My Daily Dose Of Laughs.
So he finally put up his ANSWER AND COUNTERCLAIM on his website {or so he claims he is sending). So what is so funny about it well afew things.
In his ANSWER
He claims the plaintiff' postings intentionally and maliciously went beyond the limits of "criticism", and crossed into intentional infliction of emotional distress by referring to the defendant as a "jerkoff" (he also referred another blogger as the same thing), which the defendant said can be taken as "fighting words", and harassment.
That is funny because the defendant has said numerous times in the past that what he writes in his blogs/websites are just words, for instance this was on his old webasite (screenshots of it and numerous others with pretty much the same thing)
The title was 'Playtime's over, clowns' on 5-15-2005
"To those who have hurt feelings, I would only say that you're way too sensitive--it's just words on a screen. A screen, I might add, that has an 'x' in the corner. "
Isn't jerkoff the same thing......just a word? No worse than some of the stuff the defendant has posted on his site towards our military and other people he writes about.
Moving on to his COUNTERCLAIM
He says that this case is about publicity for the plaintiff's blog and for EFF, yet in a forum he has frequented he has claimed that the lawsuit is all free publicity. Any publicity is good publicity to him.
This is all about publicity.It's a win-win for me. Either way I get publicity.(screenshots of this too)
I have heard this all to often from him on all his sites/blogs He will go to differant forums as someone else pretending to be pissed at the website and webmaster..just to get people to go there. Which brings us to what he claims next. The defendant claims the plaintiff's actions have caused a hateful and aggressive backlash by their supporters. That is not true at all. He has had hateful and aggessive supporters of our military on his case ever since the camera incident afew years back. Heck I even have some odds and end screenshots showing what kind of stuff he has posted on his site to get people to want to kill him. I'm sure the EFF lawyers would be busy just reading statements from people who has hatred toward the defendant way before the lawsuit.
Than he also mentions about losing or disrupting his business operations, which consisted mainly of income from advertising revenue. I think that was caused by the same people who complained to the advertisers on his sites, myself being one of them and it had nothing to do with the plaintiff yet had all to do with the defendants actions. I know of others who also complained to the
advertisers. he claims his actual costs and estimated lost ad revenue-- is estimated at $4,150.00 since his filing..Wonder if the IRS would be interested in that lol
I'm surprised he didn't put in there that the plaintiff "stole' the High School photos from his site. Well I for one know for a fact they were not solen from his site because the same photos were sent to me as well.
Maybe he should think about rewriting his answer and counterclaim.
In his ANSWER
He claims the plaintiff' postings intentionally and maliciously went beyond the limits of "criticism", and crossed into intentional infliction of emotional distress by referring to the defendant as a "jerkoff" (he also referred another blogger as the same thing), which the defendant said can be taken as "fighting words", and harassment.
That is funny because the defendant has said numerous times in the past that what he writes in his blogs/websites are just words, for instance this was on his old webasite (screenshots of it and numerous others with pretty much the same thing)
The title was 'Playtime's over, clowns' on 5-15-2005
"To those who have hurt feelings, I would only say that you're way too sensitive--it's just words on a screen. A screen, I might add, that has an 'x' in the corner. "
Isn't jerkoff the same thing......just a word? No worse than some of the stuff the defendant has posted on his site towards our military and other people he writes about.
Moving on to his COUNTERCLAIM
He says that this case is about publicity for the plaintiff's blog and for EFF, yet in a forum he has frequented he has claimed that the lawsuit is all free publicity. Any publicity is good publicity to him.
This is all about publicity.It's a win-win for me. Either way I get publicity.(screenshots of this too)
I have heard this all to often from him on all his sites/blogs He will go to differant forums as someone else pretending to be pissed at the website and webmaster..just to get people to go there. Which brings us to what he claims next. The defendant claims the plaintiff's actions have caused a hateful and aggressive backlash by their supporters. That is not true at all. He has had hateful and aggessive supporters of our military on his case ever since the camera incident afew years back. Heck I even have some odds and end screenshots showing what kind of stuff he has posted on his site to get people to want to kill him. I'm sure the EFF lawyers would be busy just reading statements from people who has hatred toward the defendant way before the lawsuit.
Than he also mentions about losing or disrupting his business operations, which consisted mainly of income from advertising revenue. I think that was caused by the same people who complained to the advertisers on his sites, myself being one of them and it had nothing to do with the plaintiff yet had all to do with the defendants actions. I know of others who also complained to the
advertisers. he claims his actual costs and estimated lost ad revenue-- is estimated at $4,150.00 since his filing..Wonder if the IRS would be interested in that lol
I'm surprised he didn't put in there that the plaintiff "stole' the High School photos from his site. Well I for one know for a fact they were not solen from his site because the same photos were sent to me as well.
Maybe he should think about rewriting his answer and counterclaim.
posted by Truthluster | Monday, December 11, 2006
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home