DiscussMormonism.com

Yahoo Bot has been frequently accused of threatening Shades with a lawsuit if he didn't remove Eric's What About Bob thread. The thread was deleted. Bob is still here.

Under a fair application of the new rule that implements banning for making legal threats against the board, and given that the rule has already been retroactively applied, should Yahoo Bot also be banned? If, of course, it is true that Bot threatened a lawsuit.

I don't argue that it's fair to see posters who threaten legal action against the board banned. But I do argue that the rule should be applied fairly. And if the rule is being applied retroactively to one case, it ought to be in the other, as well.

Are there other posters who have threatened legal action and were not banned? I understand Joseph was banned, but it took a while, and apparently only happened after he threatened to report bogus charges.

beastie wrote:Are there other posters who have threatened legal action and were not banned? I understand Joseph was banned, but it took a while, and apparently only happened after he threatened to report bogus charges.

Dr. Shades can correct me if I'm getting any of this wrong, but Dan Peterson threatened or implied there might be legal consequences resulting from a thread that discussed his involvement with the Brian Mitchell trial. If I recall correctly, that thread was either locked or deleted and Shades announced that the topic was forever off-limits.

Eric wrote:
Dr. Shades can correct me if I'm getting any of this wrong, but Dan Peterson threatened or implied there might be legal consequences resulting from a thread that discussed his involvement with the Brian Mitchell trial. If I recall correctly, that thread was either locked or deleted and Shades announced that the topic was forever off-limits.

I do believe you are correct. That is another example.

Are there others?

Won't happen. I support it 100%, if anyone should be gone, it's that lying gay-baiting coward of a Mormon, but desiring consistency from Shades is like getting blood from a rock.

I have bent over backwards to be fair to Shades and objective about this issue. I have tried so hard to do so that I fear I have made myself unpopular in some quarters. I truly do not blame Shades for not wanting posters on his board that threaten him with lawsuits.

But if a good case cannot be made for Shades applying this rule fairly, then I will re-evaluate my opinion about the entire matter. I was taking Shades at his word that the reason Jersey Girl was banned was because she made legal threats, and I agree that her words are best interpreted in that manner, although she insists that was not her intent.

But if others have threatened lawsuits without this reaction in the past, then what is the deal?

I know I would not miss Bot. Sorry.

And frankly I am sick of LDS apologists manipulating this board and its participants.

I've already made my feelings known on this issue, on anther thread. Calling on a response from Shades.

I don't know that it would be fair to retroactively apply the rule, but any board would be a better place without Bot.

If I threatened litigation against the board, then by all means produce proof and ban me. Let's see it.

beastie wrote:I have bent over backwards to be fair to Shades and objective about this issue. I have tried so hard to do so that I fear I have made myself unpopular in some quarters. I truly do not blame Shades for not wanting posters on his board that threaten him with lawsuits.

But if a good case cannot be made for Shades applying this rule fairly, then I will re-evaluate my opinion about the entire matter. I was taking Shades at his word that the reason Jersey Girl was banned was because she made legal threats, and I agree that her words are best interpreted in that manner, although she insists that was not her intent.

But if others have threatened lawsuits without this reaction in the past, then what is the deal?

The "What About Bob" thread I posted was much like the rcrocket's libel thread. It was a compilation of bizarre, often foul and ugly accusations made by Bob about me, along with my responses and evidence.

Bob could have sued me if anything I wrote was libelous, he and Peterson had already outed me.

I was pretty pissed off when Shades caved to Bob's threats, as it was several thousand words and a lot of research gone forever and I didn't even get a chance to save it. I was very sad to see that Jersey Girl had been banned.

Dan Peterson should definitely be banned. Without a doubt. His threat to Shades was probably the most real, and you can tell by the way Shades reacted. Bot should also be banned. His experience working for the Church as a lawyer clearly scared Shades, a lover of free speech, into deleting an entire (and entirely harmless) thread from his message board. If their actions aren't grounds for a retroactive banning, I don't see any reason to ban anyone ever and look forward to Derrick's posts again real soon.