I would not have predicted that the NFL Anthem Protest (Or is it the anti-Trump protest? The “there are still injustices in America protest”?) Ethics Train Wreck would be the topic to cause multiple meltdowns, name-calling bouts and potty-mouth attacks among the veteran commenters here. I’ve given up on predicting which issues will ignite the assembled, however.
I am proud of the passion and intelligence with which the regular participants in this forum attack the varied matters I throw down for consideration. At their best, even the most intense debates usually bring more light than heat, to use the dichotomy poor Howard K. Smith employed when William F. Bucklet snapped, called Gore Vidal a “queer” on live TV and threatened to punch him out. However at least four veteran commenters here have had Buckley-esque flip-outs of late, and that will not do.
I don’t expect this blog to ever be “safe.” Bad, lazy, poorly reasoned, biased and partisan opinions should always be called out, and in terms that fit the offense. I do not want to police words, but when we move beyond fair or at least supportable assessments of comments into insults and the denigration of commenters, I expect the ethics alarms to ring out. If they don’t sound, I don’t know what the purpose of Ethics Alarms is. Theoretically, we are here to learn from each other, and that means giving each other the benefit of an assumption of good will, and occasionally a damn break.
Those who have contributed positively here for a lengthy period build up credits that will allow them to commit one or more egregious breaches of decorum without any adverse action. Ironically, I also expect the veterans and frequent commenters to be role models, and lead by example.
I also want to urge some commenters here to make an effort to curtail endless, circular one-on-one debates in which the objective deteriorates into getting the last word. In the past, Ethics Alarms has seen some epic debates resembling the Hundred Years War. What is remarkable about all of them is that it was clear as glass from the start that neither combatant was going to yield, and indeed was even fairly processing what his or her adversary was saying. I confess: outside of checking in periodically and making sure that the exchange isn’t resembling a Tarantino film, I don’t read these very long. They are boring. And because they are boring, they make Ethics Alarms boring.
Commenters with agendas are also a problem. If you approach every issue here knowing immediately what position you are going to take before you even read the post, I submit that your objective is less helping us nourish an ethical society than something else. You need to think about that, because it makes you a less valuable participant here. It also can make you annoying.
One more thing I need to add (and am adding as I am in a Fairfax, VA hotel after a horrible sleepless night as I prepare for a presentation to local lawyers about legal ethics and technology: occasionally pushing another commenter’s buttons—you know who has them, and what to push—is occasionally justifiable, but becomes sadistic and abusive if engaged in as a regular tactic.
You know, I’ve met a lot of you. There isn’t one commenter that I have met that I don’t like. Every one is a smart, passionate, interesting person. I would recommend that before you start hurling abuse at another empty face in cyberspace, consider that, as Marge Simpson sang in “O Streetcar!,” “A stranger’s just a friend you haven’t met.”
We can get our work done civilly and respectfully. I’ve seen it. If all else fails, consider the advice of Elwood P. Dowd:
Years ago my mother used to say to me, she’d say, “In this world, Elwood, you must be” – she always called me Elwood – “In this world, Elwood, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant.” Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant.
I recommend both.
Ethics Alarms 
For the younger folks in the audience, William Buckley made his remark in response to Vidal saying, “As far as I’m concerned, the only pro- or crypto-Nazi I can think of is yourself.”
And during the rioting and hippie-beating outside the 1968 Democratic National Convention.
In my recent reading of a book on the ‘culture wars’ I searched on YouTube and found this acrimonious debate:
You know, WFB had injured his shoulder right before that exchange in a boating accident and was having some mobility issues. If he had been in full health, or so his son wrote, he’d have slugged Vidal, and the world would have been a better place for it, in my opinion (Vidal was a jerk, and the fact that he published a hate column on Buckley right after his death should tell you all you need to know).
Despite what some might think, I do not hate all liberal people. I have respect for principled people of all stripes. I don’t have respect for knee-jerk people who act like that woman on the plane who got thrown off for attacking an inauguration attendee the second he deflected her question about cheering or protesting.
I’d rather talk history and historical figures and how they fit into human ethical development any day rather than parry insults and attacks. I’d also rather pick up some new information than listen to predictable rehashes of the same stuff.
Growing up we all knew problematic people. The physical bullies were frankly easy to deal with. If you were able you took them on, if you were not you kept well out of their way. The intellectual bullies, by that I mean the people who thought they were the smartest people in the room and had to make certain everyone else knew it too, or the insistent people who always had to have the last word, not so much. Combine that with tattling and name-calling, and it made for a truly annoying individual.
Unfortunately, right now this blog is blighted by several such people. I think we are rid of conspiracy theorist fattymoon, who left in a disagreement. Spartan at least has some countervailing good qualities, even though she and I are never going to agree. That’s ok, a conservative echo chamber isn’t what we want.
The real problems are v-girl, who is a vicious, mean-spirited, hate-filled person who does not hesitate to pour contempt in those she disagrees with, and Chris, who thinks he’s the smartest guy in the room and thinks he needs to counterbalance all the conservatives here by himself. Either of these people could test the patience of a saint on his best day.
It’s a little hard to get a real read on people just going by what they say. However, the sense I get is that v-girl was probably bookish and unattractive growing up, as well as having gotten a thorough steeping in Third Wave feminism. She was also Jewish and that might have limited her social circles, depending on how strict her family was. Unfortunately, her appearance was probably not enough to counterbalance her unpleasant personality, and now she has nothing but anger and bitterness to offer the world because her best days are behind her and no one will touch her for a relationship.
Chris is a lot simpler. He is simply the mouthiest guy in the class who no teacher pulled aside and told him to restrain himself or his grade would suffer, and who was either too fast or too well known of a tattletale that his annoyed peers didn’t tie him up and leave him.hanging from a tree or beat him up and leave him bleeding in an abandoned lot to rethink his obnoxious ways.
Unfortunately, both have now run up against someone, indeed several someones, who won’t take their garbage.
Now come on now Steve-o, you responded with jacks request for less vitriol with more vitriol. Chris is not a bad guy. And he probably thinks he has to counterbalance the conservatives by himself because he often does! I have often seen him concede some points which puts him above the friends I have that think everything Hillary did was 100% right and everything trump does is 100% wrong, or vice versa.
I’m not a frequent commenter but I give you, Chris, and several others the highest compliment I can: you made me think.
“a neat category which usually fails to reflect actual complexities”
Steve, you’re pigeonholing.
Touche!
Nope, just doing the best I can with what’s available, which is by no means a complete analysis.
fatty! (that always sounds soooo wrong to type…)
I knew you were lurking out there, welcome back to commenting!
Thanks! I’m self medicating now.
Steve-O-in-NJ wrote, “Chris, who thinks he’s the smartest guy in the room and thinks he needs to counterbalance all the conservatives here by himself.”
This assertion is completely false. If you care to know why your assertion is false, try reading some of my past comments on this topic. It would be in appropriate to go into it in this thread.
Steve-O-in-NJ wrote, “…these people could test the patience of a saint on his best day.”
Everyone should look in the mirror and see their own reflection in this statement and you and I are no exception.
That said…
I think the core of this blog from Jack has blown over your head.
I don’t see it as false, but I admit, hatred can blind. The core hasn’t blown over my head, Zoltar, however, I do think this blog has some troublemakers, and those two are major offenders. Jack’s addition about pushing buttons is key, however. I will cop to deliberately pushing buttons, which I will admit is a middle-school to high-school tactic, but can be very effective for knocking someone off-message or making them lose their cool. I have found it particularly effective against the fragile and the ideological, but, I will admit, sometimes I do it just to be cruel and cause pain or anger in those I do not like, and that isn’t me at my finest.
Your second point, however, is well-taken. All of us have within us the capacity to be annoying and test even the most decent people. As kids we sometimes give it free reign. As adults we shouldn’t.
> If he had been in full health, or so his son wrote, he’d have slugged Vidal, and the world would have been a better place for it, in my opinion
So it_is_ok to punch a Nazi, thanks!
Dunno about that, but punching someone who insults you on national TV…
In your defense, I hadn’t seen the video that is now linked, he does look *exceptionally* punchable at this moment.
https://imgur.com/a/HlaEy
If only it were available in 4k
So then physical violence in response to words is okay, like the “Antifa” turds have been saying all along?
Steve: WTF? You are commenting on a woman’s supposed attractiveness and possible religion based on comments she has made on an anonymous blog? That is not cool my friend (and possibly insane) — and this is in response to Jack’s call for more courteous behavior?
You have a lot to add here Steve, but please reexamine your need to make these kind of attacks.
Actually not as insane as you think. She has referenced being Jewish in a few posts, however we do not know how strict, leading me to conclude that had some influence. She has also referenced sci-fi reading in others, leading me to conclude possible there is possible geekdom involved. Her posts ooze feminism, so I think it’s a safe bet that was a big part of her life. Her posts also tend to be either snarky or angry. What she has never referenced is a husband or partner or kids, leading me to believe those are not part of her life. A picture starts to emerge of a lonely, bitter angry person, and I backed into her not being too attractive from that, because often guys will look past an annoying personality or quirks if they think a woman is good-looking enough.
Admittedly, to put all this on a blog where anyone can read it is not very nice. Admittedly, some of this flows from “know thine enemy.” However, I do not do this without cause. The hateful stuff from her has been spilling for a year and a half now, starting with those ridiculous posts after the death of Scalia where she talked about wanting to castrate and burn Majority Leader McConnell. The hate only got worse with the election and as we built up to the inauguration, and it hasn’t receded since. It is offensive, and this blog wasn’t, I believe, intended as a place to rant and rage.
And yet you continue to do so. On a post specifically telling you to cut that shit out.
Physician, heal thyself.
Steve, if her posts ooze feminism, then your posts ooze misogyny. Sherlock you are not, and even if you were, I have some facts for you to consider. Someone can be beautiful and love sci-fi. I don’t even know how you can correlate the two. I am a huge nerd who also has won beauty contests (er … in my day of course). Also, someone can be beautiful, have an amazing personality, and still never get married. About 1/2 of my female friends are unmarried. Some never found Mr. Right, and the others have no interest in shackling themselves to a man. Also, re the kid thing. Some women do not want children. Some men do not want children. Some people cannot have children. Finally — there is nothing wrong with being a feminist. I am one — and everyone I know (male and female) is a feminist. There is no value in assigning traits to someone you have only met virtually.
Sherlock? As in Benedict Cumberbatch? Nope, let’s not kid ourselves, that’s not me, that’s not 95% of the male population. I don’t doubt there are some good looking folks out there who love sci-fi, but the stereotype of the unattractive person who can’t make it in the real world escaping through sci-fi is not without some truth behind it. I’ll have to take you at your word about your history, since I don’t know you. Most women I know are either married or in some kind of long-term relationship, if you get to where I am in life and aren’t, people wonder what the story is. Sometimes it’s obvious – she’s plain as dirt and no one wants her. Sometimes it’s not so obvious – she’s clingy, she’s too needy, she’s incapable of staying out of trouble, or she’s just plain cray-cray, but by the time you know you’ve put your hand out a bit farther than you can draw it back. Yes, I’m aware not every woman wants kids, or is with someone who wants kids, and I’m also aware that some women, sadly, can’t have kids (I consider it very heartbreaking when a woman who wants a child can’t have one). I am not a feminist, and those I know are mixed. I do not consider myself a misogynist, which would mean I hated all women.
Being a misogynist does not mean you “hate all women.” It means you hate women as a group. Nearly every bigot who has ever lived has had exceptions. By your definition, anyone who said “Why are blacks so lazy? Not you, of course!” to their black friend is not behaving in a racist manner. That’s bullshit, and an attempt to define bigotry out of existence.
Steve, if I recall you have spoken powerfully here of your issues with anger, and your own loneliness. Is it possible you were projecting some of that on valky? Can you see why it’s hypocritical to condemn her for your perception of her being a “lonely woman” when you yourself have written about being a lonely man? You can’t ask others to have empathy for your situation when you do not express it for others.
I don’t think Steve hates women as a group. To borrow Steve’s Sherlock hat for a moment, I think he has had bad experiences with women, and that sometimes clouds his judgment when he is angry — thus causing him to spew out some unfortunate remarks.
As I have said many times here, I think there is a lot of good in Steve and he obviously is uber-intelligent. Now to take off Steve’s Sherlock hat and put on my Lucy hat from Peanuts — Steve needs to find a woman who will give him meaningful physical and emotional support.
Love makes everything better.
Ahahaha, Lucy was also the one who always baited Charlie Brown and then pulled the football away. AAAAAUUUGGGH! (Wham!)
Yes, I chose Lucy for a reason as we sometimes engage in (verbal) combat! 🙂
http://londonlatte.com/playground-punch/
Hey, how ’bout a nice Hawaiian punch?
P.S. I would be a LOT less inclined to hammer you at this point because you have occasionally interjected a human element as mom to a primary schooler. In the end you are someone who at least someone loves, rather than a disembodied set of opinions, which does make a difference.
BTW, I dunno if you’d look good in a high silk hat, which would have been Sherlock Holmes’ headgear of choice in London. He’s never described as wearing a deerstalker, although he MIGHT have worn one in Hound of the Baskervilles or Silver Blaze, or one of the mysteries set in the countryside. But, a famous actor decided to wear the deerstalker and Wenlock cloak, and a gooseneck pipe was the only one he could hold in his mouth and still deliver his lines, and the image of the world’s greatest detective was born.
Bad experiences? You could say that – notably a selfish diva and an emotional vampire, coupled with a VERY long dry spell. Doesn’t help that I have read and digested some of the MGTOW material, which I have concluded isn’t going to get anyone anywhere. I dunno about love making everything better, but love with an actual supportive partner does.
Misogyny is simply defined as a hatred of women in Webster. It doesn’t mean you hate all except a few, it doesn’t mean you default to hatred. It simply means you hate women. I’ve been practicing law 22 years, I am way too practical to hate half the human race. This isn’t “why are blacks so lazy? not you of course…” to your professional black friend. This is “You’re acting like a typical inner-city hip-hop thug” to a black guy who got caught with a gun and 20 decks of heroin in a shitty neighborhood. Honestly, Chris, I get that you are an English teacher, and part of that is parsing the meaning of words, but outside that classroom that just comes off as pedantic nonsense, and is very off-putting to other adults. You might want to rethink the use of that tactic.
Half of me wants to sneer at the second paragraph, since it’s the first time you described anything I wrote as “spoken powerfully” rather than in…less complimentary terms and it could come off as “damning with faint praise.” However, I am not going to just sneer and dismiss it. Yes, I have spoken of my own issues with anger and my own life here. However, you are only “getting warm” with your questions. I wasn’t projecting, in the sense of trying to place my own feelings on someone else. I said what I said, albeit in a very rude manner, because I have been there and done that. Being a sci-fi geek or deep thinker is, unfortunately, a strike against you, and that frankly isn’t fair, although it does mean you might fit in better among the like-minded than the mainstream. It kinda sucks to be told you are out of the mainstream and don’t fit, and that can lead to simmering anger and resentment. That in turn can lead you to either be visibly angry all the time, or to cut loose. There’s been a lot of that here of late, and, sorry, but she is a big offender. Anger is not an attractive quality, whether it’s the kind simmering just under the surface that leads you to throw snark and bitter jokes, or the fiery kind that leads you to shout and curse and do worse. Oscar Wilde may have been a riot in small doses at a party, but to have to live with his constant verbal sniping? Forget it. Some may consider Dan Savage a hero for giving voice to their rage, but to tolerate constant f-bombs and explosions of temper all the time? Uh-uh.
I will cop to cutting loose my share of times, usually only when provoked or annoyed, or when my dander is already up, like after the Scalise shooting. In life I usually bite my tongue a lot more often, since I want to keep my job and keep out of jail, and throwing a mouthy adversary down the stairs or punching out someone who shoves you thoughtlessly during a crowded event are not recommended for either.
More importantly, cutting loose is the equivalent of throwing sparks, and it should come as no surprise when some of those sparks catch and start other fires burning.
Steve, I want to share with you a piece I posted on Medium just prior to my leaving the platform for a while. Give it a try, if you will. If it works, use it. If not, toss it out. I’ve only been practicing it since mid-September but I’ve noticed a huge difference in my outlook on life.
No Separation, I Am Yours You Are Mine
(If above doesn’t work (it’s not working in the HTML TryitEditor v3.5) then try the link below.
View at Medium.com
Jack, thank you for injecting a note of objectivity here. It’s always good to focus on overall goals of a column like this, and to remind all of us that the greater good is still the greater good.
I like Steve-O’s comments above, with the single exception that I think Chris is well within bounds of civility and thought clarity. He’s also one of the few on here who has been willing to correct himself when he feels he’s been wrong.
But that’s a minor point. I want to underscore your plea for civility and recommitment to purpose.
I do agree that Chris is well within bounds.
I appreciate many of the comments here, but would like to add some support for valky as well. She is blunter than I am, but often makes me refocus. And she puts up with way more than I do.
This is one of those things that is hard for people to do. A long time ago, I used to get into these things (although on a different forum) and they would, at the time, feel like epic struggles between good and evil. You go back and read them a week later and lament the loss of your precious time debating such a fine and irrelevant point.
I find it’s best to make your point once, circle back to it once, and give the other guy the last word if there is no end in sight. Just because one gets the last word does not make them right, and endless debates are off-putting. Many times, when the comments get into the fifties with lots of indentations, I just move on, on the theory that the topic has become too calcified for somebody like me to add anything useful.
Civility is much harder than most people think. When dearly-held beliefs are challenged or attacked as something exceptionally negative (these days for example, read racist, sexist, homophobic, communist, etc.) it virtually always generates an initial visceral response. Controlling the words that come out of that initial reaction is a skill that is worth developing, and one reason why commenting on blogs is useful — it can hone the skill of civility in discourse, but only if you let it.
We could all do better. I’m going to commit to a greater effort to be more civil and thoughtful, and less reactionary. Timely post, Jack.
“Civility is much harder than most people think.”
“Controlling the words that come out of that initial reaction is a skill that is worth developing, and one reason why commenting on blogs is useful — it can hone the skill of civility in discourse, but only if you let it.”
“We could all do better. I’m going to commit to a greater effort to be more civil and thoughtful, and less reactionary. Timely post, Jack.”
Yes, yes, and yes.
I’d like to parrot this from Charles above because he said it better than I could…
“Jack, thank you for injecting a note of objectivity here. It’s always good to focus on overall goals of a column like this, and to remind all of us that the greater good is still the greater good.”
To conclude, I’d like to say that “there are no chasm walls created so distant by ideologies that cannot be bridged by the solid foundation of underlying human commonalities that support those ideologies”; sometimes we forget, me included, that that we have core commonalities.
I’m by no means perfect, but I vow to try to do better.
Thanks for your patience and the gentle reminders Jack.
This is a low blow. Trying to goad the defendant in litigation into commenting the case on his own blog.
Your opinion on how compelling the plaintiffs case is is no more relevant than my opinion on the softness of toilet paper
This is an inappropriate discussion regarding a case that the owner and operator of the website is currently in litigation. You are trolling for additional “evidence”, after the fact, to support a pattern that did not exist before and does not exist today.
You sir are an unethical cyber stalker of the worst kind.
Having a grey matter between your ears would make things more understandable.
Are we sure the commenter “ImJustSaying” and the Plaintiff are not one and the same person? And if not that, then not allied in some unethical way?
(with a nod to Chris for my straying toward conspiracy-theorizing)
Noticing that a troll defending a previous troll is probably the same person isn’t a conspiracy theory. Believing a well-documented, observed and publicized attack was a “false flag” is a conspiracy theory.
“Noticing that a troll defending a previous troll is probably the same person isn’t a conspiracy theory.”
Thank you Chris, for stating what I know and already knew before I commented at 11:55 am. Witness my parenthesized, clarifying follow-up at 11:57 am, about a nod to you for my straying toward conspiracy-theorizing – which was in reference to the second question of my initial comment, not the first question in that comment.
“Believing a well-documented, observed and publicized attack was a “false flag” is a conspiracy theory.”
Chris, there you go, AGAIN! The fact that I am unconvinced that the incident in Charlottesville, involving a public assembly for political purposes that was disrupted by someone who drove a car in a manner that resulted in the car impacting one or more persons, was an “attack,” is NOT an assertion that I believe that any “false flag” behavior occurred at that time. I have stated facts about a woman who died at the scene where the car impacted people – facts that are relevant to the trial involving criminal charges against the driver. In contrast, YOU have been insinuating all along – as if the charges against the driver are already open-and-shut, slam-dunk, jury’s-in-with-the-verdict, judge’s-gavel-is-down-and-case-closed proven – that not only was the woman’s death a “murder,” but furthermore and in addition, that her death was a desired result of some organized, deliberately coordinated scheme for committing premeditated acts of violence by one or more specific parties (President Trump, certain Nazis, certain racists) and targeting one or more other specific parties. Your insinuations are false-flag behavior. Just stop.
[second attempt to post – first attempt was before login]
“Noticing that a troll defending a previous troll is probably the same person isn’t a conspiracy theory.”
Thank you Chris, for stating what I know and already knew before I commented at 11:55 am. Witness my parenthesized, clarifying follow-up at 11:57 am, about a nod to you for my straying toward conspiracy-theorizing – which was in reference to the second question of my initial comment, not the first question in that comment.
“Believing a well-documented, observed and publicized attack was a “false flag” is a conspiracy theory.”
Chris, there you go, AGAIN! The fact that I am unconvinced that the incident in Charlottesville, involving a public assembly for political purposes that was disrupted by someone who drove a car in a manner that resulted in the car impacting one or more persons, was an “attack,” is NOT an assertion that I believe that any “false flag” behavior occurred at that time. I have stated facts about a woman who died at the scene where the car impacted people – facts that are relevant to the trial involving criminal charges against the driver. In contrast, YOU have been insinuating all along – as if the charges against the driver are already open-and-shut, slam-dunk, jury’s-in-with-the-verdict, judge’s-gavel-down-and-case-closed proven – that not only was the woman’s death a “murder,” but furthermore and in addition, that her death was a desired result of some organized, deliberately coordinated scheme for committing premeditated acts of violence by one or more specific parties (President Trump, certain Nazis, certain racists) and targeting one or more other specific parties. Your insinuations are false-flag behavior. Just stop.
I have read it. We obviously have a different definition of compelling.
I have also read it. It’s garbage.
Why should anyone here help you out with an obviously unethical and lawless legal action? In the interest of civility, I’ll just leave it there.
You’re the plaintiff, aren’t you?
Let’s just say that you’re the plaintiff.
I posted a couple of comments, just before I read farther downthread and saw your comment just now – honestly!
That is how I am proceeding, Chris.
What an interesting assertion. Why would removing your post be denying the plaintiff the ability to “restore his reputation”, unless you were in fact the plaintiff?
Also, you’re a douche.
Please sue me.
Paragraph 14G bases defamation on an adverb!
More importantly, the allegedly defamatory statement is not false.
There! There is one!
(Believe me, there are many more.)
-Jut
And, even if it is a false statement, it is not defamatory if it does not affect one’s reputation.
Whether he revealed his agenda at the outset or “finally” has no defamatory effect.
I am not going to go through every allegation, because each one requires several steps of analysis.
And, I am unlikely to convince you of anything anyway.
-Jut
A defamatory statement is a statement that (1) is communicated to a third party; (2) is false; and (3) tends to harm the Plaintiff’s reputation. You have to show damages.
A claim is actionable per se without allegation or proof of damages.
When you and I can not even agree on what the law is (and the laws can vary from state-to-state), there is no point in arguing any further.
-Jut
ImJust Saying,
Knock it off. This is not the forum to discuss the relative merits of a defamation lawsuit filed against Jack by a former poster. You know fully well that he will not respond to your comments. Stop goading people into responding to your assertions. If you think Jack is full of it, then exercise your rights and leave. No one is interested in your nonsense.
Furthermore, other posters/responders to ImJust Saying’s allegations should ignore them. It is pointless to argue with such postings.
jvb
I read it too and found it to be ridiculous and, believe me, I know a ridiculous lawsuit when I bring one-SEE one! I meant see one!
-Jut
Paragraph 14A: “I just banned Walt.”
Absolutely true statement! He did! He did ban Walt! Walt knows it! It is TRUE! That is a defense to defamation.
No defamation in that statement! Not one iota.
Completely frivolous BS!
-Jut
I daresay I know a hell of a lot more about it than you do.
Maybe that is the law in MA, but it is not the law in my state.
I talked someone out of bringing a defamation claim recently and he probably had a better case than the one against Jack. Even so, he had no case.
-Jut
You have stated or implied that I do not know about recent developments in defamation law and have implied that I am not a competent lawyer.
I do know that statements relating to one’s profession constitute defamation per se. But, don’t worry. I am not going to try to sue you.
But, in any case, I don’t believe that theory has any application here. I do not believe that anything Jack said led people to believe Walter was an idiot-I think Walter took care of that himself.
-Jut
I said relevant . Nothing more.
Well, Walt, “lawyer-in-all-but-degree”, douche extraordinaire (please sure me), maybe some of that good old fashioned book learning that’s the difference between a shitposter with a fledgling blog (please sue me) and an actual lawyer would have equipped you with the understanding that not only should you not disclose details of any proceedings outside of discovery, it is monumentally stupid to do so, especially as a defendant and especially in a tort case.
creating a smurf account to try and troll the person you’re suing is mean (and, to be relevant here, unethical)
Yeah, that’s pretty dirty tactics.
No, not like that at all.
ImJust Saying,
This has got to be one of the most unethical comments I’ve ever seen posted on Ethics Alarms. This is outright harassment. A restraining order should be issued against you.
ImJust Saying should be banned.
It’s time for a counter suit.
What you are doing is literally libelous, it’s intentional harassment, and it’s verifiable intimidation of a defendant on behalf of a plaintiff.
Continue at your own peril.
I don’t think ImJustSaying’s comments are any more libelous than Jack’s comments about him were. Which is to say that neither are.
TROLL: is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community with the intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal, on-topic discussion, often for the troll’s amusement.
ImJust Saying is a troll; stop feeding the troll Chris.
I heavily disagree that it’s “water-tight”. What part, in your opinion, was particularly damning that you’d give it a “water-tight” rating? What was the “smoking gun” from the complaint, in your opinion, if we were to accept it as true?
Again, I’ll have to remind you not to violate “The Stupidity Rule”. I asked you to produce “a smoking gun”, I did not say there was one. Since you have not produced one, there is not one to demonstrate the holes.
(Also: no, the complaint itself is not a smoking gun. I’m looking for you to highlight what you consider to be the most damning point from the complaint in support of legal proceedings. You claim to have read the complaint and appear to me to be well versed in the intricacies of the complaint, so all I’m really asking for, here, is “your favorite part”.)
No, Zoltar doesn’t, and he’s wrong to the details of law. But if your case actually makes it to trial (a prospect that’s dubious), as far as I know, Virginia courts can award costs. And judges HATE having their time wasted, absolutely despise it.
I doubt that Jack will never be crass enough to gloat, but I think you would be, and will never get the chance. Also, you’re a douche (please sue me).
How about in Massachusetts? Can they award costs there? (The filing was in MA.)
I… think…. so…. Most American states do. A quick Google search reinforces that, most of the references took the ability to be awarded costs for granted.
Yes! Found a local MA source I think looks legit:
http://www.fitchlp.com/blog/2012/08/is-it-possible-to-recover-attorneys-fees-in-a-business-dispute.shtml
“The traditional rule – the so-called “American rule” – is that civil litigants cannot recover their legal fees. There are exceptions, though, that business litigants should be aware of. As the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court has stated “[o]ur traditional approach has been to prohibit recovery of attorney’s fees and expenses in a civil case in the absence of either an agreement between the parties, or a statute or rule to the contrary . . . .” See Preferred Mutual Insurance Company v. Gamache, 426 Mass. 93, 95 (1997).
It is essential for businesses to understand whether a given dispute will fall within one of the exceptions to the American Rule so that they can make informed decisions about the likelihood that they can recoup their attorney’s fees. Similarly, companies need to understand these exceptions in order to assess the risk that they will have to pay the other side’s attorney’s fees.”
[…]
“· Attorney’s Fees May Be Awarded For Frivolous Claims
Massachusetts has a statute that allows a party to recover its legal fees and costs if the judge determines “that all or substantially all of the claims, defenses, setoffs or counterclaims . . . were wholly insubstantial, frivolous and not advanced in good faith.” M.G.L. c. 231, §6F. Thus, a business that is forced into costly litigation by an unscrupulous plaintiff who has no legitimate claim does have some recourse to recover its attorney’s fees. ”
I would be GOBSMACKED if this didn’t apply.
Nice.
ImJust Saying wrote, “You know nothing about law, do you Zoltar?”
It’s time for this shill facade to put up or shut up.
Since ImJust Saying is insulting everyone’s knowledge about the law, then that must mean that his knowledge is far, far above the knowledge of all those he’s personally insulted; I’d like to see this person present to us what their closing arguments would be if they had to present them to a court.
Please proceed to “wow” us with your superior knowledge of the law.
I’m Just saying is banned, and has sneaked back on here a few times, taking advantage of my misfortune, that is, that I have to work for a living.
Although I completely agree with your decision to ban ImJust Saying, it sure would have been “fun” to read his intellectually superior legal expertise intertwined into his version of a closing argument.
To be precise, he banned himself with a long attack comment and a statement that it was his last. I treat that the same as a banning by me.
Hey, IJM, sue me!
Dammit fatty, you beat me to it.
C’est la vie, my friend.
Bam.
I predicted he’d have his friends on here vouching for him.
(or it’s he himself)
How generous of you to assume he has friends.
Isn’t it nice that everyone on here (except Walt) basically agrees on something?
I feel so, so… pretty?
I was just thinking that!
It’s time to completely shut down all comments on this particular thread and submit all the evidence to the appropriate authorities.
In the spirit of community/solidarity/unity, should we all kneel or lock arms in solidarity…or pull a Jerry Jones and do both?
ImJust Saying has hijacked this thread. I advise all and sundry to ignore his comments. I’m sure Jack will deal with him in due time.
Glenn Logan wrote, “ImJust Saying has hijacked this thread. I advise all and sundry to ignore his comments.”
I concur.
Me too. Pure douchery.
I think Jack is giving him enough rope to hang himself, because his IP probably matches Walt, and Walt is too stupid to understand how this mixture of harassment, provocation, and insane legal opinion stated as fact severely undercuts his case. To be honest, if I thought it would interfere with Walt’s ability to hang himself, I’d not post at all, but I think Jack’s right, in that our little douchenugget Walty-boy here (please sue me) is special. And I look forward to many responses!
Something like twenty years ago, it seemed to me that people had begun to discuss or argue differently. It seemed like people were trying to distill certain standard argument positions more and more skillfully, rather than following conversation freely among positions. I eventually attributed this to the 24 hour news networks (and whatever political forces fed those shows) that just had their balanced stables of left/right hacks, with nary an interesting gadfly in the bunch. I find now that a long piece by an introspective person often has more of a conversational quality than a back-and-forth between two people who are mostly in love with the dance.
My present strategy, as I try to understand things, and this cuertainly came up when I read the exchanges between NJ Steve and valkygrrl on a recent thread, is to try to understand what really is going on as distinct from what people say is going on. This ‘bend a knee’ issue and the upset about the Anthem cannot be the cause. It is an effect. One has to seek out the causes. The pressures are ratcheting up and in the pressure-pot people seem to be going a little crazy.
This may seem a strange observation, I don’t know, but I have recently been listening to talks by Miko Peled, an Israeli anti-Zionist activist. I bring this up because I think it could correspond in certain senses to conlficts coming up on this blog and in the polity generally. I’ll explain. If you have been rasied Jewish you have likely been raised Zionist. And you accept, as holy scripture, the story and the view which has been given to you about the Jewish return to Israel. You build your personality around it. It becomes a feature of your perception and also your self-definition. But when you are forced to confront that story, and when you come to see that it is not only false but also false-wrong, or even bad-evil, it throws the personality into chaos. If someone challenges your understanding or definition it is taken as a personal assault and you fight back in personal terms.
Peled came to understand that the story he had internalized was non-truthful, that it was a lie. And it cost him years of internal pain and some agony to process what he began to understand as true. Here is an outline (it is only a few minutes):
The reason I bring this up is because it is my understanding (from ‘meta-political’ distance) that some part of the chaos in our present, perhaps a large part, has to do with ‘collapsing narratives’ through which a personality seeks its identity. I think it is fair to say that America is in crisis. It is an identity crisis. And it seems to me that many people are suffering the effect of this crisis within their own personality.
What is shifting and why is it shifting? The questions have to do with national identity and national identity is bound up in personal perception and ‘sense of value’.
In other news, I have decided (it was a very hard decision) to bring a lawsuit against myself. I will also defend myself most vigorously for I am right. You will all soon receive subpoenas. I hope that you will defend me against myself, and myself against me.
Thanks for the laugh, Alizia! Much needed today!
That lawsuit against Jack is one of the most hilarious things I have read in AGES! Cyberlibel? Damages well in excess of $100,000? I have to say, I am completely SHOCKED that he could not find a lawyer to take his case and he had to file pro se.
I’m not. I hate pro ses.
Sadly, I still have to deal with the damn thing, and a list of other ways I would prefer to spend my time is about a million pages long.
Well, I’m Just Saying, I am an attorney. My professional opinion is that the lawsuit is laughable. I also question the sanity of someone revealing their identity on an anonymous blog and then claiming that his reputation has been ruined due to cyberlibel. I’ll also add that if this person has a case, then there are about three dozen people with better claims — including myself — than you (oops, I mean the Plaintiff).
To support “Laughable” I present this section (L) from the complaint which caused me to, I swear this is true,….. I laughed out loud. Literally, I “LOL’d”
READER BEWARE – The below may cause you to spit out your coffee and damage your keyboard. Proceed only when safe to do so:
[I] realized that Walt is, in technical terms … a few
cherries short a sundae.† {false: by invoking “technical
terms,” Defendant represents/alludes to a scientific/
medical/clinical expertise/credentials that he does not
possess (which he falsely pretends to “inoculate” as an
“opinion”); and even if he did possess the requisite
expertise, his conclusion of “a few cherries short of a
sundae” is wildly false/insane}
Hahahahaha! Thanks for citing that, Tim. I agree it is hilarious.
I mean, read it again, but this time, have an image of Dwight Schrute on your screen so you can imagine it’s him giving the interludes. In fact, go re-read the entire complaint in that capacity!
I read it in the Schrute voice at your suggestion.
It was sublime.
Actually, to this I will point out to Jack:
Walter Tuvell has placed his mental state into controversy.
Be sure to demand his medical records and schedule a psychological examination.
-Jut
I particularly enjoyed:
“‘Then I read as much of the entry on his blog’ {false: Plaintiff’s website is not a “blog;” it does not even incorporate a “blogging” feature (yet)}”
Ha. Yeah, that one also got an audible laugh from me! I just hear Rainn Wilson as Dwight every time he calls out “false”.
Yeah! I loved that… Jack got an Email… He gave an overview of the Email, omitting details and names, and Walt went out, doxxed himself with his complete name, and used that as evidence of defamation.
The opinion stated in the complaint, under (C):
{false: nothing was “whiny,” to any reasonable/rational observer}
I am but an observer and many would say I am reasonable, level-headed, and nothing but rational and logical. Having read the supporting evidence of the initial comments on this site only just now, this morning, it is my opinion that the comments, then and since, were and are: “whiny”.
But I will admit that I am of the opinion that the comments posted by “ImJust Saying” today are even more “whiny” than the comments posted by the plaintiff and documented in the compliant.
In conclusion, my opinion is that both the plaintiff and “ImJust Saying” write “whiny” comments.
An anecdote: Emmanuel Sanders made a catch in the Broncos v Bills game this past weekend that was overturned by the officials. IT WAS A CATCH! Saying so repetitively, though correct, made my wife have the opinion that I was whining. I believe her opinion was correct.
My opinion of your comments (and the plaintiff’s comments) stems from both authors’ tenacity for repetition.
More specifically to the plaintiff (and not “ImJust Saying”) the opinion of the complaint as whiny is furthered by bullet points such as (E) which attempts to take to task defendant’s characterization of the plaintiff’s comments. Reasonable people recognize terms of art and characterizing a particular writing as “bitching” is not provable because it necessarily requires the reader to understand that such characterization is the author’s opinion.
In (I) the plaintiff took issue with another characterization that the plaintiff’s posting on a legal matter was “a messy post”. Such characterization is obvious opinion and refuting someone’s obvious opinion within the context of a legal complaint is, in my opinion, de facto “whiny of the highest order”.
Yes. “Whiny” is obviously protected opinion. The plaintiff simply hates that observers of his behavior have chosen to use their free speech to criticize him. No court would find such a suit anything but frivolous.
This comment is indecipherable to me and likely many others. Please try again or you may become a violator of the clearly written “Stupidity Rule” under the Comment Policies. Please reformulate, and please, mind the threading.
I’m lost too.
Well, I will only address point 1 then as you seem to have directed point 2 to a different writer.
To respond, I need not provide an example. My opinion of the plaintiff’s writings, and of yours, was formed by the whole of each author’s writings. My opinion is unchanged, that they are “whiny”. Your self-declared inability to see “whining” or “bitching” is not my responsibility to remedy, but if you’d take a recommendation, I would recommend you “take a step back” and do a “mental reset”.
You used wikipedia for references, for Christ’s sake!
And did you really demand a jury for a defamation case?
No, I did not say you were criticizing Jack. I said that others were criticizing you, and you seem to think that criticizing you is defamation. It is not. You are an idiot.
From where does the headline image come?
From the Wikipedia article for Mexican Standoff.
That’s not helpful. Wikipedia had to get it from somewhere. The ORIGINAL source.
When I clicked on the picture, it said underneath the source was Scene “from a “steampunk” convention, The Asylum, Lincoln, England, September 2012″
Steampunk. Now there’s something worthy of…. something. Hah!
I expect some commenters to at least think, if not post, “Stop. Speak for yourself. You are not speaking for me,” when I say what I say next.
Jack, and Jack’s post for this thread, and indeed all of his posts, and his whole blog, and all of us commenters, are here because we need each other. At least, if any one of us is here not because of a need for each other, then it’s fair for such a person to question their own ethics. And when a person comments in such a way that another commenter perceives as betraying something alien to that shared and mutual need, then that person is fair game for having their ethics questioned by the other commenter.
As I was saying…if what I just said in the paragraph above provokes you to think, “Speak for yourself. You are not speaking for me,” then you are actually reinforcing my point.