Internet hardasses are LOL-tastic.
Printable View
Internet hardasses are LOL-tastic.
are you angry because you took a hiv test and tested positive but now you realize you got played.Quote:
Originally Posted by phobun
WOW. You know how to talk out of your ass.Quote:
Originally Posted by magicone
So you are almost, almost? certain, almost? but your not certain, right? Then you go on an point out a few sites that you are almost certain about, but your not certain, but you'll name them anyway and accuse them of spreading diseases.
It is really irresponsible to be spreading rumors that these sites are using people with diseases. I would guess a legal term would be slander on your part. And if these sites got upset enough they could sue you for it.
I told them the same exact thing and they think its funny. Until they get a letter in the mail.Quote:
Originally Posted by freak
No, son, you're funny. AIDS is not funny. Barebacking is dangerous. Even with screening. I am writing in very short sentences. This is so that you can understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by keepingitreal470
I'm sorry your dick is bigger than your brain, I really am.
@ at the prick with the attitude again
....And if you really think anything Magicone or I said was actionable, then you are even more stupid than you at first appear. And man, that is really, really, REALLY, REALLY stupid.
Maybe you should finish school before you start trying to think grown-up.
Barebacking is dangerous and a known vector for the transmission of HIV/AIDS. Sue me, cuntbrain.
Actually, no, it's his opinion and he has a right to it. I have not seen the sites he mentioned and I have no intention of looking, but in general terms, barebacking is a dangerous, known vector for the transmission of STDs including HIV/AIDS.Quote:
Originally Posted by freak
No, actually, it wouldn't. One reason is because M1 said "I'm almost certain," as you noted, without, obviously, understanding what it actually meant. In other words it's his OPINION, as someone who is not in a position to know for sure. And an opinion properly stated cannot be defamatory, either as slander or libel. Had he said "It is a known fact" and it wasn't, then, that might possibly have been actionable. Furthermore, his right to his opinion is a Constitutional one in the US--I'd really like to see you, or some porn-site owner, fuck with that.Quote:
So you are almost, almost? certain, almost? but your not certain, right? Then you go on an point out a few sites that you are almost certain about, but your not certain, but you'll name them anyway and accuse them of spreading diseases.
It is really irresponsible to be spreading rumors that these sites are using people with diseases. I would guess a legal term would be slander on your part.
No, they couldn't, as I have just explained.Quote:
And if these sites got upset enough they could sue you for it.
Oh yes, and frankly, if barebacking sites get closed, so much the better.
And a final thought before coffee--one of the joys of the internet is that people are free to have and share their opinions without having to take seriously threats from moronic thugs who see intimidation, either by physical attack or "legal action" as a legitimate method of getting their own way.
Now fuck off back to school the pair of you.
A few questions for KIR470:
How old are you man? You always seem to want to resolve silly HA disputes with your fists. OK, so let's say someone decided to take you up on it, how do you know the other party will not show up with a knife, or worse, a gun? And if they show up with no weapons, you are willing to risk being injured and/or arrested over some silly shit someone wrote on HA? How smart is that? Are you willing to risk your health and acting career over some stupid shit like this? smh.
Sometimes it takes a real man, or should I say, an adult, to know when to walk away from a fight, especially an internet fight. Have a nice day.
Quote:
Originally Posted by keepingitreal470
[/quote]Quote:
Originally Posted by keepingitreal470
"Furthermore, his right to his opinion is a Constitutional one in the US"
Not to nitpick, but this is not true. Nowhere in the Bill of Rights is it written that someone has the right to their opinion.
The closest you may come to that conclusion is in the First Amendment which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The implication is that you are free to speak, which presumably includes your opinion. However, the courts have ruled that this is not absolute. For example, you may not yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre without consequence.
That right there is a lie I have a BB video of her in it.Quote:
Originally Posted by keepingitreal470
IDK y people get all riled up over shit like this. These morals and all this shit needs to really GTFO. It's is people choice to go in her and shoot these films. Now as long as deception isn't being used why should anybody care who shoots BB and who doesn't. Ya'll sound like sum of these bullshit politicians running around tryin to run other people lives.
I was actually going to amend what I said to "a right to state an opinion since this is part of a person's right to freedom of speech protected under your Bill of Rights," but did not because it sounded excessively nit-picky, and also because there was a clear likelihood that the morons I was addressing would misunderstand such constructions.Quote:
Originally Posted by stephenward
This does not compromise the substance of what I said-- M1 has a right to his opinion--it is an effective defence against claims of defamation-- and, under your Bill of Rights, to express it, "wilful or reckless attempts to cause injury" excepted. He may not, however, state that something is factually correct when it is not and if he does he may find himself being sued, if that statement leads to an actual loss or damage to another party.
This particular dichotomy-- a person's right to state an OPINION, and the the right to redress if someone or something is FACTUALLY misrepresented, and this causes actual damage to that person's well-being or reputation, is frequently confused, as here. Furthermore, courts have repeatedly held that how a defamation is published is relevant, so if an expert in a particular field says "I am certain that," in a learned paper, this is much more likely to be defamatory (if untrue) than a lay person saying the same thing down the pub, since the expert is much more likely to be believed, and for a defamation to hold it must be "a plausible interpretation." Also the lay person cannot be presumed to have the in-depth knowledge that an expert would and is therefore, de facto, stating his opinion. This is relevant because M1 cannot reasonably be expected to know whether the people he was referring to have been tested or not; even without his "almost certain" caveat, it's still pretty much just his opinion.
Similarly, insults and name-calling are not defamatory since they are de facto an expression of an opinion, which is a legitimate defence. So if I say that you are a "nit-picking shite," you cannot sue me for defamation on the grounds that some people might actually believe that you are a piece of excrement, and this is injurious to your estimable reputation, since it is obvious to anyone that you are not in fact such a thing; it is just an insult, which may be provocative but is not defamatory.
I think. (Get out of jail card.)
But I'm not a lawyer, merely a writer. So I will not be charging you $500 for the above. But I have had to have my share of stories legalled over the years, so I do know something about this.
:wink:
Any chance we could look at some girls now?
CO-SIGNQuote:
Originally Posted by Silcc69
Fuck off, you repulsive piece of shit.Quote:
Originally Posted by sucka4chix
Sorry. Didn't know the word co-sign was repulsive.Quote:
Originally Posted by MacShreach
You're the type of idiot that gets guys mad enough to threaten physical violence over the internet. But I'm not foolish and you are not of any significance to stir up any type of emotions what so ever.
For the halfway intelligent folk here, and I know there are few, the original topic is NO different than smoking!!! People are told time and time again that smoking CAN cause lung cancer and lead to death, but some people still smoke. Some even call it their right to smoke.
If you don't get all sanctimonious about smokers, who put everyone in their general vicinity at risk, it is extremely hypocritical to cry about folks bare backing with people YOU AREN"T SLEEPING WITH.
The fact this entered your head when fantasising scares me.