Custom Cues: What's Hot, What's Not
- Thread starter DEGAMO88
- Start date
Brickman said:APPARENTLY.....you cant read, this wasnt my opinion, I only stated what the attorney told me, and I dont know nor have I ever shot with one of bluds cues......so to say I am mad because he disagreed with me is ignorant because I never stated an opinion to be agreed or disagreed with.
If you are going to post to someone, I would at least read all the post , because you seem like you have a very hard time comprehending what you read , or you are just an idiot, to post what you did.
If you dont like what I posted then take it up with the law , because all I did is post what a lawyer told me , to be the law regarding the statement shorty made.....PERIOD......if I need to use bigger letters or smaller words for you to comprehend please let me know......as I have stated this wasnt my opinion, only my post of passing along the info given to me.
WHAT A GOOBER
lol @ Brickman calling someone else an idiot. Too rich
JimBo said:
Ad?!?!?.. A guy posts his opinions and its an ad? Thats to funny.
Shorty, please make another poll asking if positive cue reviews are viewed as ads...
So AZ in a nutshell in a week...
Can't post negative cue reviews, especially that of AZ contributors
Can't post opinion polls... unless they agree with everyone elses philosophy
Can't post positive cue reviews because they are ads'
Might as well shut AZ down, the commies are here...
Joe
Brickman said:
So what you're saying is that:
1 - A lawyer said expressing an opinion (whether a cue is hot or not) on a message board is “slander?”
2 - A lawyer said that expressing an opinion (whether a cue is hot or not) on a message board is an “illegal comment?”
Did this lawyer also say that someone who didn’t like an opinion (Blud) should consider suing to keep the “next moron from running his mouth?”
I would really like to meet this lawyer, he seems like quite a character. It seems that all of those lawyer jokes may indeed have some merit.
Seriously though, I highly doubt you are accurately representing here what you think you heard from this lawyer and the fact that you still don't see this is really kind of funny.
By the way, earlier you said you had “seen other people sued on forums for the same thing.” Source? Evidence?
Hot NWS
This is hot
http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/1374/elishacuthbert7uj.jpg
And to keep it pool related these are HOT
This is hot
http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/1374/elishacuthbert7uj.jpg
And to keep it pool related these are HOT
JimBo said:
Absolutely right on, Jimbo. Supply and demand.
When you look at basic economics, you look at supply and demand.
Sometimes something will happen that will cause a movement along the supply or demand curves, ie, a temporary shortage of an item causes a temporary spike in the cost of the item, etc.
What we have experienced with the internet is a shift OF the demand (and/or, supply) curve. This is due to the fact that those of us who now engage in electronic commerce have suddenly HUGELY expanded our potential market. This could cause either an over-abundance of supply in a particular market area of a particular product, thereby driving prices down for that item, or it could cause a shortage of one (or more) supplier's products, causing that product to be in short supply, thereby driving that item up severely in price.
I think we have seen a little of both.
UGOTDA7 said:
THEY WHERE SUED ON A CHRISTIAN MESSAGE BOARD OVER ONE MINISTER RUINING ANOTHERS REPUTATION, WITH HIS CHURCH, BY CALLING SEVERAL OF THEM. I have no Idea how it came out, it was pretty sad really.
Look like I said the man was standing right beside me and told me what to say about the law, If you or I make a statement that hurts or diminishes another persons Income , then that person could/would be liable for that income......wether or not they would win in court I have no idea.
Look at Oprahs comments , when she put down beef, she was sued, she won but still.
And Yes we have free speech in this country , but that free speech cannot cause anothers injury , or their loss it is Slander, to make a comment to hurt someone else, unless you could prove it to a certainty is slander.
Like I said I could care less about shorty or blud or this thread or whatever......but I cant stand the fact that anyone can Just say what they want and if it hurts anithers income big deal.......I own a construction company and deal in different real estate holdings , and if you think someones " MOUTH" cant hurt your paycheck, you would be very naive.
Will blud sue shorty I DONT KNOW < COULD BLUD SUE SHORTY.....according to the lawyer he could.......but Like I said I couldnt care less, I shouldnt have even posted in this ignorant thread, but seeing how mad Blud Got .....well I can say I know how he feels.
IF you want to know how he feels , then quit your company Job with benifits , and put all you have into a buisness, and stake your families financial future on it.......then when someone says something that hurts your buisness, tell me how it feels.......thats why I said "maybe it will keep the next morons mouth shut".........but as for the rest of the post .....IT WAS WHAT THE LAYER SAID WAS THE LAW>.......OK
I have explained this enuff......more than enuff......I think with Shortys " poll thread " it also shows he didnt just state his opinion, but he did it with malice.
Look believe me or dont I dont care, but seriously I would think the lawyer would know the law , a little better than a bunch of pool wantabees and know it alls.....dont you
blud said:
BINGO BLUD......he doesnt even need proof , the statement or accusation alone will have an effect on you............I am sorry he did you this way, from what I can tell you have a great product. But dont let a little loud mouth TWIT keep you from posting here, I know I am new here, and not even settled in yet, but I hate to see this guy run you off, over his mouth.
If it means anything to you , I cant afford your cues but if I could I would love ot have one.......so dont let this chump win, thats what he wants ,to do you like this so he can feel better about his self, dont let it happen
buddha162 said:
Like Blud said in his last post what if a newbee here , knows that shorty buys and sells alot......to some that would equate knowledge and like Blud said.....it would cost him a sale or 2 or 3. when I said that post there , I definitely weasnt talking about his knowledge ....only the fact that he could influence a new buyer.
Brickman said:THEY WHERE SUED ON A CHRISTIAN MESSAGE BOARD OVER ONE MINISTER RUINING ANOTHERS REPUTATION, WITH HIS CHURCH, BY CALLING SEVERAL OF THEM. I have no Idea how it came out, it was pretty sad really.
Look like I said the man was standing right beside me and told me what to say about the law, If you or I make a statement that hurts or diminishes another persons Income , then that person could/would be liable for that income......wether or not they would win in court I have no idea.
Look at Oprahs comments , when she put down beef, she was sued, she won but still.
And Yes we have free speech in this country , but that free speech cannot cause anothers injury , or their loss it is Slander, to make a comment to hurt someone else, unless you could prove it to a certainty is slander.
Like I said I could care less about shorty or blud or this thread or whatever......but I cant stand the fact that anyone can Just say what they want and if it hurts anithers income big deal.......I own a construction company and deal in different real estate holdings , and if you think someones " MOUTH" cant hurt your paycheck, you would be very naive.
Will blud sue shorty I DONT KNOW < COULD BLUD SUE SHORTY.....according to the lawyer he could.......but Like I said I couldnt care less, I shouldnt have even posted in this ignorant thread, but seeing how mad Blud Got .....well I can say I know how he feels.
IF you want to know how he feels , then quit your company Job with benifits , and put all you have into a buisness, and stake your families financial future on it.......then when someone says something that hurts your buisness, tell me how it feels.......thats why I said "maybe it will keep the next morons mouth shut".........but as for the rest of the post .....IT WAS WHAT THE LAYER SAID WAS THE LAW>.......OK
I have explained this enuff......more than enuff......I think with Shortys " poll thread " it also shows he didnt just state his opinion, but he did it with malice.
Look believe me or dont I dont care, but seriously I would think the lawyer would know the law , a little better than a bunch of pool wantabees and know it alls.....dont you
It is clear that you do not even have an elementary understanding of the issues surrounding free speech / slander / libel. Why you continue to keep publicly making a fool of yourself is beyond me.
It is also clear that either:
1. You did not understand what the lawyer explained about the law on this issue.
2. The lawyer is highly confused.
I'm going with number one.
The point you continue to miss is that expressing an opinion is not libel or slander. As I mentioned earlier, libel / slander in essence are lies. Shorty expressing his opinion that Blud's cues are not hot do not meet the test for either.
As for Oprah, you really should try to gain an understanding of the issue before bringing it up over and over. She was accused by cattle ranchers of knowingly making false statements about the cattle industry. She even gave the ranchers the opportunity to debate the issue of the cattle industry / mad cow disease on her show, they declined. They thought they could just bully her into submission (like some here are trying to do with Shorty) with the backing of billionaire Paul Engler. Oprah knew her rights, knew what the law was, and in the end she rightfully prevailed.
Like I said earlier, print out this thread and take it to a lawyer. I think you might actually learn a thing or two.
Brickman said:
If some noobie turned away from a Blud because Shorty said his cues weren't hot anymore, that would just add one more idiot to this thread, making a total of 4 idiots thus far.
Please take up UGOTDA7's proposition, and stop trying to help Blud because you're not. Blud's not helping himself here either, it's shrill insecurity writ large.
-Roger
Brickman said:HERE MORON.....DEFAMATION OF CHARACTER......AND THE LAWYER IS IN THE FAMILY SO I DONT HAVE TO TAKE IT ANYWHERE.......
YOU REALLY SHOULD HAVE LOOKED THIS UP, I GOT THIS FROM A GOOGLE SEARCH JUST FOR YOU BECAUSE THE LAWYER IS OUT FOR THE EVENING......DOESNT GET MUCH CLEARER THAN THIS
Defamation, sometimes called "defamation of character", is spoken or written words that falsely and negatively reflect on a living person's reputation.
If a person or the news media says or writes something about you that is understood to lower your reputation, or that keeps people from associating with you, defamation has occurred. Slander and libel are two forms of defamation.
What is ‘slander’?
Slander is a spoken defamation.
I really cant believe you keep posting that I dont know the law when it came straight from a district attorneys mouth......where did you get your law degree ?
SPOKEN OR WRITTEN WORDS THAT NEGATIVELY REFLECTS ON A LIVING PERSONS REPUTATION...( BLUD SEEMS ALIVE TO ME ) HOW BOUT THE PART THAT SAYS " KEEPS PEOPLE FROM ASSOCIATING WITH YOU" DEFAMATION HAS OCCURED, AND SLANDER AND LIBEL ARE 2 FORMS OF DEFAMATION
NEED ANYMORE PROOF THERE GENIUS.....AND I DIDNT SEE IT MAKE A DISTINCTION FOR SOMEONE JUST GIVING THEIR OPINION DID YOU? SO HOW BOUT THAT LAW DEGREE.......
NO NEED TO APOLOGIZE TO ME ....YOUR EMBARASSMENT FOR LACK OF KNOWLEDGE IS ENUFF HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
BEST NOT TO COME TO A BATTLE OF MINDS UNARMED.....THIS WILL JUST KEEP HAPPENING..lol......KINDA MAKES YOU FEEL SICK DONT IT
You are so confused it is both funny and sad at the same time. Like I said, print this out and show it to a lawyer. You're in for a rude awakening.
In the meantime why don't we conduct a hypothetical test. Which one is libel?
1. I know for a fact that Brickman is a flaming homosexual.
2. I think Brickman is as dumb as a box of rocks.
Yo, Joey, I'm thrilled to report that I have 5 new magnificently crafted 2005 Eddie Prewitt cues available! (See my Prewitt Preview in the for sale/wanted section). They were just completed this week. Eddie allowed me to hijack them before they were shipped off to Japan and Taiwan. When's the last time you saw a group of Prewitt's for sale here in the good 'ol USA?
Martin
Martin
JoeyInCali said:
Go ahead Blud, sue me...and I will counter sue you, then we can make two lawyers rich and us both be even more broke.
I never said 1 damn word bad about Blud's cues at all...period...find where I did...show me...put it up Hal. I just made you a damn good deal on a Joe Porper case and this is how you are? Tell ya what, go take that overpriced Espiritu of yours and stick it where the sun don't shine.
I said Blud has an attitude in my poll...that is about all I said. He is like many cuemakers I have seen on here, they are more in love with their cues and craft than selling cues....and that is fine, just don't expect me to fine the same love for your cue that you have as a cuemaker. I would much rather give my money to Bill Schick and some other cuemakers than Leonard Bludworth...and that is my right and my choice.
Shorty
I never said 1 damn word bad about Blud's cues at all...period...find where I did...show me...put it up Hal. I just made you a damn good deal on a Joe Porper case and this is how you are? Tell ya what, go take that overpriced Espiritu of yours and stick it where the sun don't shine.
I said Blud has an attitude in my poll...that is about all I said. He is like many cuemakers I have seen on here, they are more in love with their cues and craft than selling cues....and that is fine, just don't expect me to fine the same love for your cue that you have as a cuemaker. I would much rather give my money to Bill Schick and some other cuemakers than Leonard Bludworth...and that is my right and my choice.
Shorty
Brickman said:I didnt think It would take you long before you showed yourself.....I find it so funny how you girls start with the names and insults when you realize you have been beaten.........I gave you the definition you were looking for and then you still say I am confused.......that is so funny......It was alamost fun , showing you up but......since you are such a weak challenge it really just ended up being sad......It was almost like when I beat someone who isnt much of a poolplayer , but they try real hard, and it almost makes me feel bad to beat them.
Dont give up, you will get'em next time.....and If I remember it, I will try to let you win OK......or at least give you a big spot , because its obvious you cant play me even. Maybe you could find you a couple of kids this weekend and try to out smart them, maybe that will boost your confidence
It really is sad just watching you squirm HA HA HA HA HA HA ........"POOR LIL FELLA "
Guy, I hate to say it, but it seems that you are just plain stupid.
1. You lack the basic understanding of what slander is.
2. You started with the names in your first post discussing Shorty.
3. You said Shorty had committed slander. Slander is spoken communication, that never happened here, if anything it would be libel.
4. You said a lawyer said it was slander. Lawyers may be jackasses at times but they aren't stupid. A lawyer isn't going to tell you that something on an internet message board was slander when it was impossible for it to be so.
5. Unless a lawyer saw all of the facts surrounding an issue they certainly wouldn't render a judgment on it (at least a decent lawyer won't). And you want us to believe you discussed this particular issue with a lawyer? I don't believe that for a second based on the ignorance you continue to post.
6. For example, you posted some BS about Oprah as if this helped your point when you don't even know the facts of that case either.
It is clear that you tried to sound smart by spouting a bunch of BS because you happen to have talked to a lawyer/relative. As if that lends you some sort of credibility? Sorry guy, that isn't how it works. I hope you don't have any astronaut relatives, I would hate to hear your take on rocket science.
Now please read this before you post further: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel
EDIT:
Make note of this section from the above link:
In 1974, in Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., (418 U.S. 323), the Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff could not win a libel suit when the statement(s) in question were of opinion rather than fact. In the words of the court, "under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea". For example, contrast "I think Jo is a bad lawyer", which is opinion, with "Jo doesn't know the law", which is defamatory per se. In Gertz, the Supreme Court also established a mens rea or culpability requirement for defamation; states cannot impose strict liability because that would run afoul of the First Amendment. This holding differs significantly from most other common law jurisdictions, which still have strict liability for defamation.
Last edited: