Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old March 6th 05, 01:02 PM
Ray Gordon
 
Posts: n/a
Default A timely warning to those who are baiting Ray Gordon

The wannabe lawyers on ASF are really the ones who need to read this.

--
Ray Gordon, Author
http://www.cybersheet.com/easy.html
Seduction Made Easy. Get this book FREE when you buy participating
affiliated books!

http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
The Seduction Library. Four free books to get you started on your quest to
get laid.

Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech forum.
"Nomen Nescio" wrote in message
...
A timely warning to those who are baiting "Ray Gordon" . . . . including
the AOLer at 64.12.116.138 (whom I assume is not GRP baiting himself)

Legally speaking, there is no such thing as "incitement to libel" or
"sufficient provocation" or "justifiable retorts", terms I have read being
bandied about in certain usenet newsgroups including this one (to which I
was referred by a regular from alt.seduction.fast).

That such baiting may have occurred is certainly not in any circumstances
an effective or even a permissible defense to a counter-charge of libel,
and is about as relevant as are discussions about racketeering and RICO.

Further, it may not even provide mitigation (i.e., result in a reduction
of
damages).

So, if in your opinion someone has insulted or defamed other persons or
even yourself, the legal or official remedies you have may include
complaining to his or her ISP (probably a waste of time in the case of
GRP)
or, if it was you who was abused and further that the abuse was not just
first-amendment-protected expressions of opinion, however unreasonable or
unjustified, but actually amounted to libel, sue him or her for this
(certainly a waste of time in the case of GRP as he has almost no assets,
as he often declares - he is judgment-proof).

But your remedy is n_o_t to libel him or her back, however tempting it
may be to you to do so, unless your wish is to enrich him or her. If you
can't control yourself, learn to use the killfile built into your
newsreader.

So if (this is a purely hypothetical illustration) X refers to you in
writing (usenet, the internet, radio and TV broadcasts are all included)
as
being a "homosexual pederast", and you are not, or at least you know that
X
cannot prove that you are one on the balance of likelihood, you may:
&1/ complaint to X's ISP, or/and
&2/ sue X for libel, seeking damages, injunctive relief, maybe more.

But if you think X's unjustified precursive attack upon you allows you to
call "X" a "homosexual pederast" (or something equally objectionable) back
in a non-privileged medium, you are mightily and potentially very
painfully
wrong. Life isn't a children's playground. Courts ensure that it isn't.

For if X then sues you for libel, crying "But I can prove that X called me
that first!" won't even get past the first legal gate. Your remedies for
X
having done that were given above, and did not include libeling X back.

Even crying "But I can prove that X called me that first and I have been
awarded libel damages of $xxxxx against X in my case which X has not
paid!"
will be ignored.

Crying "But I can prove that X mocked the dead of 9/11 and then nuked
those
posts, and this made me so angry I just wanted to get back at X" also
won't
wash- or even be allowed.

Crying "But I can prove that X is a proven liar/idiot/failure/lunatic/
psychopath/moron/....." (whether any of these are true or not) also will
be
perfectly irrelevant, as even if true and you can prove it (highly
doubtful) none of these make X what you called him.

As will crying "But I can prove that many defamation cases brought by X
have been thrown out of court". It is this one that counts, and no one is
a
vexatious litigant just because you think so (and not until one has been
classified as such).

You might as well cry "But then the law is an ass!" for all the good it
will do you. The court isn't interested whether or not X is a nice guy in
your opinion or its opinion (to the extent it has an opinion, which it
does
not). It is only interested in one thing, given that the words used are
clearly defamatory.

That one and only thing that will help you will be to provide
justification
for your specific assertion that was the subject of the action for
defamation, and the burden of proof for this falls squarely upon your
shoulders. In this hypothetical example, this means proving, on the
balance of probabilities, that X was what you called him or her, or that,
in layman's terms, you were being reasonable and non-negligent in
believing
that X was so. X won't need to prove malice to win. The game is a bit
different if X is a public figure, but the test remains essentially the
same.

If you can't do this, X will win. It is simple. Howl as much as you want
about being "baited" into it, "incitement to libel", "provocation" e.t.c.

Ignore this for sure, and you will confirm in my mind that Mr Parker is a
lot smarter than most of his fellow-posters. That he has not sued more of
you for libel already must surely be attributed either to his generosity,
or to how busy his schedule is.

Mr Parker, I only choose intelligent clients, but if or when you need a
good results-oriented lawyer on a speculative basis, do ask on usenet,
quoting the reference "escadoria". Google is checked every week. A catch
is that with all your apparently likely future winnings, you will become a
target for counter-actions for libel. So planning and timing (so that
their potential claims will be time-barred by the time they realize you
have become worth suing) is the key. Not that there is the remotest
suggestion by me that you are motivated by, or even aware of, such
considerations, or have any stratagem whatsoever, except over the
chessboard, that is. Perish the thought.

The law isn't an ass, but it allows one to make asses of people, which is
what makes it so profitable and rewarding.

The above is deemed not to constitute legal advice and must not be read so
as to be construed as legal advice.

End of communication- signing off from rec.games.chess.politics newsgroup.



  #2   Report Post  
Old March 6th 05, 01:43 PM
Ray Gordon
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Another thing people don't realize: pick on someone long enough, lawyers
start coming out of the woodwork because the cases become so easy to win.

--
Ray Gordon, Author
http://www.cybersheet.com/easy.html
Seduction Made Easy. Get this book FREE when you buy participating
affiliated books!

http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
The Seduction Library. Four free books to get you started on your quest to
get laid.

Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech forum.
"Ray Gordon" wrote in message
news
The wannabe lawyers on ASF are really the ones who need to read this.

--
Ray Gordon, Author
http://www.cybersheet.com/easy.html
Seduction Made Easy. Get this book FREE when you buy participating
affiliated books!

http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
The Seduction Library. Four free books to get you started on your quest
to get laid.

Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech forum.
"Nomen Nescio" wrote in message
...
A timely warning to those who are baiting "Ray Gordon" . . . . including
the AOLer at 64.12.116.138 (whom I assume is not GRP baiting himself)

Legally speaking, there is no such thing as "incitement to libel" or
"sufficient provocation" or "justifiable retorts", terms I have read
being
bandied about in certain usenet newsgroups including this one (to which I
was referred by a regular from alt.seduction.fast).

That such baiting may have occurred is certainly not in any circumstances
an effective or even a permissible defense to a counter-charge of libel,
and is about as relevant as are discussions about racketeering and RICO.

Further, it may not even provide mitigation (i.e., result in a reduction
of
damages).

So, if in your opinion someone has insulted or defamed other persons or
even yourself, the legal or official remedies you have may include
complaining to his or her ISP (probably a waste of time in the case of
GRP)
or, if it was you who was abused and further that the abuse was not just
first-amendment-protected expressions of opinion, however unreasonable or
unjustified, but actually amounted to libel, sue him or her for this
(certainly a waste of time in the case of GRP as he has almost no assets,
as he often declares - he is judgment-proof).

But your remedy is n_o_t to libel him or her back, however tempting
it
may be to you to do so, unless your wish is to enrich him or her. If you
can't control yourself, learn to use the killfile built into your
newsreader.

So if (this is a purely hypothetical illustration) X refers to you in
writing (usenet, the internet, radio and TV broadcasts are all included)
as
being a "homosexual pederast", and you are not, or at least you know that
X
cannot prove that you are one on the balance of likelihood, you may:
&1/ complaint to X's ISP, or/and
&2/ sue X for libel, seeking damages, injunctive relief, maybe more.

But if you think X's unjustified precursive attack upon you allows you to
call "X" a "homosexual pederast" (or something equally objectionable)
back
in a non-privileged medium, you are mightily and potentially very
painfully
wrong. Life isn't a children's playground. Courts ensure that it isn't.

For if X then sues you for libel, crying "But I can prove that X called
me
that first!" won't even get past the first legal gate. Your remedies for
X
having done that were given above, and did not include libeling X back.

Even crying "But I can prove that X called me that first and I have been
awarded libel damages of $xxxxx against X in my case which X has not
paid!"
will be ignored.

Crying "But I can prove that X mocked the dead of 9/11 and then nuked
those
posts, and this made me so angry I just wanted to get back at X" also
won't
wash- or even be allowed.

Crying "But I can prove that X is a proven liar/idiot/failure/lunatic/
psychopath/moron/....." (whether any of these are true or not) also will
be
perfectly irrelevant, as even if true and you can prove it (highly
doubtful) none of these make X what you called him.

As will crying "But I can prove that many defamation cases brought by X
have been thrown out of court". It is this one that counts, and no one is
a
vexatious litigant just because you think so (and not until one has been
classified as such).

You might as well cry "But then the law is an ass!" for all the good it
will do you. The court isn't interested whether or not X is a nice guy
in
your opinion or its opinion (to the extent it has an opinion, which it
does
not). It is only interested in one thing, given that the words used are
clearly defamatory.

That one and only thing that will help you will be to provide
justification
for your specific assertion that was the subject of the action for
defamation, and the burden of proof for this falls squarely upon your
shoulders. In this hypothetical example, this means proving, on the
balance of probabilities, that X was what you called him or her, or that,
in layman's terms, you were being reasonable and non-negligent in
believing
that X was so. X won't need to prove malice to win. The game is a bit
different if X is a public figure, but the test remains essentially the
same.

If you can't do this, X will win. It is simple. Howl as much as you
want
about being "baited" into it, "incitement to libel", "provocation" e.t.c.

Ignore this for sure, and you will confirm in my mind that Mr Parker is a
lot smarter than most of his fellow-posters. That he has not sued more
of
you for libel already must surely be attributed either to his generosity,
or to how busy his schedule is.

Mr Parker, I only choose intelligent clients, but if or when you need a
good results-oriented lawyer on a speculative basis, do ask on usenet,
quoting the reference "escadoria". Google is checked every week. A
catch
is that with all your apparently likely future winnings, you will become
a
target for counter-actions for libel. So planning and timing (so that
their potential claims will be time-barred by the time they realize you
have become worth suing) is the key. Not that there is the remotest
suggestion by me that you are motivated by, or even aware of, such
considerations, or have any stratagem whatsoever, except over the
chessboard, that is. Perish the thought.

The law isn't an ass, but it allows one to make asses of people, which is
what makes it so profitable and rewarding.

The above is deemed not to constitute legal advice and must not be read
so
as to be construed as legal advice.

End of communication- signing off from rec.games.chess.politics
newsgroup.





  #3   Report Post  
Old March 6th 05, 01:45 PM
Your psychiatrist
 
Posts: n/a
Default

You are nothing but an asshole. Only an asshole would call women names.

  #4   Report Post  
Old March 6th 05, 01:55 PM
Ray Gordon
 
Posts: n/a
Default

You are nothing but an asshole. Only an asshole would call women names.

Only a true asshole would "defend" women who didn't ask for his "help" in
the hope that they'll give him a second looks.



  #5   Report Post  
Old March 6th 05, 02:01 PM
I know what you did
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Continue to be an asshole. We all expect this from you. You're nothing
but a psychotic loser. What's your problem with Jen Shahade, Anna Hahn,
Irina Krush, Beatriz Marinello or any other nice female players? They
all turned you down?



  #6   Report Post  
Old March 6th 05, 02:08 PM
Ray Gordon
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Continue to be an asshole. We all expect this from you. You're nothing
but a psychotic loser.


Courts open Monday. Nothing stops me from subpoeaning your info from AOL.
Hope you're ready. They're very good with subpoena compliance, btw. Hope
you're ready.

God help ANY chess-related business or individual you may be working with or
for, legally speaking.


What's your problem with Jen Shahade, Anna Hahn,
Irina Krush, Beatriz Marinello or any other nice female players? They
all turned you down?


Yeah, I had to settle for strippers and bellydancers because I couldn't get
those "chess goddesses." snicker

How amusing that the man who doesn't like my use of the word "****" seems to
think any chessplayer who has one is automatically "nice."

I can't wait to see who this man is who is going to cost me a few hundred
dollars in resources to deal with him (I'll want that back from the courts
when all is said and done, along with a lot of other things), and put my
life on hold so that I can deal with a stupid cockroach who took it upon
himself to violate my rights.


--
Ray Gordon, Author
http://www.cybersheet.com/easy.html
Seduction Made Easy. Get this book FREE when you buy participating
affiliated books!

http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
The Seduction Library. Four free books to get you started on your quest to
get laid.

Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech forum.


  #7   Report Post  
Old March 6th 05, 02:22 PM
Aardvark
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Ray Gordon wrote:

Another thing people don't realize: pick on someone long enough, lawyers
start coming out of the woodwork because the cases become so easy to win.



you forgot to mention the part about no lawyer wanting to take any of
your sham cases. why did you leave that part out, fathead?


can that answer and instead...yep, that's right, dope...


shut up, stupid.









aardvark

  #8   Report Post  
Old March 6th 05, 02:33 PM
Ray Gordon
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Another thing people don't realize: pick on someone long enough, lawyers
start coming out of the woodwork because the cases become so easy to win.



you forgot to mention the part about no lawyer wanting to take any of your
sham cases.


Keep thinking that's true.


--
Ray Gordon, Author
http://www.cybersheet.com/easy.html
Seduction Made Easy. Get this book FREE when you buy participating
affiliated books!

http://www.cybersheet.com/library.html
The Seduction Library. Four free books to get you started on your quest to
get laid.

Don't buy anything from experts who won't debate on a free speech forum.


  #9   Report Post  
Old March 6th 05, 02:38 PM
Aardvark
 
Posts: n/a
Default



Ray Gordon wrote:

Another thing people don't realize: pick on someone long enough, lawyers
start coming out of the woodwork because the cases become so easy to win.



you forgot to mention the part about no lawyer wanting to take any of your
sham cases.



Keep thinking that's true.



and i will keep thinking it, because it's true. nobody with any sense at
all would take your case and you know it, fathead. hey look, ray, your
freudian slip is showing. while you're looking don't forget to...


shut up, stupid.






aardvark

  #10   Report Post  
Old March 6th 05, 05:53 PM
JJT
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Another thing people don't realize: pick on someone long enough, lawyers
start coming out of the woodwork because the cases become so easy to win.




(sung to the Faces Song "..Stay with me..") :

In the mornin' don't say you'll sue me,
'Cause I call U a liar to your Gumby cake facisa....
You say your name is Gordon, but we know you as grp-ie
The G-U-R-You? who is full of, oh, so much ****..

Don't need to yell "coercion"
I don't care about your perversions',
'cause with a 'life' like that you got nothin' to laugh about.
Gumby head, hair-lip and STD
You claim to be a 'tough' S.O.B.
Anytime you want to prove it, just feel free..

PLEASE grp-ie, PLEASE sue me
Shut yer mouth or ****in' sue me
PLEASE grp-ie, PLEASE sue me
Shut yer trap or ****in' sue me

So, in the real world, please don't say you'll sue me,
Unless you CAN back up your herpes infested cakehole
Yeah, you know where is my home, your 'dollies' even know my phone,
Just don't tell the world I hide from your whinning, coward's moan..

PLEASE grp-ie, PLEASE sue me
Shut yer mouth or ****in' sue me
PLEASE grp-ie, PLEASE sue me
Shut yer trap or ****in' sue me

Want sum mo' apples now..?

(this song really works if ya include the
guitar lines, and walking bass. Try it


(For what it iz worth, I've 'sung' this now 4 4+ yrs)
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
WARNING......BOOKUP is a scam being run by a single, out-of-work, hack programmer who is a known con-artist that makes posts here under many aliases! BEWARE!! newsnewsnews rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 38 August 14th 06 06:34 AM
A timely warning to those who are baiting Ray Gordon Ray Gordon rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 40 March 16th 05 01:42 AM
WARNING......BOOKUP is a scam being run by a single, out-of-work, hack programmer who is a known con-artist that makes posts here under many aliases! BEWARE!! newsnewsnews rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess) 15 March 27th 04 09:49 AM
WARNING......BOOKUP is a scam being run by a single, out-of-work, hack programmer who is a known con-artist that makes posts here under many aliases! BEWARE!! newsnewsnews rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 14 March 26th 04 11:08 PM
Fair warning to all fellow chess players.....Avoid the well-known liar and thief Mike Leahy with his ripoff software "Bookup".........stick to reputable chess software companies such as Chessbase, Convekta, etc Debbie Bauer Sucks Dick for Loose Change rec.games.chess.analysis (Chess Analysis) 0 March 8th 04 09:15 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:23 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017