).
Err on the side of "light" moderation, if an error is to be made. In the case of using more than one "log in", when the evidence is conclusive, and the individual has offended more than once, send him/her packing.
That isn't the same as composing an "enemies" list (including people like WMM and Clara), trumping up charges against them, and permanently banning them.
PS...I'm glad the irony (damned if...) wasn't lost on you. It was intended to be a little "tongue in cheek"
A Voice
03-12-2007, 12:13 PM
Of course, you can interpret it that way if you want to...
I've never been against moderating from the stance of it being evenhanded and consistent. The lady is using the "office", though, as an extension of her ego. It hasn't been either "light" moderating (which it should be) nor "evenhanded" (which is what posters here deserve).
Err on the side of "light" moderation, if an error is to be made. In the case of using more than one "log in", when the evidence is conclusive, and the individual has offended more than once, send him/her packing.
That isn't the same as composing an "enemies" list (including people like WMM and Clara), trumping up charges against them, and permanently banning them.
PS...I'm glad the irony (damned if...) wasn't lost on you. It was intended to be a little "tongue in cheek"
Enemies list - my Aunt Fanny.
I am sorry that you miss your old pals Clara and WMM. I do not. These two went out of their way to bring down DBS and bragged about it.
If someone said "I am going to mess you up!" do you then invite them into your home? You do not. Lib bent over backwards to accomodate those two. They are gone. They earned their bannishment.
As for your opinion of me. I assure you I am losing no sleep over the fact the I cannot meet your expectations, nor sprout wings and fly.
Enemies list - my Aunt Fanny.
I am sorry that you miss your old pals Clara and WMM. I do not. These two went out of their way to bring down DBS and bragged about it.
If someone said "I am going to mess you up!" do you then invite them into your home? You do not. Lib bent over backwards to accomodate those two. They are gone. They earned their bannishment.
As for your opinion of me. I assure you I am losing no sleep over the fact the I cannot meet your expectations, nor sprout wings and fly.To quote an old "truism", here...
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend"
That's only true for some folks. I'm not one of them. Make of that what you will...factoring in the fact that I've NEVER "cohabitated" with either of them in any way...
I'm sleeping pretty well, too, incidentally. My "expectations" of you? I'd "expect" a moderator to do something other than cruising around the board looking for trouble to quell..."moderate" for a change....shed the cop uniform.
These two went out of their way to bring down DBS and bragged about it.That's nothing more than an excuse. They could brag all they wanted...but they never could "bring down DBS" and you know it.
In all fact, everyone else knows it too. You were looking for a reason to oust the two of them.
Here's a question for you:
Tell everyone exactly how you think WMM could do anything to DBS by boasting...
These two went out of their way to bring down DBS and bragged about it.Damn, that is such incredible horsefeathers....who the hell do you think you're kidding?
There is absolutely no way that either of those individuals could "bring down DBS" short of sending explosives to the owners of the board, waiting for them to open the package, and pushing the button.
If you believe such tripe, you're certifiable.
It was an excuse...nothing more...nothing less.
The salient information about the owners and their company is posted clearly on HC. If knowing that would help "bring down" the board, it would be gone already.
I hate to be lied to...and you're doing it...either that or you're too stupid to pour pee out of a boot.
A Voice
03-12-2007, 05:23 PM
What I find incomprehensible is that you want me to ban forever in idiot who is having conversations with himself and keep two posters who have threatened to shut down/bring total chaos the board.
BTW WMM did have another nic. Oh wait, you already knew that . . .
What I find incomprehensible is that you want me to ban forever in idiot who is having conversations with himself and keep two posters who have threatened to shut down/bring total chaos the board.
BTW WMM did have another nic. Oh wait, you already knew that . . .C'mon...use your head. That wasn't why you banned him. If it had been, I'd have agreed with it.
threatened to shut down/bring total chaos the board. Madam, I can threaten to have the moon explode, too. That doesn't mean I can do it, nor does it mean that I should be punished for the threat.
A moderator can introduce some chaos to the board, for sure. A regular poster can't accomplish it, and you know it. There is no way whatever that either Clara or WMM could have accomplished it.
It was a simple act of vindictiveness regarding both Clara and WMM.
They should not have been banned FOR THE STATED REASONS.
Just so you'll know (since you've mentioned it a number of times), neither Clara nor WMM have any emotional or intellectual tie to me whatever. They aren't my "buds" or ideological compatriots in ANY WAY.
Get over yourself. You're not fooling anyone with that claptrap.
Dingo
03-13-2007, 02:32 AM
There is absolutely no way that either of those individuals could "bring down DBS" short of sending explosives to the owners of the board, waiting for them to open the package, and pushing the button.
And what is your basis for that remark Mike? I would think if a poster went about whining and harassing an owner enough he might very well get the owner to chuck the whole thing. After all the guy or corporation isn't making any money on this place and who needs the aggravation. Kicking them out turns them into vindictive malcontents with merely a score to settle. They lose a lot of their power and other potential board wreckers get a solid message.
And by the way, why do you harass A Voice on the Clara and Wmm banning? Lib is the one who instituted the ban for attempting to wreck the board, am I not correct? You've already made an ass out of yourself in the juvenile manner that you resigned as moderator, are you pulling for reinstatement? Strange to see a guy give up his power and then bitch about how others exercise power that he didn't want.
It's not your point of view on particular matters that I find irritating Mike; it's that you seem to have a childish petulance in demanding moderating matters always go your way and when they don't you go ad hominem now at practically every opportunity. I'm still waiting for you to calmly and civily lay out a set of rule changes that would make you happy. You couldn't apparently take the time to do that as moderator and you're not doing it now. But you did put your name on a set of rules earlier that you then pilloried Lib and A Voice for enforcing. You are giving hypocrisy a bad name.
And I'm sorry to say this Mike but in the whining sweepstakes you are giving Sol and Tayken a run for their money. Well they at least didn't backstab anybody.
Dingo, I thoroughly expected that kind of comment from you. You've been the "apologist" here for weeks.
Robb and Aasun are big people...they don't need anyone's nebulous "protection". They can choose to read whatever they will, or ignore whatever they choose. They don't have to feel "harassed" in any way. In point of fact, they take almost no notice of what happens here, unless notified by a moderator of this board. Pretending that either Clara or WMM could materially have an effect on the operation of this board is just what I called it..."claptrap"
What you're suggesting...that either of these two "illuminati" could bring the board down is a "Chicken little" scenario..."The sky is falling...the sky is falling"
If Clara or WMM want to whine, they can still do so...Our rules here will never protect them from it. Contact information is always available. If either Clara or WMM decide to send them a few emails, you seem to be suggesting they'll pull the plug on DBS because of it. What utter nonsense!
If you -- out of the clear blue -- decided to contact "administration" with twenty crackpot emails, you're entitled to do it. Putting up stiff-looking rules to prevent it is a clear case of paranoia and overmoderating, whether you like it or not. Regardless of my status, I'm still a registered member of this board, entitled to opinions and to post those opinions...again...whether you like it or not.
A Voice
03-13-2007, 11:01 AM
Clara spread rumors that she got viruses from the Board - something which never happened - she did it because it amused her. That sort of nonsense can have a detrimental effect on a board's reputation.
Every other day WMM was threatening to "reaveal the TRUTH!!!" about whomever his addled mind had decided to target. Posters deserve protection from someone like this. Internet rumor can quickly turn into internet harassment - the courts are seeing more and more of this sort of thing. He kept insisting that the board benefactors are owned by AIPAC and are part of his "JEWISH CONSPIRACY!!!!" Again, a false allegation that is not good for the health of the board. I mean, come on Mike. I heard he's even running around trying to convince people he is the REAL Sam Ayyam. Why should anyone have to put up with this sort of nonsense?
A Voice
03-13-2007, 11:08 AM
Dingo, I thoroughly expected that kind of comment from you. You've been the "apologist" here for weeks.
Robb and Aasun are big people...they don't need anyone's nebulous "protection". They can choose to read whatever they will, or ignore whatever they choose. They don't have to feel "harassed" in any way. In point of fact, they take almost no notice of what happens here, unless notified by a moderator of this board. Pretending that either Clara or WMM could materially have an effect on the operation of this board is just what I called it..."claptrap"
What you're suggesting...that either of these two "illuminati" could bring the board down is a "Chicken little" scenario..."The sky is falling...the sky is falling"
If Clara or WMM want to whine, they can still do so...Our rules here will never protect them from it. Contact information is always available. If either Clara or WMM decide to send them a few emails, you seem to be suggesting they'll pull the plug on DBS because of it. What utter nonsense!
If you -- out of the clear blue -- decided to contact "administration" with twenty crackpot emails, you're entitled to do it. Putting up stiff-looking rules to prevent it is a clear case of paranoia and overmoderating, whether you like it or not. Regardless of my status, I'm still a registered member of this board, entitled to opinions and to post those opinions...again...whether you like it or not.
You seem to be claiming that you have first hand knowledge of the board owners and what their motivations might be. Unlike you, I do not have God-like insight into these two people. I have never met them. They seem like nice guys and I am grateful to be their guest here.
Unlike you, I have no idea what it would take to make them drop us like a hot rock. Unlike you, I have no desire to find out.
Dingo
03-13-2007, 05:34 PM
Dingo, I thoroughly expected that kind of comment from you. You've been the "apologist" here for weeks.
Kind of expected you'd follow the party line. If I disagree with you and try to work constructively with the moderators, as I would have happily done with you before you bailed, then I'm an apologist or a butt kisser. As anybody who has read me knows, I offered and argued for more changes around here than anybody. I just didn't turn it into a jihad against the moderators. If that's being an apologist so be it.
Robb and Aasun are big people...they don't need anyone's nebulous "protection". They can choose to read whatever they will, or ignore whatever they choose. They don't have to feel "harassed" in any way. In point of fact, they take almost no notice of what happens here, unless notified by a moderator of this board. Pretending that either Clara or WMM could materially have an effect on the operation of this board is just what I called it..."claptrap"
Of course they don't "have" to feel harassed but who knows how they would feel, particularly if the complaining came from members in good standing. Guessing is not wisdom. The expressed intent was there and kicking them off was the consequence. Let's see, it weakened their platform and sent a message to others. It was a good move. I only wonder why Gerry, who was the chief instagator wasn't sent packing too. And, by the way, I happen to think she started some pretty decent threads when she wasn't off in one of her paranoid conspiracy nutcase frenzies or confusing her mere opinion on matters with the Oracle of Delphi.
What you're suggesting...that either of these two "illuminati" could bring the board down is a "Chicken little" scenario..."The sky is falling...the sky is falling"
Just out of curiousity, when was the last time you had someone in your home who threatened to tear it apart? Besides you signed on to that ban rule remember?
6. This forum exists as our Hosts support it. Abusing the Hosts, who have little to do with the actual running of the Board, will not be tolerated. Threatening to or going to the Hosts or threatening or attempting to shut down the forum or make it unusable will result in permanent banning.
My how we forget so quickly when we have vendetta against a moderator. Do you know how to spell HYPOCRITE?
If Clara or WMM want to whine, they can still do so...Our rules here will never protect them from it. Contact information is always available. If either Clara or WMM decide to send them a few emails, you seem to be suggesting they'll pull the plug on DBS because of it. What utter nonsense!
As I said before, by being kicked out they have lost standing and both these posters have a long history of being kicked off of forums so it makes it easier to characterize them for what they are, chronic malcontents. And once again, why did you sign on to the banning rule in the first place?
If you -- out of the clear blue -- decided to contact "administration" with twenty crackpot emails, you're entitled to do it. Putting up stiff-looking rules to prevent it is a clear case of paranoia and overmoderating, whether you like it or not. Regardless of my status, I'm still a registered member of this board, entitled to opinions and to post those opinions...again...whether you like it or not.
Speaking of paranoia, who is it that says you aren't registered or wants you kicked off or wants to suppress your opinion? I just happen to think you are behaving in a juvenile petulant hypocritical and very unconstructive way. I'm still waiting for your suggestions on your alternatives to the rules you signed on to and am still wondering why with such blatant hypocrisy you keep dishing moderators who are simply enforcing rules you are on record as supporting. Why don't you go back to CE and READ YOUR RULES! I just retrieved rule #6. Are you not a little embarassed at your blatant hypocrisy in criticising its enforcement?
Clara spread rumors that she got viruses from the Board - something which never happened - she did it because it amused her. That sort of nonsense can have a detrimental effect on a board's reputation.
Every other day WMM was threatening to "reaveal the TRUTH!!!" about whomever his addled mind had decided to target. Posters deserve protection from someone like this. Internet rumor can quickly turn into internet harassment - the courts are seeing more and more of this sort of thing. He kept insisting that the board benefactors are owned by AIPAC and are part of his "JEWISH CONSPIRACY!!!!" Again, a false allegation that is not good for the health of the board. I mean, come on Mike. I heard he's even running around trying to convince people he is the REAL Sam Ayyam. Why should anyone have to put up with this sort of nonsense?You don't have to "put up" with anything, for gawd sake. Your job isn't to see if you can monitor nonsense. This isn't the Wall Street Journal...its a discussion board.
If you don't like what WMM has to say, don't read it. Ever think of that?
What he threatens to do isn't your damned business...moderator or not.
What it can turn into isn't your business. Quit thinking you've become a queen... What the hell business is it of yours if he raves about "jewish conspiracy" or not?
It isn't your business...
Lady, when you became a moderator, what did you think the job entailed? Censorship? Mother Teresa of the internet?
Just so you'll know...
1. Yes I do think you're a butt kisser on this matter.
2. No, I didn't "sign on" to that nonsense at all.
I just went back and reread this pile of incongruity.
Clara spread rumors that she got viruses from the Board - something which never happened - she did it because it amused her. That sort of nonsense can have a detrimental effect on a board's reputation.Where were these "rumors"? On HC? It sure as hell isn't your business to determine what people can say on another board...period. Even our bud Dingo must see something terribly wrong with crap like that. I don't think I'll hold my breath for such an admission, though.
Incidentally, how in hell do YOU know it never happened? How do you know she did it because?
...and -- last but certainly not least -- what's this crap about "detrimental effect"? Is it your job to now monitor for "detrimental effect" in addition to your other supreme oversight?
You're unbelievable...
Dingo
03-13-2007, 11:37 PM
Just so you'll know...
1. Yes I do think you're a butt kisser on this matter.
2. No, I didn't "sign on" to that nonsense at all.
Piss and run. Nice move asshole. Yeah you signed on and I shoved it right in your face liar.
Let's try again.
http://debatebothsides.com/showthread.php?t=3547
Dingo
03-13-2007, 11:48 PM
I just went back and reread this pile of incongruity.
Where were these "rumors"? On HC? It sure as hell isn't your business to determine what people can say on another board...period. Even our bud Dingo must see something terribly wrong with crap like that. I don't think I'll hold my breath for such an admission, though.
Incidentally, how in hell do YOU know it never happened? How do you know she did it because?
...and -- last but certainly not least -- what's this crap about "detrimental effect"? Is it your job to now monitor for "detrimental effect" in addition to your other supreme oversight?
You're unbelievable...
Frankly I don't know if Clara was lying or believed she was contracting viruses on DBS. If she was lying and admitted it on whatever board then a long vacation was in order. However the reason Lib banned her was, as I understand it, she went on her own admission to the management to fuck with the board. That's a ban and Mike SIGNED ON TO IT and if he continues to say otherwise you can retire the word LIAR on his tombstone.
Nope, Dingo...not a liar at all.
The "rules" written by aV have continued to be posted under my name. aV wrote the damned things, circulated them to "vote" on them, informed me that I was outvoted and whatever objections I might harbor didn't matter, since (she said) I abstained.
Ask her. Simple as that.
If you won't believe (or ask) her...ask Lib. He's an honest broker here.
Again...I didn't sign-on to repressive crap like that. Never would.
That particular rule was -- for me -- a deal-breaker from the word "go". The owners of this board...Robb and Aasun...don't need protection provided by aV.
Here, Dingo, is a short excerpt from a pm dated 1/23...might be illuminating to you since you're convinced I'm lying...
Here are the updated rules based on the Moderators votes (with Mike abstaining).
Now, of course, you can add "breaking confidence" because I'm quoting directly from a PM...
Frankly I don't know if Clara was lying or believed she was contracting viruses on DBS. If she was lying and admitted it on whatever board then a long vacation was in order. However the reason Lib banned her was, as I understand it, she went on her own admission to the management to fuck with the board. That's a ban and Mike SIGNED ON TO IT and if he continues to say otherwise you can retire the word LIAR on his tombstone.Read the post immediately above this one...regarding whether I'm a liar...
This post concerns the bolded portion above...
If I'm reading you correctly (and I think I am) you're suggesting that rules enacted by aV carry the weight of her enforcement when comments are posted by members here ON OTHER BOARDS....
That's really interesting. In a larger sense, then, Mexico can legislate laws to be obeyed by American citizens? "Lincoln" over at HC can tell DBS'ers how they can post here?
.That's too damn lame for words.
What Clara does outside the confines of the board is not the business of moderators who's only authority concerns what is POSTED on this board. I guess if a poster -- here -- decided to visit the business run by Aasun and Robb in Banning, California, and sat down with them to gripe, you'd approve of their banning
RIGHT?
Incidentally, "Dingo", are you bucking to join the "moderating team"? You surely haven't missed too many opportunities to mention all the valuable help you've offered. It can't have eluded their attention...
The "rules" written by aV have continued to be posted under my name. aV wrote the damned thingsThen why in the Rules post does it say "Last edited by Lib : 4 Weeks Ago at 12:42 PM."?
Read the post immediately above this one...regarding whether I'm a liar...:rolleyes:
Then why in the Rules post does it say "Last edited by Lib : 4 Weeks Ago at 12:42 PM."?
:rolleyes:I'm not privy (nor do I want to be) to who conducted the last "modification" of the rules thread. I haven't touched it in many months, and the content therein has no connection to me whatever.
I'm glad you posted the :rolleyes: concerning the last part. That means you probably see the problem, there...
I'm not privy (nor do I want to be) to who conducted the last "modification" of the rules thread. I haven't touched it in many months, and the content therein has no connection to me whatever.
I'm glad you posted the :rolleyes: concerning the last part. That means you probably see the problem, there...Yes; the problem is that someone who now apparently claims it’s been “months” was implying that aV was posting under his name; when in fact it was someone else.
I've been tempted over the past couple of months to simply delete the "rules" thread that still bears my name...then the "team" could repost it under the name of one of the "faithful". That act -- if I did it -- would be interpreted as another betrayal by me...and an abuse of the privileges that haven't been removed.
So...it stays there (at least for the time-being) and dingo can infer that I approved of the content...
Nice going, Dingo. You're a suck-up of the finest variety...
If I remove it, he'll complain....If I leave it, he'll blab about how I approved it...
I know you don't need an explanation, Kuni...but I'll give you one, anyway...
The rules thread was posted by ME, close to three years ago. Any moderator of this board can edit the thread. That's what's been happening. I haven't touched the damned thing...
Get it? Or would you prefer to just call me a liar???
Kuni and Dingo...
You're both either as dumb as rocks concerning the rules of this board and how they got "under my name, or....OR...
You're a pair of liars that prefer to call me a liar when you really know exactly how the rules currently posted got there....
If there's a third choice in this matter, I'm not privy to it.
Moi?
What part of “The "rules" written by aV have continued to be posted under my name. aV wrote the damned things” & "Last edited by Lib : 4 Weeks Ago at 12:42 PM." did I miss?
I don’t really care, one way or another. I was just pointing out that I was getting the impression that you were implying that aV was editing the rules under “your name”; but that it was another Mod.
I'm not privy (nor do I want to be) to who conducted the last "modification" of the rules thread.Umm; go to the Rules Post and scroll to the bottom.
Moi?
What part of “The "rules" written by aV have continued to be posted under my name. aV wrote the damned things” & "Last edited by Lib : 4 Weeks Ago at 12:42 PM." did I miss?
I don’t really care, one way or another. I was just pointing out that I was getting the impression that you were implying that aV was editing the rules under “your name”; but that it was another Mod.
Umm; go to the Rules Post and scroll to the bottom.I'm well-aware of the mechanics about finding out, kuni. Reread my post. I don't care who massages the rules and leaves them in my name. What I care about is a couple lying sacks of shit trying to imply that I have something to do with the current rules and -- in some nebulous fashion -- "signed on" to them.
Capish?
Dingo
03-14-2007, 12:59 PM
Nope, Dingo...not a liar at all.
The "rules" written by aV have continued to be posted under my name. aV wrote the damned things, circulated them to "vote" on them, informed me that I was outvoted and whatever objections I might harbor didn't matter, since (she said) I abstained.
Ask her. Simple as that.
If you won't believe (or ask) her...ask Lib. He's an honest broker here.
Again...I didn't sign-on to repressive crap like that. Never would.
That particular rule was -- for me -- a deal-breaker from the word "go". The owners of this board...Robb and Aasun...don't need protection provided by aV.
Here, Dingo, is a short excerpt from a pm dated 1/23...might be illuminating to you since you're convinced I'm lying...
Now, of course, you can add "breaking confidence" because I'm quoting directly from a PM...
Mike, you must think everybody is as much of bullshitting idiot as you are. Nobody forced you to attach your name to the rules and keep them attached since 2004. Whether you abstained or not you chose to associate yourself with those rules, whoever wrote it, or you would have removed your name. Keep twisting in the wind buddy. You're a fucking joke.
Dingo
03-14-2007, 01:14 PM
Read the post immediately above this one...regarding whether I'm a liar...
This post concerns the bolded portion above...
If I'm reading you correctly (and I think I am) you're suggesting that rules enacted by aV carry the weight of her enforcement when comments are posted by members here ON OTHER BOARDS....
That's really interesting. In a larger sense, then, Mexico can legislate laws to be obeyed by American citizens? "Lincoln" over at HC can tell DBS'ers how they can post here?
.That's too damn lame for words.
What Clara does outside the confines of the board is not the business of moderators who's only authority concerns what is POSTED on this board. I guess if a poster -- here -- decided to visit the business run by Aasun and Robb in Banning, California, and sat down with them to gripe, you'd approve of their banning
RIGHT?
Incidentally, "Dingo", are you bucking to join the "moderating team"? You surely haven't missed too many opportunities to mention all the valuable help you've offered. It can't have eluded their attention...
To deal with your last sentence, nope, I don't want to be a moderator. I think I can make a better contribution as an opinionated poster. In any case I don't think I'm tempermentally suited for the job, well I know I wouldn't be the kind of lying fuckup that you were, but nevertheless I'd probably moderate a little unevenly I fear.
As to your Mexico analogy if somebody seriously revealed they were out to murder you in Mexico city I would expect that honest Mexican authorities would communicate that to the US and American authorities would act as if the threat was made here and I suspect you would appreciate that. My position on comments on other boards that violate the rules is they would only apply at the level of an attempt to wreck the board. Simply dishing moderators for their moderating shouldn't apply.
I guess if a poster -- here -- decided to visit the business run by Aasun and Robb in Banning, California, and sat down with them to gripe, you'd approve of their banning
RIGHT?
Griping about the moderating here or attempting to hijack or shut down the board? Yes they should be banned. They have adequate avenues to gripe right here and as I said hypocrite you signed on to that reluctantly or not.
Tayken
03-14-2007, 01:22 PM
Mike, you must think everybody is as much of bullshitting idiot as you are. Nobody forced you to attach your name to the rules and keep them attached since 2004. Whether you abstained or not you chose to associate yourself with those rules, whoever wrote it, or you would have removed your name. Keep twisting in the wind buddy. You're a fucking joke.
Sigh. Weren't the rules changed after Mike resigned? Do you understand he is reluctant to go in and take his name off, because of assholes like you? You sure poke your big fat ass into a lot of things that aren't your business.
I don't know if you're truly stupid or just playing at being stupid, dingo.
Those rules that held my name were there, unchanged, for several years. Then, along came a spider...aV...who found the rules to be inadequate (You'll have to ask her, why). She went to great pains to tell all moderators that she found the board to be in a crisis. I could even provide the PM's to that little episode. I don't have any idea why Lib and aV have chosen (yes, "chosen") to leave the rules under my name.
If I deleted the thread (which can only be done with a person assigned "super moderator" status) I have no doubt whatever that you'd blab about me abusing the privileges that I shunned.
So I leave them there...
What does that elicit from you? The accusation that I signed on to them.
Gawd, you're a disengenous fuck.
Dingo
03-14-2007, 02:10 PM
I don't know if you're truly stupid or just playing at being stupid, dingo.
Those rules that held my name were there, unchanged, for several years. Then, along came a spider...aV...who found the rules to be inadequate (You'll have to ask her, why). She went to great pains to tell all moderators that she found the board to be in a crisis. I could even provide the PM's to that little episode. I don't have any idea why Lib and aV have chosen (yes, "chosen") to leave the rules under my name.
If I deleted the thread (which can only be done with a person assigned "super moderator" status) I have no doubt whatever that you'd blab about me abusing the privileges that I shunned.
So I leave them there...
What does that elicit from you? The accusation that I signed on to them.
Gawd, you're a disengenous fuck.
I notice your whining bitch butt buddy Tayken decided to intrude himself. Of course he contributed his usual meaningless flatulence.
Let me explain something to you idiot. The rules could stand under ANYBODY'S NAME. You chose to let them stand under yours. What do you think folks are suppose to conclude from that? And if you were so bummed out by the rules why didn't you quit way back then?
God, conversing with you is like trying to reason with a 6 year old.
Tayken
03-14-2007, 02:20 PM
I notice your whining bitch butt buddy Tayken decided to intrude himself. Of course he contributed his usual meaningless flatulence.
Let me explain something to you idiot. The rules could stand under ANYBODY'S NAME. You chose to let them stand under yours. What do you think folks are suppose to conclude from that? And if you were so bummed out by the rules why didn't you quit way back then?
God, conversing with you is like trying to reason with a 6 year old.
What don't you understand about rules being changed after Mike resigned? Are you truly this stupid?
Dingo
03-14-2007, 03:18 PM
What don't you understand about rules being changed after Mike resigned? Are you truly this stupid?
How would know being as you are as dumb as a pig's snout. Rule 6 was in place before he resigned idjit.
Islanders_for_the_cup_04
03-14-2007, 03:35 PM
I don't know if you're truly stupid or just playing at being stupid, dingo.
Those rules that held my name were there, unchanged, for several years. Then, along came a spider...aV...who found the rules to be inadequate (You'll have to ask her, why). She went to great pains to tell all moderators that she found the board to be in a crisis. I could even provide the PM's to that little episode. I don't have any idea why Lib and aV have chosen (yes, "chosen") to leave the rules under my name.
If I deleted the thread (which can only be done with a person assigned "super moderator" status) I have no doubt whatever that you'd blab about me abusing the privileges that I shunned.
So I leave them there...
What does that elicit from you? The accusation that I signed on to them.
Gawd, you're a disengenous fuck.
Mike;
AV is acting no different then any other moderator who's had the job at this forum. That's a fact.
What is apparent is that those that have a heavy beef with her also happen to be amongst the boards biggest misogynists.
And speaking of playing stupid. Krypto has been posting here since 2004. I have a hard time buying that you knew nothing of who this guy was. He posted under multiple IDs on YOUR watch. You did nothing about it.
But there was little hesitation to ban FBWC for a month when he was caught posting under multiples. But let's just blame all this on AVoice. If you have a problem with her moderating perhaps she had a good teacher and that was you.
Funny, when a female does it you get all crazy as does Sol and Tayken. Not surprising at all if you ask me. Your treatment of AVoice since the ban was lifted for a month on critisizing moderators has given me a good glimpse on what's behind all of this.
You just don't like when your tribe get's hit with the same stick you've used on others. Not to mention the fact that it comes from a women.
Grow up.
Tayken
03-14-2007, 04:06 PM
Mike;
AV is acting no different then any other moderator who's had the job at this forum. That's a fact.
What is apparent is that those that have a heavy beef with her also happen to be amongst the boards biggest misogynists.
And speaking of playing stupid. Krypto has been posting here since 2004. I have a hard time buying that you knew nothing of who this guy was. He posted under multiple IDs on YOUR watch. You did nothing about it.
But there was little hesitation to ban FBWC for a month when he was caught posting under multiples. But let's just blame all this on AVoice. If you have a problem with her moderating perhaps she had a good teacher and that was you.
Funny, when a female does it you get all crazy as does Sol and Tayken. Not surprising at all if you ask me. Your treatment of AVoice since the ban was lifted for a month on critisizing moderators has given me a good glimpse on what's behind all of this.
You just don't like when your tribe get's hit with the same stick you've used on others. Not to mention the fact that it comes from a women.
Grow up.
What a crock of shit. No other moderator even came close (not even Lib) to the over moderation that has taken place. You're a snake. I've learned you will stab anyone in the back to try and get your way.
Tayken
03-14-2007, 04:12 PM
How would know being as you are as dumb as a pig's snout. Rule 6 was in place before he resigned idjit.
Really? Prove it. I see Mike's resignation taking place on 2/6/07 or earlier (he disclosed it on 2/6). I see the last update to the rules post as being 2/7/07.
I'm well-aware of the mechanics about finding out, kuni. Reread my post. I don't care who massages the rules and leaves them in my name. What I care about is a couple lying sacks of shit trying to imply that I have something to do with the current rules and -- in some nebulous fashion -- "signed on" to them.
Capish?A couple???
What part of “If you won't believe (or ask) her...ask Lib. He's an honest broker here.” did I miss? I only know of 3 Mod’s here; you being one of them. But then I don't pay much attention to that.
So who is this "Couple"?
A Voice
03-14-2007, 05:46 PM
You don't have to "put up" with anything, for gawd sake. Your job isn't to see if you can monitor nonsense. This isn't the Wall Street Journal...its a discussion board.
If you don't like what WMM has to say, don't read it. Ever think of that?
What he threatens to do isn't your damned business...moderator or not.
What it can turn into isn't your business. Quit thinking you've become a queen... What the hell business is it of yours if he raves about "jewish conspiracy" or not?
It isn't your business...
Lady, when you became a moderator, what did you think the job entailed? Censorship? Mother Teresa of the internet?
If WMM threatens to spread rumors about posters and the posters complain and threaten to bring on the lawyers, then the prudent thing to do is to get rid of the nutcase problem. He burned all his bridges here.
Please remember I didn't ban him or Clara, Lib did and I support his decision.
As for you Clara said, did, whatever, problem. WHY DO YOU THINK SHE DELETES HER POSTS?
http://www.debatebothsides.com/showpost.php?p=729414&postcount=110
http://www.debatebothsides.com/showpost.php?p=729507&postcount=120
I am not going to waste anymore time discussing those two former posters with you.
Finally. Those new rules that you are complaining about, the ones you quit over because you didn't get your way? They have not been posted yet. At this moment the rules as they stand are indeed the ones you signed off on.
Dingo
03-14-2007, 05:54 PM
Really? Prove it. I see Mike's resignation taking place on 2/6/07 or earlier (he disclosed it on 2/6). I see the last update to the rules post as being 2/7/07.
If you look hard you will see the insertion in bold. Lib was allowing jerkoffs like you to trash the moderators for their moderating during Feb. It's March now. Consider yourself lucky you aren't visiting me at Hc. :D
Tayken
03-14-2007, 06:05 PM
If you look hard you will see the insertion in bold. Lib was allowing jerkoffs like you to trash the moderators for their moderating during Feb. It's March now. Consider yourself lucky you aren't visiting me at Hc. :D
You're a cupcake Ding Dong. Oh Voice. This person threatened me. Are you going to ban him, or are you going to let him skate because he is sucking up to you and because you don't like me?
Getting back to business. Is that your evidence? LOL. You lose.
Dingo
03-14-2007, 06:18 PM
You're a cupcake Ding Dong. Oh Voice. This person threatened me. Are you going to ban him, or are you going to let him skate because he is sucking up to you and because you don't like me?
Getting back to business. Is that your evidence? LOL. You lose.
Not only are you a complete idiot asshole, you are incoherent. Let's see if I can get you repositioned. This is DBS and you Tayken don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.
Hope that gets you properly oriented. :rolleyes:
Tayken
03-14-2007, 06:23 PM
Not only are you a complete idiot asshole, you are incoherent. Let's see if I can get you repositioned. This is DBS and you Tayken don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.
Hope that gets you properly oriented. :rolleyes:
LOL. I knew you were a big loser from the first insult you hurled my way on hypercrites. You like to stick your nose in places it doesn't belong. Your reasoning skills are that of a child. As Mike stated, he didn't know if you were stupid or being disingenuous. I vote that you are stupid.
Dingo
03-14-2007, 06:51 PM
LOL. I knew you were a big loser from the first insult you hurled my way on hypercrites. You like to stick your nose in places it doesn't belong. Your reasoning skills are that of a child. As Mike stated, he didn't know if you were stupid or being disingenuous. I vote that you are stupid.
I wouldn't be under the misimpression that because you can scribble something on a forum you've actually said anything. scribble scribble scribble scribble scribble scribble scribble scribble bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit doesn't actually constitute meaningful communication. The word communication means people saying real stuff back and forth.
You come off like a windup doll. You almost always use the same inane phrases to me and practically every other poster you imagine you are communicating with. Maybe you need to have your programmer perform an update.
Tayken
03-14-2007, 07:00 PM
I wouldn't be under the misimpression that because you can scribble something on a forum you've actually said anything. scribble scribble scribble scribble scribble scribble scribble scribble bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit doesn't actually constitute meaningful communication. The word communication means people saying real stuff back and forth.
You come off like a windup doll. You almost always use the same inane phrases to me and practically every other poster you imagine you are communicating with. Maybe you need to have your programmer perform an update.
You have no creativity and aren't very funny either.
If I threaten to bring on the lawyers, you'll get rid of Dingo? Sounds like a plan, to me.
Besides, he scares me and really makes me nervous. I'm intimidated.
This can't be allowed.
Get rid of him, post haste...
Now, about Kuni, and Islanders...
That can wait until you've unloaded Dingo.
Oh wait...can you take care of aV first, please? She says bad things, like "bite me"...I've been a nervous wreck ever since. My false teeth complained about the very thought of "biting" her...I've sought legal aid for pain and suffering...;)
Good gawd, lady. That's so incredibly lame it defies description. Someone threatening to "bring on the lawyers" and you think that justifies banning a poster?
There will be NO LAWYERS brought on by Clara's posts. Get over it. You must think everyone here is too stupid to pour pee out of a boot...
Dingo
03-14-2007, 11:10 PM
If I threaten to bring on the lawyers, you'll get rid of Dingo? Sounds like a plan, to me.
Besides, he scares me and really makes me nervous. I'm intimidated.
This can't be allowed.
Get rid of him, post haste...
Now, about Kuni, and Islanders...
That can wait until you've unloaded Dingo.
Oh wait...can you take care of aV first, please? She says bad things, like "bite me"...I've been a nervous wreck ever since. My false teeth complained about the very thought of "biting" her...I've sought legal aid for pain and suffering...;)
Good gawd, lady. That's so incredibly lame it defies description. Someone threatening to "bring on the lawyers" and you think that justifies banning a poster?
There will be NO LAWYERS brought on by Clara's posts. Get over it. You must think everyone here is too stupid to pour pee out of a boot...
You're hysterical wierd Mike; in both senses of the word. :D
A Voice. If WMM threatens to spread rumors about posters and the posters complain and threaten to bring on the lawyers, then the prudent thing to do is to get rid of the nutcase problem. He burned all his bridges here.
AV I know this happened over at Hc. I was not aware that this happened over here. Could you clarify if it happened here too. Everybody over on Hc. seemed to know it was a pile but in one case he let out that he had proof that one poster had raped a 16 year old girl. I think that's where the lawyer business came out there. I guess the guy felt if the charge got out that there was the potential for a libel situation.
I know Mike thinks this kind of thing is cute and that if someone threatened to go public with the charge that he had raped a 16 year old girl that would be just fine with him. But that's Mike. I am curious if Whiteman exhibited the same behavior over here.
Tayken
03-15-2007, 10:15 AM
Wow, what lawyer is going to take on that case? Nobody knows the identities of the person who is slamming or of the person who is getting slammed. I'm sure a judge would just love to have a case like that come before him.
That's a great reason Voice[/sarcasm]. Unbelievable.
Mister B
03-15-2007, 11:02 AM
If WMM threatens to spread rumors about posters and the posters complain and threaten to bring on the lawyers, then the prudent thing to do is to get rid of the nutcase problem. He burned all his bridges here.
And yet when you had proof that a poster here PMed another poster with SS#, name, address, phone#, etc., of yet another poster -
The one who did it was still welcome here.
How odd.
JackTheReaper
03-15-2007, 11:15 AM
Wow, what lawyer is going to take on that case? Nobody knows the identities of the person who is slamming or of the person who is getting slammed. I'm sure a judge would just love to have a case like that come before him.
That's a great reason Voice[/sarcasm]. Unbelievable.
Good Lord Tayken, you got other screen names like Josey Wales or Krypto? You really sound like them. So you got banned. BFD. Ever since you've had a vendetta about it, a vicious one it appears, against aV. Get over it and get over yourself. Like those dingbats in my first sentence, all you've done since you got banned was whine and bitch. Gets a bit old after a while like hearting someone sing a sour note over and over without being told - hurts the ear, you know?. What are you, 13yo? If not, and you're a grown up person, then you've got problems.
I got banned once. By Mike. Without warning, as aV always extends to those who are reticent to change their objectionable, obnoxious ways. I took it, and then let it go. I didn't even pm Mike about it either. I simply moved on.
Then he went public as he thought I had something against him on a personal level and I answered him in public. This is how an adult handles being banned. Not by throwing a tantrum like a spoiled brat child, but by taking it like a man and then keeping your mouth shut about it - even though you thought it was unfair like I considered Mike's banning of me. Being banned does not mean the end of the world. You are still alive and well and posting here, So I don't know why this matters so much to you, but you obviously must be a very obssesive person. Get a psych exam if this is true of you.
BTW, your posting here, as far as I've ever known you here at DBS has always been of a confrontational and bitterly insulting and cruel nature. I've seen little reason or rationality in your one liner foul language insults. Unsolicited advice here, but you'd be a lot more credible (even as far as your vendettas in this thread against aV) if you'd start having some substance to what you post. You want proof that you have nothikng to say in a contributory way to the "lively exchange of ideas here at DBS", then just look back on all your replies in this thread - nothing but bitching and nauseating complaining about being banned, about aV, about Dingo, about Kuni and about everyone else in your life you are hostile to - and that has also frequently been myself in thread after thread where I interact with you.
And look, if you can't take my comments to you in this very reply to your thread above this one here in an honestly frank manner, then you do need your head examined, as I'm showing no malice here except to point out to you where I (and others) think you have gone wrong with this nonsense of yours.
Rather than make a convincing case for conservatism like Roofdog or macman, you choose the nauseating style of Wales. Instead, your lack of anything but partisan insults to other posters reflects badly on your Bushism, makes us convinced that all Bush supporters as rabid as you are as arrogantly nasty in tone as you. This is why America has come to hate Bush and his koolaid drunk chorus.
Grow up, get a spine, lose some bitterness that people just may attack your own ideas once in a while and attack your God, Bush, all of the time, and you migh be more successful at this forum. Sometimes it's better to be silent than blather all the time. That goes esp. fo you but also for me in this overly long kvetch. But I just couldn't stand to hear one more baseless crab from you any longer here about how you hate so and so and also so and so. And that's why I opened up here to you guy. Be a man, not a whiner, and skip a few angry posts in a prudent manner every so often. See if that fits both you and us a little better, for a refreshing change.
You're hysterical wierd Mike; in both senses of the word. :D
AV I know this happened over at Hc. I was not aware that this happened over here. Could you clarify if it happened here too. Everybody over on Hc. seemed to know it was a pile but in one case he let out that he had proof that one poster had raped a 16 year old girl. I think that's where the lawyer business came out there. I guess the guy felt if the charge got out that there was the potential for a libel situation.
I know Mike thinks this kind of thing is cute and that if someone threatened to go public with the charge that he had raped a 16 year old girl that would be just fine with him. But that's Mike. I am curious if Whiteman exhibited the same behavior over here.Dingo, what I think is cute is this crappola about lawsuits.
If you can cite one...JUST ONE...case where a suit has been brought into court for comments made on an internet discussion board, I'll rethink my position...
Are you as open to "rethinking" the position?
"Mike thinks...blah, blah, blah..." Absolutely false...maybe I can find a lawyer to sue the board over drivel like that. :)
The post that you called me "weird" over -- you probably know this -- is only to illustrate the unsupportable nature of this crap.
It's over the top, for a moderator HERE to try to use what happens on another board as a basis for banning a person here. You know it. It's hard to be serious about stuff like that. Moderators appointed for one board don't automatically become "universal" moderators.
Tayken
03-15-2007, 01:20 PM
Good Lord Tayken, you got other screen names like Josey Wales or Krypto? You really sound like them. So you got banned. BFD. Ever since you've had a vendetta about it, a vicious one it appears, against aV. Get over it and get over yourself. Like those dingbats in my first sentence, all you've done since you got banned was whine and bitch. Gets a bit old after a while like hearting someone sing a sour note over and over without being told - hurts the ear, you know?. What are you, 13yo? If not, and you're a grown up person, then you've got problems.
I got banned once. By Mike. Without warning, as aV always extends to those who are reticent to change their objectionable, obnoxious ways. I took it, and then let it go. I didn't even pm Mike about it either. I simply moved on.
Then he went public as he thought I had something against him on a personal level and I answered him in public. This is how an adult handles being banned. Not by throwing a tantrum like a spoiled brat child, but by taking it like a man and then keeping your mouth shut about it - even though you thought it was unfair like I considered Mike's banning of me. Being banned does not mean the end of the world. You are still alive and well and posting here, So I don't know why this matters so much to you, but you obviously must be a very obssesive person. Get a psych exam if this is true of you.
BTW, your posting here, as far as I've ever known you here at DBS has always been of a confrontational and bitterly insulting and cruel nature. I've seen little reason or rationality in your one liner foul language insults. Unsolicited advice here, but you'd be a lot more credible (even as far as your vendettas in this thread against aV) if you'd start having some substance to what you post. You want proof that you have nothikng to say in a contributory way to the "lively exchange of ideas here at DBS", then just look back on all your replies in this thread - nothing but bitching and nauseating complaining about being banned, about aV, about Dingo, about Kuni and about everyone else in your life you are hostile to - and that has also frequently been myself in thread after thread where I interact with you.
And look, if you can't take my comments to you in this very reply to your thread above this one here in an honestly frank manner, then you do need your head examined, as I'm showing no malice here except to point out to you where I (and others) think you have gone wrong with this nonsense of yours.
Rather than make a convincing case for conservatism like Roofdog or macman, you choose the nauseating style of Wales. Instead, your lack of anything but partisan insults to other posters reflects badly on your Bushism, makes us convinced that all Bush supporters as rabid as you are as arrogantly nasty in tone as you. This is why America has come to hate Bush and his koolaid drunk chorus.
Grow up, get a spine, lose some bitterness that people just may attack your own ideas once in a while and attack your God, Bush, all of the time, and you migh be more successful at this forum. Sometimes it's better to be silent than blather all the time. That goes esp. fo you but also for me in this overly long kvetch. But I just couldn't stand to hear one more baseless crab from you any longer here about how you hate so and so and also so and so. And that's why I opened up here to you guy. Be a man, not a whiner, and skip a few angry posts in a prudent manner every so often. See if that fits both you and us a little better, for a refreshing change.
Funny this from a man who continuously insults, lies, and distorts. I guess that because you are a liberal you are exempt from those traits, right Jack?
A Voice
03-15-2007, 03:53 PM
You're hysterical wierd Mike; in both senses of the word. :D
AV I know this happened over at Hc. I was not aware that this happened over here. Could you clarify if it happened here too. Everybody over on Hc. seemed to know it was a pile but in one case he let out that he had proof that one poster had raped a 16 year old girl. I think that's where the lawyer business came out there. I guess the guy felt if the charge got out that there was the potential for a libel situation.
I know Mike thinks this kind of thing is cute and that if someone threatened to go public with the charge that he had raped a 16 year old girl that would be just fine with him. But that's Mike. I am curious if Whiteman exhibited the same behavior over here.
If I remember correctly WMM stated that the first thing he was going to do on 2/18/07 - or whatever date his ban at DBS was to be lifted - he was going to reveal the "truth!!!!!" for all to see. Basically his choice of date and reason for his action were all about DBS and DBS was going to be his first stop.
Using a metaphor: Your having a fun party at your house and this obnoxious guy you know who lacks any self contol calls up and says "I am out-of-my-mind drunk and I am going to come over to your place and shit on your guests. THEN we'll have a real party!!!!!"" Are you going to let him in or are you going to block the door?
As for the lawyer thing. If someone threatens with a lawsuit and they have an actionable cause - I think you are required to take action or risk liability. If we were a radio station and someone we knew to be unstable threatened to come over for an interview and the make the "raped a 16 year old girl" accusation. If we let the guy on the air with this advance warning - yes, indeed, we would be liable.
A Voice
JackTheReaper
03-15-2007, 08:09 PM
Funny this from a man who continuously insults, lies, and distorts. I guess that because you are a liberal you are exempt from those traits, right Jack?
Weak. Can't mount a strong enough defense from the Truth, Tayken? I stand by my earlier comments to you. Don't take things so personal, I was only trying to help you see the errors of your pitious ways.
User Name
03-15-2007, 08:16 PM
Gee, I think you'd at least attempt to be smarter and try to post from a different locales. Josey Wales, Krypto and VoyC8ter are all posting from the exact same IP address.
VoyC8ter - will join Krypto in permanently banned
Josey Wales - gets another week off.
A VoiceSo if my room mate wants to join and I get banned she's shit out of luck?
Tayken
03-15-2007, 08:54 PM
Weak. Can't mount a strong enough defense from the Truth, Tayken? I stand by my earlier comments to you. Don't take things so personal, I was only trying to help you see the errors of your pitious ways.
Nice of you to call me out kettle.
BTW. I think you better pull out your dictionary. There is no such word as "pitious".
maria
03-16-2007, 08:31 AM
Dingo, what I think is cute is this crappola about lawsuits.
If you can cite one...JUST ONE...case where a suit has been brought into court for comments made on an internet discussion board, I'll rethink my position...
Are you as open to "rethinking" the position?
"Mike thinks...blah, blah, blah..." Absolutely false...maybe I can find a lawyer to sue the board over drivel like that. :)
The post that you called me "weird" over -- you probably know this -- is only to illustrate the unsupportable nature of this crap.
It's over the top, for a moderator HERE to try to use what happens on another board as a basis for banning a person here. You know it. It's hard to be serious about stuff like that. Moderators appointed for one board don't automatically become "universal" moderators.
Stephen J. Barrett, et al. v. Ilena Rosenthal
*
This decision, if followed, could have important ramifications for internet service providers and others who regularly repost publications authored by third parties without reviewing their content. Under the court's ruling, service providers can be liable for defamation as a result of their republication of such statements if they know or have reason to know of the falsity of those statements. According to the court "distributor liability would [generally] not require a service provider to review communications in advance of posting them but only to act reasonably after being put on notice that the communication is defamatory." As a result, once the service provider receives notice (from the allegedly defamed individual) of falsity, it must either undertake adequate steps to ascertain the veracity of the statement, remove it, or face potential liability. This creates tremendous uncertainty as the court did not specify what such adequate steps would be. Indeed, as noted above, in the case at bar, where plaintiff alleged he was defamed by a statement that he had engaged in criminal conduct, the court held that contacting the victim was not sufficient as a matter of law to warrant dismissal of plaintiff's suit because of the victim's purported bias against plaintiff Polevoy. Subsequent developments in this case should be watched closely by those interested in this field.
http://www.phillipsnizer.com/library/cases/lib_case331.cfm
Aquino v. Electriciti Inc.
*
(Communications Decency Act preempts state law claims against ISP for negligence, breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, alter ego liability, injunctive relief and violation of civil rights arising from IPS's distribution of material written by another that contained derogatory comments about plaintiffs, including that they were the "ring leaders" of an "international conspiracy" to further "Satanic Ritual Abuse" of children.)
http://www.phillipsnizer.com/library/cases/lib_case67.cfm
Patrick Cahill and Julia Cahill v. John Doe No. 1, also known as "Proud Citizen," et al.
Court holds that ISP can be compelled in response to Subpoena Duces Tecum to release information that will identify an anonymous speaker accused of making defamatory statements in a blog about plaintiffs provided plaintiffs can show: (i) they have a "good faith basis" to bring their defamation claim; (ii) the information sought is directly and materially related thereto; and (iii) the information sought cannot be obtained from another source. Finding plaintiffs had met this burden, the Court directed Comcast to disclose the requested information concerning defendant's identity. In reaching this result, the Court declined to follow Dendrite Intl. v. Doe, 775 A.2d 756 (N.J. Sup. Ct. App. Div. 2000), which held the party seeking relief to a higher standard, requiring him to demonstrate a prima facie case as a prerequisite to obtaining such disclosure.
http://www.phillipsnizer.com/library/cases/lib_case395.cfm
Cannon v. Mathis
Reversing the court below, a divided Georgia Supreme Court holds that plaintiff, the President of a waste hauling company, is a limited purpose public figure who accordingly must prove that defendant proceeded with “actual malice” to prevail on libel claims arising out of defendant’s allegedly defamatory postings on an Internet bulletin board. The court further holds that plaintiff is barred by Georgia statute from pursuing punitive damage claims as a result such postings. According to the court, Georgia statute 51-5-11 requires any plaintiff libeled by a communication to first demand a retraction of the libelous statement before being permitted to proceed with a claim for punitive damages. As plaintiff did not make such a demand, he could not pursue his punitive damage claim. In a spirited dissent, three judges disagreed with each of these holdings.
http://www.phillipsnizer.com/library/cases/lib_case308.cfm
Dingo
03-16-2007, 09:59 AM
Wow Maria, thanks for the research. There is some legal education there for all of us.
No doubt Mike will do one more of his "ring around the rosie" routines and pretend this could not be relevant to any DBS bannings.:rolleyes:
Tayken
03-16-2007, 09:59 AM
Stephen J. Barrett, et al. v. Ilena Rosenthal
http://www.phillipsnizer.com/library/cases/lib_case331.cfm
http://www.phillipsnizer.com/library/cases/lib_case67.cfm
http://www.phillipsnizer.com/library/cases/lib_case395.cfm
http://www.phillipsnizer.com/library/cases/lib_case308.cfm
You have to prove that someone had premeditated malice and that the other party was publicly injured. Since virtually all posters on a board are anonymous, this is next to impossible to do in a court of law.
A Voice
03-16-2007, 12:22 PM
So if my room mate wants to join and I get banned she's shit out of luck?
Not at all. If a roomate or someone else wants to post from your computer they may. Just contact the Moderators to let them know that this is the situation.
A Voice
A Voice
03-16-2007, 12:26 PM
Stephen J. Barrett, et al. v. Ilena Rosenthal
http://www.phillipsnizer.com/library/cases/lib_case331.cfm
http://www.phillipsnizer.com/library/cases/lib_case67.cfm
http://www.phillipsnizer.com/library/cases/lib_case395.cfm
http://www.phillipsnizer.com/library/cases/lib_case308.cfm
Maria, you rock like the rock of ages!
A Voice
03-16-2007, 12:29 PM
You have to prove that someone had premeditated malice and that the other party was publicly injured. Since virtually all posters on a board are anonymous, this is next to impossible to do in a court of law.
You own your own business right? Would you let a legal issue like this come close to your business knowing what laywers cost?
There was plenty of evidence from the party in question. You've been over at HC so I am pretty sure you saw it.
A Voice
03-16-2007, 12:30 PM
And yet when you had proof that a poster here PMed another poster with SS#, name, address, phone#, etc., of yet another poster -
The one who did it was still welcome here.
How odd.
Quite the broken record. Asked and answered so many times.
Editted to ad. To be clear. That whole fandango happened before my time. I cannot shed any light on it.
You own your own business right? Would you let a legal issue like this come close to your business knowing what laywers cost?
There was plenty of evidence from the party in question. You've been over at HC so I am pretty sure you saw it. That's just more of the same bullcrap to justify the unjustifiable.
Provide ONE -- just ONE instance where an internet chat board has been sued because a poster did something to antagonize another poster...
JUST ONE.
PLEASE.
There are virtually tens of thousands of internet chat rooms and boards...
Tell us about JUST ONE that had to fork over lawyer fees...
JUST ONE...
The reason you can't is because it doesn't occur. Its a figment of your imagination to support an action that is clearly unsupportable...
Before you get all tangled up in your own shoelaces over Maria's post above, be sure to read the last quoted material in her post (#80)...I think she forgot to read it herself...
A couple???
What part of “If you won't believe (or ask) her...ask Lib. He's an honest broker here.” did I miss? I only know of 3 Mod’s here; you being one of them. But then I don't pay much attention to that.
So who is this "Couple"?Clearly "non" capish...
You evidently didn't read the post very carefully...I'm talking about disengenous shithooks that have tried to imply that I signed on to the currently enacted rules, because my name is still on the thread.
That, kuni, includes YOU. I'm not talking about moderators.
You've gone out of your way to bend facts, here.
1. I didn't agree to the current rules.
2. My name is on the thread because the current "management" has edited the thread rather than replacing it. Only a moderator can do that. Wouldn't you be bellyaching loudly if I deleted the thread?
Yep...past history proves you'd do exactly that
So I leave it...then...guess what...you yak that they're MY rules...
Kuni, if you were an honest man, we wouldn't be having this discussion. We're having it. Ergo, you're not honest.
A Voice
03-17-2007, 02:04 AM
Clearly "non" capish...
You evidently didn't read the post very carefully...I'm talking about disengenous shithooks that have tried to imply that I signed on to the currently enacted rules, because my name is still on the thread.
That, kuni, includes YOU. I'm not talking about moderators.
You've gone out of your way to bend facts, here.
1. I didn't agree to the current rules.
2. My name is on the thread because the current "management" has edited the thread rather than replacing it. Only a moderator can do that. Wouldn't you be bellyaching loudly if I deleted the thread?
Yep...past history proves you'd do exactly that
So I leave it...then...guess what...you yak that they're MY rules...
Kuni, if you were an honest man, we wouldn't be having this discussion. We're having it. Ergo, you're not honest.
The word is capisce!
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/capisce
I said this about you months ago and it still is true - talking to you is utterly pointless. You can neither read nor reason. You and WMM deserve each other.
You should know that WMM wrote a very tender and contrite message to Lib as well . . . right before he stabbed Lib in the back.
Can't wait until that insane little creep turns on you.
Tayken
03-17-2007, 08:02 AM
The word is capisce!
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/capisce
I said this about you months ago and it still is true - talking to you is utterly pointless. You can neither read nor reason. You and WMM deserve each other.
You should know that WMM wrote a very tender and contrite message to Lib as well . . . right before he stabbed Lib in the back.
Can't wait until that insane little creep turns on you.
And Lib deserves you. He is either too big of a pussy or too pussy whipped to admit he fucked up by bringing you aboard.
By the way Kuni has just threatened another indirect poll to put me down. Of course you and he claimed that never happened with the first two. I wonder why he uses the term "another" in his response to me?
Kuni has just threatened another indirect poll to put me down.I did? Where?
maria
03-18-2007, 05:57 PM
That's just more of the same bullcrap to justify the unjustifiable.
Provide ONE -- just ONE instance where an internet chat board has been sued because a poster did something to antagonize another poster...
JUST ONE.
PLEASE.
There are virtually tens of thousands of internet chat rooms and boards...
Tell us about JUST ONE that had to fork over lawyer fees...
JUST ONE...
The reason you can't is because it doesn't occur. Its a figment of your imagination to support an action that is clearly unsupportable...
Before you get all tangled up in your own shoelaces over Maria's post above, be sure to read the last quoted material in her post (#80)...I think she forgot to read it herself...
Apparently, you have a hard time comprehending. All of those people sued- all parties involved had to fork over lawyer fees. A person can win and still have to pay their own legal costs. Happens all the time. There are dozens upon dozens of court cases where people have sued (for the old and slow- that doesn't mean they win every time) over libel on chat boards. If you go back and read the first case, it states that hosts can be held responsible if certain measures are not taken. It is not at all odd that boards ban and remove any kind of defamatory remarks when they could be sued (and they are as I have shown). Why have the headache? It sure is easy to sit back and critique when it isn't your time and money on the line. If you want it, then invest in a board of your own and let people do whatever they wish.
Tayken
03-18-2007, 06:01 PM
Apparently, you have a hard time comprehending. All of those people sued- all parties involved had to fork over lawyer fees. A person can win and still have to pay their own legal costs. Happens all the time. There are dozens upon dozens of court cases where people have sued (for the old and slow- that doesn't mean they win every time) over libel on chat boards. If you go back and read the first case, it states that hosts can be held responsible if certain measures are not taken. It is not at all odd that boards ban and remove any kind of defamatory remarks when they could be sued (and they are as I have shown). Why have the headache? If you want it, then invest in a board of your own.
Apples and oranges maria. In order to win in a court of law you have to prove harm to someone. Most posters on most boards are anonymous.
maria
03-18-2007, 06:16 PM
Apples and oranges maria. In order to win in a court of law you have to prove harm to someone. Most posters on most boards are anonymous.
Not all posters are. You have no idea if they are or not. If a person is threatening to reveal people's names and addresses and listing false charges against them, and the hosting company is aware of this, they have every right to ban him/her, in fact, they could be held accountable if they knew beforehand (threats) and refused to act if the said poster posted this info. A person could be harmed emotionally from said revelations and be in a state of fear.
Besides, it doesn't matter whether a person "wins" or not, legal fees will be paid, and not always by the loser (that is more time and money building a case to counter-sue-with no guarantee of winning- on top of defending yourself against the claim). And then, there could be appeals, nonpayment etc., so you may never see the money. A board has a right to protect themselves against that stuff.
Tayken
03-18-2007, 06:22 PM
Not all posters are. You have no idea if they are or not. If a person is threatening to reveal people's names and addresses and listing false charges against them, and the hosting company is aware of this, they have every right to ban him/her, in fact, they could be held accountable if they knew beforehand (threats) and refused to act if the said poster posted this info. A person could be harmed emotionally from said revelations and be in a state of fear.
Besides, it doesn't matter whether a person "wins" or not, legal fees will be paid, and not always by the loser (that is more time and money building a case to counter-sue-with no guarantee of winning- on top of defending yourself against the claim). And then, there could be appeals, nonpayment etc., so you may never see the money. A board has a right to protect themselves against that stuff.
Maria, I will state again. Unless you can show evidence that actual physical harm or someone who is known is proven to be slandered, you have no case. Do you understand that? If I call you a drunken slut who has slept with children, you'd have no case, because no one knows who you are. You have to show that actual true harm took place. You are citing cases where that is the case. You are mistakenly citing those cases as if they are universal to all situations, and they aren't.
maria
03-18-2007, 06:30 PM
Maria, I will state again. Unless you can show evidence that actual physical harm or someone who is known is proven to be slandered, you have no case. Do you understand that? If I call you a drunken slut who has slept with children, you'd have no case, because no one knows who you are. You have to show that actual true harm took place. You are citing cases where that is the case. You are mistakenly citing those cases as if they are universal to all situations, and they aren't.
LOL actual physical harm? BULLSHIT! You can suffer on a number of levels: physical, financial, psychological, etc. And it wouldn't be slander, it would be libel.
There has to be malice on the poster's part- like your example, I know that you are making a point, you are not being malicious.
BTW, I am not anonymous on this board. Neither was FBWCs.
Apparently, you have a hard time comprehending. All of those people sued- all parties involved had to fork over lawyer fees. A person can win and still have to pay their own legal costs. Happens all the time. There are dozens upon dozens of court cases where people have sued (for the old and slow- that doesn't mean they win every time) over libel on chat boards. If you go back and read the first case, it states that hosts can be held responsible if certain measures are not taken. It is not at all odd that boards ban and remove any kind of defamatory remarks when they could be sued (and they are as I have shown). Why have the headache? It sure is easy to sit back and critique when it isn't your time and money on the line. If you want it, then invest in a board of your own and let people do whatever they wish. I don't have a hard time "comprehending" at all.
Cite a case...post a link to someone getting sued and having to pay attorney fees for posting to an internet chat board. You haven't shown that at all...you've inferred it. Show where the owner of a board (and there are tens of thousands to choose from) has had to fork out because some abuse occurred.
That's easy enough, isn't it? You're certainly not "all words" are you?
They "can" be held liable...were they? Step right up to the plate.
A Voice
03-18-2007, 07:46 PM
http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/isp.html
Executive summary:
Executive Summary: This section discusses potential sources of liability for Internet service providers. Internet service providers (or "ISPs") provide Internet access service to customers in exchange for a fee. ISPs also store data for their customers' use, such as on a Usenet newsgroup server or a world wide web server. In general, as the following discussion reveals, ISP liability can be summed up in three words: "ignorance is bliss." ISP liability for the activities of its customers is generally based on a knowledge of the customer's activity. If the ISP is unaware of the behavior of its customer, most courts seem reluctant to hold the ISP liable for that behavior. However, once the ISP becomes aware of the customer's activity, or should have become aware of the activity with reasonable diligence, courts are much more likely to hold the ISP liable for its customer's actions. In addition to ISP liability, most of the following discussion is equally applicable to service providers who do not connect directly to the Internet, such as bulletin board operators and proprietary information providers.
http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/isp.html#defamation
Several years ago, the hottest legal issue relating to the Internet was defamation (a broad term encompassing slander and libel). This came as a result of two legal cases involving Prodigy and CompuServe.
In the Prodigy case, Prodigy was sued for defamation based upon the statements made by one of its customers in a Prodigy discussion group (or bulletin board). In determining whether Prodigy was liable for the defaming statements of its customer in this case, a New York state judge was left to determine whether Prodigy was a "distributor" of information, such as a bookstore or library, or whether Prodigy was a "publisher" of information, such as a newspaper. As a mere distributor, Prodigy would not be liable for the statement. In contrast, if Prodigy was considered a publisher (with greater control over the information's content), Prodigy would be liable. In a decision that shocked most on-line service providers, the judge held that, as a result of Prodigy's well-publicized policies of monitoring and censoring its forums, Prodigy was a publisher and was potentially liable for the defaming statement. Although the case was settled by the parties and Prodigy moved for a withdrawal of the judge's decision, the judge refused.
In the CompuServe case, a similar factual situation was encountered by a federal court. In this case, however, the court found that CompuServe acted merely as a distributor of information in its discussion groups, and therefore was not liable. It is important to note that CompuServe avoided liability because it did not know about the defaming statement, nor did it have any reason to know about the statement. If a distributor knows about a defaming statement and continues to distribute the information, liability is not so easily avoided.
In analyzing these cases, most commentators noted the irony that Prodigy was more likely to be liable for defamation because of the additional steps it took to control the content of its discussion groups. CompuServe did not attempt to monitor and control its discussion groups to the extent done by Prodigy, which made it easier for the CompuServe judge to find that CompuServe was merely a distributor of information. This lead many attorneys to advise their clients to avoid censoring such discussion groups, for fear of defamation liability. Such a hands-off approach can only increase the likelihood that defamatory statements will be made in the future.
Since the Moderators were aware of the threat of statement DBS (which granted control to the Moderator's) could be held liable.
maria
03-18-2007, 08:47 PM
I don't have a hard time "comprehending" at all.
Cite a case...post a link to someone getting sued and having to pay attorney fees for posting to an internet chat board. You haven't shown that at all...you've inferred it. Show where the owner of a board (and there are tens of thousands to choose from) has had to fork out because some abuse occurred.
That's easy enough, isn't it? You're certainly not "all words" are you?
They "can" be held liable...were they? Step right up to the plate.
I did. It is the first case. The hosting company was sued. What- you think the lawyers were free while they went through the case? Think again, lawyers cost money, no matter the outcome. BTW- I noticed you moved the goalpost from "being sued" to "being held liable." Glad to see you found one of your errors.
If I call you a drunken slut who has slept with children, you'd have no case, because no one knows who you are. You have to show that actual true harm took place.Umm; if you DIDN’T say that, ‘actual true harm would take place.’
Many would suffer heart attacks from shock reading a Thread that you are participating in, where you actually DIDN’T say something along those lines; about a poster, Americans in general, those who do not engage in cowardice, those who do not whine, those who do not bitch, those who don’t engages in serial name calling, the Constitution, a Mod, our Freedoms that you hate, etc. etc.
P.S. Before you pretend to blow a head gasket; I suggest you read the following: Most have the common sense to see when I'm having fun with something.
Tayken
03-19-2007, 10:12 AM
LOL actual physical harm? BULLSHIT! You can suffer on a number of levels: physical, financial, psychological, etc. And it wouldn't be slander, it would be libel.
There has to be malice on the poster's part- like your example, I know that you are making a point, you are not being malicious.
BTW, I am not anonymous on this board. Neither was FBWCs.
Once again. You can't read or be honest. I wonder why?
Tayken
03-19-2007, 10:13 AM
I don't have a hard time "comprehending" at all.
Cite a case...post a link to someone getting sued and having to pay attorney fees for posting to an internet chat board. You haven't shown that at all...you've inferred it. Show where the owner of a board (and there are tens of thousands to choose from) has had to fork out because some abuse occurred.
That's easy enough, isn't it? You're certainly not "all words" are you?
They "can" be held liable...were they? Step right up to the plate.
Of course she hasn't and she is now playing her act of being Miss Little Deaf and Dumb.
Tayken
03-19-2007, 10:14 AM
Umm; if you DIDN’T say that, ‘actual true harm would take place.’
Many would suffer heart attacks from shock reading a Thread that you are participating in, where you actually DIDN’T say something along those lines; about a poster, Americans in general, those who do not engage in cowardice, those who do not whine, those who do not bitch, those who don’t engages in serial name calling, the Constitution, a Mod, our Freedoms that you hate, etc. etc.
P.S. Before you pretend to blow a head gasket; I suggest you read the following: Most have the common sense to see when I'm having fun with something.
NOBODY KNOWS WHO MARIA IS. Do you know how hard it is to win a slander suit? Of course you don't or you wouldn't have made such a stupid and ignorant post.
NOBODY KNOWS WHO MARIA IS. Do you know how hard it is to win a slander suit? Of course you don't or you wouldn't have made such a stupid and ignorant post.And my post indicates I care how hard it is to win a slander suit: I guess you missed the part I posted about “Most have the common sense to see when I'm having fun with something.”
A Voice
03-19-2007, 02:47 PM
Of course she hasn't and she is now playing her act of being Miss Little Deaf and Dumb.
But I did:
http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/isp.html
Executive summary:
Executive Summary: This section discusses potential sources of liability for Internet service providers. Internet service providers (or "ISPs") provide Internet access service to customers in exchange for a fee. ISPs also store data for their customers' use, such as on a Usenet newsgroup server or a world wide web server. In general, as the following discussion reveals, ISP liability can be summed up in three words: "ignorance is bliss." ISP liability for the activities of its customers is generally based on a knowledge of the customer's activity. If the ISP is unaware of the behavior of its customer, most courts seem reluctant to hold the ISP liable for that behavior. However, once the ISP becomes aware of the customer's activity, or should have become aware of the activity with reasonable diligence, courts are much more likely to hold the ISP liable for its customer's actions. In addition to ISP liability, most of the following discussion is equally applicable to service providers who do not connect directly to the Internet, such as bulletin board operators and proprietary information providers.
http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/isp.html#defamation
Several years ago, the hottest legal issue relating to the Internet was defamation (a broad term encompassing slander and libel). This came as a result of two legal cases involving Prodigy and CompuServe.
In the Prodigy case, Prodigy was sued for defamation based upon the statements made by one of its customers in a Prodigy discussion group (or bulletin board). In determining whether Prodigy was liable for the defaming statements of its customer in this case, a New York state judge was left to determine whether Prodigy was a "distributor" of information, such as a bookstore or library, or whether Prodigy was a "publisher" of information, such as a newspaper. As a mere distributor, Prodigy would not be liable for the statement. In contrast, if Prodigy was considered a publisher (with greater control over the information's content), Prodigy would be liable. In a decision that shocked most on-line service providers, the judge held that, as a result of Prodigy's well-publicized policies of monitoring and censoring its forums, Prodigy was a publisher and was potentially liable for the defaming statement. Although the case was settled by the parties and Prodigy moved for a withdrawal of the judge's decision, the judge refused.
In the CompuServe case, a similar factual situation was encountered by a federal court. In this case, however, the court found that CompuServe acted merely as a distributor of information in its discussion groups, and therefore was not liable. It is important to note that CompuServe avoided liability because it did not know about the defaming statement, nor did it have any reason to know about the statement. If a distributor knows about a defaming statement and continues to distribute the information, liability is not so easily avoided.
In analyzing these cases, most commentators noted the irony that Prodigy was more likely to be liable for defamation because of the additional steps it took to control the content of its discussion groups. CompuServe did not attempt to monitor and control its discussion groups to the extent done by Prodigy, which made it easier for the CompuServe judge to find that CompuServe was merely a distributor of information. This lead many attorneys to advise their clients to avoid censoring such discussion groups, for fear of defamation liability. Such a hands-off approach can only increase the likelihood that defamatory statements will be made in the future.
Since the Moderators were aware of the threat of statement DBS (which granted control to the Moderator's) could be held liable.
Tayken
03-19-2007, 07:40 PM
But I did:
http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/isp.html
http://www.bitlaw.com/internet/isp.html#defamation
Since the Moderators were aware of the threat of statement DBS (which granted control to the Moderator's) could be held liable.
I still think this is apples and oranges. I have a feeling much more information was released than what happens on DBS.
A Voice
03-19-2007, 08:18 PM
I still think this is apples and oranges. I have a feeling much more information was released than what happens on DBS.
You have a feeling? How nice for you. Do get back to us when you have proof.
Tayken
03-19-2007, 10:12 PM
You have a feeling? How nice for you. Do get back to us when you have proof.
I have a feeling because I've had first hand knowledge of what it needs to get a conviction in a slander case. Stop acting like you know it all when you don't know crap.
Tayken says: Stop acting like you know it all when you don't know crap.
I wish that you would not be so over reaching in your hostility towards #5. I have it on good authority that she does know crap.
A Voice
03-20-2007, 09:06 PM
Tayken says:
I wish that you would not be so over reaching in your hostility towards #5. I have it on good authority that she does know crap.
:D
I do indeed know crap - I've dated quite a few varieties.
dewey189
03-21-2007, 05:06 AM
:D I do indeed know crap - I've dated quite a few varieties.First laugh of the day. Thanks!
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.