Chronicles of Twatrick: Happy interestversary!

It is now a full two and a half years since a Saskatchewan judge told undischarged bankrupt and soft-core porn author Patrick "Yeah, ladies, you want some of this, don't you?" Ross how much he owes me and further cranked up the accruing interest from 2% to 5%, making being a Patrick Ross creditor a nifty long-term investment:

There's not much new to report other than that Patrick appears to be back at a former employer, Fluidpro, where he is putting his seven years of university to good use as a "swamper" outdoors in the middle of a northern Alberta winter.

In the meantime, Patrick will post cartoons of people who have money and can afford to buy stuff:

P.S. It's worth presenting yet another example of the utter lack of merit of the defamation action of Patrick Ross, ripped straight from his August 2022 Statement of Claim. As "BACKGROUND," Patrick dredges up something from back in 2008:

The story behind that claim is that, as Patrick likes to do, I used his defense of a man who stood on a car-top platform and screamed at people at an abortion clinic and deliberately misrepresented his position to show how Patrick likes to do stuff exactly like that. However, not long after that, I openly admitted that my accusation was meant to be informative and not to be taken seriously, whereupon (as you can read above) Patrick took that as an apology and accepted it. Make no mistake -- the above is from Patrick's Statement of Claim, where he concedes that I apologized, and that he accepted that apology. Got that?

So it's baffling that, only a page later in Patrick's laundry list of alleged defamation for which he wants me held accountable, he writes:

In the first place, it's not clear that you can sue for something that happened in 2008 but, more significantly, it's not clear that you can sue for something for which you openly admit you already accepted an apology. Such is the lack of logic in the above. But here's the most puzzling part, wherein Patrick accuses me of ... oh, just read it:

I honestly have no idea what Patrick is talking about here -- "automated programs to boost search results" -- but I hope you noticed something more subtle and sleazy.

Patrick first does not accuse me of doing such things; note his clever and weaselly use of the phrases "expressed a desire" and "expressed an intention," then immediately switches his position and clearly suggests I did such a thing, writing, "these programs also boosted the search results ...".

So, did I do such a thing, or did I simply express a desire or intention to do something I do not, to this day, understand? This is actually a common rhetorical trick of Patrick's -- redefining his claims in the middle of a paragraph, hoping the reader does not notice. I will have another example in the next blog post; for now, I have actual work to do that does not involve swamping outdoors in -40C.