Maura Murray

Sam, that's a very interesting theory. If you handle the paperwork, I'd be willing to sue. Maybe we could subpoena Topix to get the metadata, figure out who really posted it.

Seriously wrote:

<quoted text>
Then it becomes a matter of context. What dumb azz would take action that resulted in a pecuniary loss based on a statement posted on a page designed for opinions without first doing their due diligence? No one could expect a factual statement in that setting.
If a man yelled fire in a crowded theater where people have a reasonable expectation that it was true and they would come to harm is much different than if that same man yelled fire with the same crowd of people while floating on an ice burg in the North Pacific. Both would be fraudulent misrepresentations but the context in which they were made makes one a crime and the other a joke.

You're argument focuses on reliance and not on the fraudulent character of the representation.

I'm not going to take the time to correct each statement you make. If you have a question or a valid argument, then I'll respond. Otherwise, I'll ignore it.

Tester wrote:

<quoted text>
Inadvertent -- sorry to confuse. I'm not Suzanne.

Thanks.

Your demeanor is nothing like hers, but I thought it was worth asking about.

James Renner wrote:

Sam, that's a very interesting theory. If you handle the paperwork, I'd be willing to sue. Maybe we could subpoena Topix to get the metadata, figure out who really posted it.

I think I can help you with that.

I'll send you an email this afternoon discussing the specifics.

Sam Ledyard wrote:

<quoted text>
A fraudulent misrepresentation is only actionable if it results in pecuniary loss. Your hypothetical about Snow White would not result in pecuniary loss and, therefore, is not actionable. Suzanne's statement arguably resulted in pecuniary loss. But, regardless of the result, it was nevertheless a fraudulent misrepresentation.

Forget Snow White. Lets sue the mall santa clause. Don't parents have a pecuniary loss for having to buy the children's gift to keep the santa story alive?

James Renner wrote:

Sam, that's a very interesting theory. If you handle the paperwork, I'd be willing to sue. Maybe we could subpoena Topix to get the metadata, figure out who really posted it.

Do it.

This is some of the greatest entertainment yet. Let sue someone for something they said on the internet. What are the odds the judge will laugh so hard he will fall of the bench. I wonder if the judge is allowed to use the term dumb-ass? What??? Something someone said on the internet wasn't true. HOOOOLLLLYYY SHIT! We must find them and eradicate this scourge. Yep, that is how I see this going down. What are the odds? Who thinks the judge going to agree with your outrage and grant you what you want, or is he going call you a group of dumb-asses and throw it out of court while mentioning don't ever waste the courts time on this again. I wonder???

Why not just ask Topic for the information. Oh yeah. Because they will just tell you to pound sand up your axx. Can't wait to hear the judge tell you basically the same thing.

I hope wherever you do this has video cameras in the court because I really want to watch this one. Please keep us informed on this major breakthrough of renner and sam.

Now THIS IS ENTERTAINMENT.

Bill

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
Forget Snow White. Lets sue the mall santa clause. Don't parents have a pecuniary loss for having to buy the children's gift to keep the santa story alive?

It never ceases to amaze me how many people and the variety of ways that they insist on wasting their time on this case. Including me. If I could get those 15 minutes back (the concept was so stupid I thought I read it wrong and had to re-read it) of reading that bullsxxt I would.

Bill

WTH-the-original wrote:

This is some of the greatest entertainment yet. Let sue someone for something they said on the internet. What are the odds the judge will laugh so hard he will fall of the bench. I wonder if the judge is allowed to use the term dumb-ass? What??? Something someone said on the internet wasn't true. HOOOOLLLLYYY SHIT! We must find them and eradicate this scourge. Yep, that is how I see this going down. What are the odds? Who thinks the judge going to agree with your outrage and grant you what you want, or is he going call you a group of dumb-asses and throw it out of court while mentioning don't ever waste the courts time on this again. I wonder???
Why not just ask Topic for the information. Oh yeah. Because they will just tell you to pound sand up your axx. Can't wait to hear the judge tell you basically the same thing.
I hope wherever you do this has video cameras in the court because I really want to watch this one. Please keep us informed on this major breakthrough of renner and sam.
Now THIS IS ENTERTAINMENT.
Bill

There are times when something said is entertaining and there are times when something said is so funny that the other people in your house are wondering what you are laughing about and then there are the things said that cause you to just sit there shaking your head in disbelief. It's rare to find all three in one place at the same time. The 3 stooges, entertaining once again.

James Renner wrote:

Sam, that's a very interesting theory. If you handle the paperwork, I'd be willing to sue. Maybe we could subpoena Topix to get the metadata, figure out who really posted it.

And what exactly are you going to sue for? What is your injury?

"Standing, or locus standi, is capacity of a party to bring suit in court. State laws define standing. At the heart of these statutes is the requirement that plaintiffs have sustained or will sustain direct injury or harm and that this harm is redressable."

You have no standing. This is just silly and you're just being a drama queen again.

Maruchan wrote:

<quoted text>
And what exactly are you going to sue for? What is your injury?
"Standing, or locus standi, is capacity of a party to bring suit in court. State laws define standing. At the heart of these statutes is the requirement that plaintiffs have sustained or will sustain direct injury or harm and that this harm is redressable."
You have no standing. This is just silly and you're just being a drama queen again.

No, No, No. Stop trying to educate these idiots to see the stupidity of this or you are going to ruin all the fun. If you make them understand how stupid this is, they will start on another adventure. Everyone is much safer if they are expending their energy doing something this stupid and public. Hopefully renner will talk about this brainstorm they had on his blog. It keeps them busy and prevents them "investigating" in other ways.It also shows people why they would never want to get involved with people like this and again shows that Fred was probably correct in telling anyone not to talk to these idiots..

Carry on renner, sam and tyler, you are doing a bang up job. I believe in you guys. You can do it.

What a clump of laughable buffoons.

Bill

Why do you people pretend that the internet and "real" life are two different things? They aren't. Just because you think you're saying something anonymously (you aren't) doesn't mean you're absolved of responsibility for your actions. You don't have an infallible "right" to anonymity on the internet. So before you say something online, I would suggest being prepared to take responsibility for the things you say and do.

Tyler from Pittsburgh wrote:

Why do you people pretend that the internet and "real" life are two different things? They aren't. Just because you think you're saying something anonymously (you aren't) doesn't mean you're absolved of responsibility for your actions. You don't have an infallible "right" to anonymity on the internet. So before you say something online, I would suggest being prepared to take responsibility for the things you say and do.

I've seen more BS, untruths, outright lies and fallacies on this forum to fill a dump truck.
If you're going to sue over someone that might not have told the truth then you probably should start lining everyone up for a strip search before they're thrown in the slammer.
Jeesh this is really getting ridiculous. We have no idea if Maura is dead or alive. There is no evidence that a crime was even committed. We have no idea if she is in Canada, NH, VT, Ireland or anywhere else in the world.
And those that throw stones should look at what they have posted before stoning someone else. Just saying...

Tyler from Pittsburgh wrote:

You don't have an infallible "right" to anonymity on the internet.

The right isn't "infallible" but it is still a right. If I ask you your name and address do you have to answer? A better question to stay on topic, if you do answer does the answer have to be correct?

Tyler from Pittsburgh wrote:

Why do you people pretend that the internet and "real" life are two different things? They aren't. Just because you think you're saying something anonymously (you aren't) doesn't mean you're absolved of responsibility for your actions. You don't have an infallible "right" to anonymity on the internet. So before you say something online, I would suggest being prepared to take responsibility for the things you say and do.

What I find even more telling is you put the word real in real life in quotes. If anyone that uses the internet thinks or expects what they are reading is the truth and only the truth then they are idiots. Maybe you are new tot he internet but it has been known for a very long time that you shouldn't believe anything you read on the internet unless you do research. Now if you think that little lawsuit, which stand no chance of winning, will change that. You feel free to keep tilting at those windmills and encouraging sam and jim Quixote. This is going to be great fun.

Bill

Wowzer the real one wrote:

And those that throw stones should look at what they have posted before stoning someone else. Just saying...

If you think anything I've ever posted has been anything less than truthful feel free to point those statements out and I'll be happy to address them.

WTH-the-original wrote:

<quoted text>
If anyone that uses the internet thinks or expects what they are reading is the truth and only the truth then they are idiots.

Hi Eric,

I don't believe the Geocities Letter is truthful. So I fail to see what point you are trying to make.

Sam Ledyard wrote:

<quoted text>
I think I can help you with that.
I'll send you an email this afternoon discussing the specifics.

When your done send me one as well. I can't tell you how many umbrellas I purchased after watching Mary Poppins. Everyone I ordered has been a defect. I'm starting to think the use of the umbrella was misrepresented.

Lighthouse 101 wrote:

<quoted text>
The right isn't "infallible" but it is still a right.

Who declared anonymity a right? Or are you just assuming?

I can call someone from a phone booth without stating my name but that isn't a "right."

No one has to volunteer their real identity. However, you're still responsible for the content you produce. Just because you say something under a moniker does not absolve you from being responsible for your statement.

Tyler from Pittsburgh wrote:

However, you're still responsible for the content you produce.

Your argument is misdirected. It has been a long rumor that Eddie Money during his touring days never had "two tickets" to paradise. Could you believe it? All that wasted emotion thinking he actually had a "surprise for you"

Same source tells me that Jay-Z never had 99 problems.

Nena' in her rock 80's video never had 99 red ballons they were a mixture of ballons but the red ones never totaled 99.

Where do you want to draw the line for places of entertainment?