An AOL Profile: Comments?
James L. King III
Outfoxing The Foxes <outfox...@juno.com> wrote:
> See you in court, Ross....
>
> Member Name: Just call me Sir. 190lbs 6' with very dark brown
> eyes...and no hair.
> Location: San Diego CA
> Birthdate: 21 years old
> Sex: Male
> Marital Status: Single
> Hobbies: I love to explore the darker side of desire and passion...and
> to
> share those experiences with others.
> Occupation: Office Minion
> Personal Quote: If it only hurts the first time, why do it twice?
> Someday your desire to be fulfilled will overwhelm your fear of being
> discovered. Tell me your secret fantasies and we can play.
>
>
Um, I don't get it. Is this Ray's profile? (If so, he's lying, 'cause
he's in his 30's and in Philadelphia.) Is this Ross' profile? (If so,
he's lying, 'cause he's in his 40's.) Is this Ray's girlfriend's
profile? (If so, Ray's lying, 'cause he said she was 18.)
In any case, is lying on an AOL profile illegal? While it's unethical,
I've not heard of it being illegal. If it is illegal, then perhaps most
of AOL's membership will be using their service from jail.
The alleged picture of Ray was given by someone with whom Ray had
contact on AOL, according to my knowledge. Ray has yet to post a
picture refuting the argument that the picture is his, in spite of
repeated requests to do so. The fact that Ray has chosen a legal route
to solve this brings up the very real possiblity that this will be
considered a frivolous lawsuit, since Ray has specific, available, and
desirable remedies outside of court to resolve the conflict.
If someone posted a picture of me that wasn't correct, I'd simply post
a correct picture of me (or two or three). That would end all arguments
and debates.
But then again, it took nearly five months to get him to reveal his
Library of Congress registration number for his book. (The book still
isn't showing up in the Library of Congress' very own database, which
should be a cause of concern to Ray. He says there's a better search
engine I should be using, but he won't reveal what it is. I personally
think he's bluffing about the search engine: I don't know of any other
resource to find personally copyrighted materials without ISBN numbers.
In fact, why would anyone else compile such a database? And since
they'd have to get their info *from* the Library of Congress, how could
it be more accurate than the Library's own computer database?)
James King
James L. King III
Outfoxing The Foxes <outfox...@juno.com> wrote:
> Some Guy Writes:
>
>
>
> Um, I don't get it. Is this Ray's profile? (If so, he's lying, 'cause
> he's in his 30's and in Philadelphia.) Is this Ross' profile? (If so,
> he's lying, 'cause he's in his 40's.) Is this Ray's girlfriend's
> profile? (If so, Ray's lying, 'cause he said she was 18.)
> In any case, is lying on an AOL profile illegal? While it's unethical,
> I've not heard of it being illegal. If it is illegal, then perhaps most
> of AOL's membership will be using their service from jail.
>
> <-----Lying? That's ODIOUS'S profile.
Oh, ok. I was just wondering why you were telling Ross you'd see him in
court. I had no idea whose profile that was ... since you had mentioned
Ross, I figured it was Ross' profile or yours, or perhaps that of your
girlfriend. Thank you for the clarification.
> He's into major s/m crap, and he
> was hitting on my lady friend ridiculously, BEGGING her to meet him on
> the beach in San Diego. She was kind enough to give me his screen name
> and about a month of talking to him under various screen names. That's
> one SICK dude there...but that will be coming out in court too. Odious
> ain't much of a looker, although he has that skinhead look which women
> find appealing. Combined with the sadistic torturer personality, I can
> see where he'd attract a number of women. Odi knows I have the SN, and
> if you check the member directory on AOL it shouldn't be too difficult to
> find. As for the lady, she has a new guy who wouldn't take too kindly to
> anyone bothering her, so I don't worry much. As for Odious's cybersex
> skills, let's just say I've seen better.
>
And what does this have to do with a lawsuit against Ross?
>
>
> The alleged picture of Ray was given by someone with whom Ray had
> contact on AOL, according to my knowledge. Ray has yet to post a
> picture refuting the argument that the picture is his, in spite of
> repeated requests to do so. The fact that Ray has chosen a legal route
> to solve this brings up the very real possiblity that this will be
> considered a frivolous lawsuit, since Ray has specific, available, and
> desirable remedies outside of court to resolve the conflict.
>
> <---------Frivilous? Are you KIDDING? That picture was spread to
> ADVERTISE Ross's products.
I sure hope you have a good attorney. That's a long stretch to prove,
and would be quite easy to disprove.
> You're getting into business fraud
Kind of like advocating dishonest methods for seduction in a seduction
manual while criticizing people for being dishonest.
> as well as
> personal slander.
Libel, not slander. Chat rooms and IM's are slander, emails and Usenet
is libel. But I thought Usenet wasn't admissible in a court of law.
Certainly you thought so in the past. Care to see your quote?
> What other "resolution" would there be? He BROKE THE
> LAW. I warned him I had a lawyer, and I'm still assembling an even
> STRONGER legal team to wipe out these maggots who think they can do
> whatever they want on the net.
Maggots who think they can do whatever they want on the net ... hmmm ..
sounds familiar, Ray. Strangely familiar.
> Not that I have to explain this to
> anyone.....Odious even went so far as to say that he got the picture from
> a woman I'd been talking to, which is a clear lie.
And if so, the truth will come out. Actually, the truth will come out
either way.
> He said the picture
> was 15 years old. Anyone here know Diane Lane? The actress, that is.
Um, no. Sorry.
> She can verify what I looked like in high school and it ain't that (we
> went to school together and she dated my cousin). You are so DELUSIONAL
> and you refuse to believe that I'm not what people were saying about me
> that you can't comprehend what's about to happen to Ross, Odious, and the
> rest of the crew.
Speaking of delusional, how does Madonna feel now that you're seeing
someone else?
> This is going to be a WHITEWASH. I won't even bother
> trying to settle matters, because I know Ross will put up his false
> bravado until a court tells him otherwise. Watching Odi beg my lady
> friend was amusing, though. Especially since HE'S the expert and I'm
> supposedly the loser.
>
>
> If someone posted a picture of me that wasn't correct, I'd simply post
> a correct picture of me (or two or three). That would end all arguments
> and debates.
>
> <--------That's you. I have the right to sue.
But you don't have the right to clog up the court system with a
frivolous lawsuit. Whether it's frivolous or not is for the courts to
decide, but to use the court system when there were definite steps you
could take outside a court of law that would have settled the matter
conclusively and definitively is using the courts irresponsibly.
> So please, SHUT THE FUCK
> UP ASSHOLE. How about Ross do the RIGHT thing and settle this like a
> MAN....it's HIS problem. I recall being very kind in asking Odious to
> stop, and he didn't. Again, this is NOT my problem. I can settle this
> myself by force of law.
Correction: you can settle this with a group of attorneys by force of
law (unless you're going to represent yourself).
> Oh, and as for why I didn't post my picture, had
> I done so the next thing would have been that people fooled me into
> posting my pic and now they know what I look like, etc. Excuse me for
> not wanting my image strewn all over the internet just yet. You'll see
> me soon enough in the media.
>
"Fool" you into posting your pic? That's absurd. You yourself said you
were a sub-elite who could become an elite if you took the effort to do
so. Your pic would allow us to see what you believe a sub-elite (and
through a little imagination, an elite) would look like. Your
descriptions of your partners and the photos of people you've posted on
your website as being "hot" (and presumably elite) didn't impress me
that much. Your photo would reveal a lot of information about yourself
with regards to CUPID.
>
>
> But then again, it took nearly five months to get him to reveal his
> Library of Congress registration number for his book. (The book still
> isn't showing up in the Library of Congress' very own database, which
> should be a cause of concern to Ray.
>
> <----Um, get a life?
I have one, thank you very much. It's quite rewarding, too.
> The LOC didn't send the # back until a week or two
> before I posted it. You're blaming ME for this? What does this have to
> do with seduction, btw?
>
>
> He says there's a better search engine I should be using, but he won't
> reveal what it is.
>
> <----I don't know. All I know is that a number of literary marketers
> knew I had registered a book before you did. Ask them.
>
I'd love to. Please send me their names and contact numbers. Perhaps
they will tell me how they received your information. Then I can use
their resources in my research.
>
> I personally think he's bluffing about the search engine: I don't know of
> any other
> resource to find personally copyrighted materials without ISBN numbers.
> In fact, why would anyone else compile such a database? And since
> they'd have to get their info *from* the Library of Congress, how could
> it be more accurate than the Library's own computer database?)
>
> <-------I have a form that says I own the copyright, and it has a number.
And since the government doesn't have a record of it, one possibility
is that you forged the forms. I'm not accusing you of doing so, but
it's one possibility to explain the form. Just because you have a form
with a number that can't be verified means very little.
> If I sue anyone with it (see my attorney's name posted), I think it'll
> hold up in court.
Perhaps. But since the registration can't be verified, it would be much
tougher to collect any punitive damages, and you're the one who has to
prove that you lost "x" amount of money as a result of any
infringement.
> Just how FUCKED do all of you have to be before you
> admit you were wrong? The longer you wait, the more it will cost you.
>
> Be careful who you call a loser or weak. You never know when you might
> be wrong.
That's true. Those who are weakest are the strongest amongst us. We are
hardest when dead, and softest when alive. Which is stronger, the tree
that gets uprooted in a tornado, or the blade of grass that sways to
and fro in the midst of the storm? The wind, without form or body, is
stronger than the tree; yet the lowly blade of grass is stronger than
the wind.
Yes, it is likely that what we call weak is really the strongest
amongst us.
James King
Odious
>
> In article <19990602.051049.-247...@juno.com>,
> >
> > Member Name: Just call me Sir. 190lbs 6' with very dark brown
> > eyes...and no hair.
> > Location: San Diego CA
> > Birthdate: 21 years old
> > Sex: Male
> > Marital Status: Single
> > Hobbies: I love to explore the darker side of desire and passion...and
> > to
> > share those experiences with others.
> > Occupation: Office Minion
> > Personal Quote: If it only hurts the first time, why do it twice?
> > Someday your desire to be fulfilled will overwhelm your fear of being
> > discovered. Tell me your secret fantasies and we can play.
> >
> >
>
> he's in his 30's and in Philadelphia.) Is this Ross' profile? (If so,
> he's lying, 'cause he's in his 40's.) Is this Ray's girlfriend's
> profile? (If so, Ray's lying, 'cause he said she was 18.)
>
Nope, it is one of mine.
--
Check out The Spiffy Page:
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Capsule/2160