DiscussMormonism.com

I seems I cannot get a break on the issue of PMs, because guess what arrived in my InBox this evening? Yep, a threat of a lawsuit from jskains, who claims that I have libeled him in my blog, and that I am violating some mysterious copyright by using his avatar from ZLMB. Mr. Skains has demanded that I not reveal his PMs---so, fine, I won't do that. But, I just thought it fair to inform everyone else on the board that he is apparently very sue-happy. (by the way: Shades, Keene---have you received anything from him yet on this?)

There is a word that has been on my mind since jskains showed up here: ignore. That is my new policy, and I recommend it heartily to others. Starting... NOW.

Trevor wrote:There is a word that has been on my mind since jskains showed up here: ignore. That is my new policy, and I recommend it heartily to others. Starting... NOW.

Yes, I'd say that's good advice. It seems that he doesn't want his picture up there. I pointed out to him that this picture is his avatar at ZLMB. So.... He has no problem disseminating this image of himself, but has a problem just with the fact that it reappears in my blog?

Edited to add: In any case, I told him that if he publicly apologized for his behavior, I would be more than happy to remove the picture. We'll see what he decides to do.

How did you allegedly "libel" him? Could you repost a relevant comment that he challenges as "libelous"? Just curious. I'd like to try to challenge it.

Considering that he posted a link to his YouTube diatribe, I'm guessing the horse is out of the barn with respect to his image on this board. Plus there's also all that pesky fair use doctrine stuff.

If he managed to find a lawyer to take his case on, I'd be be mighty surprised.

Mister Scratch wrote:

Trevor wrote:There is a word that has been on my mind since jskains showed up here: ignore. That is my new policy, and I recommend it heartily to others. Starting... NOW.

Yes, I'd say that's good advice. It seems that he doesn't want his picture up there. I pointed out to him that this picture is his avatar at ZLMB. So.... He has no problem disseminating this image of himself, but has a problem just with the fact that it reappears in my blog?

Sir,

This is a private matter. It is childish to then make it public. I did not give you permission to use my image, one that I control under general copyright law. I have requested you remove it from your nasty hate-filled blog. That is a reasonable request.

Then you demand I make a public apology to you or you'll continue this attack on me? That is childish and a threat.

JMS

Jersey Girl wrote:How did you allegedly "libel" him? Could you repost a relevant comment that he challenges as "libelous"? Just curious. I'd like to try to challenge it.

I'm not sure. He didn't really specify what was "libelous," and I pointed out to him that the entry was compiled entirely of information I'd gathered from the Web. Perhaps he realized that this line of argument was very weak, so he began to harp pretty heavily on the supposed copyright of his image. (I wonder if he's forgotten that he himself posted a link to the Youtube video of himself.)

Jersey Girl wrote:How did you allegedly "libel" him? Could you repost a relevant comment that he challenges as "libelous"? Just curious. I'd like to try to challenge it.

No offense intended, Jersey Girl, but I am not curious. Let me be clear that I am not criticizing your curiosity concerning the matter. For me, however, there ceased to be the least bit of curiosity concerning josh. I could proceed to spell out my reasons, but I think they should be fairly obvious.

jskains wrote:

Mister Scratch wrote:

Trevor wrote:There is a word that has been on my mind since jskains showed up here: ignore. That is my new policy, and I recommend it heartily to others. Starting... NOW.

Yes, I'd say that's good advice. It seems that he doesn't want his picture up there. I pointed out to him that this picture is his avatar at ZLMB. So.... He has no problem disseminating this image of himself, but has a problem just with the fact that it reappears in my blog?

Sir,

This is a private matter. It is childish to then make it public. I did not give you permission to use my image, one that I control under general copyright law. I have requested you remove it from your nasty hate-filled blog. That is a reasonable request.

Then you demand I make a public apology to you or you'll continue this attack on me? That is childish and a threat.

JMS

Josh---

Would you like me to notify the authorities in your area, or perhaps your Stake President, that you have been making threats of this kind? I don't much appreciate being threatened, Josh, and I am sure that the others on this board would probably like to be warned that you're capable of this kind of thing.

If you can explain to me why you want the image removed (despite the fact that it is freely available all over the Web), I'm all ears.

jskains wrote:

Mister Scratch wrote:

Trevor wrote:There is a word that has been on my mind since jskains showed up here: ignore. That is my new policy, and I recommend it heartily to others. Starting... NOW.

Yes, I'd say that's good advice. It seems that he doesn't want his picture up there. I pointed out to him that this picture is his avatar at ZLMB. So.... He has no problem disseminating this image of himself, but has a problem just with the fact that it reappears in my blog?

Sir,

This is a private matter. It is childish to then make it public. I did not give you permission to use my image, one that I control under general copyright law. I have requested you remove it from your nasty hate-filled blog. That is a reasonable request.

Then you demand I make a public apology to you or you'll continue this attack on me? That is childish and a threat.

JMS

Your image can be pulled directly off google, josh. How is it "controlled" by you under "general copyright law"?