|
A while ago Ray called me an offensive and untruthful term by declaring
me someone who has less than normal intelligence. I can look it up but
I believe he called me a moron (or he called me an idiot).
The dictionary defines that as someone who has substandard intelligence.
It is a qualifyable statement that represents a fact, therefore if it
is untruthful it constitutes libel.
Now, since Ray has Verizon as his internet provider, and Verizon
operates in Virginia (and I think he also used AOL to publish the
message that he posted) AOL's headquarters is only about 20 miles away
from me in Prince William County, Virginia.
By his own claims I should be able to serve both of his ISPs as his
agent for service of process in Virginia and thus be able to sue him for
libel in Virginia for his actions.
Someone once said, if you think someone is acting in an unfair or
unreasonable fashion, a really good way to tell is, would they
particularly like or care for their position if you were to hold them to
the same standard that they are or would hold upon others.
So my standing can't possibly be unfair against Ray, since it's exactly
the stand he wants to argue in his lawsuits.
What do you think?
|
| |
| |
A while ago Ray called me an offensive and untruthful term by declaring
me someone who has less than normal intelligence. I can look it up but
I believe he called me a moron (or he called me an idiot).
The dictionary defines that as someone who has substandard intelligence.
It is a qualifyable statement that represents a fact, therefore if it
is untruthful it constitutes libel.
Now, since Ray has Verizon as his internet provider, and Verizon
operates in Virginia (and I think he also used AOL to publish the
message that he posted) AOL's headquarters is only about 20 miles away
from me in Prince William County, Virginia.
By his own claims I should be able to serve both of his ISPs as his
agent for service of process in Virginia and thus be able to sue him for
libel in Virginia for his actions.
Someone once said, if you think someone is acting in an unfair or
unreasonable fashion, a really good way to tell is, would they
particularly like or care for their position if you were to hold them to
the same standard that they are or would hold upon others.
So my standing can't possibly be unfair against Ray, since it's exactly
the stand he wants to argue in his lawsuits.
What do you think?
Hey, Paul, it is good to see you on this group. You were spoken about highly
when I got here, and you have decided to make an appearance here. Nice one,
bud ;-)
Go for it, Paul, but I think the best way to restrict this lunatic's access
to the internet is to cut off his source of funding, i.e. cybersheet.com. As
much as I despise Dubya, take his simplistic view on world affairs and apply
it to Ray - ISPs are either with us or against us. None of us really can be
arsed to sue him to get his net access and abuse pulled, so might it be
worth showing that Ray has plagiarised many of the ideas from ASF and put it
on his own website? (even though I freely admit he has come up with some
ideas of his own which are reasonable, not including the ridiculous CUPID
#@($e).
How would cybersheet.com's host react to the idea of his selling of 'rape'
products, for example?
But, if you want to sue him, please do so. I really want to see Ray in
court. That would make international news (in all seriousness, with his
Google fishing expedition.) BBC WORLD and BBC NEWS 24 would cover in depth,
I am sure! ;-)
--------------------------------
At time of writing, Ray Gordon believes that
NLP seduction techniques used successfully
are no different from rape because these
techniques are used covertly. Ray has 4
affiliate links on his 'website' from which he
gains a commission from the sale of NLP
seduction materials. Therefore, by Ray's
standards, he is currently selling 4 books to
assist men directly in what he calls rape.
True Internet Cockroach, the artist formerly
known as, according to Ray, whale/shill/
domestic abuser/employment discriminator/
provider/beta/potential rapist/John/does
this list end(?) Takahesi Ogamori. He must
LOVE me!!! :-x
Ray wants Google to stop archiving his USENET posts.
But he said to me about something I wrote,
"The truth is that people get sued pretty harshly for what you've been
pulling on me. You also have called yourself a shill, and like it or not, I
can quote that with impunity."
Can Google also quote his USENET posts with impunity?
<snicker>
|
| |
| |
A while ago Ray called me an offensive and untruthful term by declaring
me someone who has less than normal intelligence. I can look it up but
I believe he called me a moron (or he called me an idiot).
The dictionary defines that as someone who has substandard intelligence.
It is a qualifyable statement that represents a fact, therefore if it
is untruthful it constitutes libel.
Now, since Ray has Verizon as his internet provider, and Verizon
operates in Virginia (and I think he also used AOL to publish the
message that he posted) AOL's headquarters is only about 20 miles away
from me in Prince William County, Virginia.
By his own claims I should be able to serve both of his ISPs as his
agent for service of process in Virginia and thus be able to sue him for
libel in Virginia for his actions.
Someone once said, if you think someone is acting in an unfair or
unreasonable fashion, a really good way to tell is, would they
particularly like or care for their position if you were to hold them to
the same standard that they are or would hold upon others.
So my standing can't possibly be unfair against Ray, since it's exactly
the stand he wants to argue in his lawsuits.
What do you think?
what i think, is sauce for the goose.
if you're serious about going forward, at the very least you'll let him know
what it feels like to be on the receiving end of a lawsuit. ray has gone on
for what seems to be an eternity about just how bulletproof he is in the
eyes of the law.
aardvark
|
| |
| |
Go for it, Paul, but I think the best way to restrict this lunatic's
We have defamation......
access
to the internet is to cut off his source of funding, i.e. cybersheet.com.
Now tortious interference......oh, and did you folks know that in PA,
citizens have a private cause of action for the unauthorized practice of law
and can recover ATTORNEY FEES if they bring suit over it?
You think a woman wants to marry a man who might get them SUED because he
can't control his emotions? She goes along for half that ride, you know.
As
much as I despise Dubya, take his simplistic view on world affairs and
apply
it to Ray - ISPs are either with us or against us. None of us really can
be
arsed to sue him to get his net access and abuse pulled, so might it be
worth showing that Ray has plagiarised many of the ideas from ASF and put
it
on his own website?
More defamation.....
How would cybersheet.com's host react to the idea of his selling of 'rape'
products, for example?
One contact to them gives rise to a lawsuit. Even the threat of contact
might do that.
But, if you want to sue him, please do so. I really want to see Ray in
court. That would make international news (in all seriousness, with his
Google fishing expedition.)
What people are doing now is only strengthening my case against any archive.
TIC seems to think that after his obligatory period of pretending to be
neutral, that he can behave just like a SHILL and not be noticed.
|
| |
| |
"Ray Gordon" <ray@cybersheet.com> wrote in
news:8Y56d.2606$6f.1933@trndny02:
We have defamation......
Now tortious interference......oh, and did you folks know that in PA,
citizens have a private cause of action for the unauthorized practice
of law and can recover ATTORNEY FEES if they bring suit over it?
You think a woman wants to marry a man who might get them SUED because
he can't control his emotions? She goes along for half that ride, you
know.
apply
be
it
More defamation.....
One contact to them gives rise to a lawsuit. Even the threat of
contact might do that.
What people are doing now is only strengthening my case against any
archive.
TIC seems to think that after his obligatory period of pretending to
be neutral, that he can behave just like a SHILL and not be noticed.
And here we go again - one more ride on the shill-go-round.
And it's the unverified and unverifiable shill-go-round at that.
Are you ever going to provide ANY VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE of anyone being a
shill or are we suppost to take the word of the person who NEVER provides
verifiable evidence when he accuses people of being shills? I certainly
wouldn't.
|
| |
| |
As I said previously, I think everyone should sue you in as
many jurisdictions as possible. In my opinion, you seriously ill, and
should be removed from the internet like any other terrorist would be. You
rant and threaten, and insult, and are generally obnoxious, and wonder why
you can't make a living. Since you love court so much, perhaps you should
have more of it.
BM
We have defamation......
Now tortious interference......oh, and did you folks know that in PA,
citizens have a private cause of action for the unauthorized practice of
law
and can recover ATTORNEY FEES if they bring suit over it?
You think a woman wants to marry a man who might get them SUED because he
can't control his emotions? She goes along for half that ride, you know.
apply
be
it
More defamation.....
One contact to them gives rise to a lawsuit. Even the threat of contact
might do that.
What people are doing now is only strengthening my case against any
archive.
TIC seems to think that after his obligatory period of pretending to be
neutral, that he can behave just like a SHILL and not be noticed.
|
| |
| |
As I said previously, I think everyone should sue you in as
many jurisdictions as possible.
But as a layperson, your advice isn't meant as legal advice.
In my opinion, you seriously ill,
Wow! Another wannabe doctor on USENET!!
and
should be removed from the internet like any other terrorist would be.
Good luck making that happen!
You
rant and threaten, and insult, and are generally obnoxious, and wonder why
you can't make a living. Since you love court so much, perhaps you should
have more of it.
Awww, but you can't hide in a lawsuit the way you can on a message board!
|
| |
| |
You are aware that he can just claim to be insane, and he is not responsible
for his actions. Since he has admitted that he does have a mental illness,
he can probably weasel out, and due to his lack of finances, even a judgment
would not impact him significantly. Face facts, some people are just
lawsuit proof due to not having resources to pay any judgment rendered.
I wonder since his income is so low, if he or his mommie are the one that
actually own the accounts and pay the monthly fees? Hmmm......
BM
what i think, is sauce for the goose.
if you're serious about going forward, at the very least you'll let him
know
what it feels like to be on the receiving end of a lawsuit. ray has gone
on
for what seems to be an eternity about just how bulletproof he is in the
eyes of the law.
aardvark
|
| |
| |
NOPE, just giving my opinions, as the first amendment allows me to. I think
you are a sick, diseased, mommy's boy, that sticks his nose into the
business of others due to jellousy. You claim to be an expert in areas
where you are not, and you would be obnoxious at a convention of the
autistic...
BM
As I said previously, I think everyone should sue you in as
many jurisdictions as possible.
But as a layperson, your advice isn't meant as legal advice.
Wow! Another wannabe doctor on USENET!!
Good luck making that happen!
Awww, but you can't hide in a lawsuit the way you can on a message board!
|
| |
| |
In article <_8a6d.2637$OX.1480@trndny07>,
"Ray Gordon" <ray@cybersheet.com> wrote:
As I said previously, I think everyone should sue you in as
many jurisdictions as possible.
But as a layperson, your advice isn't meant as legal advice.
Neither is your advice, unless you have a bar association number.
In my opinion, you seriously ill,
Wow! Another wannabe doctor on USENET!!
Wow! Another wannabe medical school dean on USENET!! (Why else would you
go out of your way to convince others that you are the sole judge and
determiner regarding who should become a doctor?)
I would call you a moron, but you're more of a less-on. A lesson in
infantile stupidity, that is.
and
should be removed from the internet like any other terrorist would be.
Good luck making that happen!
Exactly. You have frequently said that someone would have to KILL you
(emphasis yours) to get you to stop.
This is the same tactic that many terrorists use. In order to stop most
terrorists, you have to kill them, and you have to kill them before they
kill you.
Isn't it a strange coincidence that you would use the same tactics as a
terrorist?
I will add that you have made your "domicile" address public knowledge
through your very own posting of certain court documents which contain
your address. You have also directly admitted to your birth name in at
least one post. All someone has to do is "get the balls" to do some very
simple research and locate you.
It is rumored that you never leave your apartment unless absolutely
necessary for life functions or for your court escapades. Perhaps this
is one of the reasons.
--
Visit the official Ray Gordon website at http://www.raygordonbooks.co.uk
|
| |
| |
Yet again, Ray Gordon threatens without base and can't tell the difference
between free speech and defamation. The show must go on.....
We have defamation......
Where? No we don't, thumper.
access
to the internet is to cut off his source of funding, i.e.
cybersheet.com.
Now tortious interference......oh, and did you folks know that in PA,
citizens have a private cause of action for the unauthorized practice of
law
and can recover ATTORNEY FEES if they bring suit over it?
Do you really think that your webhost would condone what you do? Or are you
sneaking around behind their backs profiting from your 'rape' (your
definition) manuals? I personally would not do that because you are too much
fun to speak to - why would I want to deny myself my 5-15 minutes of
bellylaughs at you a day???
You think a woman wants to marry a man who might get them SUED because he
can't control his emotions? She goes along for half that ride, you know.
You think a woman wants to marry a 37yo man with admitted bipolar disorder
who lives at home with his Mommy and would rather charge women for
information on how to prevent what he considers rape than give the
information away for free for the crime of not buying one of the books?
The difference between how I control my emotions and how you control yours
is that everything I have said has been completely legal and non-actionable.
Your threats, like trying to get me thrown off my ISP (funny behaviour for a
'free speech advocate!'), are nothing to anyone. Dismissed! Dismissed!
As
much as I despise Dubya, take his simplistic view on world affairs and
apply
be
it
More defamation.....
See http://tinyurl.com/5hj4v (full link in signature) - I quote directly
from you - "I haven't tallied the exact ratio of original material to ASF
postings,
but it's about 50-50 (maybe 60-40 original material)." You admit yourself
that at least 50% of "Outfoxing the Foxes" is not original! I love it when
you die by your own stupidhead words.
How would cybersheet.com's host react to the idea of his selling of
'rape'
products, for example?
One contact to them gives rise to a lawsuit. Even the threat of contact
might do that.
As I have said, why would I do that? You haven't injured me personally
(except with your vile words, and sticks and stones etc) and you give me
bellylaughs every day! I just loved the way you jumped out of your skin with
fright when I suggested it! More baseless legal threats from you too...you
are manic today!
What people are doing now is only strengthening my case against any
archive.
I am sure the Google lawyers are pissing themselves with laughter at that
statement!
TIC seems to think that after his obligatory period of pretending to be
neutral, that he can behave just like a SHILL and not be noticed.
Oh NO! Ray's defamed me! What I love about you, Porker, is that you are very
definite in the way you want others to behave to you, and you are completely
oblivious to the fact you break every single rule you seek to impose on
others, you speech nazi!
And when are you going to stop profiting from books showing men how to
'rape' (your definition) women and give the knowledge away to women free,
you 'civil rights campaigner?' Hahaha!
--------------------------------
At time of writing, Ray Gordon believes that
NLP seduction techniques used successfully
are no different from rape because these
techniques are used covertly. Ray has 4
affiliate links on his 'website' from which he
gains a commission from the sale of NLP
seduction materials. Therefore, by Ray's
standards, he is currently selling 4 books to
assist men directly in what he calls rape.
True Internet Cockroach, the artist formerly
known as, according to Ray, whale/shill/
domestic abuser/employment discriminator/
provider/beta/potential rapist/John/does
this list end(?) Takahesi Ogamori. He must
LOVE me!!! :-x
Ray wants Google to stop archiving his USENET posts.
But he said to me about something I wrote,
"The truth is that people get sued pretty harshly for what you've been
pulling on me. You also have called yourself a shill, and like it or not, I
can quote that with impunity."
Can Google also quote his USENET posts with impunity?
<snicker>
The post where Gordon Roy Parker admits that most of his work is not his own
and is from ASF is located at
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?selm=20000310.034917.-381551.4.The_Seduction_Library%40juno.com&output=gplain
|
| |
| |
In article <Mid6d.109296$U04.60041@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk>,
"True Internet Cockroach" <trueinternetcockroach@hotmail.com> wrote:
The post where Gordon Roy Parker admits that most of his work is not his own
and is from ASF is located at
http://groups.google.co.uk/groups?selm=20000310.034917.-381551.4.The_Seduction
_Library%40juno.com&output=gplain
My favourite quotes (note the UK spelling) are the following:
"Aside from making me a nice chunk of change (in part off the
writing of my criticis [sic], which is pretty cool)"
So the US Ray admits that the critics and the criticism of his books
provided him with "a nice chunk of change."
and this quote:
"By the way, when you post to USENET, you leave work in the public
domain."
Which means that his argument that he had certain posts deleted from the
Google archive because of "copyright violations" is completely false
based on this quote.
After all, if Google is merely recording works that are now in the
"public domain," then there's nothing anyone can do to stop them or
others from publishing what's in the public domain.
But all this could be stopped (as the US Ray has often said) if someone
would just get the balls to KILL him (emphasis his).
--
Visit the official Ray Gordon website at http://www.raygordonbooks.co.uk
|
| |
| |
"Ray Gordon" <ray@cybersheet.com> wrote in message news:<_8a6d.2637$OX.1480@trndny07>...
As I said previously, I think everyone should sue you in as
many jurisdictions as possible.
But as a layperson, your advice isn't meant as legal advice.
Wow! Another wannabe doctor on USENET!!
Good luck making that happen!
Awww, but you can't hide in a lawsuit the way you can on a message board!
Ray smokes cock.
|
| |
| |
"Ray Gordon" <ray@cybersheet.com> wrote in message news:<8Y56d.2606$6f.1933@trndny02>...
Go for it, Paul, but I think the best way to restrict this lunatic's
We have defamation......
Now, wait. You call Mr. Robinson a "cretin", and that's not
defamation, but when he calls you a "lunatic" that's defamation?
Both are outmoded psychological terms now used in the vernacular to
dismiss those with whom one disagrees. "Cretin" and "lunatic" are
comparable insults--they once had specific clinical meaning in the
field of psychology, but now are only blanket pejoratives.
Either you are admitting, here, that you previously defamed Mr.
Robinson, or your own claim of defamation on this count is frivolous.
Mr. Parker, no judge has ever upheld a single one of your many claims
of defamation. The logical mind would suggest that you might be the
one who is wrong, not the judges who have presided over your actions.
But then, the logical mind would also suggest that a man who feels he
has a hard time finding work as a legal secretary because male
attorneys, in his view, "like to hire eye candy" would LOOK FOR WORK
WITH A FEMALE ATTORNEY. Given that more than 40% of the attorneys in
the US are female, that gives him pretty decent odds.
T.
|
| |
| |
"Ray Gordon" <ray@cybersheet.com> wrote in message news:<8Y56d.2606$6f.1933@trndny02>...
Go for it, Paul, but I think the best way to restrict this lunatic's
We have defamation......
Only if the assertion is untrue, and made with actual malice. There
is no evidence of either.
access
to the internet is to cut off his source of funding, i.e. cybersheet.com.
Now tortious interference......oh, and did you folks know that in PA,
citizens have a private cause of action for the unauthorized practice of law
and can recover ATTORNEY FEES if they bring suit over it?
For one to recover attorney's fees, one must have incurred them.
Pro se parties cannot recover attorney's fees in Pennsylvania. See
WESTMORELAND COUNTY INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and JOHN K.
WHITEFORD v. ALLEGHENY COUNTY BOARD OF PROPERTY ASSESSMENT, et al. 723
A.2d 1084, 1999
For a "paralegal", you really don't know your own state's laws, do
you? Either that, or your "legal research skills" are sorely lacking.
Falc
|
| |
| |
Ray Gordon wrote:
Go for it, Paul, but I think the best way to restrict this lunatic's
We have defamation......
So you claim. Whether that claim is valid or not is another matter. In
order for it to be defamation (1) it must be untrue,(2) must be posted
with malice (as you are a public figure) and (3) it must in some way
damage your reputation. Since essentially everyone here dislikes you
your reputation cannot be damaged because your reputation can't fall
below zero.
Beyond that, do you *really* think a jury is going to find any comment
about you to be defamatory after your comments ON SEPTEMBER 11 how the
firefighters who were crushed to death and burned to death - at the very
moment you were posting the message - deserved what happened to them?
I have said it before, and I will say it again: you personally, through
your own actions, have so damaged your own reputation that you are
undefamable, because no jury would ever rule in your favor.
access to the internet is to cut off his source of funding,
i.e. cybersheet.com.
Now tortious interference......oh, and did you folks know that in PA,
citizens have a private cause of action for the unauthorized practice of law
and can recover ATTORNEY FEES if they bring suit over it?
Again, you think a jury will find in your favor after what you've said?
Presuming you can keep from sabotaging your case long enough to even
get to trial, a practice that you remain a "continued and inexcusable
failure" at accomplishing.
As much as I despise Dubya, take his simplistic view on world
affairs and apply it to Ray - ISPs are either with us or against
us. None of us really can be arsed to sue him to get his net
access and abuse pulled, so might it be worth showing that Ray
has plagiarised many of the ideas from ASF and put it on his
own website?
More defamation.....
It may be arguable as to whether your ideas are unique or whether you
got them from others; thus it may not be defamation unless you can prove
the falsity of the statement.
How would cybersheet.com's host react to the idea of his selling of 'rape'
products, for example?
One contact to them gives rise to a lawsuit. Even the threat of contact
might do that.
Yeah, right, you're going to go to the trouble of suing someone in
another state because they object to your comments. Talk about pot
calling the kettle black.
But, if you want to sue him, please do so. I really want to see Ray in
court. That would make international news (in all seriousness, with his
Google fishing expedition.)
What people are doing now is only strengthening my case against any archive.
So I hear. Only from you, but that's what I hear.
TIC seems to think that after his obligatory period of pretending to be
neutral, that he can behave just like a SHILL and not be noticed.
Being a shill is not necessarily actionable. Neither is being an
asshole or you would have been sued out of existence a long time ago
|
| |
| |
True Internet Cockroach wrote:
Yet again, Ray Gordon threatens without base and can't tell the difference
between free speech and defamation. The show must go on.....
You think a woman wants to marry a 37yo man with admitted bipolar disorder
who lives at home with his Mommy and would rather charge women for
information on how to prevent what he considers rape than give the
information away for free for the crime of not buying one of the books?
So Ray doesn't try to sue you for defaming him, I believe you should not
leave out pertinent details of his life, so therefore you should change
the phrase, "a 37yo man with admitted bipolar disorder" to "a 37yo
herpes simplex 2 infected man with admitted bipolar disorder."
We wouldn't want to fail to disclose ALL of the TRUTH, now, would we?
Also I added "simplex 2" to indicate I mean the common definition of
herpes, not "herpes simplex 1" which is the common cold sore, which I
believe about 98% of the population has.
|
| |
| |
TdN wrote:
"Ray Gordon" <ray@cybersheet.com> wrote in message news:<8Y56d.2606$6f.1933@trndny02>...
Go for it, Paul, but I think the best way to restrict this lunatic's
Now, wait. You call Mr. Robinson a "cretin", and that's not
defamation, but when he calls you a "lunatic" that's defamation?
No, the other guy called him a lunatic. I didn't. I did call ray an
asshole in a reply to the same message you are replying to, which I can
get away with.
It's not actionable for me to call Ray an asshole because it's clearly
not literal - no one would believe he is literally an anus and thus it
can't be defamatory - and because what constitutes being an "asshole" is
a matter of opinion, it is therefore a statement of pure opinion and
automatically not defamation, Q.E.D.)
|
| |
| |
Paul Robinson <postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us> wrote in message news:<n5C6d.8758$Mf.4831@trnddc05>...
TdN wrote:
No, the other guy called him a lunatic. I didn't. I did call ray an
asshole in a reply to the same message you are replying to, which I can
get away with.
Ah, the threading got away from me there. Same point,
though--"cretin" and "lunatic" are equally defamatory, or equally
non-defamatory.
It's not actionable for me to call Ray an asshole because it's clearly
not literal - no one would believe he is literally an anus and thus it
can't be defamatory - and because what constitutes being an "asshole" is
a matter of opinion, it is therefore a statement of pure opinion and
automatically not defamation, Q.E.D.)
Got it. It's true that nobody would believe that Mr. Parker is
literally an anus--even though enormous amounts of #@($ pour out of
him daily, the anus (unlike Mr. Parker) is a source of sexual pleasure
to millions around the world.
T.
|
| |
| |
TdN wrote:
Paul Robinson <postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us> wrote in message news:<n5C6d.8758$Mf.4831@trnddc05>...
It's not actionable for me to call Ray an asshole because it's clearly
not literal - no one would believe he is literally an anus and thus it
can't be defamatory - and because what constitutes being an "asshole" is
a matter of opinion, it is therefore a statement of pure opinion and
automatically not defamation, Q.E.D.)
Got it. It's true that nobody would believe that Mr. Parker is
literally an anus--even though enormous amounts of #@($ pour out of
him daily,
You know what, you're right. In which case even if someone did take it
literally it wouldn't be defamatory either!
I give you four points.
the anus (unlike Mr. Parker) is a source of sexual pleasure
to millions around the world.
I've said before that I only post here because I find this place fun and
I like @$#*ing with Ray, although I never meant it literally!
|
| |
| |
Paul Robinson <postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us> wrote in message news:<n5C6d.8758$Mf.4831@trnddc05>...
It's not actionable for me to call Ray an asshole because it's clearly
not literal - no one would believe he is literally an anus and thus it
can't be defamatory - and because what constitutes being an "asshole" is
a matter of opinion, it is therefore a statement of pure opinion and
automatically not defamation, Q.E.D.)
It wouldn't be defamation anyway, because Ray literally IS an anus. He
is dirty and smelly, and #@($s all over this newsgroup.
|
| |
| |
The Voice of Reason wrote:
Paul Robinson <postmaster@paul.washington.dc.us> wrote in message news:<n5C6d.8758$Mf.4831@trnddc05>...
It wouldn't be defamation anyway, because Ray literally IS an anus. He
is dirty and smelly, and #@($s all over this newsgroup.
I can't give you any points as another poster already made this
argument, but consider this an award for "best runner up" if you didn't
see that one.
|
| |
| |
The hiding troll "Falconnier" is believed NOT to be a licensed attorney
himself. Many posts by "Falconnier" contain false statements of
applicable law.
Bob Hirschfeld, JD
http://www.nolawyer.com.
|
| |
| |
Prove your allegations, jackass.
Falc.
|
| |
| |
|
