The Gadiantons Triumph Again... and Satan Laugheth.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Hey, Darth:

Is Droopy's comment about your home being a "drug paraphernalia collectors paradise" subject to a potential liable lawsuit?

[_Darth J]

Hey, Darth:

Is Droopy's comment about your home being a "drug paraphernalia collectors paradise" subject to a potential liable lawsuit?

Well you know, Doctor, it's the funniest thing. Usually, one of the elements of a defamation claim is proving harm to one's reputation. But possession of drug paraphernalia is a crime, and falsely accusing someone of a crime is defamatory per se. That means you do not have to prove harm to your reputation. The defamatory statement is presumed to be harmful.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Droopy, look. If I'm wrong, and you've actually been gainfully employed all your life, then I apologize. But I think you're not fully telling the truth here. Am I wrong to think that? Perhaps. Based on things you've said, though, my sense is that my remark is basically right. When you've been asked about what you do, you've been evasive, even going so far as to admit that you've been canned/dismissed/walked off your lawn-mowing jobs multiple times. Look: I'm sorry if that kind of track record fails to say 'responsible tax-payer' to me.

And that's pretty funny that you went crying to Dr. Shades, begging him to censor me.

[_Droopy]

Hey, Darth:

Is Droopy's comment about your home being a "drug paraphernalia collectors paradise" subject to a potential liable lawsuit?

Nope, because its a facetious dig - a comedic insult, in other words - not an empirical, factual claim about actual historical events/conditions, as yours are and were intended to be, and the intent of which was defamation - to poison public opinion about my intellectual veracity based upon historical aspects of my life. Those aspects of my life are either accurate, as you've portrayed them, or they are not.

Let's find out, shall we?

[_Darth J]

So Droopy, what do you think of the Chief Justice's analysis of the Necessary and Proper Clause? I mean of course the analysis that is found in the 193-page opinion, which you undoubtedly read and thought about deeply before posting the OP.

Or, alternatively, where's my five bucks?

[_Droopy]

Droopy, look. If I'm wrong, and you've actually been gainfully employed all your life, then I apologize. But I think you're not fully telling the truth here. Am I wrong to think that? Perhaps.

1. Yes, you're wrong, because I've never said nor implied anything approximating what you've said.

2. You originally claimed to have received all of this stuff - I've never worked a day in my life, have a silver spoon in my mouth, have been on the government dole for the last thirty years etc. from someone in this forum. I've asked you repeated for their identity, and you have failed to deliver.

Based on things you've said, though, my sense is that my remark is basically right.

I've been specific regarding approximate dates and the conditions of my life - in bare outline - precisely because I have little trust in the moral atmosphere here - only because my life experiences are important to my overall world view. I've said nothing that could possibly have given you this impresssion, but now you are changing your story. Before, it was an informant, or hidden poster here who gave you this devastating information about the last forty or so years of my life. Now, it was a conjecture on your part.

One day, perhaps very soon, you are going to really step into it. Perhaps not with me, but with someone you've targeted for defamation during one of your rampages of character character assassination. They're getting more reckless and more intemperate by the year and by the month. Eventually - perhaps soon - it may catch up with you.

When you've been asked about what you do, you've been evasive,

Nonsense. I've anwered directly and clearly.

even going so far as to admit that you've been canned/dismissed/walked off your lawn-mowing jobs multiple times.

"Multiple times?" Did I say that? In any case, this is irrelevant to you the statements you have made about me over which I am considering action.

Look: I'm sorry if that kind of track record fails to say 'responsible tax-payer' to me.

I've worked and paid taxes for the substantial majority of my life, save those few years off and on welfare over 30 years ago, and during times in school or unemployed, here and there, during these intervening decades. If you have factual proof of the opposite, let's have it.

And that's pretty funny that you went crying to Dr. Shades, begging him to censor me.

What's even funnier is that you don't know what you're talking about. I went to Shades about your comments, and asked him to contact you and make clear my intentions. He said to let you know personally. So I did. The only people here talking about censorship are, of course, the anti-Mormon liberals:

http://mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3/vie ... =1&t=24577

[Guest]

So Droopy, what do you think of the Chief Justice's analysis of the Necessary and Proper Clause? I mean of course the analysis that is found in the 193-page opinion, which you undoubtedly read and thought about deeply before posting the OP.

Or, alternatively, where's my five bucks?

Please have your proctologist place my five bucks in the appropriate body cavity where it will be of the most efficacy.

[_moksha]

... should make the blood run cold in the veins on any freeborn American citizen who has the slightest conception of the consequences of this kind of system in other lands (especially Britain and Canada) and who values his own liberty and respects that of his fellow human beings.

Could use a good slogan. How about, "Give me liberty and forget your illnesses".

[_Bond James Bond]

Did Roberts declare paintball unconstitutional or something? Damn Droops go back to Stormfront.org.

[_Doctor Scratch]

Droopy:

As I recall, the person told me that you'd "never really worked." That, If I recall correctly, was his/her exact phrase. Is it wrong? Based upon what you yourself have revealed, I would say, "No." You've mentioned stretches of being on welfare, being unemployed, being a student, walking off of jobs, "working in lawncare" (whatever that means), investing in misguided paintball ventures, not working to look after your ill wife, and living off an inheritance. I don't know what my "informant" meant when s/he said you've "never really worked," but if this has been your actual history, then I don't think s/he was really all that far off the mark.

And heck, from a certain way of looking at things, there's really no shame in having "never really worked": it means that you've figured out how to circumvent the system, so kudos to you Droopy. But I guess you're right that this does somewhat undermine your whack-job political views.