Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

So...Follow

#102 Feb 08 2011 at 11:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I've never see so many people get so butthurt over something in my life.
Let me help you with that...
Yup.

I'm glad we agree. But thanks for providing us all with the daily lulz. Maybe tomorrow you can wet your pants and throw a hissy fit over something else and amuse us again?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#103 Feb 08 2011 at 11:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
rdmcandie wrote:
I know I would because Ive never raped anyone and I would be pretty @#%^ing **** off is someone lumped me into that filthy bunch of @#%^s.

Really? If someone here called me a rapist I'd either say "loldork" or else make a joke about it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#104 Feb 08 2011 at 11:34 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Maybe tomorrow you can wet your pants and throw a hissy fit over something else and amuse us again?


Jophiel wrote:
Maybe
I guess it's possible that he'll actually have work to do and won't have time to post.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#105 Feb 08 2011 at 11:41 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,465 posts
Jophiel wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
I know I would because Ive never raped anyone and I would be pretty @#%^ing **** off is someone lumped me into that filthy bunch of @#%^s.

Really? If someone here called me a rapist I'd either say "loldork" or else make a joke about it.


hmm that is much more internet savvy. I like it.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** **** BINARY ****. ALL DAY LONG.

#106 Feb 08 2011 at 11:42 PM Rating: Excellent
******
30,643 posts
Huh. I figured she meant that by demeaning women by saying "it's not rape unless there are marks" he was committing a form of rape on them as well. A second violation, if you will.

It's also interesting that varus can say some of the most vile and horrible things about women (directly and indirectly) and no one bats an eye. Yet this gets a thread locked.
#107 Feb 08 2011 at 11:48 PM Rating: Decent
****
9,271 posts
Completely off topic but...

Kao wrote:
I've already banned one 20k + account in the last 5 days. I really don't want to add more drama to the mix at this time.


What did I miss? Who got banned?


On topic:


rdm wrote:
But I am going to play the "it's the internet card" sh*t gets said all the time, sometimes some punches hurt a little more than others.


No. It doesn't matter if it's the internet. That is a serious accusation when made using any medium. Having had those kinds of accusations thrown at me in the past(though to a different extent and a different situation completely), I can tell you that it's not something to just shrug off and forget about. I'd be absolutely livid if someone called me a rapist on here. And I'd have made a complaint and had the thread locked too.
____________________________
Master Meleagant Driftwood of Stromm, Warrior of the 69th level(EQ)
Rhyys, Human Warrior of 67th level(WoW)

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#108 Feb 08 2011 at 11:49 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Driftwood wrote:
Completely off topic but...

Kao wrote:
I've already banned one 20k + account in the last 5 days. I really don't want to add more drama to the mix at this time.


What did I miss? Who got banned?
ThePsychoticOne (Rog) from FFXI forums.
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#109 Feb 08 2011 at 11:52 PM Rating: Decent
****
9,271 posts
Quote:
ThePsychoticOne (Rog) from FFXI forums


Oh, that guy? What did he do?
____________________________
Master Meleagant Driftwood of Stromm, Warrior of the 69th level(EQ)
Rhyys, Human Warrior of 67th level(WoW)

The World Is Not A Cold Dead Place.
Alan Watts wrote:
I am omnipotent insofar as I am the Universe, but I am not an omnipotent in the role of Alan Watts, only cunning


Eske wrote:
I've always read Driftwood as the straight man in varus' double act. It helps if you read all of his posts in the voice of Droopy Dog.
#110 Feb 08 2011 at 11:53 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Haven't read nearly the entire thread yet (too embroiled in laughter), so sorry if I'm being redundant (not really).

Quote:
Accusing someone of being a rapist in written form is just incredably stupid unless you have evidence to back up such a claim. And even then, you should go to the police with it, not post it in public. If he chooses to persue a lawsuit over that, he would win damages.


Quote:
Huh? Did basic reading comprehension disappear at some point in time? She very clearly singled my name out as a person who had "committed a form of rape".


The amusing thing is that there was really no case to be made at the time of the lock. Nowhere does Guenny explicitly accuse gbaji of anything-- that is completely upon the inference of the reader. i.e., it could easily be argued that "(gbaji)" was their way of saying that that part of the sentence, which was speaking about men generally, was addressed to gbaji. Case closed, pay your court fees on the way out, gbaji.

Quote:
Do you also understand that by flooding the system with those sorts of accusations it weakens the claims of women who are forcibly raped?


Do you understand that statistically, women do not report those types of "rape," and that MEN DON'T EITHER, because oh yeah, those same definitions apply for men as well. And as we know, men never have drunken sexual encounters.

Quote:
And if such evidence is in the possession of the accuser, they should not be posting it all over the internet but should be going to the authorities instead.


I reiterate: Are we sure gbaji isn't Bob Saget?
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#111 Feb 08 2011 at 11:57 PM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Driftwood wrote:
Quote:
ThePsychoticOne (Rog) from FFXI forums


Oh, that guy? What did he do?
I'm not really sure, only happened to catch it in passing that he had been banned. If I had to guess, going offtopic and flaming people after repeated warnings not to?
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#112 Feb 09 2011 at 12:02 AM Rating: Good
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Kachi wrote:
I think Glenn Beck would be a better fit. I'm not saying that gbaji is Glenn Beck, I'm just asking, "why hasn't gbaji come out and denied the fact that he is Glenn Beck, a man who has not publicly rejected the claim that he raped and murdered a girl in 1990?" What kind of society do we live in if the people can't ask questions?
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#113 Feb 09 2011 at 12:04 AM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Also if you never did that why you so upset, if you didn't do it don't you think you would be 0% upset, and 100% Stand up and tell that person I am not a scumbag piece of sh*t that rapes women, wouldn't you 100% want to ram it down their throats that it totally supports your point that it is a term that just gets tossed out, wouldn't you want to let that person know you think they are a @#%^ for saying that.


So now I'm being criticized for not being upset enough? At what point do I get to just conclude you'll find something to disagree about no matter what I do or say?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#114 Feb 09 2011 at 12:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
Is "us vs them" so strong that you can't be objective on anything at all?


Someone make a poll: In the history books, should this go down under "Irony" or "Hypocrisy?"

Quote:
What she said wasn't satire. Moran!


A fair portion of the population here read it as such. I mean, no one takes you seriously enough to say something to you in seriousness. For example, when I address you, I am merely using you as a Bobo doll that myself and others may take delight in as you continue to be beaten down yet defiantly insist on rising each time with a ****-eating grin.

Quote:
Imagine if 10 years from now, I decide to run for public office. Someone tracks down my internet posting name and finds a post by someone accusing me of having committed rape and I don't deny it at the time. Do you think anyone's going to figure out if the claim was true? Or do you think they'll just run with a non-denied accusation from 10 years ago?


If you decide to run for public office? Aren't you trying to make a compelling case AGAINST this sort of accusation?

Quote:
I think Glenn Beck would be a better fit. I'm not saying that gbaji is Glenn Beck, I'm just asking, "why hasn't gbaji come out and denied the fact that he is Glenn Beck, a man who has not publicly rejected the claim that he raped and murdered a girl in 1990?" What kind of society do we live in if the people can't ask questions?


You know, you're right. Beck seems like the kind of guy who would idolize Saget and maybe attempt a copycat crime. And the political ideology between gbaji and Beck is suspiciously similar...
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#115 Feb 09 2011 at 12:24 AM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
Kachi wrote:
Haven't read nearly the entire thread yet (too embroiled in laughter), so sorry if I'm being redundant (not really).


Only if being at least the third person to make the same bizarre claim counts as redundant.

Quote:
The amusing thing is that there was really no case to be made at the time of the lock. Nowhere does Guenny explicitly accuse gbaji of anything-- that is completely upon the inference of the reader. i.e., it could easily be argued that "(gbaji)" was their way of saying that that part of the sentence, which was speaking about men generally, was addressed to gbaji. Case closed, pay your court fees on the way out, gbaji.


You can't possibly honestly believe that. First off, the part of the sentence in which she referred to my name was speaking about men who commit a form of rape specifically, not about "men generally". Why the need for self delusion in this case? It's bizarre behavior. It's almost like you need so strongly for me to be in the wrong here that you can't read the words honestly. How does that work? I mean do you actually think it says something other than what it says, or do you know what it says and then look to see if you can come up with some tortured method to justify another interpretation no matter how absurd it is?


I still just don't get that. While I can accept some people thinking I over reacted, I can't understand why some people keep trying to insist that she didn't write what she so clearly did.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#116 Feb 09 2011 at 12:28 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
You can't possibly honestly believe that. First off, the part of the sentence in which she referred to my name was speaking about men who commit a form of rape specifically, not about "men generally". Why the need for self delusion in this case? It's bizarre behavior. It's almost like you need so strongly for me to be in the wrong here that you can't read the words honestly. How does that work? I mean do you actually think it says something other than what it says, or do you know what it says and then look to see if you can come up with some tortured method to justify another interpretation no matter how absurd it is?


Oh, it's clear NOW that that was the intent of the comment, but unfortunately for any case, it's also clear that the intent was satire. But if actually taken to a court room based purely on that post, as others have said, the case would have been laughed out of the court room.

At no point in the chronology of events have you had anything resembling a case. I mean, enough to get in the court room with it, but never a chance to actually walk away the victor.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#117 Feb 09 2011 at 12:31 AM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
What she said wasn't satire. Moran!


A fair portion of the population here read it as such.


No. One person searching for a reason to dismiss the post as a non-accusation latched onto the idea of just labeling it satire. And I don't think even he was that serious about it.

Besides, you just claimed that it wasn't satire, but that she was just referring to me as part of the group of "men generally"? Which is it?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#118 Feb 09 2011 at 12:45 AM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
Geez gbaji, this horse was dead before this thread was made, due to your "formal complaint", yet you still are sounding off. I gave you the half-hearted apology you asked for, yet here you are, still bawing. I should have known you'd go back on your word like the Native American you are.
#119 Feb 09 2011 at 12:50 AM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
You can't possibly honestly believe that. First off, the part of the sentence in which she referred to my name was speaking about men who commit a form of rape specifically, not about "men generally". Why the need for self delusion in this case? It's bizarre behavior. It's almost like you need so strongly for me to be in the wrong here that you can't read the words honestly. How does that work? I mean do you actually think it says something other than what it says, or do you know what it says and then look to see if you can come up with some tortured method to justify another interpretation no matter how absurd it is?


Oh, it's clear NOW that that was the intent of the comment...


It was clear at the time. The post by itself is sufficient. If it hadn't been, I wouldn't have said anything about it.

Quote:
... but unfortunately for any case, it's also clear that the intent was satire.


You seem to be under the mistaken belief that simply declaring something to be satire after the fact actually makes it satire. Do you even know what satire is? Cause that's not it. It's not even remotely close.


Quote:
But if actually taken to a court room based purely on that post, as others have said, the case would have been laughed out of the court room.


What "others"? A couple people with an ax to grind on an internet board is hardly the best source for an objective opinion. While I'm by no means an expert on defamation law, a quick interwebs education shows that as as private individual, the burden for me to prove defamation is not as strict as that for a public figure, and that an allegation of criminal offense, especially of a moral nature (like rape) is considered "defamation per se", meaning that I don't have to show damage. Damage is assumed by nature of the false statement itself.


The only actual legal considerations if there were to be a case are the following:

1. Does the statement lead a reasonable person to a believe that a "fact" about a person is being stated?
2. Is the claimed "fact" false?
3. Is the claimed "fact" defamatory?


Condition 1 is clearly true. Aside from a few biased internet posters, no reasonable person could read what she wrote and not conclude that she was attempting to assert a "fact" (as opposed to opinion) that I had "committed a form of rape". That fact is false, so 2 is met. And as I pointed out claims of a crime of that nature are defamatory per se, so no damages need to be shown.

On what basis do you assume that I don't have a case? From where I'm sitting, it's a slam dunk if I choose to pursue it. The only reason I'm not isn't because I'm not upset about it, but because I don't feel like punishing someone just because they were stupid while on the interwebs, no matter how harmful what they said was.

Quote:
At no point in the chronology of events have you had anything resembling a case. I mean, enough to get in the court room with it, but never a chance to actually walk away the victor.


Again, I have to ask: Do you say this because you have some reason to actually think it's true, or do you say it because you disagree with me regularly and have "picked a side" and base your opinion on that instead of any sort of logic or facts? I'm thinking the latter, but you're free to come up with some rational explanation.

Edited, Feb 8th 2011 10:51pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#120 Feb 09 2011 at 12:56 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
Besides, you just claimed that it wasn't satire,


Where did I do that?
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#121 Feb 09 2011 at 12:59 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,921 posts
gbaji wrote:
And as someone who's been beaten and held at gunpoint while two men raped his girlfriend, I find it infuriatingly offensive to be accused of committing the same crime. Surely, you can see why?


My deepest, deepest sympathies to you and your girlfriend. I hope that she recovered somewhat ok, and you did too.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#122 Feb 09 2011 at 1:03 AM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
Guenny wrote:
Geez gbaji, this horse was dead before this thread was made, due to your "formal complaint", yet you still are sounding off. I gave you the half-hearted apology you asked for, yet here you are, still bawing. I should have known you'd go back on your word like the Native American you are.


Ah so now you're making fun of my heritage! Zounds!!! ;)

At this point, I'm pretty much just marveling at the blatant blinder-wearing bias in here. And I still don't have any issues with continuing a debate about rape and/or abortion as it pertains to rape. So there is that.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#123 Feb 09 2011 at 1:05 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
At what point do I get to just conclude you'll find something to disagree about no matter what I do or say?

Well, you do make it easy...
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#124 Feb 09 2011 at 1:10 AM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
Besides, you just claimed that it wasn't satire,


Where did I do that?


Here:

Kachi wrote:
The amusing thing is that there was really no case to be made at the time of the lock. Nowhere does Guenny explicitly accuse gbaji of anything-- that is completely upon the inference of the reader. i.e., it could easily be argued that "(gbaji)" was their way of saying that that part of the sentence, which was speaking about men generally, was addressed to gbaji. Case closed, pay your court fees on the way out, gbaji.


If you really believe that's what she was saying, that it was "addressed to me", and not even "about me", then it could not be satire. Of course, it can't be satire for other reasons as well, but it's really not satire based on that lame explanation. But then, you didn't really believe that bit when you wrote it, right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#125 Feb 09 2011 at 1:14 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Honestly gbaji, I don't care about this whole situation (I find it endlessly amusing, though) . It's not like I could respect you any less because of it, nor does my lack of respect for you mean that I would be tolerable of a sincere injustice to you. Fact is, you've already made it satisfactorily clear that you had no intention to pursue any legal recourse. So it's not even as if I'm correcting you. I'm just stating that any half-assed defense attorney would have this case either thrown out or found for the defendant ridiculously fast. The only way you could get a conviction is if you committed suicide.

Put it to you this way: if the shoe were on the other foot, you'd be the first to worm out some semantic defense for how some word didn't mean what everyone else thought, or how it was taken the wrong way, etc., and there's not sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was any intent to libel/slander, that there was an intent to harm, nor is there any evidence that harm has occurred. You have a snapshot of a single statement without any context for the defense.

"Harm could have occurred if people took it a certain way," never has and never will win a libel/slander case.

Really it doesn't matter if it was satire or what it was. What matters is how many people read it and thought it was a legitimate accusation.

Anyone?

And worst case for the defense, they have to actually explain the nature of the community, at which case the judge will probably tell you to gtfo if you can't take a character jab in a forum clearly labeled the "NO HOLDS BARRED ASYLUM".

tl;dr: You would have just as much luck trying an insult comic for defamation.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#126 Feb 09 2011 at 1:16 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
Here:


Where in there did I say it wasn't satire? I gave an example of a hypothetical defense. I didn't even hint at it being based in fact; just that at the time of the lock, it would have been a perfectly adequate basis for throwing out the case.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#127 Feb 09 2011 at 1:21 AM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,593 posts
Kachi wrote:
Quote:
Here:


Where in there did I say it wasn't satire? I gave an example of a hypothetical defense. I didn't even hint at it being based in fact; just that at the time of the lock, it would have been a perfectly adequate basis for throwing out the case.


I'm sorry. I pulled a Joph. You're correct. You didn't actually say the words "it wasn't satire". However, your hypothetical defense rests on an explanation of what she said that is completely 100% incompatible with a claim that it was intended to be satirical. I jumped a step ahead without connecting the dots for you. Does that make more sense? Or do you require additional explanation? Maybe with a picture drawn in crayons? ;)
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#128 Feb 09 2011 at 1:26 AM Rating: Decent
Sage
****
4,041 posts
What if I say what I wrote was satire? Does that make it satire? Or does you saying that it's not satire make it not satire?

It's stupid, gbaji. Satire is a form of humor. There's no way of proving that something is humorous or not. The fact that people are "rallying to my side with bias" just shows that they got the humor, and you didn't. There's not a whole lot beyond that.

Heck, even varus got the humor. You got a great big ol' waaahh with a side of Republican agenda. Same ****, different day.
#129 Feb 09 2011 at 1:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,921 posts
gbaji wrote:
Regardless of how you feel about me, or my positions on various issues, or even the specific topic at hand, the correct response I'd expect from most people would be some form of "Yeah. That was a bit too far". Instead, I saw people leaping to the defense of the accuser, attacks on me for mentioning it in the first place (apparently, I'm supposed to just let people say I'm a rapist and not defend myself), and most bizarrely people like you who try to claim that she didn't actually accuse me of anything in the first place!


Is "us vs them" so strong that you can't be objective on anything at all?

I'm very sorry, but since I feel that your argumentative position on the issue of how claims of rape should be handled vis a vis gaining abortion funding for said claims*, and your definition of rape as only including cases where forensic evidence is clear, vrs, "he said-she said" cases, is beyond "a bit too far" in my eyes, then someone else getting offended and insulting you in a way that is beyond "a bit too far" isn't surprising to me.

You probably feel that your arguments on the issue here are sound, rational and logical, and thus was surprised at so harsh and personal an attack coming back on you. I feel that your arguments on the issue miss some points of such important relevance that some of your conclusions are sick and horrible. Thus I can't support you when gravely slandered (in a no holds barred forum) on a grave issue. I find some of your past arguments very sick indeed, and thus think you have reaped what you have sown, whether or not this is actual justice happening, as two wrongs don't necessarily make a right.


*Given a 5% conviction rate for rape cases where authorities are quite certain a rape took place, but cannot get it proven in court, federal payment for aborting a foetus merely on the claim of rape, rather than a secured conviction of rape should be a no brainer.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#130 Feb 09 2011 at 2:15 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,921 posts
gbaji wrote:
It was clear at the time. The post by itself is sufficient. If it hadn't been, I wouldn't have said anything about it.

I understand why you took the meaning you took out of Guenny's sentence. I'd like to point out that most language is is actually not very precise, even when intent is clear. Thus there IS room for different interpretations of her sentence.

As an example the Premier of the state of Victoria, Jeff Kennet, sued a man who wore a T-Shirt that said: "Jeff Kennet Must Die".

The judge threw the case out on the basis that

1) Jeff Kennet is a human being.
2) All human beings die eventually from one cause or another
3) Therefore "Jeff Kennet Must Die" is a truism.
4) Since "Jeff Kennet Must Die" is a truism, any threatening or insulting intent meant by the statement is irrelevant and/or unprovable.

Not saying that the two cases are similar, just illustrating that language is subject to vastly different interpretations even when you think the message is clear.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#131 Feb 09 2011 at 2:27 AM Rating: Good
****
4,150 posts
Quote:
just illustrating that language is subject to vastly different interpretations even when you think the message is clear.


Like 'Ministry of Defence', 'Health Service', 'Sports Drink', that sort of thing....
____________________________
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.

#132 Feb 09 2011 at 2:38 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
9,997 posts
Quote:
However, your hypothetical defense rests on an explanation of what she said that is completely 100% incompatible with a claim that it was intended to be satirical.


No ****, dumbass. Now let me connect some dots for you: there are actually multiple plausible defenses that would all ruin any chance of you winning a case. Grats on illustrating that without making me spell it out for you.
____________________________
Hyrist wrote:
Ok, now we're going to get slash fiction of Wint x Kachi somehere... rule 34 and all...

Never confuse your inference as the listener for an implication of the speaker.

Good games are subjective like good food is subjective. You're not going to seriously tell me that there's not a psychological basis for why pizza is great and lutefisk is revolting. The thing about subjectivity is that, as subjects go, humans actually have a great deal in common.
#133 Feb 09 2011 at 2:40 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,921 posts
"That's a very brave decision, Prime Minister."

~ Sir Humphrey Appleby
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#134 Feb 09 2011 at 3:25 AM Rating: Excellent
As long as were going on about morals (gbaji) I'd like to go ahead and point out that **** is a "form of rape" depending on who you ask.


Case closed. Quit stinking up my courtroom.





And, since it never got answered: If you (gbaji) believe that the fertilized fetus is a human being would you advocate for disallowing fertility procedures, as they invariably result in so many "discarded" (ie destroyed/aborted) unwanted fetuses? Y'know...human beings.



It's a fair question that your buddy varus was too chicken-shit to answer.

EDIT: Unfair question. For you it's never about people; it's about money.





ALSO: Simple observation tells us that Usagi has been accused of being a peado in about a million different ways. Does he get to sue, too?

Edited, Feb 9th 2011 2:30am by Bijou
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#135 Feb 09 2011 at 4:13 AM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
***
2,453 posts
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
Accusing someone of being a rapist in written form is just incredably stupid unless you have evidence to back up such a claim. And even then, you should go to the police with it, not post it in public. If he chooses to persue a lawsuit over that, he would win damages.


No he wouldn't. To win damages, he'd have to prove that he has actually suffered as a result of that post. Good luck with that.
#136 Feb 09 2011 at 6:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,288 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Huh. I figured she meant that by demeaning women by saying "it's not rape unless there are marks" he was committing a form of rape on them as well. A second violation, if you will.


This.

Since that other thread where gbaji stated that it wasn't rape if there were no marks, I've always thought he'd probably coerced a woman or two in his life and he didn't like the light he was painted in.
#137 Feb 09 2011 at 6:29 AM Rating: Excellent
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
gbaji wrote:
Yup. Bunch of people getting butthurt. So butthurt that they extended their butthurtness into creating a whole new thread full of butthurt! Thanks for making my point for me. :)

Umm, no. I created this thread with absolutely no purpose save lambasting a douche bag for taking being a douche bag to a whole new level in the ZAM-verse.

gbaji wrote:
Do you (any of you) honestly think I enjoyed making this ruckus?

Yes. Mostly because you're an attention-whoring douche bag.

____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#138 Feb 09 2011 at 6:43 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
7,465 posts
gbaji wrote:
rdmcandie wrote:
Also if you never did that why you so upset, if you didn't do it don't you think you would be 0% upset, and 100% Stand up and tell that person I am not a scumbag piece of sh*t that rapes women, wouldn't you 100% want to ram it down their throats that it totally supports your point that it is a term that just gets tossed out, wouldn't you want to let that person know you think they are a @#%^ for saying that.


So now I'm being criticized for not being upset enough? At what point do I get to just conclude you'll find something to disagree about no matter what I do or say?


Pot kettle , kettle pot.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** **** BINARY ****. ALL DAY LONG.

#139 Feb 09 2011 at 7:16 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,253 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
ALSO: Simple observation tells us that Usagi has been accused of being a peado in about a million different ways. Does he get to sue, too?


He totally should, then he could buy more Loli with the money.
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#140 Feb 09 2011 at 7:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,224 posts
What I really want to know is, where are these shadowy "feminists" telling college girls that one drink + **** = rape?

Stray observation: I have never, ever understood why some men are so threatened by female sexuality. You'd think that the more ****-positive, responsible, empowered women there are, the happier most men would be.

It's possible, I suppose, that a *lot* of men really think that shy, prim girls are genuinely appealing. That's the generous analysis, certainly. But I'm a suspicious ****, and in the back of my mind I can't help thinking it's about power, and about how easily controlled a passive woman is compared to a fully actualized female human being.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#141 Feb 09 2011 at 7:23 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,897 posts
gbaji wrote:
Guenny. That wasn't an apology. An apology would be like "Gee gbaji. You're right, that was uncalled for. I'm sorry. I didn't intend to suggest that you had violated any form of sexual assault laws and retract the statement".

See how easy that is? Heck. Even if you'd just said that you miss wrote it and didn't mean it to come off that way, I'd be fine with it. Can you even meet me halfway here?
Ya know, I almost had a moment where I kind of, sort of, agreed with you. I'm not sure why Guen called you what she did, but it was probably a tad over-board, even for this forum.

She apologized as requested.

Now you just sound like some **** little newlywed bride. Had you wanted the apology done with gbaji specific wording you should have made that clear in your request.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#142 Feb 09 2011 at 7:34 AM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
I just want to add that rdmcandie is my least favorite poster outside of the unholy triumvirate. Carry on.
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#143 Feb 09 2011 at 7:37 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,465 posts
sweet, make sure to stop by the fan club gift shop next time you are around.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR **** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS **** **** BINARY ****. ALL DAY LONG.

#144 Feb 09 2011 at 8:34 AM Rating: Good
*****
19,727 posts
gbaji wrote:
as someone who's been beaten and held at gunpoint while two men raped his girlfriend,


Well, you're not a rapist, but you are a huge pUssy. There's really no debate to be had there. Seriously, though, knowing you I'd reckon you probably paid them to do it so you could watch. Sicko.


Anyway, the problem here, as usual, is Kao. Gbaji's protestation would have been laughed at on most boards, but here we have an moderator who has set the precedent that it's not okay to call him certain names, so in this current circumstance he has no choice but to pull this dumb sh*t in order to appear consistent. Also, he's got a two-inch, Cheeto-smeared hard-on for myself and my wife.

The idea that we should all walk around on eggshells because we're going to be sued for slander is retarded. In the fUcking Asylum, of all places. Quit inferring we're in danger of legal repercussions when you don't know a fUcking thing about anything, Kao. That's the most actionable thing going on around here: an employee of this company is consistently harassing myself and my wife and making hollow threats of legal action against us, meant to intimidate.

Everyone else here is posting on a message board known for its flames and rants. We're posting in a place with a demonstrated reputation for hyperbole and insults. It's the bedrock, even, you ****-mongling, sh*t-eating fUck-brain. You though, Kaolian(if that's your real name), are at work. And you're repeatedly abusing your position of laughable power. It will never end, because evidently you've got pictures of some Zam executive raping fields full of orphaned Sudanese babies or something. Seriously, you suck. Go fUck yourself.

Edited, Feb 9th 2011 7:13am by Barkingturtle
#145 Feb 09 2011 at 8:35 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I'm sorry. I pulled a Joph.

You mean you cut through your rhetorical bullshit and exposed the truth about yourself? Man, that had to be cathartic. Good for you!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#146 Feb 09 2011 at 8:42 AM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Barkingturtle wrote:
gbaji wrote:
as someone who's been beaten and held at gunpoint while two men raped his girlfriend,


Well, you're not a rapist, but you are a huge pUssy. There's really no debate to be had there. Seriously, though, knowing you I'd reckon you probably paid them to do it so you could watch. Sicko.


Anyway, the problem here, as usual, is Kao. Gbaji's protestation would have been laughed at on most boards, but here we have an moderator who has set the precedent that it's not okay to call him certain names, so in this current circumstance he has no choice but to pull this dumb sh*t in order to appear consistent. Also, he's got a two-inch, Cheeto-smeared hard-on for myself and my wife.

The idea that we should all walk around on eggshells because we're going to be sued for slander is retarded. In the fUcking Asylum, of all places. Quit inferring we're in danger of legal repercussions when you don't know a fUcking thing about anything, Kao. That's the most actionable thing going on around here: an employee of this company is consistently harassing myself and my wife and making hollow threats of legal action against us, meant to intimidate.

Everyone else here is posting on a message board known for it's flames and rants. We're posting in a place with a demonstrated reputation for hyperbole and insults. It's the bedrock, even, you ****-mongling, sh*t-eating fUck-brain. You though, Kaolian(if that's your real name), are at work. And you're repeatedly abusing your position of laughable power. It will never end, because evidently you've got pictures of some Zam executive raping fields full of orphaned Sudanese babies or something. Seriously, you suck. Go fUck yourself.

See? You do have feelings. Tiny, prickly, frightening feelings, but feelings none the less.

EDIT: Crap f'uck.

Edited, Feb 9th 2011 8:43am by MoebiusLord
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#147 Feb 09 2011 at 8:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
This thread is going places.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#148 Feb 09 2011 at 8:54 AM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
Jophiel wrote:
This thread is going places.

I can honestly say "works as intended".
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#149 Feb 09 2011 at 10:44 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,971 posts
Barkingturtle,

Quote:
We're posting in a place with a demonstrated reputation for hyperbole and insults.


To be fair certain insults are acceptable and some aren't; well in the mods view anyway. Bash christianity all you like but don't you dare say the N word.





Edited, Feb 9th 2011 11:44am by varusword75
#150 Feb 09 2011 at 10:49 AM Rating: Good
We Does Not Hugglez
*****
10,245 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Barkingturtle,

Quote:
We're posting in a place with a demonstrated reputation for hyperbole and insults.


To be fair certain insults are acceptable and some aren't; well in the mods view anyway. Bash christianity all you like but don't you dare say the N word.

But if we could say "NO" we wouldn't have to worry about being raped by people from California.
____________________________
I had a very witty signature once, but apparently it offended the sensibilities of some of the frailer constitutions that frequent this particular internet message board.

[The rest of this message has been censored and I can't tell you what I actually think of you]
#151 Feb 09 2011 at 10:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Annoying Ass
ZAM Administrator
Avatar
*****
11,949 posts
varusword75 wrote:

To be fair

Oh please, you don;t understand the concept of fairness, and whenever anyone else would use such a concept, you'll accuse them of being socialists Smiley: lol

Quote:
Bash christianity all you like but don't you dare say the N word.

And don't claim you hope Chicago gets blown up by terrorists, amirite? Smiley: nod
____________________________
Retired News Writer for the ZAM Network
WoW - Aureliano the Insane - level 90 Druid on Sen'Jin
Nanaoki - level 90 Mage on Sen'Jin
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 52 All times are in CDT
Allegory, Elinda, Poldaran, Samira, Timelordwho, Anonymous Guests (47)