Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: ALBATROSS YOU ARE A MARKED SOB
10 views
Skip to first unread message
Nadegda
Mar 21, 2013, 11:47:08 PM3/21/13
to
On Thu, 21 Mar 2013 23:44:21 -0400, "Stacie" wrote:
> Path: eternal-september.org!mx05.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-
> september.org!news.glorb.com!blackhelicopter.databasix.com!not-for-mail
>
> On 2013-03-19 21:50:49 +0000, Emmett BADASS Gulley said:
>
>> Third, I am due to meet her mother in about 3 weeks or so.
>
> No you are not meeting my mother you criminal. I've finally found the
> truth about you. How stupid could I have been?
Oh, look, more morphing, impersonation, harassment, and net abuse from
Databasux. Surprise, surprise.
<snicker>
> Path: eternal-september.org!mx05.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-
> september.org!news.glorb.com!blackhelicopter.databasix.com!not-for-mail
>
> On 2013-03-19 21:50:49 +0000, Emmett BADASS Gulley said:
>
>> Third, I am due to meet her mother in about 3 weeks or so.
>
> No you are not meeting my mother you criminal. I've finally found the
> truth about you. How stupid could I have been?
Oh, look, more morphing, impersonation, harassment, and net abuse from
Databasux. Surprise, surprise.
<snicker>
Irkin Invader Zim
Mar 24, 2013, 2:58:45 PM3/24/13
to
On Mar 21, 11:47 pm, Nadegda <nad318b...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
> Oh, look, more morphing, impersonation, harassment, and net abuse
Yea, Emmett is a real dillhole that way.
> Oh, look, more morphing, impersonation, harassment, and net abuse
kensi
Mar 25, 2013, 2:30:02 PM3/25/13
to
On 24/03/2013 2:58 PM, Irkin Invader Zim wrote:
> On Mar 21, 11:47 pm, Nadegda <nad318b...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
I have restored the context that causes you such extreme fear.
> On Mar 21, 11:47 pm, Nadegda <nad318b...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>> Oh, look, more morphing, impersonation, harassment, and net abuse from
>> Databasux. Surprise, surprise.
>>
>> <snicker>
>
> Yea, Emmett is a real dillhole that way.
I very much doubt Emmett forged that post, ko0ky. For one thing,
Emmett's not smart enough to forge posts.
--
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"A clue, a clue. My kingdom for a clue!!!!" ~Gweggles,
in an uncommon moment of self-awareness.
Sir Gregory Hall, Esq�
Mar 25, 2013, 3:07:34 PM3/25/13
to
"kensi" <kkensi...@gmail.invalid> wrote in
message news:kiq539$iih$5...@speranza.aioe.org...
--
Sir Gregory
message news:kiq539$iih$5...@speranza.aioe.org...
> On 24/03/2013 2:58 PM, Irkin Invader Zim wrote:
>> On Mar 21, 11:47 pm, Nadegda <nad318b...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>
> I have restored the context that causes you such extreme fear.
>
>>> Oh, look, more morphing, impersonation, harassment, and net abuse from
>>> Databasux. Surprise, surprise.
>>>
>>> <snicker>
>>
>> Yea, Emmett is a real dillhole that way.
>
> I very much doubt Emmett forged that post, ko0ky. For one thing, Emmett's
> not smart enough to forge posts.
Careful, Kensi! Rhonda will accuse you of libel per se. LOL!!!!!
>> On Mar 21, 11:47 pm, Nadegda <nad318b...@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>
> I have restored the context that causes you such extreme fear.
>
>>> Oh, look, more morphing, impersonation, harassment, and net abuse from
>>> Databasux. Surprise, surprise.
>>>
>>> <snicker>
>>
>> Yea, Emmett is a real dillhole that way.
>
> I very much doubt Emmett forged that post, ko0ky. For one thing, Emmett's
> not smart enough to forge posts.
--
Sir Gregory
Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries
Mar 25, 2013, 3:41:36 PM3/25/13
to
In article <6emsqo....@news.alt.net>, greghall@home.fï¿œke says...
You really do not understand what libel is, do you.
Sir Gregory Hall, Esq�
Mar 25, 2013, 3:52:15 PM3/25/13
to
"Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries" <rhonda...@earthling.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.2bba727be...@news.individual.net...
> In article <6emsqo....@news.alt.net>, greghall@home.f�ke says...
Better than you, Rhonda, better than you. You think libel is
under your personal purview to assign to somebody. It's
not. You don't have the right nor the power to assume the
role of the courts. You are entitled to your *opinion* as to
what constitutes libel but until such libel is proven in a
court of law ALL you have is your opinion. You look at
the (legal) definition and say to yourself, "Yup, uh huh,
indeed, what he said meets the (legal) definition of libel
so it's libel."
Wrong! The (legal) definition of libel is simply a guideline
which the courts use to ascertain whether or not an
actual libel has taken place. Unless the court rules an
actual libel has taken place then a libel has not taken
place any your opinion that it has been proven incorrect.
--
Sir Gregory
--
Sir Gregory
news:MPG.2bba727be...@news.individual.net...
> In article <6emsqo....@news.alt.net>, greghall@home.f�ke says...
under your personal purview to assign to somebody. It's
not. You don't have the right nor the power to assume the
role of the courts. You are entitled to your *opinion* as to
what constitutes libel but until such libel is proven in a
court of law ALL you have is your opinion. You look at
the (legal) definition and say to yourself, "Yup, uh huh,
indeed, what he said meets the (legal) definition of libel
so it's libel."
Wrong! The (legal) definition of libel is simply a guideline
which the courts use to ascertain whether or not an
actual libel has taken place. Unless the court rules an
actual libel has taken place then a libel has not taken
place any your opinion that it has been proven incorrect.
--
Sir Gregory
--
Sir Gregory
Irkin Invader Zim
Mar 25, 2013, 5:10:14 PM3/25/13
to
On Mar 25, 3:52 pm, " Sir Gregory Hall, Esq " <gregh...@home.f ke>
wrote:
> "Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries" <rhondaleak...@earthling.net> wrote in messagenews:MPG.2bba727be...@news.individual.net...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <6emsqo.csf.1...@news.alt.net>, gregh...@home.f ke says...
> >> "kensi" <kkensingto...@gmail.invalid> wrote in
> >> messagenews:kiq539$iih$5...@speranza.aioe.org...
Greg,
You're a racist, ignorant, semi-literate, misogynistic, misanthropic,
paranoid, blowhard creep who has sex with fish and you scare the
seagulls with your bloated, hairy, gaseous sewage-filled body. You
crap into a bucket, you wear dead fish for shoes and you smell like
you just crawled out of the catch from an "Alaska Fisherman" episode
on Discovery Channel. You make people question the idea of evolution
over creation simply because it is difficult to believe someone like
yourself could form naturally. You cause children to cry and adults to
smirk and your very presence makes a room uneasy. You look like shit,
you smell like shit and your only friend besides the deceased fish is
Emmett Gulley. You create stupidity wherever you go and one day you
will die alone and smelling like two-day-old Taco Bell.
How was that for libel?
wrote:
> "Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries" <rhondaleak...@earthling.net> wrote in messagenews:MPG.2bba727be...@news.individual.net...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <6emsqo.csf.1...@news.alt.net>, gregh...@home.f ke says...
> >> "kensi" <kkensingto...@gmail.invalid> wrote in
> >> messagenews:kiq539$iih$5...@speranza.aioe.org...
You're a racist, ignorant, semi-literate, misogynistic, misanthropic,
paranoid, blowhard creep who has sex with fish and you scare the
seagulls with your bloated, hairy, gaseous sewage-filled body. You
crap into a bucket, you wear dead fish for shoes and you smell like
you just crawled out of the catch from an "Alaska Fisherman" episode
on Discovery Channel. You make people question the idea of evolution
over creation simply because it is difficult to believe someone like
yourself could form naturally. You cause children to cry and adults to
smirk and your very presence makes a room uneasy. You look like shit,
you smell like shit and your only friend besides the deceased fish is
Emmett Gulley. You create stupidity wherever you go and one day you
will die alone and smelling like two-day-old Taco Bell.
How was that for libel?
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Irkin Invader Zim
Mar 25, 2013, 6:53:30 PM3/25/13
to
On Mar 25, 6:46 pm, China Blue White <chine.b...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Not very good. Libel must be false.
>
> It has to be more than that. It has to include intent and malice. Simply
> publishing untruths is protected in the US because the first amendment. Libel
> and slander are much harder to prove in the US than other countries.
>
> --
Okay, how about this then: Greg Hall molests dead fish and will
probably do so again in the future.
> > Not very good. Libel must be false.
>
> It has to be more than that. It has to include intent and malice. Simply
> publishing untruths is protected in the US because the first amendment. Libel
> and slander are much harder to prove in the US than other countries.
>
> --
Okay, how about this then: Greg Hall molests dead fish and will
probably do so again in the future.
Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries
Mar 25, 2013, 10:35:39 PM3/25/13
to
In article <6emvei....@news.alt.net>, greghall@home.fï¿œke says...
You describe a legal system that is not unfamiliar to me. The
definition of a word is not a guideline, Greg. The court does not
redefine libel to suit its necessity. Libel is what it is. It is
possible to lose a libel suit for many reasons--laziness and stupidity
being just two--but one of those reasons is not because the court has
redefined the meaning of libel.
>
> "Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries" <rhonda...@earthling.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.2bba727be...@news.individual.net...
> > In article <6emsqo....@news.alt.net>, greghall@home.fï¿œke says...
> "Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries" <rhonda...@earthling.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.2bba727be...@news.individual.net...
definition of a word is not a guideline, Greg. The court does not
redefine libel to suit its necessity. Libel is what it is. It is
possible to lose a libel suit for many reasons--laziness and stupidity
being just two--but one of those reasons is not because the court has
redefined the meaning of libel.
Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries
Mar 25, 2013, 10:46:50 PM3/25/13
to
In article <3c3cd4f0-0190-4dda-8689-
3bfe65...@k4g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, fitnessf...@yahoo.com
says...
Probably not.
Here's my link again. I hope everyone reads it this time.
https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation
Highlights (although I probably went overboard, and the EFF will now
have to sue me for a copyright violation):
The elements that must be proved to establish defamation are:
1. a publication to one other than the person defamed;
2. a false statement of fact;
3. that is understood as
a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and
b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff.
If the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must also prove actual
malice.
Further:
Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand
the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. (A
verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.) This is
determined in light of the context of the statement. A few courts have
said that statements made in the context of an Internet bulletin board
or chat room are highly likely to be opinions or hyperbole, but they do
look at the remark in context to see if it's likely to be seen as a
true, even if controversial, opinion ("I really hate George Lucas' new
movie") rather than an assertion of fact dressed up as an opinion
("It's my opinion that Trinity is the hacker who broke into the IRS
database").
A statement of verifiable fact is a statement that conveys a provably
false factual assertion, such as someone has committed murder or has
cheated on his spouse.
A private figure claiming defamation?your neighbor, your roommate, the
guy who walks his dog by your favorite coffee shop?only has to prove
you acted negligently, which is to say that a "reasonable person" would
not have published the defamatory statement.
A public figure must show "actual malice"?that you published with
either knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth.
This is a difficult standard for a plaintiff to meet.
When libel is clear on its face, without the need for any explanatory
matter, it is called libel per se. The following are often found to be
libelous per se:
A statement that falsely:
Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted, convicted,
or punished for crime;
Imputes in him the present existence of an infectious, contagious, or
loathsome disease;
Tends directly to injure him in respect to his office, profession,
trade or business, either by imputing to him general disqualification
in those respects that the office or other occupation peculiarly
requires, or by imputing something with reference to his office,
profession, trade, or business that has a natural tendency to lessen
its profits;
Imputes to him impotence or a want of chastity.
3bfe65...@k4g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, fitnessf...@yahoo.com
says...
Here's my link again. I hope everyone reads it this time.
https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation
Highlights (although I probably went overboard, and the EFF will now
have to sue me for a copyright violation):
The elements that must be proved to establish defamation are:
1. a publication to one other than the person defamed;
2. a false statement of fact;
3. that is understood as
a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and
b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff.
If the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must also prove actual
malice.
Further:
Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand
the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. (A
verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.) This is
determined in light of the context of the statement. A few courts have
said that statements made in the context of an Internet bulletin board
or chat room are highly likely to be opinions or hyperbole, but they do
look at the remark in context to see if it's likely to be seen as a
true, even if controversial, opinion ("I really hate George Lucas' new
movie") rather than an assertion of fact dressed up as an opinion
("It's my opinion that Trinity is the hacker who broke into the IRS
database").
A statement of verifiable fact is a statement that conveys a provably
false factual assertion, such as someone has committed murder or has
cheated on his spouse.
A private figure claiming defamation?your neighbor, your roommate, the
guy who walks his dog by your favorite coffee shop?only has to prove
you acted negligently, which is to say that a "reasonable person" would
not have published the defamatory statement.
A public figure must show "actual malice"?that you published with
either knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth.
This is a difficult standard for a plaintiff to meet.
When libel is clear on its face, without the need for any explanatory
matter, it is called libel per se. The following are often found to be
libelous per se:
A statement that falsely:
Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted, convicted,
or punished for crime;
Imputes in him the present existence of an infectious, contagious, or
loathsome disease;
Tends directly to injure him in respect to his office, profession,
trade or business, either by imputing to him general disqualification
in those respects that the office or other occupation peculiarly
requires, or by imputing something with reference to his office,
profession, trade, or business that has a natural tendency to lessen
its profits;
Imputes to him impotence or a want of chastity.
Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries
Mar 25, 2013, 10:56:30 PM3/25/13
to
In article <kiqf3e$8uu$3...@reader2.panix.com>, gbur...@panix.com says...
>
> In alt.usenet.kooks Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries <rhonda...@earthling.net> wrote:
> > In article <6emsqo....@news.alt.net>, greghall@home.f?ke says...
> It's a tactic. That's the Gweggie equivelent to "Death Panels!!!".
Everything with him is a tactic. If he couldn't troll, he'd die. If he
could troll better, we'd laugh. As it is, everyone suffers.
>
> In alt.usenet.kooks Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries <rhonda...@earthling.net> wrote:
> > In article <6emsqo....@news.alt.net>, greghall@home.f?ke says...
Everything with him is a tactic. If he couldn't troll, he'd die. If he
could troll better, we'd laugh. As it is, everyone suffers.
Rhonda Lea Kirk Fries
Mar 25, 2013, 11:25:36 PM3/25/13
to
In article <MPG.2bbad387a...@news.individual.net>,
rhonda...@earthling.net says...
Typo alert. That first sentence should have been "You describe a legal
system that is very unfamiliar to me."
I'd stopped reading my own posts until the other day when I started
sending blank ones. Guess it's a good thing.
rhonda...@earthling.net says...
system that is very unfamiliar to me."
I'd stopped reading my own posts until the other day when I started
sending blank ones. Guess it's a good thing.
Message has been deleted
0 new messages