tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post579416106288257626..comments2024-03-17T03:55:21.696-04:00Comments on Canadian Cynic: A post I didn't want to have to write.CChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11406057201126015750noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-23551743348958166032009-06-20T11:52:14.395-04:002009-06-20T11:52:14.395-04:00I've only got 9 blogs now M@. I'm trying t...I've only got 9 blogs now M@. I'm trying to quit and just thought I'd evangelize a little bit ;-)johnny maudlinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09379960303678668045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-22584868441735275532009-06-19T22:34:02.874-04:002009-06-19T22:34:02.874-04:00CC: Don't you occassionally get the feeling yo...<i>CC: Don't you occassionally get the feeling your time would be better spent away from the computer?</i><br /><br />Sez the guy with ten blogs of his own.<br /><br />Jus' buggin' ya, Johnny. Of <b>course</b> CC should get more fresh air. But who would keep an eye on the right-wing cesspool, then? Lord knows I can't take the long-term exposure.M@https://www.blogger.com/profile/13408488215496128814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-72355542792914043702009-06-19T22:29:00.897-04:002009-06-19T22:29:00.897-04:00CC: Don't you occassionally get the feeling yo...CC: Don't you occassionally get the feeling your time would be better spent away from the computer?johnny maudlinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09379960303678668045noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-86291057078222896492009-06-19T07:20:56.700-04:002009-06-19T07:20:56.700-04:00Stimpy: Enough already... I think you doth prote...Stimpy: Enough already... I think you doth protest too much. My outside-looking-in was in relation to observing this specific tempest in a teapot.<br /><br />Now, I do have a correction to make. I should have said 'You're all <i>acting like</i> idiots.' I do apologize for my original choice of words.<br /><br />I do have a comment to make about the discussed legal actions. If I defame, libel or slander you, and you get annoyed and rip me the same back, my unlawful behavior does not excuse yours. Each action is treated separately by a court, and the defense 'But he did it first!' is not going to get you anywhere with a judge. This is why I suggested the tone be raised in the discussion, and all involved be aware of their rights and responsibilities in public speech.<br /><br />Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, your mileage may vary, etc.Kier Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02037609002595616757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-1404973666956763362009-06-18T22:15:07.416-04:002009-06-18T22:15:07.416-04:00"So, out of a sense of absolute frustration, ...<i>"So, out of a sense of absolute frustration, I snapped and wrote something stupid</i>"<br /><br />i'd like to offer some advice to everyone: <br /><br />don't. invest. emotion. on. the. internet. diminishing returns everytime. reserve detachment.<br /><br />KEvronKEvronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16732621823124759996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-38200836273559302312009-06-18T16:57:42.606-04:002009-06-18T16:57:42.606-04:00I'm sorry, but I really am taking this lightly...I'm sorry, but I really <i>am</i> taking this lightly, and for a fairly obvious reason. If what <i>I've</i> written is deemed to be "actionable," then there are a couple dozen Canadian right-wing dingbats who are going to be in deep fucking shit.<br /><br />Those idiots should not be cheering this on. They should be pissing themselves in fear, realizing that if <i>I</i> get hauled up for what I've written, they are <i>so</i> next.<br /><br />I can't believe they're so stupid as to not understand that.CChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11406057201126015750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-15309203525287267792009-06-18T16:47:30.040-04:002009-06-18T16:47:30.040-04:00Is he well-heeled enough to spend the money -- and...<i>Is he well-heeled enough to spend the money -- and it will undoubtedly cost him plenty of money -- just to unmask, to a greater or lesser extent, commenters on CC?</i>.<br />I could be wrong of course. But my premise fits the facts. It doesn't cost that much to file some legal paperwork. The whole point of discovery is to avoid wasting court time. <br /><br />He is an ideologue, obviously, and a vicious spiteful one that cannot stand losing an argument. He is but the tip of the iceberg. Many ideologues do not accept peaceful disagreement, and will resort of escalating levels of harassment and intimidation, up to and including violence and murder.<br /><br /><i>Do any of the commenters here actually fear "exposure"?</i>.<br />Yes.<br /><br /><i>Would it matter?</i>.<br />Yes.<br /><br /><i>After all, if Dickie tried to use that information to try to... oh I don't know... intimidate or harass anyone, he's just setting himself up for a world of misery, isn't he?</i>.<br />If he is caught. But you have seen groups such as Operation Rescue or Fred Phelps or the white supremacists. They have their above ground people, who provide the targeting information to their thugs and hit men. So it isn't just about what RE himself may or may not do.<br /><br /><i>...and what would the opinions or statements of commenters have to do with the (and I use the term VERY loosely) case he's trying to bring against CC? (I'm serious here, I don't see how it's relevant, unless he intends to bring suit against those commenters as well.)</i>.<br />The opinions of others here have nothing to do with his "case". He need only demonstrate they "might" be relevant to get the court order for discovery. He's just after the list, to accidentally publish so the exterminators can find it.<br /><br />Do not take this lightly.liberal supporterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01129945625510633921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-2483941976931077392009-06-18T15:57:14.235-04:002009-06-18T15:57:14.235-04:00Do any of the commenters here actually fear "...Do any of the commenters here actually fear "exposure"? Would it matter? After all, if Dickie tried to use that information to try to... oh I don't know... intimidate or harass anyone, he's just setting himself up for a world of misery, isn't he?<br /><br />...and what would the opinions or statements of commenters have to do with the (and I use the term VERY loosely) case he's trying to bring against CC? (I'm serious here, I don't see how it's relevant, unless he intends to bring suit against those commenters as well.)Dharma Satyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18300220617784757813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-71477384404730436512009-06-18T15:44:34.466-04:002009-06-18T15:44:34.466-04:00Kids, your advice is well-taken, but I'm not g...Kids, your advice is well-taken, but I'm not going to "lawyer up" so much as stop talking about it since, really, there's nothing left to say.<br /><br />The total freakout over at Wendy's is complete, so I'll leave them to stew in their own bile.<br /><br />OK, that metaphor just put me off my snack.CChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11406057201126015750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-54422983057407794902009-06-18T15:42:16.091-04:002009-06-18T15:42:16.091-04:00That's what Richard is really after.
Really? ...<i>That's what Richard is really after.</i><br /><br />Really? Is he well-heeled enough to spend the money -- and it will undoubtedly cost him plenty of money -- just to unmask, to a greater or lesser extent, commenters on CC?<br /><br />Occam's razor suggests an alternative reason: he's really, really dumb.M@https://www.blogger.com/profile/13408488215496128814noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-71424542752850210932009-06-18T15:37:54.364-04:002009-06-18T15:37:54.364-04:00The case will certainly make it as far as discover...The case will certainly make it as far as discovery. They will attempt to require you to turn over all contact and real world information you have on all commenters here. <br /><br />That's what Richard is really after. The "no-libs" IP trap is not working as well as he'd like. He wants to uncover everyone he can, before the mass intimidation campaigns. Yes, I've Godwin'd the thread.liberal supporterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01129945625510633921noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-256683169329643302009-06-18T15:13:15.206-04:002009-06-18T15:13:15.206-04:00OK thanks everyone. So I get it now. NAMBLA, thoug...OK thanks everyone. So I get it now. NAMBLA, though highly dubious, has a long history and is (according to wikipedia) pretty good at managing to stay a hair within the law. From the descriptions here, I had surmised the site was a place where child pornography was made available, which I guess isn't the case, but I am not about to give their site a hit, thanks very much. Vile bastards, but I don't think that the very knowledge of their existence points to anything insidious. Dirty trick though. CC, I would tread cautiously, and maybe lawyer-up, as Zorpheous suggests. Libel/Slander is not as hard to prove in Canada as we like to think. The onus is on the defense to show what was written or said was "fair comment".Scott in Montrealhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10702697033209213403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-69387499225154000872009-06-18T14:52:33.368-04:002009-06-18T14:52:33.368-04:00I am serious but I think I didn't read Bow'...I am serious but I think I didn't read Bow's comment closely enough. It was actually (IIRC) the age of consent legislation (not child pornography) that Evans was so keen to distort.Adam Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09643814038940593559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-7266926519104863632009-06-18T14:37:03.695-04:002009-06-18T14:37:03.695-04:00I'm well aware that my hands are not totally c...I'm well aware that my hands are not totally clean here, Zorph. The difference is that I actually understand what words mean, and I can make a case based on <i>reality</i>. I doubt Dick Evans can say the same.CChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11406057201126015750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-87882213256901588852009-06-18T14:30:19.371-04:002009-06-18T14:30:19.371-04:00If Richard actually does take this courst, he will...If Richard actually does take this courst, he will quickly learn that all of activities and actions (as well as yours CC) will be viewed and questioned by the Judge. A judge will not view either you very favorably in this case,...<br /><br />This is where I discussed and mentioned degrees of loosing,...<br /><br />~sigh~<br /><br />This is where you are best served CC to talk to a real lawyer,... get your files together, by completely honest with the lawyer and show all the dirt on both sides of isle. Know where you stand legally at this point.Zorpheoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09618889126077232837noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-49254815433661859412009-06-18T14:20:09.978-04:002009-06-18T14:20:09.978-04:00Um ... huh? You can't be serious, Adam. That...Um ... huh? You can't be serious, Adam. <i>That's</i> the legal defense they're going to hang their case on? That's freakin' <i>awesome</i>! No, really ... that would be just so precious.CChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11406057201126015750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-89907422876522306322009-06-18T14:16:04.427-04:002009-06-18T14:16:04.427-04:00But if the incident occurred around the 2004 elect...<i>But if the incident occurred around the 2004 election, I'm wondering if it might be related to Harper's own miscue about the NDP and the Liberals "supporting child pornography" for giving the cold shoulder to his (poorly written) anti-child pornography platform. Maybe you laughed at Harper's legislation, and Evans decided to make the equation.</i><br /><br />As I recall, James is correct (I believe this is also where Evans came up with his juvenile "thai-guy" nickname). The logic being that if you opposed the Cons, you therefore supported pedophilia. Tortured logic, yes (also fallacious), but to Evans (and Ross) the more tortured the logic is, the more "clever" and therefore "convincing" it becomes.Adam Chttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09643814038940593559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-26974670801502962302009-06-18T13:45:43.775-04:002009-06-18T13:45:43.775-04:00CC: I agree with you completely. Don't get me...CC: I agree with you completely. Don't get me wrong here. I think Dickie is a fucking disgusting freak, and I think he's so worthless as a human being I wouldn't piss on him to put him out if he were in flames...<br /><br />Someone asked if he could be reported to the police for his apparent support of NAMBLA, and the answer is: No, he can't. I wish he could, but if that *were* the case, then we could also be reported for actions which others found morally reprehensible.<br /><br /><br />As for the redirect and his statement, that's a different matter. That's, as far as I've been able to tell, an actionable position, and I hope he gets his as handed to him in court for it.Dharma Satyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18300220617784757813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-21899756719982440372009-06-18T13:43:58.126-04:002009-06-18T13:43:58.126-04:00... But then I guess he wasn't advocating pedo...... But then I guess he wasn't advocating pedophila. He was saying someone else is an advocate. TrickyMikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10183891839987655906noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-56635418927374400892009-06-18T13:41:42.070-04:002009-06-18T13:41:42.070-04:00Dharma, I don't think alerting the police to s...Dharma, I don't think alerting the police to someone advocating pedophilia so they're aware of that person in their community is violating the rule of law.Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10183891839987655906noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-77016319051179641472009-06-18T13:38:00.301-04:002009-06-18T13:38:00.301-04:00The problem, Stimpson, is that it's not illega...The problem, Stimpson, is that it's not illegal. Not illegal = not the business of the police. As much as it sucks, you can't report someone to the police for doing something they have every right to do under the law.<br /><br />As outrageous as it is, and as awful as it is to think that we can't prevent it, there is no reason, legally, for the police to be involved.<br /><br />I've been down this road before with another vile freak, and there was nothing, absolutely nothing, that the police can or will do about it until a crime has actually been committed.<br /><br />Which is, as I said before, not entirely a negative, as it also means that Richard Evans can't report *you* for doing somethign he objects to, but which you are legally allowed to do.<br /><br />Moral outrage is not reason enough to violate the rule of law.Dharma Satyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18300220617784757813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-37880664194380283072009-06-18T13:32:37.993-04:002009-06-18T13:32:37.993-04:00Dharma:
There was nothing illegal about "NAM...Dharma:<br /><br />There was nothing illegal about "NAMBLA" Dick registering the lookalike domain name, and I'm even fine with him having redirected it to NAMBLA. After all, it <i>was</i> his domain.<br /><br />Where he crossed the line is when he accompanied that redirection with a brief dialog box explaining that the reason he'd done that was to show the world that we here at CC HQ "enabled" pedophiles.<br /><br /><i>That</i> was the issue.CChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11406057201126015750noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-66540258245754828792009-06-18T13:30:04.877-04:002009-06-18T13:30:04.877-04:00Dharma, I was saying that someone supporting pedop...Dharma, I was saying that someone supporting pedophilia is something the police should know about. That's true whether or not that person has been caught committing a crime.Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10183891839987655906noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-63891322570979842882009-06-18T13:25:01.879-04:002009-06-18T13:25:01.879-04:00CC:
There is no "apparently" about it. ...CC:<br /><br />There is no "apparently" about it. It's a fact. They have every right to spew the garbage they do, and you and I... and everyone else... has to live with that, or we are also advocating to have <i>our</i> right to free speech tampered with.<br /><br />However, and this is another point I can't stress strongly enough: Free Speech, while free, is not without it's consequences. We all, thanks to the same principles of free speech, have the right to proclaim the odiousness of such activities and speak out against them.<br /><br />We have the right to reject such claims as made by NAMBLA, and use whatever LEGAL means we can to expose the consequences of their advocacy.Dharma Satyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18300220617784757813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6708375.post-38451869196539008712009-06-18T13:16:53.926-04:002009-06-18T13:16:53.926-04:00Unfortunately, Stimpson, it was not an illegal act...Unfortunately, Stimpson, it was not an illegal act, therefore the police have no reason to be informed or interfere.<br /><br />If Richard Evans were to actually molest a child, or engage in activities which directly result in the molestation of a child, then the police could do something about it.<br /><br />But, and I can't state this strongly enough: There is no evidence that such a thing has occurred, or will occur.Dharma Satyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18300220617784757813noreply@blogger.com