Retroactive Banning for Legal Threats: Case One, Bot
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 3219
- Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 8:37 pm
Re: Retroactive Banning for Legal Threats: Case One, Bot
Look. I'm all for banning, although I liked both Derrick and Jersey Girl.
I only asked that particular posts accusing me of being a child molester be deleted. I reported them. I asked they be removed. I did not ask that an entire thread be removed.
If Dr. Shades or Eric has evidence that I threatened litigation, then simply produce it and ban me. I will accept a retroactive banning and you can make an exception for me.
If Eric says he sent me PMs trying to extort him, then by all means, set them forth and ban me or criticize me.
I only ask for proof. Eric made the same claims about Dr. Peterson, especially claims of harassing PMs and probably got Dr. Peterson all upset and worried. If I were not a lawyer and somebody accused me of extortion and child molestation, I'd feel a lot of worry and frustration. But I don't and didn't. I take such allegations in stride, request the offensive allegations be removed (pointing them out specifically) and merely request proof of claims. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less. You have my denials.
Furthermore, I have never outed a single person on this board. (Other than mentioning to a bishop in my stake that somebody, unknown to me then, was posting things about a ward temple night.) Didn't happen. Never happened. Never said it happened. Never admitted to it. Don't agree with Eric's account of it. I wouldn't do it, have no need to do it; don't care about it. You can say what you want.
This board should not be about me. Merely because I criticize anonymous personal attacks doesn't mean that I agree that threats and complaints ought to go to my stake president, my bar association and my law partners, personal websites of Board members directing Mormon haters to my house, and that my mailbox be blown open 5 nights in a row. I argue against hypocrisy and vile behavior, but being here doesn't mean I should agree to be the physical and actual recipient of it. Words and accusations yes; that's generally fine. But don't go beyond that, please.
I only asked that particular posts accusing me of being a child molester be deleted. I reported them. I asked they be removed. I did not ask that an entire thread be removed.
If Dr. Shades or Eric has evidence that I threatened litigation, then simply produce it and ban me. I will accept a retroactive banning and you can make an exception for me.
If Eric says he sent me PMs trying to extort him, then by all means, set them forth and ban me or criticize me.
I only ask for proof. Eric made the same claims about Dr. Peterson, especially claims of harassing PMs and probably got Dr. Peterson all upset and worried. If I were not a lawyer and somebody accused me of extortion and child molestation, I'd feel a lot of worry and frustration. But I don't and didn't. I take such allegations in stride, request the offensive allegations be removed (pointing them out specifically) and merely request proof of claims. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less. You have my denials.
Furthermore, I have never outed a single person on this board. (Other than mentioning to a bishop in my stake that somebody, unknown to me then, was posting things about a ward temple night.) Didn't happen. Never happened. Never said it happened. Never admitted to it. Don't agree with Eric's account of it. I wouldn't do it, have no need to do it; don't care about it. You can say what you want.
This board should not be about me. Merely because I criticize anonymous personal attacks doesn't mean that I agree that threats and complaints ought to go to my stake president, my bar association and my law partners, personal websites of Board members directing Mormon haters to my house, and that my mailbox be blown open 5 nights in a row. I argue against hypocrisy and vile behavior, but being here doesn't mean I should agree to be the physical and actual recipient of it. Words and accusations yes; that's generally fine. But don't go beyond that, please.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Apr 25, 2012 11:03 pm, edited 7 times in total.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 21373
- Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm
Re: Retroactive Banning for Legal Threats: Case One, Bot
Frankly, I don't give a crap what you want. You have been a narcissistic, mendacious pain in the rear end for years now. If I never heard from you again from that last post on, it would be far too late for me.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Re: Retroactive Banning for Legal Threats: Case One, Bot
He's back.

Quoting for posterity:
Quoting for posterity:
Yahoo Bot wrote:Look. I'm all for banning, although I liked both Derrick and Jersey Girl.
I only asked that particular posts accusing me of being a child molester be deleted. I reported them. I asked they be removed. I did not ask that an entire thread be removed.
If Dr. Shades or Eric has evidence that I threatened litigation, then simply produce it and ban me. I will accept a retroactive banning and you can make an exception for me.
If Eric says he sent me PMs trying to extort him, then by all means, set them forth and ban me or criticize me.
I only ask for proof. Eric made the same claims about Dr. Peterson, especially claims of harassing PMs and probably got Dr. Peterson all upset and worried. If I were not a lawyer and somebody accused me of extortion and child molestation, I'd feel a lot of worry and frustration. But I don't and didn't. I take such allegations in stride, request the offensive allegations be removed (pointing them out specifically) and merely request proof of claims. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less. You have my denials.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 5269
- Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 3:32 am
Re: Retroactive Banning for Legal Threats: Case One, Bot
Yahoo Bot wrote:I only ask for proof.
Please. You are just trying to exploit a loop hole because the rules have been set up to pretty much prohibit any sort of proof coming forth (rules which you actively asked one poster to break), and since this incident happened so long ago, that only compounds the issue.
And you only liked Darrick because he was the ideal "Anti-Mormon" to you, clearly disturbed and easily dismissed. The only thing you ever did was mock his mental illness.
Can you ever stop being a pious fake?
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 21373
- Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:00 pm
Re: Retroactive Banning for Legal Threats: Case One, Bot
MrStakhanovite wrote:Can you ever stop being a pious fake?
Seems to me that the piety is what is faked. There is no faking in the service of real piety as far as I have observed.
"Petition wasn’t meant to start a witch hunt as I’ve said 6000 times." ~ Hanna Seariac, LDS apologist
Re: Retroactive Banning for Legal Threats: Case One, Bot
Look at how many times he's changed just this one post (last edit only a few minutes ago):

Bob's never been able to show that anyone has ever called him a child molester. The fact that he keeps bringing it up is alarming. It's like he wants to defend himself against an accusation no one has (to my knowledge) ever made.

Bob's never been able to show that anyone has ever called him a child molester. The fact that he keeps bringing it up is alarming. It's like he wants to defend himself against an accusation no one has (to my knowledge) ever made.
Last edited by _Eric on Thu Apr 26, 2012 12:14 am, edited 2 times in total.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 2515
- Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2011 2:11 am
Re: Retroactive Banning for Legal Threats: Case One, Bot
Yahoo Bot wrote:Look. I'm all for banning, although I liked both Derrick and Jersey Girl.
I only asked that particular posts accusing me of being a child molester be deleted. I reported them. I asked they be removed. I did not ask that an entire thread be removed.
How many times have you insinuated that I consort with pedophiles because I have a Harvey Milk avatar?
Since your standard of evidence is little more than a picture on a website, I'm going to use the same standard: If Eric says you molest kids, that's all the evidence I need. I hope they cut your balls off in prison.
H.
"Others cannot endure their own littleness unless they can translate it into meaningfulness on the largest possible level."
~ Ernest Becker
"Whether you think of it as heavenly or as earthly, if you love life immortality is no consolation for death."
~ Simone de Beauvoir
~ Ernest Becker
"Whether you think of it as heavenly or as earthly, if you love life immortality is no consolation for death."
~ Simone de Beauvoir
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 12072
- Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:48 am
Re: Retroactive Banning for Legal Threats: Case One, Bot
LDSToronto wrote:Since your standard of evidence is little more than a picture on a website, I'm going to use the same standard: If Eric says you molest kids, that's all the evidence I need. I hope they cut your balls off in prison.
H.
I believe Eric too. BOT, you should be ashamed of yourself. No one believes you for a second around here. Eric goes into the kingdom of heaven before you. He is a better person than you.
Paul O
THE BOOK OF ABRAHAM FACSIMILE NO. 3
Includes a startling new discovery!
Here Comes The Book of Abraham Part I, II, III
IN THE FORM OF A DOVE
Includes a startling new discovery!
Here Comes The Book of Abraham Part I, II, III
IN THE FORM OF A DOVE
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 18519
- Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm
Re: Retroactive Banning for Legal Threats: Case One, Bot
Jersey Girl wasn't banned merely for threatening a lawsuit. Acting on her outlined plan in the threat in such a way that could disrupt board functioning played a role in the decision. Jskains made a frivolous legal threat against the board recently and he wasn't banned for it; rather he received a longish suspension.
-
- _Emeritus
- Posts: 5269
- Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 3:32 am
Re: Retroactive Banning for Legal Threats: Case One, Bot
EAllusion wrote:Jersey Girl wasn't banned merely for threatening a lawsuit. Acting on her outlined plan in the threat in such a way that could disrupt board functioning played a role in the decision. Jskains made a frivolous legal threat against the board recently and he wasn't banned for it; rather he received a longish suspension.
What went down with LDSFAQS, getting a three week break then is posting hours later?