Sunday, December 24, 2023

Chronicles of Twatrick: Someone is in a bad mood this holiday season.

Personally, I'd like the guy who filed for bankruptcy and dumped his debts on society to stop mocking the guy who pays for his own vacations.

But that's just me.


Anonymous said...

More evidence that Patrick's entire world view depends on the ability to pull fantasies out of his ass. From the National Post:

"Social media posts stating Trudeau took 680 personal days in the last 8 years he has been prime minister, have been making the rounds in Canada. Many people are claiming that he has basically been on vacation for the equivalent of almost 2 years or 22 months. But that’s not exactly true and there’s more to the story than meets the eye.

An analysis of Trudeau’s itineraries by the National Post found that 680 days have been listed as ‘personal,’ but the bulk of this, 462 days to be exact, consisted of weekend days. The remaining 218 days include federal holidays, sick days and vacation days.

In comparison, the average Canadian worker would be off for over 900 days in an 8 year period. So his personal days rate, which stands at 24% is well below the 34% of days in a year most Canadian workers are off."

MgS said...

Patrick's regard for the truth and reality is showing again.

Anonymous said...

He is even more obstinate that you.

Did you ask for 75k in your initial filing or did the judge come up with that number? You did allude to a 100k limit, which after googling I think has been raised to 200k but that was long after your case, and your wording implied, at least to me, that you deliberately asked for an amount below 100k to get the simpler process.

Seemed like a simple question, yet after several insults, chime ins from others, then ghosting, I still do not have a definitive answer. Just curious. Is it possible that you are following a pattern of attempting to make others, especially one with obvious mental health issues, say actionable things so you can lawyer up and supplement your income? I think you're better than that.

By the way, I do support you going after PR, I recall the tale of "the redirect stays". But my line of questioning is based on the fact that everyone gets doxed sooner or later so I was looking for first hand knowledge in case this happens to me.

Anonymous said...


You write: But my line of questioning is based on the fact that everyone gets doxed sooner or later

This case was about wayyyy more than “doxing”. Far more than that. You need to spend some quality time reviewing CC’s blog between 2006-2010.

As for damages, CC has been clear multiple times that the amount in the initial filing was chosen in part to allow the case to proceed through the “simplified rules”. As I understand it, you can put pretty much any numbers you want in for alleged damages, although the judge may adjust those numbers based on the evidence presented before the court.

INAL, but I understand that there is a balancing act around damages - principles such as proportionality to the degree of offence would apply. You can - in theory - sue someone for billions of dollars in damages, but the courts are likely to cut the damages award down considerably from that.

Patrick has had numerous opportunities to defend himself, appeal, or settle the affair for far less than the amount of the judgment, etc. Heck - even filing a defence with the court would likely have considerably reduced the amount of the judgment.

Anonymous said...

Anon at 4:03 pm: You seem a bit confused. This is not Twitter. This is a blog followed consistently by relatively small group of long time friends and readers.

I guess repeated iteration of the same clumsy, irrelevant attempted redirection probably works well for you on some of the other platforms you frequent. In this setting, however, you're just embarrassing yourself and boring us. And that's okay - it's just a little pointless when every "point" your attempt to drag in red herrings was addressed last time you tried to derail the thread.

Anonymous said...

You tried to raise the red herring last time. Didn't work then. Won't work now. Go troll elsewhere.

CC said...

Dear all: It's not trolling, it's "sealioning."

Anonymous said...

I would argue that "sealioning" is one of several strategies employed by trolls, particularly those who fancy themselves superior to the common or garden "You SUCK!!" varietal.

RossOwesDay said...

I'd be in a bad mood too if I was 42 years-old, 110 pounds overweight, $110,000 in debt, 11 years of undischarged bankruptcy, no assets, no savings, no university degree, dead parents, hillbilly family who despise you, dead-end unskilled labor job in remote frozen Northern town, no romantic prospects ever, et cetera, et cetera...

Anonymous said...

@ROD: If that wasn't bad enough he's threatening to threaten to hurt teenage girls in a movie because they were talking. Even worse, he was at the Hunger Games movie, alone. He went trolling for more young women to hit on him, this time under the age of 19 and at a non-rodeo event.

My favorite part was his statement if he had to give someone three warnings he would get up and make them shut up.

I'd put money on a female teenager to kick his ass. We've all seen the video of him getting his ass kicked on Youtube and how when he was hit in the head his leg involuntarily jumped up.

Anyone else notice he's stopped talking about Skinner after Skinner said he went to the police to complain about his harassment and online stalking? I can only assume the coppers are tired of talking to and about that inbecile.