Daniel Peterson wrote:That might prove to be a bad move on your part, but the potential megabucks (far beyond what I'm capable of surrendering) could make the risk worthwhile from your point of view.
From what I understand there is virtually no risk on my part. But I'm not certainly not scared, since I did not libel anyone, and I'm not doing this for the money.
JoetheClerk wrote:Mr. Peterson, you are too typical of the Utah Mormon mindset with what you have posted here. Threats of lawsuits while publicly smearing someone else.
When did Daniel Peterson threaten to sue anybody? Am I misreading you? Can you please clarify?
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
GoodK, if you think that the standard of proof for libel is so low that DCP's message board joke qualifies, do you really think that you'd be immune to a countersuit? This isn't legal advice, but rather something that you should consider very thoughtfully before throwing down the gauntlet.
JoetheClerk wrote:Mr. Peterson, you are too typical of the Utah Mormon mindset with what you have posted here. Threats of lawsuits while publicly smearing someone else.
How very Mormon of you. Joseph Smith and you are truly kindred spirits as he did the same type of thing to anyone who fell out of favor with him.
About time to quit all this crap and get on with life free of people of your stripe.
Please indulge me while I take you all on a walk down memory lane.
When this board incarnated its second time (it's currently on its third incarnation), I posted a bolded and highlighted message at the top of the rules page. It went something like this:
"This message board is a free speech zone. As such, by reading and participating on this board, you hereby waive your right to pursue legal action against anyone for any reason."
Now, why did I put up such a unique rule? I did it because I strongly believe that the threat of lawsuits would serve to stifle free speech (hear me out) almost as much as a trigger-happy moderator would, whereas a lawsuit-free zone would foster free speech just as much.
I dropped that rule when our attorney informed us that it was legally untenable and, even if it weren't, it'd bind our hands against any malicious hacker who sought to do us harm (or something like that).
THAT SAID, I still believe that the threat of lawsuits stifles both free speech and free participation.
GOODK, PLEASE HEAR ME OUT: I fully realize that what Dr. Peterson did may be more akin to yelling "Fire!" in a crowded elevator, but here's my version of events:
Mister Scratch (I believe) said something about apologists in general, or perhaps DCP in particular, and everyone pretty much accepted it. DCP tried to illustrate absurdity with absurdity: By saying all types of outlandish things about person X--person X just so happened to be you, in this case, unfortunately--he attempted to prove that it was intellectually untenable to accept things just on one person's say-so.
The thing that proved that this was only an intellectual exercise, not to be taken literally, is the fact that he made a post IMMEDIATELY afterward saying that everything in the above post wasn't true, it was merely made to illustrate a point. Nobody asked him to make that second post; he did it of his own free will immediately afterward.
I can't tell you what to do, but here's my $0.02:
I've met you both in real life. Although you can certainly counter that I, myself, haven't been the recipient of anything from him that spills into real life, I can nevertheless say that I genuinely like both of you as people. THAT'S NO B.S. So, the prospect of you two going at each other's throats in a legal arena is, well, depressing to me on a personal level.
Plus, although I realize that one's reputation and good name are far-and-away higher concerns than a mere message board, well, it's probably true that developments such as these make me worry about how willing people will be to participate here in the future. Again, it's probably a minor concern compared to in real life issues, but what the heck, there it is for your consideration.
At the end of the day, I realize that this is your decision to make, but in light of the fact that he immediately made sure that everyone knew that he was merely using absurdity to illustrate absurdity, is there any chance I can talk you out of this?
Please don't misunderstand: I'm saying all this as a friend, not an enemy, of course. I just wanted to give you the perspective of a neutral observer who's playing referee by virtue of being a board administrator.
So. . . what do you think?
"Finally, for your rather strange idea that miracles are somehow linked to the amount of gay sexual gratification that is taking place would require that primitive Christianity was launched by gay sex, would it not?"
GoodK, there is an exception to libel for parody and jokes. You may also want to evaluate that carefully with your attorney.
Since the damages are nil, I suppose this whole lawsuit idea is just to make DCP's life miserable and force him to fork out some cash. If you were to do that though, DCP could probably file a counterclaim against you for libel for that thread you started, except DCP may actually have some damages (he posts under his own name and has a professional reputation to maintain). I would think long and hard before doing something like that. And you may want to mention it to your lawyer the next time you talk. I am CERTAIN that he would be interested in that little angle.
I suspect that DCP will have a legion of sympathetic people willing to help him out financially or through free or discounted legal work. How do you plan on paying your legal bills?
Usually the strategy you are thinking of employing only works when one party has lots of money and the other party doesn't. This is a bit of an anomaly since DCP seems to have more assets, cash, etc. than you.
Daniel Peterson wrote:That might prove to be a bad move on your part, but the potential megabucks (far beyond what I'm capable of surrendering) could make the risk worthwhile from your point of view.
From what I understand there is virtually no risk on my part. But I'm not certainly not scared, since I did not libel anyone, and I'm not doing this for the money.
No risk?? What about the post where you accused DCP of being addicted to some unknown substance (at least to me) and then later said you were lying? I can't imagine his case being any worse than yours, and, in fact, I would think it may be better in some respects.
Furthermore, if there is no risk, who is paying your attorney? Have you ever received monthly legal bills in the tens of thousands of dollars? That makes a mortgage look like play money. Ask your attorney how much he thinks this case will cost.
GoodK has no lawyers. He's making it up. [GoodK: Quit PMing me. Every PM is an extortion attempt; you're just shooting yourself in the foot; I will not respond.]
Best to stop indulging the young man. He's playing you for the fool.
Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded.-charity 3/7/07
MASH quotes I peeked in the back [of the Bible] Frank, the Devil did it. I avoid church religiously. This isn't one of my sermons, I expect you to listen.