How is the post about Dan Gryder not a personal attack???

Half Fast said:
Those who post under their own names are public figures. Those of us who use screen names, like Salty or Half Fast, are not. Lucky us; we get to take pot shots at the public figures.
:biggrin:
Click to expand...
Using that logic insulting "salty" isn't insulting me, right, because that's not my name, so no infraction.
 
Salty said:
Using that logic insulting "salty" isn't insulting me, right, because that's not my name, so no infraction.
Click to expand...

doesn't matter, it's still fun to do :happydance: ORANGE MAN, ORANGE MAN
 
Half Fast said:
Those who post under their own names are public figures. Those of us who use screen names, like Salty or Half Fast, are not. Lucky us; we get to take pot shots at the public figures.
:biggrin:
Click to expand...
That's why I use six papa Charlie. I don't want anyone to know my true identity.
 
Salty said:
Using that logic insulting "salty" isn't insulting me, right, because that's not my name, so no infraction.
Click to expand...

That’s really in the space of cyber smear, which like libel, slander, and defamation is state law issues. All generally require a false statement was made negligently and that false statement damaged the target of the statement.

Note that most states treat public figures differently; first understand a public figure is usually a government official or someone who put themselves in the eyes of public at the forefront of issues. DG clearly falls into the public figure category. For those types of people, the false statement made about them must also be malicious; deliberately done to intentionally cause harm to the harm. Call it pre-meditated.

Having said that, in the forum spaces, ad hominems are just a corollary to Godwin’s law; the accusations just show up earlier than the Nazi declaration.
 
Half Fast said:
Those who post under their own names are public figures. Those of us who use screen names, like Salty or Half Fast, are not. Lucky us; we get to take pot shots at the public figures.
:biggrin:
Click to expand...
Hmmmmf. In 40 years online, I've never posted under an alias or avatar.

The time I got sued, the inference was that I'd posted the alleged defamatory statements anonymously (other than being named as a defendant, my name didn't appear in the lawsuit). The plaintiff said that because my co-defendants were posting in a public forum, we were public figures. He claimed he was NOT a public figure and was deserving of protection... despite being publisher and managing editor of a magazine and web page which printed the attacks (under his byline) on me and my co-defendants.

Ron Wanttaja
 
wanttaja said:
Hmmmmf. In 40 years online, I've never posted under an alias or avatar.

The time I got sued, the inference was that I'd posted the alleged defamatory statements anonymously (other than being named as a defendant, my name didn't appear in the lawsuit). The plaintiff said that because my co-defendants were posting in a public forum, we were public figures. He claimed he was NOT a public figure and was deserving of protection... despite being publisher and managing editor of a magazine and web page which printed the attacks (under his byline) on me and my co-defendants.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

So how did it turn out?
 
Half Fast said:
So how did it turn out?
Click to expand...
It was a SLAPP suit (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation), it was intended to scare us, but not actually take us to trial. One of our group was an attorney who had filed the original lawsuit against he-who-shall-not-be-named. The countersuit claimed "Conspiracy to Defame" and listed the lawyer and a 14-man sample of people who had participated in the online discussions (including myself). Some of them were well-known, others were just average joes. It was intended to silence us. It didn't have the intended result.

I was dismissed over improper service. Law required an officer of the court to provide service, and dip****'s lawyer hired a private detective. There were 15 co-defendants. Several were served at Sun-N-Fun, and the word quickly got out to the rest. Service was attempted on a half-dozen of us, I think it was completed on only ~five or so. Not even attempted on most, and the word got out early. Those that WANTED to avoid service had plenty of opportunity to do so.

Not long after that, a threat on the President's life was made on an online forum. It had been done under the name of Tony, our attorney, but charged to dip****'s corporate credit card. Guys in suits got out of black Suburbans in front of Tony's house and came a'knocking. They were polite enough. Tony had just moved into this house, and invited them into his den where he was putting up his various collections and qualifications.

They were a bit concerned when they observed one aspect of Tony's collection... bayonets. Then Tony lifted a framed certificate and hung it on the wall. It was a certificate that showed that Tony was authorized to plead cases at the US Supreme Court. He said the atmosphere got a lot lighter after that.....

I *really* should write this all up, some day.

Ron Wanttaja
 
YouTube recommended a DG video to me within the last couple of days. I decided not to view it.

Previously, I found his explanation of recent evidence about the identity of "DB Cooper" quite plausible, except for the parts where he made what seemed like wild accusations against the FBI.
 
I have no more interest in Dan Gryder's videos than any other armchair aviation analyst regardless of the number of epaulets they wear on their shirt, so I'm not in a posItion to comment on whether he puts out disinformation or not. I'll still call things as I see them.

The pivotal question is whether the ROC applies to non-members. Has the Supreme Council rendered a ruling yet?
 
It isn’t about non-members, it’s about public figures.
 
They have already ruled that calling someone Dan Gryder is not a personal attack.
The sky is the limit now in terms of using that to our advantage when disagreeing with each other. What a bunch of Gryders!!
 
wanttaja said:
I was dismissed over improper service.
Click to expand...
I should clarify this (funny how stuff comes back). I was dismissed over improper service, but the bearded dolt was given six months to re-serve me. I was not re-served.

Also, under Florida legal procedure, I (and most of my fellow co-defendants) couldn't be added to an existing lawsuit WITHOUT THE JUDGE'S PERMISSION. He could countersue the man who sued HIM, but couldn't add the other 14 people without getting approval from the court. So he would have had to get permission before having me re-served. He didn't.

More indications the suit was intended solely for harassment, not addressing a legitimate grievance.

Ron Wanttaja
 
Only Dans (wipes a tear) that's rich.
Can we all agree that he isn't hawking ridge wallets with fire extinguishers strapped to his legs, so maybe he has lost the title?
Any way you slice it the content he posts is malicious, inaccurate and clearly intended to offend. I don't see how calling a spade a shovel constitutes personal attacks beyond perhaps the title of the post. Change the title to "fluffy bunnies" if you want. He's earned his reputation.
 
wanttaja said:
It was a SLAPP suit (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation), it was intended to scare us, but not actually take us to trial. One of our group was an attorney who had filed the original lawsuit against he-who-shall-not-be-named. The countersuit claimed "Conspiracy to Defame" and listed the lawyer and a 14-man sample of people who had participated in the online discussions (including myself). Some of them were well-known, others were just average joes. It was intended to silence us. It didn't have the intended result.

I was dismissed over improper service. Law required an officer of the court to provide service, and dip****'s lawyer hired a private detective. There were 15 co-defendants. Several were served at Sun-N-Fun, and the word quickly got out to the rest. Service was attempted on a half-dozen of us, I think it was completed on only ~five or so. Not even attempted on most, and the word got out early. Those that WANTED to avoid service had plenty of opportunity to do so.

Not long after that, a threat on the President's life was made on an online forum. It had been done under the name of Tony, our attorney, but charged to dip****'s corporate credit card. Guys in suits got out of black Suburbans in front of Tony's house and came a'knocking. They were polite enough. Tony had just moved into this house, and invited them into his den where he was putting up his various collections and qualifications.

They were a bit concerned when they observed one aspect of Tony's collection... bayonets. Then Tony lifted a framed certificate and hung it on the wall. It was a certificate that showed that Tony was authorized to plead cases at the US Supreme Court. He said the atmosphere got a lot lighter after that.....

I *really* should write this all up, some day.

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...
This guy's initials wouldn't be JC, would they?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top