There has been a great deal of rhetoric about Bob T and his comments
to Stu being libelous or malicious harassment, so I thought I'd check
it out.

I had a conversation with two lawyers I play squash with, and they
both tell me Bobs in trouble.
If the logs are retrieved from Bobs news provider, and his identity
is proven, the evidence against Bob ( Bob's own posts) floating on
the Internet for all to see for many years to come is irrefutable.
To further prove who Bob is I'm betting he paid with a credit card.

Will his identity accidentally make it to the net?

On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:01:13 -0500, WTF wrote:

> Will his identity accidentally make it to the net?

Most of us already know Bob's full name. It's Bob Terwilliger.
What's it to you, sockpuppet?

-sw

On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:01:13 -0500, WTF wrote:

> There has been a great deal of rhetoric about Bob T and his comments
> to Stu being libelous or malicious harassment, so I thought I'd check
> it out.
>
> I had a conversation with two lawyers I play squash with, and they
> both tell me Bobs in trouble.
> If the logs are retrieved from Bobs news provider, and his identity
> is proven, the evidence against Bob ( Bob's own posts) floating on
> the Internet for all to see for many years to come is irrefutable.
> To further prove who Bob is I'm betting he paid with a credit card.
>
> Will his identity accidentally make it to the net?

your squashbuds don't know what they're talking about:

Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about
another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves
the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed)
representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation. Libel involves the
making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a
magazine or newspaper.

Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:

1. A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
2. The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that
is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
3. If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at
least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
4. *Damage to the plaintiff.*

<http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html#1>

take note of #4. no tort, no suit. saying rude things about stu on usenet
does not constitute 'damage,' unless he hangs himself out of emotional
distress or something.

blake

blake murphy > wrote:

>take note of #4. no tort, no suit. saying rude things about stu on usenet
>does not constitute 'damage,' unless he hangs himself out of emotional
>distress or something.

Isn't there also something about needing to mitigate damages, i.e.
whoever is posting as Stu cannot decide to act so as to maximize
the damage, and then claim to be injured by this then larger amount?

Steve

On Fri, 28 May 2010 15:29:12 +0000 (UTC), Steve Pope wrote:

> blake murphy > wrote:
>
>>take note of #4. no tort, no suit. saying rude things about stu on usenet
>>does not constitute 'damage,' unless he hangs himself out of emotional
>>distress or something.
>
> Isn't there also something about needing to mitigate damages, i.e.
> whoever is posting as Stu cannot decide to act so as to maximize
> the damage, and then claim to be injured by this then larger amount?
>
> Steve

probably, but that's a little deep in the weeds for me.

your pal,
blake

On May 29, 10:19�am, blake murphy > wrote:

> > Isn't there also something about needing to mitigate damages, i.e.
> > whoever is posting as Stu cannot decide to act so as to maximize
> > the damage, and then claim to be injured by this then larger amount?

> > Steve

> probably, but that's a little deep in the weeds for me.

Mitigation of damages is a contract law concept. E.g., if a tenant
breaches a lease, the landlord is supposed to make a reasonable
effort to relet the premises rather than leaving the place empty and
racking up damages against the defaulting tenant for unpaid rent.
It wouldn't pertain in Stu's "case."

On Fri, 28 May 2010 11:24:57 -0400, blake murphy wrote:

> Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:
>
> 1. A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
> 2. The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that
> is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
> 3. If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at
> least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
> 4. *Damage to the plaintiff.*

I was going to give Stu $10,000 for all the hard work he's done on
his website. That was, until I read on Usenet that he was a child
molester. Now I'll never use that site again.

-sw

On Fri, 28 May 2010 11:24:57 -0400, blake murphy
> wrote:

>On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:01:13 -0500, WTF wrote:
>
>> There has been a great deal of rhetoric about Bob T and his comments
>> to Stu being libelous or malicious harassment, so I thought I'd check
>> it out.
>>
>> I had a conversation with two lawyers I play squash with, and they
>> both tell me Bobs in trouble.
>> If the logs are retrieved from Bobs news provider, and his identity
>> is proven, the evidence against Bob ( Bob's own posts) floating on
>> the Internet for all to see for many years to come is irrefutable.
>> To further prove who Bob is I'm betting he paid with a credit card.
>>
>> Will his identity accidentally make it to the net?
>
>your squashbuds don't know what they're talking about:
>
> Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about
>another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves
>the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed)
>representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation. Libel involves the
>making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a
>magazine or newspaper.
>
>Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:
>
> 1. A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
> 2. The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that
>is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
> 3. If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at
>least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
> 4. *Damage to the plaintiff.*
>
><http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html#1>
>
>take note of #4. no tort, no suit. saying rude things about stu on usenet
>does not constitute 'damage,' unless he hangs himself out of emotional
>distress or something.
>
>blake
>

But Blake, Bob would be charged with criminal harassment, and the
legal definition of harassment, according to Black's Law Dictionary,
is:

"A course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes
substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate
purpose" or "Words, gestures, and actions which tend to annoy, alarm
and abuse (verbally) another person."

I'm sure libel would come into play as well.

On Fri, 28 May 2010 10:45:54 -0500, WTF wrote:

> On Fri, 28 May 2010 11:24:57 -0400, blake murphy
> > wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:01:13 -0500, WTF wrote:
>>
>>> There has been a great deal of rhetoric about Bob T and his comments
>>> to Stu being libelous or malicious harassment, so I thought I'd check
>>> it out.
>>>
>>> I had a conversation with two lawyers I play squash with, and they
>>> both tell me Bobs in trouble.
>>> If the logs are retrieved from Bobs news provider, and his identity
>>> is proven, the evidence against Bob ( Bob's own posts) floating on
>>> the Internet for all to see for many years to come is irrefutable.
>>> To further prove who Bob is I'm betting he paid with a credit card.
>>>
>>> Will his identity accidentally make it to the net?
>>
>>your squashbuds don't know what they're talking about:
>>
>> Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about
>>another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves
>>the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed)
>>representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation. Libel involves the
>>making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a
>>magazine or newspaper.
>>
>>Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:
>>
>> 1. A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
>> 2. The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that
>>is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
>> 3. If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at
>>least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
>> 4. *Damage to the plaintiff.*
>>
>><http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html#1>
>>
>>take note of #4. no tort, no suit. saying rude things about stu on usenet
>>does not constitute 'damage,' unless he hangs himself out of emotional
>>distress or something.
>>
>>blake
>>
>
> But Blake, Bob would be charged with criminal harassment, and the
> legal definition of harassment, according to Black's Law Dictionary,
> is:
>
> "A course of conduct directed at a specific person that causes
> substantial emotional distress in such person and serves no legitimate
> purpose" or "Words, gestures, and actions which tend to annoy, alarm
> and abuse (verbally) another person."
>
> I'm sure libel would come into play as well.

maybe. i still say no court is going to take his case. if they did,
they'd be doing nothing else for the next hundred years dealing with all
the other cases.

blake

"blake murphy" > wrote in message
.. .
> On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:01:13 -0500, WTF wrote:
>
>> There has been a great deal of rhetoric about Bob T and his comments
>> to Stu being libelous or malicious harassment, so I thought I'd check
>> it out.
>>
>> I had a conversation with two lawyers I play squash with, and they
>> both tell me Bobs in trouble.
>> If the logs are retrieved from Bobs news provider, and his identity
>> is proven, the evidence against Bob ( Bob's own posts) floating on
>> the Internet for all to see for many years to come is irrefutable.
>> To further prove who Bob is I'm betting he paid with a credit card.
>>
>> Will his identity accidentally make it to the net?
>
> your squashbuds don't know what they're talking about:
>
> Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about
> another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves
> the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed)
> representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation. Libel involves
> the
> making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a
> magazine or newspaper.
>
> Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:
>
> 1. A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
> 2. The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that
> is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
> 3. If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at
> least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
> 4. *Damage to the plaintiff.*
>
> <http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html#1>
>
> take note of #4. no tort, no suit. saying rude things about stu on
> usenet
> does not constitute 'damage,' unless he hangs himself out of emotional
> distress or something.


Proving defamation in court is a huge challenge for the best of lawyers.
Just finding one willing to try is hard enough and paying them is even
harder.

Paul
>
> blake
>

On Fri, 28 May 2010 11:24:57 -0400, blake murphy
> wrote:

>On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:01:13 -0500, WTF wrote:
>
>> There has been a great deal of rhetoric about Bob T and his comments
>> to Stu being libelous or malicious harassment, so I thought I'd check
>> it out.
>>
>> I had a conversation with two lawyers I play squash with, and they
>> both tell me Bobs in trouble.
>> If the logs are retrieved from Bobs news provider, and his identity
>> is proven, the evidence against Bob ( Bob's own posts) floating on
>> the Internet for all to see for many years to come is irrefutable.
>> To further prove who Bob is I'm betting he paid with a credit card.
>>
>> Will his identity accidentally make it to the net?
>
>your squashbuds don't know what they're talking about:
>
> Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about
>another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves
>the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed)
>representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation. Libel involves the
>making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a
>magazine or newspaper.
>
>Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:
>
> 1. A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
> 2. The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that
>is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
> 3. If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at
>least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
> 4. *Damage to the plaintiff.*
>
><http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html#1>
>
>take note of #4. no tort, no suit. saying rude things about stu on usenet
>does not constitute 'damage,' unless he hangs himself out of emotional
>distress or something.

I have lotsa trees and I have lotsa Stupid rope.

On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:01:13 -0500, WTF wrote:

> Will his identity accidentally make it to the net?

Speaking of identities, you can drop this sockpuppet WTYF/Stu duo
of yours. You are clearly the same person.


-sw

In article >,
WTF > wrote:

> There has been a great deal of rhetoric about Bob T and his comments
> to Stu being libelous or malicious harassment, so I thought I'd check
> it out.
>
> I had a conversation with two lawyers I play squash with, and they
> both tell me Bobs in trouble.
> If the logs are retrieved from Bobs news provider, and his identity
> is proven, the evidence against Bob ( Bob's own posts) floating on
> the Internet for all to see for many years to come is irrefutable.
> To further prove who Bob is I'm betting he paid with a credit card.
>
> Will his identity accidentally make it to the net?

Exposing his identity here is not necessary.
Teaching him a lesson would be a good thing... ;-)
--
Peace! Om

Web Albums: <http://picasaweb.google.com/OMPOmelet>
Only Irish coffee provides in a single glass all four essential food groups: alcohol, caffeine, sugar and fat. --Alex Levine

On Sat, 29 May 2010 03:27:56 -0500, Omelet wrote:

> In article >,
> WTF > wrote:
>
>> There has been a great deal of rhetoric about Bob T and his comments
>> to Stu being libelous or malicious harassment, so I thought I'd check
>> it out.
>>
>> I had a conversation with two lawyers I play squash with, and they
>> both tell me Bobs in trouble.
>> If the logs are retrieved from Bobs news provider, and his identity
>> is proven, the evidence against Bob ( Bob's own posts) floating on
>> the Internet for all to see for many years to come is irrefutable.
>> To further prove who Bob is I'm betting he paid with a credit card.
>>
>> Will his identity accidentally make it to the net?
>
> Exposing his identity here is not necessary.
> Teaching him a lesson would be a good thing... ;-)

what ****ing lesson? bob has goaded stu into 'bringing' some absurd suit
(which i guarantee you is going no further than stu's tiny mind), while
many people who were ignoring the childish insults now think stu is a
complete idiot. some lesson.

you claim to be a crusty usenet veteran: have you heard of anything like
this even making it to court, let alone with successful results? i sure
haven't.

without doubt, bob is laughing his ass off.

blake

On Sat, 29 May 2010 14:09:09 -0400, blake murphy
> wrote:
>
> without doubt, bob is laughing his ass off.
>
Perhaps, but he's doing it in many people's kill files.


--
Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.

On Sat, 29 May 2010 14:09:09 -0400, blake murphy
> wrote:

>On Sat, 29 May 2010 03:27:56 -0500, Omelet wrote:
>
>> In article >,
>> WTF > wrote:
>>
>>> There has been a great deal of rhetoric about Bob T and his comments
>>> to Stu being libelous or malicious harassment, so I thought I'd check
>>> it out.
>>>
>>> I had a conversation with two lawyers I play squash with, and they
>>> both tell me Bobs in trouble.
>>> If the logs are retrieved from Bobs news provider, and his identity
>>> is proven, the evidence against Bob ( Bob's own posts) floating on
>>> the Internet for all to see for many years to come is irrefutable.
>>> To further prove who Bob is I'm betting he paid with a credit card.
>>>
>>> Will his identity accidentally make it to the net?
>>
>> Exposing his identity here is not necessary.
>> Teaching him a lesson would be a good thing... ;-)
>
>what ****ing lesson? bob has goaded stu into 'bringing' some absurd suit
>(which i guarantee you is going no further than stu's tiny mind), while
>many people who were ignoring the childish insults now think stu is a
>complete idiot. some lesson.
>
>you claim to be a crusty usenet veteran: have you heard of anything like
>this even making it to court, let alone with successful results? i sure
>haven't.
>
>without doubt, bob is laughing his ass/face off.
>
>blake

On 5/28/2010 4:01 AM, WTF wrote:
>
> There has been a great deal of rhetoric about Bob T and his comments
> to Stu being libelous or malicious harassment, so I thought I'd check
> it out.
>
> I had a conversation with two lawyers I play squash with, and they
> both tell me Bobs in trouble.
> If the logs are retrieved from Bobs news provider, and his identity
> is proven, the evidence against Bob ( Bob's own posts) floating on
> the Internet for all to see for many years to come is irrefutable.
> To further prove who Bob is I'm betting he paid with a credit card.
>
> Will his identity accidentally make it to the net?

Gosh, I love this place! Here's a lawsuit a buddy was involved in:

http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/ganjavi-v-smith

dsi1 wrote:
>
> Gosh, I love this place! Here's a lawsuit a buddy was involved in:
>
> http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/ganjavi-v-smith

I'm sure Ganjavi was very angry, very angry indeed!

On 5/30/2010 10:44 AM, Mark Thorson wrote:
> dsi1 wrote:
>>
>> Gosh, I love this place! Here's a lawsuit a buddy was involved in:
>>
>> http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/ganjavi-v-smith
>
> I'm sure Ganjavi was very angry, very angry indeed!

Boy, that ain't the half of it - he was hopping mad! In the end the
lawyers made out well and everybody was happy! OK, so maybe everybody
wasn't happy but the lawyers made out well and I think my friend was a
little happy because he had some spare time to devote to defending
himself, some cash on hand, and he likes a good fight. The most
important part was that the lawyers made out well. Ain't America
wonderful?!

In article >, dsi1 > wrote:
>On 5/30/2010 10:44 AM, Mark Thorson wrote:
>> dsi1 wrote:
>>>
>>> Gosh, I love this place! Here's a lawsuit a buddy was involved in:
>>>
>>> http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/ganjavi-v-smith
>>
>> I'm sure Ganjavi was very angry, very angry indeed!
>
>Boy, that ain't the half of it - he was hopping mad! In the end the
>lawyers made out well and everybody was happy! OK, so maybe everybody
>wasn't happy but the lawyers made out well and I think my friend was a
>little happy because he had some spare time to devote to defending
>himself, some cash on hand, and he likes a good fight. The most
>important part was that the lawyers made out well. Ain't America
>wonderful?!

I think that's the end result of most of these kind of internet suits.
Plaintiff doesn't get jack, but the lawyers keep going.

I know some people involved in this one:

http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/n...cannon-lawsuit

If you speak Legal at all, read the complaint. You will LOL.

(N.B. the original post being complained about was a froggery, and all
parties involved knew it.)

Charlotte
--

On 5/31/2010 5:11 AM, Charlotte L. Blackmer wrote:
> In >, > wrote:
>> On 5/30/2010 10:44 AM, Mark Thorson wrote:
>>> dsi1 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Gosh, I love this place! Here's a lawsuit a buddy was involved in:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/ganjavi-v-smith
>>>
>>> I'm sure Ganjavi was very angry, very angry indeed!
>>
>> Boy, that ain't the half of it - he was hopping mad! In the end the
>> lawyers made out well and everybody was happy! OK, so maybe everybody
>> wasn't happy but the lawyers made out well and I think my friend was a
>> little happy because he had some spare time to devote to defending
>> himself, some cash on hand, and he likes a good fight. The most
>> important part was that the lawyers made out well. Ain't America
>> wonderful?!
>
> I think that's the end result of most of these kind of internet suits.
> Plaintiff doesn't get jack, but the lawyers keep going.
>
> I know some people involved in this one:
>
> http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/n...cannon-lawsuit
>
> If you speak Legal at all, read the complaint. You will LOL.
>
> (N.B. the original post being complained about was a froggery, and all
> parties involved knew it.)
>
> Charlotte

Well I'm glad that the courts affords protections for ISPs and people
that will publish and post potentially defamatory statements in the form
of quoted material. That they protect "ABC Corporation 1-10, XYZ
Partnership 1-10, and John and Jane Doe 1-100", as well as Google Groups
is also encouraging.

My guess is that one should try to limit the amount of people you sue.
Not believing everything a lawyer tells you is also a pretty good idea.
If you see dollar signs in his eyes, run! :-)

On Mon, 31 May 2010 15:11:08 +0000 (UTC), Charlotte L. Blackmer wrote:

> In article >, dsi1 > wrote:
>>On 5/30/2010 10:44 AM, Mark Thorson wrote:
>>> dsi1 wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Gosh, I love this place! Here's a lawsuit a buddy was involved in:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/ganjavi-v-smith
>>>
>>> I'm sure Ganjavi was very angry, very angry indeed!
>>
>>Boy, that ain't the half of it - he was hopping mad! In the end the
>>lawyers made out well and everybody was happy! OK, so maybe everybody
>>wasn't happy but the lawyers made out well and I think my friend was a
>>little happy because he had some spare time to devote to defending
>>himself, some cash on hand, and he likes a good fight. The most
>>important part was that the lawyers made out well. Ain't America
>>wonderful?!
>
> I think that's the end result of most of these kind of internet suits.
> Plaintiff doesn't get jack, but the lawyers keep going.
>
> I know some people involved in this one:
>
> http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/n...cannon-lawsuit
>
> If you speak Legal at all, read the complaint. You will LOL.
>
> (N.B. the original post being complained about was a froggery, and all
> parties involved knew it.)
>
> Charlotte

so it sounds like both cases were complete busts, even though they involved
some more serious than merely name-calling.

your pal,
blake

Any other picky people being driven crazy by the missing apostrophe in
the subject? I normally don't get bothered by this, but for some
reason, this keeps catching my attention. Just how many Bobs are in
trouble?

:-)

I think that there are four Bobs posting here, including notbob. I
think the word "both" helps throw me off.

I keep thinking that there is some common phrase involving "Bobs", but
extensive Googling showed me that it has the apostrophe:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob%27s_your_uncle

It means:

'"and there you have it," or "you're all set." For example, "To make a
ham sandwich, just put a piece of ham between two slices of buttered
bread, and Bob's your uncle."'

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA

"Dan Abel" > wrote in message
...
>
> Any other picky people being driven crazy by the missing apostrophe in
> the subject? I normally don't get bothered by this, but for some
> reason, this keeps catching my attention. Just how many Bobs are in
> trouble?
>
> :-)
>
> I think that there are four Bobs posting here, including notbob. I
> think the word "both" helps throw me off.
>
> I keep thinking that there is some common phrase involving "Bobs", but
> extensive Googling showed me that it has the apostrophe:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob%27s_your_uncle
>
> It means:
>
> '"and there you have it," or "you're all set." For example, "To make a
> ham sandwich, just put a piece of ham between two slices of buttered
> bread, and Bob's your uncle."'
>
> --
> Dan Abel
> Petaluma, California USA
>

LMAO. I was *just* ruminating over that same apostrophe as I opened up your
post!

Too funny.

On Fri, 28 May 2010 16:44:53 +0100, Janet Baraclough
> wrote:

>The message >
>from WTF > contains these words:
>
>
>> I had a conversation with two lawyers I play squash with,
>
> that's that game for sweaty little grunters with small balls, isn't it?
>
> Janet

Well dear, you've never complained before.

On Fri, 28 May 2010 16:44:53 +0100, Janet Baraclough
> wrote:

>The message >
>from WTF > contains these words:
>
>
>> I had a conversation with two lawyers I play squash with,
>
> that's that game for sweaty little grunters with small balls, isn't it?
>
> Janet

Small black balls.