John Barton Meets Professor Johnson
- Thread starter SpiderWebComm
- Start date
If what you say is true, it may be the other way around and then some.
Like my Sister said, this isn't like calling someone a name, hell we all do that from time to time. This is a video that was purposely created to defame (allegedly) one particular indivdual, and therein lies the rub.
I'm not taking sides here. I like Spidey, and from what I saw he's damn talented.
By-the-way, I look nothing like that guy. I don't have a beard.
Not to be a wet blanket here, but I was talking to my Sister over the phone this morning and asked her if information going out over the internet, that could in some way be harmful to another person, be considered libel. The reason I asked was because I was curious about this thread.
My Sister, who has been a practicing attorney in Denver, for many years, told me that the criteria for any actions involving defamation would hinge on three basic factors: (1) Was the defamed party's actual name used. (2) Did defamation, or libel actually occur. (3) Did enough people see the offense to cause damage. Since it happened on the internet, she said, rule number three could be easily satisfied.
According to my Sister, one of the primary reasons for avatars on forum sites, and other places, was to avoid this very thing from happening. Avatars tend to create an artificial invironment that generally avoids direct confrontation, lessening the chance any potential libel.
So, don't shoot me, I'm only the messenger here. Just telling you what Sis said.
No, wet blanket is exactly what you are being.
It's funny! We could use lots more of that around here. I'll volunteer to be the butt of more good jokes if it means less bad arguments.Not to be a wet blanket here, but I was talking to my Sister over the phone this morning and asked her if information going out over the internet, that could in some way be harmful to another person, be considered libel. The reason I asked was because I was curious about this thread.
My Sister, who has been a practicing attorney in Denver, for many years, told me that the criteria for any actions involving defamation would hinge on three basic factors: (1) Was the defamed party's actual name used. (2) Did defamation, or libel actually occur. (3) Did enough people see the offense to cause damage. Since it happened on the internet, she said, rule number three could be easily satisfied.
According to my Sister, one of the primary reasons for avatars on forum sites, and other places, was to avoid this very thing from happening. Avatars tend to create an artificial invironment that generally avoids direct confrontation, lessening the chance any potential libel.
So, don't shoot me, I'm only the messenger here. Just telling you what Sis said.
pj
chgo
Now, how can you call me a wet blanket (I haven't heard that phrase since jr. high) when you and the rest of this group is having a stone throwing party. Well, excuse me for passing on what might be important information, and excuse me for not picking up a rock.
Thanks Patrick! Nice to see that you have a sense of humor. Some time back, Disco parodied me in his Hitler video and like you I got a kick out of the whole thing.
By the way, I'm also not unfamiliar with the legal system (although not a lawyer), having a sister who has been a prominent attorney in the entertainment business. I ran this by her and she said that most judges would throw something like this out of court the first day. It's innocuous and trivial and not worthy of the court's time. In other words, it would be treated (in all likelihood) as a "nonsense" law suit with no merit whatsoever. The actual word she used was a "frivolous" law suit.
Last edited:
Well, there you have it. Spideys safe. PJ's still penniless, and you guys have just been punked. Not only is my sister not a lawyer, I don't even have a sister. Got'cha.
Well, there you have it. Spideys safe. PJ's still penniless, and you guys have just been punked. Not only is my sister not a lawyer, I don't even have a sister. Got'cha.
Tramp just doing what Tramp does.:wink::thumbup:
Now, how can you call me a wet blanket (I haven't heard that phrase since jr. high) when you and the rest of this group is having a stone throwing party. Well, excuse me for passing on what might be important information, and excuse me for not picking up a rock.
You heard it somewhere, it was in your post!! LOL.
Sorry, wrong again! PJ's not penniless, he still has the $3k he owes
Spidey!
Ah! Another story for another time. Cheers everybody.
:rotflmao1::rotflmao1::rotflmao1::thumbup:
Sorry, wrong again! PJ's not penniless, he still has the $3k he owes
Spidey!
I think that was in this video.
http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/11552399/the-big-johnson/?listid=21784741
:rotflmao1::rotflmao1::rotflmao1::rotflmao1::rotflmao
Just so you'll know, I talked with my Sister again and she said that not only is Spidey possibly in deep doggy-doo, so is JB if colusion could be proved. Why you're raggin' my ass about this is beyond me. I believe, however, that if I were the Spiderman, I'd be apologizing to Patrick about as fast as my little fingers could talk.
LMFAO! PJ was prob laughing his azz off. In order to have libel, there has to be an untruth. There was nothing untrue about that video--- there are 1000 posts on this site to show it all as fact. John Barton even went from zero to bet $500 1P in 2.2 seconds just like in real life. It was pretty balanced and super accurate.
PJ would no sooner file a libel claim on this video as your ass would pass a high school graduate exam.
If that one church is allowed to picket and protest dead soldiers' funerals, bet your sister's house I can post a ball busting cartoon on the internet.... designed on a web site that's designed to do just that.
So, I'll also exercise my freedom of speech by telling you to and your sister to piss off.
exactly......