Jump to content


Dan Meyers Bullshit


  • Please log in to reply
611 replies to this topic

#1 BogusScum

BogusScum

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 247 posts

Posted 09 August 2011 - 08:06 PM

I haven't been around for about a year and a half (she said she was 18; she looked a little older than that). I missed the resolution regarding the Fat-ass from East coast who was suing our esteemed hosts here at Sailing Anarchy. How that all end up? Did we win?

#2 _Vegas_

_Vegas_

    Anarchist

  • Reporters
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,641 posts
  • Location:Chicago
  • Interests:Kicking Ass and Going Fast

Posted 09 August 2011 - 08:08 PM

esteemed hosts



:lol:

#3 hermetic

hermetic

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 687 posts

Posted 09 August 2011 - 08:20 PM

I haven't been around for about a year and a half (she said she was 18; she looked a little older than that). I missed the resolution regarding the Fat-ass from East coast who was suing our esteemed hosts here at Sailing Anarchy. How that all end up? Did we win?


The latest ruling went poorly for the defendants.

#4 BogusScum

BogusScum

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 247 posts

Posted 09 August 2011 - 08:26 PM


I haven't been around for about a year and a half (she said she was 18; she looked a little older than that). I missed the resolution regarding the Fat-ass from East coast who was suing our esteemed hosts here at Sailing Anarchy. How that all end up? Did we win?


The latest ruling went poorly for the defendants.


Really? What happened?



There used to be a few good threads on the topic. Are they still around? Or did the court order those to be stricken?

#5 viperpuppy

viperpuppy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 412 posts
  • Interests:Sailing, fishing, hunting

Posted 09 August 2011 - 08:36 PM

I think Mr. Meyers dropped it

#6 DA-WOODY

DA-WOODY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,156 posts
  • Location:I'm in Sunny..-. Warm..& ..Dry San Diego . and your not :-)
  • Interests:Prime + 1 3/4

    COUGARS COUGARS & More COUGARS

Posted 09 August 2011 - 08:44 PM



I haven't been around for about a year and a half (she said she was 18; she looked a little older than that). I missed the resolution regarding the Fat-ass from East coast who was suing our esteemed hosts here at Sailing Anarchy. How that all end up? Did we win?


The latest ruling went poorly for the defendants.


Really? What happened?



There used to be a few good threads on the topic. Are they still around? Or did the court order those to be stricken?


Never laid an Aye on a related thread that contained anything good

past thread recap:

You Are

No I'm Not - You Are


No - You Are

No I'm Not - You Are


No - You Are

No I'm Not - You Are


No - You Are

No I'm Not - You Are


No - You Are

No I'm Not - You Are


No - You Are

No I'm Not - You Are


No - You Are

No I'm Not - You Are


No - You Are

No I'm Not - You Are


No - You Are

No I'm Not - You Are


No - You Are

No I'm Not - You Are


No - You Are

No I'm Not - You Are


No - You Are

No I'm Not - You Are


No - You Are

No I'm Not - You Are


No - You Are

No I'm Not - You Are


No - You Are

No I'm Not - You Are


No - You Are

No I'm Not - You Are


No - You Are

No I'm Not - You Are


No - You Are

No I'm Not - You Are

#7 hermetic

hermetic

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 687 posts

Posted 09 August 2011 - 08:47 PM

Really? What happened?


You will need to visit another sailing site for a link to the court's decision

#8 dudewood

dudewood

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 177 posts

Posted 09 August 2011 - 08:49 PM


Really? What happened?


You will need to visit another sailing site for a link to the court's decision


What other sailing site?
Yea, really, I would like to read about it.

#9 hermetic

hermetic

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 687 posts

Posted 09 August 2011 - 08:58 PM



Really? What happened?


You will need to visit another sailing site for a link to the court's decision


What other sailing site?
Yea, really, I would like to read about it.


Think Bob Marley

#10 doghouse

doghouse

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,269 posts
  • Location:Virginia Beach, Va.

Posted 09 August 2011 - 09:03 PM

You mean Toots and the Maytals?

#11 hermetic

hermetic

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 687 posts

Posted 09 August 2011 - 09:28 PM

You mean Toots and the Maytals?


I stand corrected

#12 EVK4

EVK4

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 879 posts
  • Location:Berkeley, CA

Posted 09 August 2011 - 09:45 PM

I wouldn't want to pressure anyone but they could at least drop a hint.



Really? What happened?


You will need to visit another sailing site for a link to the court's decision


What other sailing site?
Yea, really, I would like to read about it.



#13 Heriberto

Heriberto

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,061 posts
  • Location:Saint Paul, Minnesota
  • Interests:Mount Gay Sugarcane

Posted 09 August 2011 - 09:46 PM

You can't find info here, butt, it hasn't been completly scuttled. It's in the vault. Under the cone of silence. In a hermetically sealed box with low air pressure.

#14 Left Hook's Ravaged Rectum

Left Hook's Ravaged Rectum

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 104 posts

Posted 09 August 2011 - 10:37 PM

You can't find info here, butt, it hasn't been completly scuttled. It's in the vault. Under the cone of silence. In a hermetically sealed box with low air pressure.



searched there.. nothing!

#15 Left Hook

Left Hook

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,328 posts

Posted 09 August 2011 - 10:53 PM

Damn. They broke out the hermetically sealed box? Things in court must have gone REALLY bad...

#16 Matt B

Matt B

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,005 posts

Posted 09 August 2011 - 11:00 PM

We all know you like to hear yourself talk, but this is like the umteenth thread that you just continually repeat yourself.

Damn. They broke out the hermetically sealed box? Things in court must have gone REALLY bad...



#17 EVK4

EVK4

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 879 posts
  • Location:Berkeley, CA

Posted 09 August 2011 - 11:43 PM

I found it in post 812 of the blood boiling thread. Really not that hard. Ex-SA'er posted it on the same page that an SA-insider vented about SA. Go figure.


You can't find info here, butt, it hasn't been completly scuttled. It's in the vault. Under the cone of silence. In a hermetically sealed box with low air pressure.



searched there.. nothing!



#18 Matt B

Matt B

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,005 posts

Posted 09 August 2011 - 11:45 PM

Hey Wes - Where did Moondances reply go. I was trying to respond and poof! It was gone. Something to do with my kids drinking.

#19 'moondance44

'moondance44

    Anarchist

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,165 posts
  • Location:Dodgy Bit Of Stamford, CT and The Cows, Graveyard of LIS where bluefish get blown off wire leaders

Posted 09 August 2011 - 11:49 PM

Hey Wes - Where did Moondances reply go. I was trying to respond and poof! It was gone. Something to do with my kids drinking.


Ahh i thought it was uncalled for and red flagged myself. Something to do about underage
drinking in YC bars. Jeopardizing liquor licenses, etc. I was just wondering if your kids are in to that.

I guess Meyers must have won we would have heard otherwise.

#20 Matt B

Matt B

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,005 posts

Posted 10 August 2011 - 12:06 AM


Hey Wes - Where did Moondances reply go. I was trying to respond and poof! It was gone. Something to do with my kids drinking.


Ahh i thought it was uncalled for and red flagged myself. Something to do about underage
drinking in YC bars. Jeopardizing liquor licenses, etc. I was just wondering if your kids are in to that.

I guess Meyers must have won we would have heard otherwise.


Ya. My kids are hitt'n the sauce pretty hard these days. The 6 y.o. especially. We don't let them at their grandmas club though. That would be stupid, and they never have the kind she likes anyway. Only at AYC, LYC and IHYC (when they give away beer).
Hey... If the beers free, do they need a license?
I noticed Clean seems to working a bit harder. Is that to pay the settlement?

#21 Ship o' Fools

Ship o' Fools

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 512 posts

Posted 10 August 2011 - 01:50 AM

According to the court docket, the SLAPP motion was set to be heard on July 15th and there was a tentative ruling filed July 14th. However, a "party's" motion to continue the SLAPP hearing was granted and the new motion hearing date is Sept. 9th. There is a three page document filed by the court regarding the 'minutes' of the July 15th hearing but I did not feel compelled to pay the $7.50 fee to view the document online.

A trial date has also been set for February 17, 2012.

Someone more knowledgable could spill the beans on what is happening.

#22 Left Hook

Left Hook

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,328 posts

Posted 10 August 2011 - 03:03 AM

We all know you like to hear yourself talk, but this is like the umteenth thread that you just continually repeat yourself.


Damn. They broke out the hermetically sealed box? Things in court must have gone REALLY bad...

It's a problem with posting from my phone that I have yet to figure out. For now you will just have to settle for being 3 or 4 times more entertained/enlightened/impressed when you read the things I say 3-4 times... And who said anything about underaged drinking?

We all know you like to hear yourself talk, but this is like the umteenth thread that you just continually repeat yourself.


Damn. They broke out the hermetically sealed box? Things in court must have gone REALLY bad...

It's a problem with posting from my phone that I have yet to figure out. For now you will just have to settle for being 3 or 4 times more entertained/enlightened/impressed when you read the things I say 3-4 times... And who said anything about underaged drinking?

#23 Dawg Gonit

Dawg Gonit

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,067 posts
  • Location:Channel Islands (oxnard), Calif

Posted 10 August 2011 - 03:56 AM

A trial date has also been set for February 17, 2012.


Fer Christ's Sake, My birthday is the 19th...................................I wonder what kind of present I'll be getting, a subpoena or some other legal bullshit.

I'll be 54 and 14 years into my injury.........................what else could go wrong......or right B)

#24 Surf City Racing

Surf City Racing

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,158 posts
  • Location:Santa Cruz

Posted 10 August 2011 - 04:53 AM

Live, from Boston.

Posted Image

#25 jocal505

jocal505

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,288 posts
  • Location:Seattle, Wa
  • Interests:performance sailing, downhill skiing, music

Posted 10 August 2011 - 05:59 AM

According to the court docket, the SLAPP motion was set to be heard on July 15th and there was a tentative ruling filed July 14th. However, a "party's" motion to continue the SLAPP hearing was granted and the new motion hearing date is Sept. 9th. There is a three page document filed by the court regarding the 'minutes' of the July 15th hearing but I did not feel compelled to pay the $7.50 fee to view the document online.

A trial date has also been set for February 17, 2012.

Someone more knowledgable could spill the beans on what is happening.


The Ed removed the PART DEUX libel and slander thread in May. Now Taniwha is MIA.

On July 15 Judge Haas ruled that plaintiff shows a probability of sucess demonstrating that the "grifter" terminology is not protected activity. Motion to strike is denied.
And that "grfter" means swindler as Meyers' Wickipedia-quoting linguist stated, and not "circus sidedshow vendor" as SA defined the term.
That defendents have not shown that being CEO of First Marblehead makes him a general purpose public figure, so Meyers need not demonstrate malice.
But also that if DM is determined a public figure, that malice was demonstrated in both depositions since defendents did not believe their own grifter comment

"Defendent's evidentiary objections are overruled. Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees must be addressed by a separate motion."
Next hearing Sept. 9.
Copy of the Minute Order avail. by PM.

Time for Do Rag to weigh in.

#26 savoir

savoir

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,984 posts

Posted 10 August 2011 - 11:10 AM

To think that all might have changed with one letter "r".

Had the magic word been " gifter " . . . . . whole new ball game. The word would be true too.

#27 BogusScum

BogusScum

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 247 posts

Posted 10 August 2011 - 01:09 PM

The word would be true too.


Do you mean to say 'also'. As in: 'it is true that DM is a grifter AND ALSO a gifter'? In this case, I'd watch out. I think he'll be sueing you next.

#28 mad

mad

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,059 posts

Posted 10 August 2011 - 02:50 PM

I haven't been around for about a year and a half (she said she was 18; she looked a little older than that). I missed the resolution regarding the Fat-ass from East coast who was suing our esteemed hosts here at Sailing Anarchy. How that all end up? Did we win?

and who knew there was a legal age for goats? :blink:

#29 walterbshaffer

walterbshaffer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,014 posts
  • Location:San Diego, California USA
  • Interests:Formerly Member No. 9720

Posted 10 August 2011 - 04:59 PM

does anyone know the case #?

#30 Ship o' Fools

Ship o' Fools

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 512 posts

Posted 10 August 2011 - 05:12 PM

37-2010-00057972

#31 jocal505

jocal505

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,288 posts
  • Location:Seattle, Wa
  • Interests:performance sailing, downhill skiing, music

Posted 10 August 2011 - 07:15 PM

No - You Are

No I'm Not - You Are


No - You Are

No I'm Not - You Are


No - You Are

No I'm Not - You Are



Hi Woody. Your keen analysis could have broken up said stupid conversation.







Posted Image














Posted Image

#32 savoir

savoir

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,984 posts

Posted 11 August 2011 - 01:51 AM


The word would be true too.


Do you mean to say 'also'. As in: 'it is true that DM is a grifter AND ALSO a gifter'? In this case, I'd watch out. I think he'll be sueing you next.



Huh ? Meyers is a proven gifter. We have the defence of truth on that one.

http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2005/09/26/daily43.html

Gifts come in many forms

http://www.virginia.edu/insideuva/2004/17/meyers_dan.html

He's under attack from other places too.

http://articles.boston.com/2011-05-03/yourtown/29499969_1_first-marblehead-earliest-investors-big-investor

#33 smackdaddy

smackdaddy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,754 posts

Posted 11 August 2011 - 02:16 AM


According to the court docket, the SLAPP motion was set to be heard on July 15th and there was a tentative ruling filed July 14th. However, a "party's" motion to continue the SLAPP hearing was granted and the new motion hearing date is Sept. 9th. There is a three page document filed by the court regarding the 'minutes' of the July 15th hearing but I did not feel compelled to pay the $7.50 fee to view the document online.

A trial date has also been set for February 17, 2012.

Someone more knowledgable could spill the beans on what is happening.


The Ed removed the PART DEUX libel and slander thread in May. Now Taniwha is MIA.

On July 15 Judge Haas ruled that plaintiff shows a probability of sucess demonstrating that the "grifter" terminology is not protected activity. Motion to strike is denied.
And that "grfter" means swindler as Meyers' Wickipedia-quoting linguist stated, and not "circus sidedshow vendor" as SA defined the term.
That defendents have not shown that being CEO of First Marblehead makes him a general purpose public figure, so Meyers need not demonstrate malice.
But also that if DM is determined a public figure, that malice was demonstrated in both depositions since defendents did not believe their own grifter comment

"Defendent's evidentiary objections are overruled. Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees must be addressed by a separate motion."
Next hearing Sept. 9.
Copy of the Minute Order avail. by PM.

Time for Do Rag to weigh in.


Ouch.

#34 RobbieB

RobbieB

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,482 posts
  • Location:Charleston, SC

Posted 11 August 2011 - 12:34 PM



According to the court docket, the SLAPP motion was set to be heard on July 15th and there was a tentative ruling filed July 14th. However, a "party's" motion to continue the SLAPP hearing was granted and the new motion hearing date is Sept. 9th. There is a three page document filed by the court regarding the 'minutes' of the July 15th hearing but I did not feel compelled to pay the $7.50 fee to view the document online.

A trial date has also been set for February 17, 2012.

Someone more knowledgable could spill the beans on what is happening.


The Ed removed the PART DEUX libel and slander thread in May. Now Taniwha is MIA.

On July 15 Judge Haas ruled that plaintiff shows a probability of sucess demonstrating that the "grifter" terminology is not protected activity. Motion to strike is denied.
And that "grfter" means swindler as Meyers' Wickipedia-quoting linguist stated, and not "circus sidedshow vendor" as SA defined the term.
That defendents have not shown that being CEO of First Marblehead makes him a general purpose public figure, so Meyers need not demonstrate malice.
But also that if DM is determined a public figure, that malice was demonstrated in both depositions since defendents did not believe their own grifter comment

"Defendent's evidentiary objections are overruled. Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees must be addressed by a separate motion."
Next hearing Sept. 9.
Copy of the Minute Order avail. by PM.

Time for Do Rag to weigh in.


Ouch.


Ouch indeed. Worst case is DM wins, SA files bankrupcy, shuts down this particular site, but continues under a new name/company set up, and DM goes after Clean, Scooter or both personally for damages in which case they both do whatever they need to to protect their own asses/assets.

Correct?

#35 skew

skew

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 784 posts
  • Location:Alta UT

Posted 11 August 2011 - 12:42 PM

This doesn't bode well for Internet freedom of speech. http://thepsychoexwife.com/

#36 DoRag

DoRag

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,919 posts
  • Location:Where the sun doesn't shine.

Posted 11 August 2011 - 02:19 PM




According to the court docket, the SLAPP motion was set to be heard on July 15th and there was a tentative ruling filed July 14th. However, a "party's" motion to continue the SLAPP hearing was granted and the new motion hearing date is Sept. 9th. There is a three page document filed by the court regarding the 'minutes' of the July 15th hearing but I did not feel compelled to pay the $7.50 fee to view the document online.

A trial date has also been set for February 17, 2012.

Someone more knowledgable could spill the beans on what is happening.


The Ed removed the PART DEUX libel and slander thread in May. Now Taniwha is MIA.

On July 15 Judge Haas ruled that plaintiff shows a probability of sucess demonstrating that the "grifter" terminology is not protected activity. Motion to strike is denied.
And that "grfter" means swindler as Meyers' Wickipedia-quoting linguist stated, and not "circus sidedshow vendor" as SA defined the term.
That defendents have not shown that being CEO of First Marblehead makes him a general purpose public figure, so Meyers need not demonstrate malice.
But also that if DM is determined a public figure, that malice was demonstrated in both depositions since defendents did not believe their own grifter comment

"Defendent's evidentiary objections are overruled. Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees must be addressed by a separate motion."
Next hearing Sept. 9.
Copy of the Minute Order avail. by PM.

Time for Do Rag to weigh in.


Ouch.


Ouch indeed. Worst case is DM wins, SA files bankrupcy, shuts down this particular site, but continues under a new name/company set up, and DM goes after Clean, Scooter or both personally for damages in which case they both do whatever they need to to protect their own asses/assets.

Correct?


Not correct.

#37 smackdaddy

smackdaddy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,754 posts

Posted 11 August 2011 - 03:02 PM




According to the court docket, the SLAPP motion was set to be heard on July 15th and there was a tentative ruling filed July 14th. However, a "party's" motion to continue the SLAPP hearing was granted and the new motion hearing date is Sept. 9th. There is a three page document filed by the court regarding the 'minutes' of the July 15th hearing but I did not feel compelled to pay the $7.50 fee to view the document online.

A trial date has also been set for February 17, 2012.

Someone more knowledgable could spill the beans on what is happening.


The Ed removed the PART DEUX libel and slander thread in May. Now Taniwha is MIA.

On July 15 Judge Haas ruled that plaintiff shows a probability of sucess demonstrating that the "grifter" terminology is not protected activity. Motion to strike is denied.
And that "grfter" means swindler as Meyers' Wickipedia-quoting linguist stated, and not "circus sidedshow vendor" as SA defined the term.
That defendents have not shown that being CEO of First Marblehead makes him a general purpose public figure, so Meyers need not demonstrate malice.
But also that if DM is determined a public figure, that malice was demonstrated in both depositions since defendents did not believe their own grifter comment

"Defendent's evidentiary objections are overruled. Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees must be addressed by a separate motion."
Next hearing Sept. 9.
Copy of the Minute Order avail. by PM.

Time for Do Rag to weigh in.


Ouch.


Ouch indeed. Worst case is DM wins, SA files bankrupcy, shuts down this particular site, but continues under a new name/company set up, and DM goes after Clean, Scooter or both personally for damages in which case they both do whatever they need to to protect their own asses/assets.

Correct?


I have no idea what the potential outcomes could be. Far too early, and far too many variables we know nothing about.

I just know this ruling means that this probably won't end well. It obviously never was as cut-and-dried as some tried to make it.

#38 jocal505

jocal505

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,288 posts
  • Location:Seattle, Wa
  • Interests:performance sailing, downhill skiing, music

Posted 11 August 2011 - 03:23 PM






Time for Do Rag to weigh in.


Ouch.


Ouch indeed. Worst case is DM wins, SA files bankrupcy, shuts down this particular site, but continues under a new name/company set up, and DM goes after Clean, Scooter or both personally for damages in which case they both do whatever they need to to protect their own asses/assets.

Correct?


Not correct.



You've been there. Care to expand?
For one thing, the matter of damages seems vacuous.

#39 DA-WOODY

DA-WOODY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,156 posts
  • Location:I'm in Sunny..-. Warm..& ..Dry San Diego . and your not :-)
  • Interests:Prime + 1 3/4

    COUGARS COUGARS & More COUGARS

Posted 11 August 2011 - 03:43 PM

I must admit I wanted to know how things were going

now I'd rather still not know Posted Image

#40 SA Lurker

SA Lurker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 499 posts

Posted 11 August 2011 - 07:16 PM





According to the court docket, the SLAPP motion was set to be heard on July 15th and there was a tentative ruling filed July 14th. However, a "party's" motion to continue the SLAPP hearing was granted and the new motion hearing date is Sept. 9th. There is a three page document filed by the court regarding the 'minutes' of the July 15th hearing but I did not feel compelled to pay the $7.50 fee to view the document online.

A trial date has also been set for February 17, 2012.

Someone more knowledgable could spill the beans on what is happening.


The Ed removed the PART DEUX libel and slander thread in May. Now Taniwha is MIA.

On July 15 Judge Haas ruled that plaintiff shows a probability of sucess demonstrating that the "grifter" terminology is not protected activity. Motion to strike is denied.
And that "grfter" means swindler as Meyers' Wickipedia-quoting linguist stated, and not "circus sidedshow vendor" as SA defined the term.
That defendents have not shown that being CEO of First Marblehead makes him a general purpose public figure, so Meyers need not demonstrate malice.
But also that if DM is determined a public figure, that malice was demonstrated in both depositions since defendents did not believe their own grifter comment

"Defendent's evidentiary objections are overruled. Plaintiff's request for attorney's fees must be addressed by a separate motion."
Next hearing Sept. 9.
Copy of the Minute Order avail. by PM.

Time for Do Rag to weigh in.


Ouch.


Ouch indeed. Worst case is DM wins, SA files bankrupcy, shuts down this particular site, but continues under a new name/company set up, and DM goes after Clean, Scooter or both personally for damages in which case they both do whatever they need to to protect their own asses/assets.

Correct?


Not correct.


There is worse? Do tell.

#41 Dawg Gonit

Dawg Gonit

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,067 posts
  • Location:Channel Islands (oxnard), Calif

Posted 11 August 2011 - 07:48 PM

Worst case is DM wins, SA files bankrupcy, shuts down this particular site, but continues under a new name/company set up, and DM goes after Clean, Scooter or both personally for damages in which case they both do whatever they need to to protect their own asses/assets.


If DM wins, I'm sure he will want SA handed over to him so he can sell it to the highest bidder. And there will be bidders.


BUT, How about if DM wins and he hands SA over to me B) I've never written anything on the home page disparaging anyone. :D

I could live with that. :blink:

#42 smackdaddy

smackdaddy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,754 posts

Posted 11 August 2011 - 08:22 PM


Worst case is DM wins, SA files bankrupcy, shuts down this particular site, but continues under a new name/company set up, and DM goes after Clean, Scooter or both personally for damages in which case they both do whatever they need to to protect their own asses/assets.


If DM wins, I'm sure he will want SA handed over to him so he can sell it to the highest bidder. And there will be bidders.


BUT, How about if DM wins and he hands SA over to me B) I've never written anything on the home page disparaging anyone. :D

I could live with that. :blink:


Makes perfect PR sense to me.

Dan, if it all goes down, throw the Dawg a judicious bone. You'd come out smelling like a freakin' rose.

#43 DoRag

DoRag

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,919 posts
  • Location:Where the sun doesn't shine.

Posted 11 August 2011 - 09:05 PM



Worst case is DM wins, SA files bankrupcy, shuts down this particular site, but continues under a new name/company set up, and DM goes after Clean, Scooter or both personally for damages in which case they both do whatever they need to to protect their own asses/assets.


If DM wins, I'm sure he will want SA handed over to him so he can sell it to the highest bidder. And there will be bidders.


BUT, How about if DM wins and he hands SA over to me B) I've never written anything on the home page disparaging anyone. :D

I could live with that. :blink:


I don't know how you can be "sure."

#44 Somebody Else

Somebody Else

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,975 posts
  • Location:Southern California
  • Interests:Shootings, just like HotRod!

Posted 11 August 2011 - 09:12 PM

Readers and posters may want to consider that the more posts there are on this and related subjects, the worse it looks for Sailing Anarchy's case.

If you enjoy Sailing Anarchy, you probably shouldn't be posting here or anywhere publicly about this case.

#45 Rawhide

Rawhide

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 981 posts
  • Location:Pittwater

Posted 11 August 2011 - 10:57 PM

Readers and posters may want to consider that the more posts there are on this and related subjects, the worse it looks for Sailing Anarchy's case.

If you enjoy Sailing Anarchy, you probably shouldn't be posting here or anywhere publicly about this case.


???? I don't follow, how can people expressing an interest in the outcome of a matter, affect the outcome of that matter?

Because SA is a community not a website, even if DM Is successful, all taht is likely to happen is that SA either continues on under new management or rises again in a different form.

#46 ducky

ducky

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,877 posts

Posted 11 August 2011 - 11:17 PM



Worst case is DM wins, SA files bankrupcy, shuts down this particular site, but continues under a new name/company set up, and DM goes after Clean, Scooter or both personally for damages in which case they both do whatever they need to to protect their own asses/assets.


If DM wins, I'm sure he will want SA handed over to him so he can sell it to the highest bidder. And there will be bidders.


BUT, How about if DM wins and he hands SA over to me B) I've never written anything on the home page disparaging anyone. :D

I could live with that. :blink:

+1

#47 Somebody Else

Somebody Else

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,975 posts
  • Location:Southern California
  • Interests:Shootings, just like HotRod!

Posted 11 August 2011 - 11:47 PM

???? I don't follow, how can people expressing an interest in the outcome of a matter, affect the outcome of that matter?

It underscores the visibility and scope of the slander.

#48 rgscpat

rgscpat

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 708 posts
  • Location:New Mexico/southwest USA
  • Interests:sailing, racing, race management, Desert Sea / southwest USA sailing, future of sailing, travel, photography, hiking

Posted 12 August 2011 - 12:01 AM

Ummm, wouldn't it still be an alleged slander?

#49 DoRag

DoRag

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,919 posts
  • Location:Where the sun doesn't shine.

Posted 12 August 2011 - 01:00 AM


Readers and posters may want to consider that the more posts there are on this and related subjects, the worse it looks for Sailing Anarchy's case.

If you enjoy Sailing Anarchy, you probably shouldn't be posting here or anywhere publicly about this case.


???? I don't follow, how can people expressing an interest in the outcome of a matter, affect the outcome of that matter?

Because SA is a community not a website, even if DM Is successful, all taht is likely to happen is that SA either continues on under new management or rises again in a different form.


How 'bout all the trashing of DM that occurred on SA? Think that mattered?

#50 Dawg Gonit

Dawg Gonit

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,067 posts
  • Location:Channel Islands (oxnard), Calif

Posted 12 August 2011 - 01:13 AM




Worst case is DM wins, SA files bankrupcy, shuts down this particular site, but continues under a new name/company set up, and DM goes after Clean, Scooter or both personally for damages in which case they both do whatever they need to to protect their own asses/assets.


If DM wins, I'm sure he will want SA handed over to him so he can sell it to the highest bidder. And there will be bidders.


BUT, How about if DM wins and he hands SA over to me B) I've never written anything on the home page disparaging anyone. :D

I could live with that. :blink:


I don't know how you can be "sure."



I'm just guessing. If he wins he will want to make sure Scot does not have the mega phone that is SA anymore (just a guess).

DM, would only keep up the suit if his chances were good and if they are good he will set his sights on muzzling Scot.

The site has had offers only to be rebuffed by the owner much to the chagrin of those who have spent the last 10 years building the site and hoping for a payoff. DM will want to get a bit of a payoff for the suit..........................But in the end.......once again..............only the lawyers will benefit.

Just saying........................

#51 BIAM

BIAM

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,809 posts

Posted 12 August 2011 - 01:31 AM

hmmm....

one bully gets kicked in the teeth by another bully...

should i care?

#52 Pete M

Pete M

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,869 posts
  • Location:So Cal

Posted 12 August 2011 - 01:39 AM

How 'bout all the trashing of DM that occurred on SA? Think that mattered?


no

#53 jocal505

jocal505

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,288 posts
  • Location:Seattle, Wa
  • Interests:performance sailing, downhill skiing, music

Posted 12 August 2011 - 02:09 AM

Readers and posters may want to consider that the more posts there are on this and related subjects, the worse it looks for Sailing Anarchy's case.

If you enjoy Sailing Anarchy, you probably shouldn't be posting here or anywhere publicly about this case.





Hold on SE. I don't think so. Nope.

Look. I ain't no Harvard trained legal mind, sure, but gents, at this point jurisprudence becomes grotesque.
See, there's a difference between what Scot & Clean said and did, and our discussing the repercssions and Mr. Myers reaction.
Why any impetus to crowd free speech--OURS, not just bad boy Scot's?
Do Rag, you have a good point about trashing Dan on the forums, but there's a difference between the present discussion and excoriating or cursing Dan Meyers.
All this train of thought will lead to whispering in yacht club hallways. That went out with Joe Stalin, remember?
You can badmouth King George or Obama on Main Steeet anywhere in the U.S.A.

So here's where I fault Mr. Meyers, who similarly intimiated/attempted to silence un-named John Does.
Trying to prevent discussion? Bogus in all 50 states.

"Hush hush" is more insidious than using the "white collar criminal" vocabulary (privately) and the "grifter" word on an offbeat sailor website IMO.
And I feel like saying it here, now.
The laugher is that he's workin' it to get Scot to pay the legal bills, but he's definitely not a grifter.

#54 Dawg Gonit

Dawg Gonit

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,067 posts
  • Location:Channel Islands (oxnard), Calif

Posted 12 August 2011 - 02:26 AM

All this train of thought will lead to whispering in yacht club hallways.


I wonder what the whispers in SDYC are like?.......Oh to be a fly on the wall.......................

#55 foredeckC22

foredeckC22

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 69 posts
  • Location:Boise, ID
  • Interests:If you can't be bouy racing in salt water, swing keels and lakes will just have to do for now...

Posted 12 August 2011 - 07:40 AM

More importantly, where did people lose sight of the fact that we're all here because we love sailing...

and some people who need to be spanked by a rule 69 hearing need to be hung up by the yardarm.

SA will never die!!! You can take my SA, but you can never take my FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!!!!

#56 Rawhide

Rawhide

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 981 posts
  • Location:Pittwater

Posted 12 August 2011 - 08:24 AM



Readers and posters may want to consider that the more posts there are on this and related subjects, the worse it looks for Sailing Anarchy's case.

If you enjoy Sailing Anarchy, you probably shouldn't be posting here or anywhere publicly about this case.


???? I don't follow, how can people expressing an interest in the outcome of a matter, affect the outcome of that matter?

Because SA is a community not a website, even if DM Is successful, all taht is likely to happen is that SA either continues on under new management or rises again in a different form.


How 'bout all the trashing of DM that occurred on SA? Think that mattered?

As a matter of fact, no, the complaint is about what SA and Scott said about DM, not what anyone else says, unless they are joined as a defendant. But that is beside the point that I made, which is that following the proceedings in itself can do no harm.

I have absolutely no interest in the trash talk on this topic, or any interest in either side, just interested in how things are developing.



#57 jocal505

jocal505

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,288 posts
  • Location:Seattle, Wa
  • Interests:performance sailing, downhill skiing, music

Posted 12 August 2011 - 02:05 PM




Worst case is DM wins, SA files bankrupcy, shuts down this particular site, but continues under a new name/company set up, and DM goes after Clean, Scooter or both personally for damages in which case they both do whatever they need to to protect their own asses/assets.


If DM wins, I'm sure he will want SA handed over to him so he can sell it to the highest bidder. And there will be bidders. It doesn't work like that, and DM isn't doing this for profit.


BUT, How about if DM wins and he hands SA over to me B) I've never written anything on the home page disparaging anyone. :D

I could live with that. :blink:


I don't know how you can be "sure."



I'm just guessing. If he wins he will want to make sure Scot does not have the mega phone that is SA anymore (just a guess). He'll want the same if he loses.

DM, would only keep up the suit if his chances were good and if they are good he will set his sights on muzzling Scot. He'd keep it up if his chances were terrible. It's personal. He's not saving face here, he is ruining Scot.

The site has had offers only to be rebuffed by the owner much to the chagrin of those who have spent the last 10 years building the site and hoping for a payoff. DM will want to get a bit of a payoff for the suit..........................But in the end.......once again..............only the lawyers will benefit. Big Dan's "payoff" is to be vengeful, to throw his weight around the sailing commuity, and to put the Ed in the toilet.

Just saying........................



Dawg, not sure you're reading DM correctly.

#58 ropetrick

ropetrick

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,497 posts

Posted 12 August 2011 - 02:35 PM

And this all started in Key West (years ago); when Mr. Clean got in front of Numbers with the OTW boat, got flipped off by Big Dan, and then posted the photo with a rant commentary.

Circling the toilet ever since.

#59 DoRag

DoRag

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,919 posts
  • Location:Where the sun doesn't shine.

Posted 12 August 2011 - 03:19 PM




Readers and posters may want to consider that the more posts there are on this and related subjects, the worse it looks for Sailing Anarchy's case.

If you enjoy Sailing Anarchy, you probably shouldn't be posting here or anywhere publicly about this case.


???? I don't follow, how can people expressing an interest in the outcome of a matter, affect the outcome of that matter?

Because SA is a community not a website, even if DM Is successful, all taht is likely to happen is that SA either continues on under new management or rises again in a different form.


How 'bout all the trashing of DM that occurred on SA? Think that mattered?

As a matter of fact, no, the complaint is about what SA and Scott said about DM, not what anyone else says, unless they are joined as a defendant. But that is beside the point that I made, which is that following the proceedings in itself can do no harm.

I have absolutely no interest in the trash talk on this topic, or any interest in either side, just interested in how things are developing.


You don't seem to understand.

Don't you think that all the bashing and insults on SA further polarized DM?

Next, since many of the posters echoed essentially what SA alledgedly did, obviously they will all be added as John Does.

#60 Clove Hitch

Clove Hitch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,977 posts
  • Location:around and about
  • Interests:Garnacha. Gunk-holing.

Posted 12 August 2011 - 03:31 PM

Next, since many of the posters echoed essentially what SA alledgedly did, obviously they will all be added as John Does.


Care to bet on that, ol' boy?

#61 Ship o' Fools

Ship o' Fools

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 512 posts

Posted 12 August 2011 - 07:31 PM



Readers and posters may want to consider that the more posts there are on this and related subjects, the worse it looks for Sailing Anarchy's case.

If you enjoy Sailing Anarchy, you probably shouldn't be posting here or anywhere publicly about this case.


???? I don't follow, how can people expressing an interest in the outcome of a matter, affect the outcome of that matter?

Because SA is a community not a website, even if DM Is successful, all taht is likely to happen is that SA either continues on under new management or rises again in a different form.


How 'bout all the trashing of DM that occurred on SA? Think that mattered?


What? Whatever has been said by posters/posers is irrelevant to the litigation. The issues in the litigation are well identified comments and statements - which do not include forum posts. Also the forum posts I am aware of that are critical of Dan Meyers were after the litigation was commenced. I have not seen any amended complaint that now alleges SA is responsible for the statements of people that post in the forums.

In what way do you believe that the "trashing of DM" now matters to the litigation or is even admissible in court?

#62 Chris in Santa Cruz, CA

Chris in Santa Cruz, CA

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,273 posts

Posted 12 August 2011 - 07:46 PM



The word would be true too.


Do you mean to say 'also'. As in: 'it is true that DM is a grifter AND ALSO a gifter'? In this case, I'd watch out. I think he'll be sueing you next.



Huh ? Meyers is a proven gifter. We have the defence of truth on that one.

http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2005/09/26/daily43.html

Gifts come in many forms

http://www.virginia.edu/insideuva/2004/17/meyers_dan.html

He's under attack from other places too.

http://articles.boston.com/2011-05-03/yourtown/29499969_1_first-marblehead-earliest-investors-big-investor


Regarding the boston.com article, Meyers may well win if in fact he was in full control of when to sell the stock even though the other party paid for it. If that was the case then the guy who put the money up to allow Meyers to buy the stock is in idiot.

#63 Ship o' Fools

Ship o' Fools

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 512 posts

Posted 12 August 2011 - 07:57 PM





Readers and posters may want to consider that the more posts there are on this and related subjects, the worse it looks for Sailing Anarchy's case.

If you enjoy Sailing Anarchy, you probably shouldn't be posting here or anywhere publicly about this case.


???? I don't follow, how can people expressing an interest in the outcome of a matter, affect the outcome of that matter?

Because SA is a community not a website, even if DM Is successful, all taht is likely to happen is that SA either continues on under new management or rises again in a different form.


How 'bout all the trashing of DM that occurred on SA? Think that mattered?

As a matter of fact, no, the complaint is about what SA and Scott said about DM, not what anyone else says, unless they are joined as a defendant. But that is beside the point that I made, which is that following the proceedings in itself can do no harm.

I have absolutely no interest in the trash talk on this topic, or any interest in either side, just interested in how things are developing.


You don't seem to understand.

Don't you think that all the bashing and insults on SA further polarized DM?

Next, since many of the posters echoed essentially what SA alledgedly did, obviously they will all be added as John Does.


The trial date has been set so you cannot amend the complaint to bring in additional people - unless the trial date is vacated. It is not like you can bring in additional people the day before trial.

#64 DoRag

DoRag

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,919 posts
  • Location:Where the sun doesn't shine.

Posted 12 August 2011 - 08:31 PM




Readers and posters may want to consider that the more posts there are on this and related subjects, the worse it looks for Sailing Anarchy's case.

If you enjoy Sailing Anarchy, you probably shouldn't be posting here or anywhere publicly about this case.


???? I don't follow, how can people expressing an interest in the outcome of a matter, affect the outcome of that matter?

Because SA is a community not a website, even if DM Is successful, all taht is likely to happen is that SA either continues on under new management or rises again in a different form.


How 'bout all the trashing of DM that occurred on SA? Think that mattered?


What? Whatever has been said by posters/posers is irrelevant to the litigation. The issues in the litigation are well identified comments and statements - which do not include forum posts. Also the forum posts I am aware of that are critical of Dan Meyers were after the litigation was commenced. I have not seen any amended complaint that now alleges SA is responsible for the statements of people that post in the forums.

In what way do you believe that the "trashing of DM" now matters to the litigation or is even admissible in court?


Nope and nope.

The trashing would polarize DM (or anyone for that matter) and cause him to dig in and offer no quarter. Surely you can understand that.

Next, if proof of malice/intent was required, then a pervasive program, possibly encouraged by the defendents, either directly or indirectly, would surely be an issue.

And finally, to add the John Does and push the trial date back is of no consequence whatsoever. Let's think a bit about how the case would look if SA were singled out and others who essentially made the same statements were ignored. It seems to me that it would be mandatory for DM to add to J Does to maintain his position and credibility.

Your turn......

#65 Clove Hitch

Clove Hitch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,977 posts
  • Location:around and about
  • Interests:Garnacha. Gunk-holing.

Posted 12 August 2011 - 09:04 PM





Readers and posters may want to consider that the more posts there are on this and related subjects, the worse it looks for Sailing Anarchy's case.

If you enjoy Sailing Anarchy, you probably shouldn't be posting here or anywhere publicly about this case.


???? I don't follow, how can people expressing an interest in the outcome of a matter, affect the outcome of that matter?

Because SA is a community not a website, even if DM Is successful, all taht is likely to happen is that SA either continues on under new management or rises again in a different form.


How 'bout all the trashing of DM that occurred on SA? Think that mattered?


What? Whatever has been said by posters/posers is irrelevant to the litigation. The issues in the litigation are well identified comments and statements - which do not include forum posts. Also the forum posts I am aware of that are critical of Dan Meyers were after the litigation was commenced. I have not seen any amended complaint that now alleges SA is responsible for the statements of people that post in the forums.

In what way do you believe that the "trashing of DM" now matters to the litigation or is even admissible in court?


Nope and nope.

The trashing would polarize DM (or anyone for that matter) and cause him to dig in and offer no quarter. Surely you can understand that.

Next, if proof of malice/intent was required, then a pervasive program, possibly encouraged by the defendents, either directly or indirectly, would surely be an issue.

And finally, to add the John Does and push the trial date back is of no consequence whatsoever. Let's think a bit about how the case would look if SA were singled out and others who essentially made the same statements were ignored. It seems to me that it would be mandatory for DM to add to J Does to maintain his position and credibility.

Your turn......


You're just as full of shit now as you were when yo babbled like this months and months ago. What's a matter ol' chap, gout vexing you something fierce today?

#66 Lono

Lono

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 684 posts

Posted 12 August 2011 - 09:19 PM




Next, since many of the posters echoed essentially what SA alledgedly did, obviously they will all be added as John Does.


Care to bet on that, ol' boy?


Here we go again.... How you doing dorag?

#67 JimC

JimC

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,770 posts
  • Location:South East England
  • Interests:Dinghies, especially box rule classes.

Posted 12 August 2011 - 09:20 PM

The trial date has been set so you cannot amend the complaint to bring in additional people - unless the trial date is vacated.

Why would it need to be in the same trial? Its not as if all the kiddies making it with the potty mouths were party to the original alleged offence... Couldn't the infantility in a discussion topic after the suit was brought be considered as a separate issue?

#68 DoRag

DoRag

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,919 posts
  • Location:Where the sun doesn't shine.

Posted 12 August 2011 - 10:02 PM





Next, since many of the posters echoed essentially what SA alledgedly did, obviously they will all be added as John Does.


Care to bet on that, ol' boy?


Here we go again.... How you doing dorag?


Doin' great. Off on a two week wilderness fishing trip tomorrow! Yeah!

#69 dog of war

dog of war

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 398 posts
  • Location:bay area
  • Interests:sailing fast

Posted 12 August 2011 - 10:16 PM

Let me clear things up a bit……………….

DM is a fat fuck and more than likely a crook.
Scooter is egomaniacal and thinks that the success of this site is all about him.
Clean is nothing more than Scooters bitch and so self-absorbed that he doesn't realize it.





And dog of war will be banned before sunset !! :lol:



Have a fantastic weekend and for fuck sake bitches go sailing!!!

#70 Tequila Bob

Tequila Bob

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 224 posts
  • Location:San Francisco

Posted 12 August 2011 - 10:21 PM

Let me clear things up a bit……………….

DM is a fat fuck and more than likely a crook.
Scooter is egomaniacal and thinks that the success of this site is all about him.
Clean is nothing more than Scooters bitch and so self-absorbed that he doesn't realize it.





And dog of war will be banned before sunset !! :lol:



Have a fantastic weekend and for fuck sake bitches go sailing!!!


fact or hearsay?

#71 dog of war

dog of war

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 398 posts
  • Location:bay area
  • Interests:sailing fast

Posted 12 August 2011 - 10:25 PM

Must be facts Clean's crack whore told me so! B)

#72 Lono

Lono

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 684 posts

Posted 12 August 2011 - 10:52 PM

It's only an unimpeacable fact if my derelict grandfather told me about it in a bar.

#73 Somebody Else

Somebody Else

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,975 posts
  • Location:Southern California
  • Interests:Shootings, just like HotRod!

Posted 12 August 2011 - 11:22 PM

What? Whatever has been said by posters/posers is irrelevant to the litigation. The issues in the litigation are well identified comments and statements - which do not include forum posts. Also the forum posts I am aware of that are critical of Dan Meyers were after the litigation was commenced. I have not seen any amended complaint that now alleges SA is responsible for the statements of people that post in the forums.

In what way do you believe that the "trashing of DM" now matters to the litigation or is even admissible in court?

It's not admissible.

Whatever is heard or read by anybody trying the case will have an effect, admissible or not, relevant or not. Even though it's not supposed to, it will. That's how humans work.

#74 Clove Hitch

Clove Hitch

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,977 posts
  • Location:around and about
  • Interests:Garnacha. Gunk-holing.

Posted 13 August 2011 - 05:58 AM




Next, since many of the posters echoed essentially what SA alledgedly did, obviously they will all be added as John Does.


Care to bet on that, ol' boy?


Here we go again.... How you doing dorag?


Doin' great. Off on a two week wilderness fishing trip tomorrow! Yeah!


You'll need better bait than what your dumb ass has offered here if you hope to catch anything.

#75 isma

isma

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,972 posts

Posted 13 August 2011 - 07:34 AM

Is it true that DM hired Paul Watson for protection?

#76 BogusScum

BogusScum

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 247 posts

Posted 13 August 2011 - 12:12 PM

The site has had offers only to be rebuffed by the owner much to the chagrin of those who have spent the last 10 years building the site and hoping for a payoff.


Let's see if we have this right ...

You've been building this site for 10 years and you are hoping for a payoff? I wonder how the owner(s) of this site envision the relationship with their forum manager. I've got a funny feeling they don't see any 'payoff' coming in the years ahead.

#77 atefooterz

atefooterz

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,839 posts
  • Location:Aus 2154
  • Interests:many

Posted 13 August 2011 - 03:17 PM

Dear Doe Rag, whilst you may be a great chap helping US victims of goverment sanctioned violence good onya, however when it comes to legalese & the ramifications/ protocol of same ...you are indeed loud white noise, mixed with laughable bully boy whipping words.

Please seek some pertinant legal advice as to why any posters here making the comments. we have read so far, can be roped into the original case, especially when they are stating different s#it and not echoing the editorial stuff that led to the case... tick tock tick tock ffs haha!

#78 smackdaddy

smackdaddy

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,754 posts

Posted 13 August 2011 - 04:15 PM


The site has had offers only to be rebuffed by the owner much to the chagrin of those who have spent the last 10 years building the site and hoping for a payoff.


Let's see if we have this right ...

You've been building this site for 10 years and you are hoping for a payoff? I wonder how the owner(s) of this site envision the relationship with their forum manager. I've got a funny feeling they don't see any 'payoff' coming in the years ahead.


Yeah, but if DM were to win this thing and hand SA over to Dawg - it would be the most epic PR move in history. Think about it.

Any way you slice it, it's going to be very interesting to watch as it all plays out.

#79 DA-WOODY

DA-WOODY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,156 posts
  • Location:I'm in Sunny..-. Warm..& ..Dry San Diego . and your not :-)
  • Interests:Prime + 1 3/4

    COUGARS COUGARS & More COUGARS

Posted 13 August 2011 - 04:17 PM



The site has had offers only to be rebuffed by the owner much to the chagrin of those who have spent the last 10 years building the site and hoping for a payoff.


Let's see if we have this right ...

You've been building this site for 10 years and you are hoping for a payoff? I wonder how the owner(s) of this site envision the relationship with their forum manager. I've got a funny feeling they don't see any 'payoff' coming in the years ahead.


Yeah, but if DM were to win this thing and hand SA over to Dawg - it would be the most epic PR move in history. Think about it.

Any way you slice it, it's going to be very interesting to watch as it all plays out.


the bigger question

Dawg ........ would you flick Ed &/or Clean ?

Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image

#80 BogusScum

BogusScum

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 247 posts

Posted 13 August 2011 - 04:41 PM

Dawg ........ would you flick Ed &/or Clean ?
Posted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted ImagePosted Image


Finally, after 8 years of total nonsense, Woody finally said something funny.

#81 DoRag

DoRag

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,919 posts
  • Location:Where the sun doesn't shine.

Posted 14 August 2011 - 12:03 AM

Dear Doe Rag, whilst you may be a great chap helping US victims of goverment sanctioned violence good onya, however when it comes to legalese & the ramifications/ protocol of same ...you are indeed loud white noise, mixed with laughable bully boy whipping words.

Please seek some pertinant legal advice as to why any posters here making the comments. we have read so far, can be roped into the original case, especially when they are stating different s#it and not echoing the editorial stuff that led to the case... tick tock tick tock ffs haha!


Always good to get input from the foreigners......

And, BTW, without the "government sanctioned violence" you wouuld be speaking Japanese.

#82 Albatros

Albatros

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,704 posts

Posted 14 August 2011 - 06:22 PM

Always good to get input from the foreigners......


yaaawwwwwwwnnnnnnnnn :P
(cue : emoticons)

#83 couchsurfer

couchsurfer

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,567 posts
  • Location:NA westcoast
  • Interests:...pimping HOOTs
    ...i550 NW circuit

Posted 14 August 2011 - 08:25 PM

hmm,,definitely different around here--Rambler on the front page,-without- pissy comments :blink:

#84 I'moutahere

I'moutahere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 14 August 2011 - 09:36 PM


Dear Doe Rag, whilst you may be a great chap helping US victims of goverment sanctioned violence good onya, however when it comes to legalese & the ramifications/ protocol of same ...you are indeed loud white noise, mixed with laughable bully boy whipping words.

Please seek some pertinant legal advice as to why any posters here making the comments. we have read so far, can be roped into the original case, especially when they are stating different s#it and not echoing the editorial stuff that led to the case... tick tock tick tock ffs haha!


Always good to get input from the foreigners......

And, BTW, without the "government sanctioned violence" you wouuld be speaking Japanese.


Boy have you got that wrong. It was Aussie diggers that first stopped the Japanase advance in the Owen Stanley ranges of New Guinea. Google it.

Then they had to go and bail out some yanks who thought they knew jungle fighting - and got lost. It's history, maybe kept a little quiet over there but that's how it happened.

#85 JimC

JimC

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,770 posts
  • Location:South East England
  • Interests:Dinghies, especially box rule classes.

Posted 14 August 2011 - 09:55 PM

It's history, maybe kept a little quiet over there but that's how it happened.

And thereafter the Diggers were largely kept off the front line to save US morale... (not that I'm complaining: I got to meet my grandfather). But we would have been stuffed without US industrial output. Yamamoto was exactly right about that...

#86 Bob Perry

Bob Perry

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 17,122 posts

Posted 14 August 2011 - 10:02 PM

My Dad was there in New Guinea in the US Army Air Corps. He came home a walking skeleton with malaria. I'm not sure he'd be very happy to hear you down playing his role in the effort. I do know that after we moved back to Australia he loved it there because people treated him like a hero. He was "the Yank" and he liked it and he never had anything but respect for the Australian forces. I have an old folder full of his photos from the war. Not very pretty stuff.

#87 I'moutahere

I'moutahere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 14 August 2011 - 10:14 PM

My Dad was there in New Guinea in the US Army Air Corps. He came home a walking skeleton with malaria. I'm not sure he'd be very happy to hear you down playing his role in the effort. I do know that after we moved back to Australia he loved it there because people treated him like a hero. He was "the Yank" and he liked it and he never had anything but respect for the Australian forces. I have an old folder full of his photos from the war. Not very pretty stuff.


All due credit & respect to anyone who served there. We can have no idea what it was like. I am certainly not downplaying your fathers role. But the facts are there. Aussies turned back the Japs when they were almost at Port Moresby - not Amreicans. And a US attempt to cross the Owen Stanleys by another route did fail. That might have been the first experience of jungle fighting the yanks had. Aussies apparently led them out. US & Aussie troops were both in action on the north coast of Papua later in the war.

EDIT None of this has anything remotely connected to this thread - except for DoRag injecting his crap.

#88 Evo

Evo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,961 posts
  • Location:a park by the sea

Posted 14 August 2011 - 10:31 PM

Johnny...ya might want to check the dates of Milne Bay....the 39th was falling back along the track despite being reinforced by the 14th when another bunch of diggers and seppos routed some of the best troops the japs had. That is what is regarded as the first time the Japs were defeated. Yep the US Army 125th?? i think....got lost trying to outflank....but they found them again a month later. They also had to be replaced by diggers at Buna/Gona when they wouldn't advance.

Kokoda Track went on for quite a while after Milne Bay and at the same time the marines were going into Guadalcanal which meant a different focus for the Japanese.

We could not have done it alone Johnny but we probably could have done without Dugout Doug who like Doey was a REMF

#89 I'moutahere

I'moutahere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 14 August 2011 - 10:42 PM

Johnny...ya might want to check the dates of Milne Bay....the 39th was falling back along the track despite being reinforced by the 14th when another bunch of diggers and seppos routed some of the best troops the japs had. That is what is regarded as the first time the Japs were defeated. Yep the US Army 125th?? i think....got lost trying to outflank....but they found them again a month later. They also had to be replaced by diggers at Buna/Gona when they wouldn't advance.

Kokoda Track went on for quite a while after Milne Bay and at the same time the marines were going into Guadalcanal which meant a different focus for the Japanese.

We could not have done it alone Johnny but we probably could have done without Dugout Doug who like Doey was a REMF

I know damn well Oz could not have done it alone. But I was not going to conceed Dorags rubish might be right
Then there is this....


The British Field Marshal Sir William Slim—who had no part in the battle—said:

"Australian troops had, at Milne Bay in New Guinea, inflicted on the Japanese their first undoubted defeat on land. If the Australians, in conditions very like ours, had done it, so could we. Some of us may forget that of all the Allies it was the Australian soldiers who first broke the spell of the invincibility of the Japanese Army; those of us who were in Burma have cause to remember."[2]


and that at about the same time they started pushing the Japs back over the Kokoda trail.

#90 Chris O

Chris O

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 973 posts
  • Location:Malibu, California
  • Interests:Small craft design. Still and motion photography

Posted 14 August 2011 - 11:46 PM

Some 66 years later and there's still a need to refer to the people of Japan as Japs? Really?

I have a lot of friends of Japanese heritage and after asking many of them, it has become more than clear that they view the term as derogatory. I'm sure that we'd all agree that the use of the term, Nigger, is not one that conveys respect to people who are black-skinned. If we recognize that it's unnecessary to engage in conversation in which we choose words that deliberately create pain, just how far has modern civilization actually progressed?

#91 I'moutahere

I'moutahere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 14 August 2011 - 11:51 PM

Some 66 years later and there's still a need to refer to the people of Japan as Japs? Really?

I have a lot of friends of Japanese heritage and after asking many of them, it has become more than clear that they view the term as derogatory. I'm sure that we'd all agree that the use of the term, Nigger, is not one that conveys respect to people who are black-skinned. If we recognize that it's unnecessary to engage in conversation in which we choose words that deliberately create pain, just how far has modern civilization actually progressed?


Tell that to the survivors of the prison camps who still get tears in their eyes when they think back then.

#92 Evo

Evo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,961 posts
  • Location:a park by the sea

Posted 15 August 2011 - 12:32 AM

Some 66 years later and there's still a need to refer to the people of Japan as Japs? Really?

I have a lot of friends of Japanese heritage and after asking many of them, it has become more than clear that they view the term as derogatory. I'm sure that we'd all agree that the use of the term, Nigger, is not one that conveys respect to people who are black-skinned. If we recognize that it's unnecessary to engage in conversation in which we choose words that deliberately create pain, just how far has modern civilization actually progressed?


last time you were in Japan was???

after a little while as a gaijin you might not care whether anyone condenses Japanese to Japs....the rest of what you wrote is just good old oversensitivity. None of my Jap mates give a shit about it

#93 jfunk

jfunk

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,069 posts
  • Location:Sunshine Coast QLD

Posted 15 August 2011 - 02:50 AM

This is why whatever happens in this case, Anarchy has to keep going. The fact that a post questioning a court case against a few of our friends has turned into a history discussion about the Pacific theatre in the second World war amazes me. Its what makes this place great.

And Evo, get back to work.

#94 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,476 posts

Posted 15 August 2011 - 02:57 AM

Johnny...ya might want to check the dates of Milne Bay....the 39th was falling back along the track despite being reinforced by the 14th when another bunch of diggers and seppos routed some of the best troops the japs had. That is what is regarded as the first time the Japs were defeated. Yep the US Army 125th?? i think....got lost trying to outflank....but they found them again a month later. They also had to be replaced by diggers at Buna/Gona when they wouldn't advance.

Kokoda Track went on for quite a while after Milne Bay and at the same time the marines were going into Guadalcanal which meant a different focus for the Japanese.

We could not have done it alone Johnny but we probably could have done without Dugout Doug who like Doey was a REMF


Bugout Doug.

#95 Evo

Evo

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,961 posts
  • Location:a park by the sea

Posted 15 August 2011 - 04:37 AM


Johnny...ya might want to check the dates of Milne Bay....the 39th was falling back along the track despite being reinforced by the 14th when another bunch of diggers and seppos routed some of the best troops the japs had. That is what is regarded as the first time the Japs were defeated. Yep the US Army 125th?? i think....got lost trying to outflank....but they found them again a month later. They also had to be replaced by diggers at Buna/Gona when they wouldn't advance.

Kokoda Track went on for quite a while after Milne Bay and at the same time the marines were going into Guadalcanal which meant a different focus for the Japanese.

We could not have done it alone Johnny but we probably could have done without Dugout Doug who like Doey was a REMF


Bugout Doug.


wasn't a term I'd actually heard before Mark so I stand corrected...knicked it from Sol Rosenberg here

There are other names used for both he and the Aussie Gen. Blamey....both made some doozeys from a long way behind the front


and jf.....you know Unlimited Proposals isn't a charity right? might sound like one....but no.....how many more do you have out there anyway?? is this a mormon thing??

#96 DRIFTW00D

DRIFTW00D

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,331 posts
  • Location:Blue Water Area Great Lakes

Posted 15 August 2011 - 04:47 AM

Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image



"Our troops have proved the Jap is not a superman." Australian Brigadier John Field


Ladies and gentlemen. Good afternoon and welcome to the Australian War Memorial. My name is Peter Londey and I am a historian in the Memorial's Military History Section. This presentation is one of a series of short "Roll of Honour" talks which the Memorial has planned for this year to mark the sixtieth anniversary of the events of 1942. Today's talk deals with a battle which, though small, marked a turning point in the war in the Pacific: the Battle of Milne Bay, in late August and early September 1942. More,,, ,, ,



#97 Damaged Goods

Damaged Goods

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,614 posts
  • Location:1600 Penn Ave
  • Interests:Community organizing.

Posted 15 August 2011 - 04:54 AM

After decade of pissing & moaning by Mizta Klean about KWRW, Scooter cant run a regatta, WTF?

#98 DA-WOODY

DA-WOODY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,156 posts
  • Location:I'm in Sunny..-. Warm..& ..Dry San Diego . and your not :-)
  • Interests:Prime + 1 3/4

    COUGARS COUGARS & More COUGARS

Posted 15 August 2011 - 06:18 AM

just wondering how long this (and so many other) thread(s) would be without GOOGLE

betting shorter by a .......................................

#99 I'moutahere

I'moutahere

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,810 posts

Posted 15 August 2011 - 06:29 AM

just wondering how long this (and so many other) thread(s) would be without GOOGLE

betting shorter by a .......................................Country mile

and if you don't know how long that is -- Google it.

#100 DA-WOODY

DA-WOODY

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,156 posts
  • Location:I'm in Sunny..-. Warm..& ..Dry San Diego . and your not :-)
  • Interests:Prime + 1 3/4

    COUGARS COUGARS & More COUGARS

Posted 15 August 2011 - 06:49 AM


just wondering how long this (and so many other) thread(s) would be without GOOGLE

betting shorter by a .......................................

and if you don't know how long that is -- Google it.


I did check "it" out !Posted Image




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users