Man sues chatroom pals: I was humiliated beyond what 'no man could endure'

CourtTV ^ | 01/12/2006 | J.K. Dineen

[BJClinton]

bashed him over the head with a half empty liquor bottle

So you wasted half a bottle of booze? You should be sued as well.

[TX Bluebonnet]

Let's all sue Google Earth! Oh darn, it's not a crime.

(Thanks goodness my city is fuzzy, but Dallas is crystal clear. I found my cousin's house and told them they need to water their grass more and perhaps invest in some chlorine for the pool. :D )

Also, isn't any info you get from the courthouse public record?

[moehoward]

[Dashing Dasher]

Technically, your posting at CP would be cyber stalking, not the other way around.

Actually - I was trying to respond to vicious attacks on me. Then, while trying to respond - I was banned and no longer able to defend myself to your friends' juvenile attacks.

Hope you (and your twisted friends) are proud of yourself.

[r-q-tek86]

It's all imaginary! Fake, not real.... It's the INTERNET!

Except PaulaB's calender yesterday... right?

[Dashing Dasher]

You are so sweet.

I'll work on that.

[Termite_Commander]

What's scary is that I can read that.

[HairOfTheDog]

God lord! Doesn't the man get it!?!? It's all imaginary! Fake, not real.... It's the INTERNET!

I'd have to disagree. Without really speaking to the merits of this guy's case, which I can't (I don't know enough) the internet is not just imaginary and fake. Outing someone's private and personal information can be very hurtful. It's not allowed here, for example, even against 'opponents' except in a couple very particular instances.

My relationships with people online are real, and the rules of good manners and even slander and libel should apply.

[Servant of the 9]

Technically, your posting at CP would be cyber stalking, not the other way around.

Actually - I was trying to respond to vicious attacks on me. Then, while trying to respond - I was banned and no longer able to defend myself to your friends' juvenile attacks.

Hope you (and your twisted friends) are proud of yourself.

I didn't ban you.
I didn't even know you were banned.
I assumed you had figured out that the best way to deal with petty attacks was to ignore them.

I don't expect all the people I like to like or even tolerate each other.

So9

[HairOfTheDog]

Was it really a chat room where there is no permanent record of it? or was it a forum like this?

[BJClinton]

Haven't seen that in forever. I'll need to edit it a bit for troll-slaying.

[BJClinton]

So basically, he was trying to be "sugar daddy" in a "romancing older men" chat room and somebody put some effort into finding out he was full of crap. And not in a good way that "romancing older men" types would appreciate.

Ew.

[Hatteras]

He couldn't have just written an opus and say good bye?

[Jersey Republican Biker Chick]

Yes, but intentional infliction of emotional distress is a major tort, and often brings large $$ settlements in court against the tortfeasor.

Maybe those, at the site that shall remain nameless, should consider that when posting their vile, hate filled, harassing, comments.

I have also seem some things posted there that can be construed as threats and we know that is a violation of criminal statutes.

Invasion of privacy is also something they are known for by posting pics and others personal info.

[BJClinton]

What's scary is that I can read that.

Yup, that is scary. I used a translator: http://www.eskimo.com/~mvargas/hax0r.htm

[mikrofon]

	ONLINE

[right-wingin_It]

Yeah, there was a post like that. It was attached to a spending bill in the middle of the night I think. 'Annoying speech' on the internet is now crime apparently. It will be challenged in the courts on the left coast and the first ammendment will eventually only protect leftist speech.

I got a question though. Couldn't the President have used his line item veto on these midnight additions to congresional bills?

[BJClinton]

Shouldn't that be "Grumpy Gay Old Men - Online"?

[AppyPappy]

Yup, This was more of a stalking