papabryant

This is irrelevant. You are simply ducking the wager. IF you are so sure you are correct, simply allow me to write a description of the problem - or even write one of your own, as long as it accurately describes the question - and lets settle this in PUBLIC, on a PUBLIC MESSAGE BOARD FOR ALL TO SEE. Let objective lawyers put me in my place. Not just you passing on what your wife and daughter tell you but IN PUBLIC. Or are you afraid their wrong? Or are you going to be a coward and (gasp) ban me? Either way you brand yourself, the "king of smackdown", a coward. AS I have already told you - and I'm sure your wife could tell you - it would cost me an initial start up of about 5-6000 dollars to start a suit - so you can quit quaking in your boots, laughing boy. I have two special needs kids that I can better spend that money on. So I ask again, laughing boy... care to dance?

I'm so disappointed. Instead of taking the opportunity to PROVE me wrong and shut me up perminantly - I gave you links to the ACLU and ACLJ and Findlaw after all - everyone continues to proceed as if this is a question of opinion rather than fact. Tell ya what I'm gonna do. I'm going to raise the stakes a bit. A little wager... Personally, I couldn't give a rat's ass about the Idiot Box -- it doesn't affect my reputation, and besides neither Phreak nor I have the money to make it worth my while to sue. Phreak doesn't have enough money to take and I don't have the $5-6,000 to start a suit. But I do sooooooo want to hear Phreak admit he was proven wrong, that later today or tommorow I will write a description of our "question" on defamation and the Idiot Box and post it here, so Phreak can read it and approve of its wording. (I will try and be as neutral in the description as possible.) Then we will e-mail it to the ACLU, ACLJ and post it on the Findlaw message board. And let real lawyers tell us who'se right. If two of the three respondents say its not defamation - I leave perminantly, and the "I'm an Idiot" stays on the posts that remain. If two respondants say it does qualify as defamation, Phreak not only puts the "I'm an Idiot" under his own name, but a second line as well - "Papa's my daddy." For one full year. Mark Twain was right; there is nothing more confidant than a Christian with four aces. Care to dance, laughing boy?

The law that states that defamation of character can be prosecuted in civil court. By posting "I am an Idiot" in an area only controlable by an official of this website, means that the owners of the website are making a character judgement. If that is not supported by facts - such as medical records or copies of I.Q. tests that show by objective standard that the statement is true - that makes it defamation - in writing its called libel and verbally its called slander. If someone, say a potential employer, wanted to do a background check on me - and they ran across this website and saw that "I am an Idiot." logo and it cost me a job, then the owner of the site could be held responsible for my losses. And this is true of EVERY person who gets put into the idiot box, because that constitutes the site owner's official statement, which someone can challenge in court. Now if the owner of the site stated their personal opinion under their own name - that is NOT defamation. It is clearly opinion. Nor is the opinion of a third party the responsibility of the site owners. Only when the site representative acts in some manner that gives the impression they are speaking as fact and in an official capacity - such as the "idiot" banner - without being able to back up the statement with objective documented fact, with the intention to publicly ridicule - can the site owner be sued. So long as a statement of opinion is just an opinion, not containing specific facts that can be proved untrue, a person is safe from the defamation laws. In order to prove defamation, you have to be able to prove that what was said or written about you was false. If the information is true, or if you consented to publication of the material, you will not have a case. However, you may bring an defamatory action if the comments are so reprehensible and false that they effect your reputation in the community or cast aspersions on you. The following website may be helpful: http://injury-law.freeadvice.com/libel_and_slander/internet_defamation.htm Quoting from that site (emphasis mine): </H3>The following sites may also be helpful: http://www.dancingwithlawyers.com/freeinfo/libel.shtml http://www.cyber-rights.org/ http://www.personal-injury-info.net/defamation-of-character.htm http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html Of course there are the two big legal groups that argue cases like this on a regular basis (both are seeking internet test cases): http://www.aclu.org/ http://www.aclj.org/ and lastly is the Findlaw message boards - where real lawyers will answer questions concerning libel and defamation issues for free. Findlaw was a great help to me back when I worked in the motion picture industry as a industrial video producer/director. (Saved a lot of budget money not having to consult attorneys concerning script libel issues. ) http://boards.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/WebX.fcgi?14@218.eBvZdN9vCwQ%5E0@.ef068a9/18 Hope this helps.

11 - Rank amatures who are trying their best but failing miserably. Should learn that censorship - even mild (though possibly illegal) forms like the "Idiot Box" should occur only for obnoxious behavior, not "obnoxious" opinion.

Arguements aside, HAPPY BIRTHDAY!

No, that's NOT the point of this conflict Lethal. You have COMPLETELY misunderstood everything being said to you. An abuser wants control, and will attempt to manipulate a woman to get control. Sorry, but us men folk just aren't that good an actor for that to work unless the woman A. Isn't careful to spot the signs, or B. Sees the signs but is deluded into thinking that "her love" will change him into a good man. WHATEVER happens after that point is the fault of the man. Period. But its GETTING TO THAT POINT that Hugo, Eddo and I have been saying is the woman's responsibility to herself. Simply saying "Oh, the man fooled me." doesn't cut it, because that gives A. and B. legitimacy as excuses. It is self-delusional - the very thing that GIVES the abuser the ability to worm his way in to a woman's life. Far from Hugo, Eddo and my position being continued control over a woman's life, our position sets them free. By making sure that women know that spotting abusers is their responsibility is empowering them with the ability to stop abuse before it starts. And yes, its just that simple. Freedom means responsibility. That is why most men dread it. Few things help an individual more than to place responsibility upon him, and to let him know that you trust him. The disappearance of a sense of responsibility is the most far-reaching consequence of submission to authority. And whether you realize it or not, that is what your position offers - a submission to the authority of the abuser. After all, they fooled you once and they'll do it again. You have no control over whether you will be abused. You have no control over anything - you are a creature of circumstance. Sorry, but instead of saying that women are creatures of circumstance, I want to say that women are the architects of circumstance. That separates the child from the adult. We have not passed that subtle line between childhood and adulthood until we move from the passive voice to the active voice -- that is, until we stop saying "It got lost," and say "I lost it."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48421 The Story I was looking for.

Well, not to stereotype you concerning religion - eddo and I suspected as much about your religious background. I won't say more for sensitivity's sake other than both eddo and I agree that kind of Church isn't doing God's work and you are good to be rid of them. We'll leave it at that. I ran across this story while looking for the other one I was going to find for you. http://www.news.com.au/story/0%2C10117%2C18370929-2%2C00.html Australia, but it is a Western country, so extrapolating the data for American schools is possible.

Homeschoolers generally do better academically, and there are groups of home schoolers who get together for socialization/playtimes, but the situation you describe doesn't sound too bad. And female teachers are abusing kids at an alarming rate - although the problem seems to be mostly with boys just reaching puberty. But there was a recent story about a lesbian teacher who was caught abusing girls. I'll try and find the story for you after class this afternoon.

No prob... I can also vouch that the pic thing was a prank. That is the kind of thing Hugo would do as a joke with a friend. Don't take it too seriously.

Actually teachers are the most likely to be abusive of kids. But don't expect her to homeschool.

I'mWithStupid... Hugo and eddo are different people; I've known both of them for about 4-5 years now from a board called Unsolved Mysteries (USM). That board was overmoderated and cliquish, and the owner spun off two "adult" boards - SayWhatYouWant.net and The Angry Truth (TAT) - which until recently is where Hugo, Eddo, Feckless Wench, Dizzy Me, Ad, NKA and myself did most of our posting when it too became overmoderated and cliquish and Sixes decided to join. Let me give you the starting lineup: Hugo is a libertarian, a prankster and a provocateur from Texas. And he is a Goombaian who sacrifices defenseless steaks and potatoes on the sacred barbeque grill every weekend and daily offers beer offerings to the great Goomba, who has promised to return one day to usher in the Happy Hours. His wife Walter doesn't mind the fact he has a flock of mistresses, because the mistresses can't talk. Only bleet and baa. Eddo is a youth pastor from Arizona. Despite his ministry calling he is in terrible lust over two things in this world; Alyssa Milano - unrequited, unfortunately - and BCAR's truck. He loves burritos. So much so that everyone secretly thinks he's a wetback. Feckless Wench is a Brit, so while we cannot understand half of the references she makes (what the hell IS 'bangers and mash'? If I get it on my shoes, can I get it off?), we adore the accent she says it with. She's a teacher, and has a fetish for younger men and bondage. Dizzy Me is the former head moderator of TAT. She's a Lib, but a smart Lib - very rare, which is why we keep her around. That and the fact that half of the men on the site wanted to sleep with her inspite of her small tits. Her hubby doesn't like any of us, I think. NKA doesn't have small tits, and keeps posting very nice pictures to prove it. She recently moved to Texas into a small doll house and can't find her way around her new town yet. She gives very good advice. Ad's a nice guy but I still haven't figured out what he does. And I'm the resident Jesus Freak. Without me praying over them constantly, the entire lot of them would have been swallowed by a large whale with excessive bad breath a long time ago.

Because the stupid people pay for what they can have for free? And as for your daughter being better off away from someone like me - you'd better hope she has someone like me around in her life - a pastor, a teacher, a friend's parent - someone she can turn to when she's in danger. Because while you may love your daughter very much, YOU are setting her up for a fall, and are too blinded by pride to see it. Sometimes its the outside casual observer who can see the big picture better.

LOL, fine then.

Thank you Jenn. Its nice to meet someone I can agree to disagree with, and shake hands with afterward. Tom