(02-07-2015 06:55 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 06:46 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 06:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  They don't have an underlying claim to sue for as a counterclaim. It's all one sided. There is no injury in fact, at least yet, on which to base a counterclaim.

The whole thing is pointless.

BTW, public and private figures get different treatment in these sorts of things. Public figures have to prove malice, which never happens. Private figures do not. It's a little easier for them.

The whole thing is a shitshow.

Yes they do, it will cost them money to defend themselves. Sorry.

My comment about public officials was not about tying this all together. It was just a comment about how bad things get said about people all the time. People going around suing anyone who dares say something negative, that is just silly. When someone brings a terrible claim like this and causes you to have to spend money to defend yourself, then they are just as liable for those damages as you would be for any damages you might actually cause to someone verbally.

Did she lose her husband over this? Did she lose her job? Did she only have her pride hurt? These guys have reason to counterclaim. It is a terrible lawsuit and its going to cost them money. This is someone with money trying to use it in very vindictive fashion. If her claim is found unworthy then they deserve to at least have their legal fees covered.

That isn't the basis for a "counterclaim."

The injury has to come from the operative facts.

Sorry, but you have literally no clue what you are talking about. It is actually pretty funny. Please continue!

It is there and I have seen such countersuits in action. But by all means continue to try and say otherwise.

Nice new friends you have there. I just caused you to befriend the Connecticut mob around here. Now THAT is funny.

Such a puppet.

(02-07-2015 06:59 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 06:56 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 06:55 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 06:46 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 06:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  They don't have an underlying claim to sue for as a counterclaim. It's all one sided. There is no injury in fact, at least yet, on which to base a counterclaim.

The whole thing is pointless.

BTW, public and private figures get different treatment in these sorts of things. Public figures have to prove malice, which never happens. Private figures do not. It's a little easier for them.

The whole thing is a shitshow.

Yes they do, it will cost them money to defend themselves. Sorry.

My comment about public officials was not about tying this all together. It was just a comment about how bad things get said about people all the time. People going around suing anyone who dares say something negative, that is just silly. When someone brings a terrible claim like this and causes you to have to spend money to defend yourself, then they are just as liable for those damages as you would be for any damages you might actually cause to someone verbally.

Did she lose her husband over this? Did she lose her job? Did she only have her pride hurt? These guys have reason to counterclaim. It is a terrible lawsuit and its going to cost them money. This is someone with money trying to use it in very vindictive fashion. If her claim is found unworthy then they deserve to at least have their legal fees covered.

That isn't the basis for a "counterclaim."

The injury has to come from the operative facts.

Sorry, but you have literally no clue what you are talking about. It is actually pretty funny. Please continue!

That is a trend for this poster.

True

You guys are like trained dogs. Continuously responding in the same fashion to the same stimuli.

(02-07-2015 07:29 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 06:55 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 06:46 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 06:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  They don't have an underlying claim to sue for as a counterclaim. It's all one sided. There is no injury in fact, at least yet, on which to base a counterclaim.

The whole thing is pointless.

BTW, public and private figures get different treatment in these sorts of things. Public figures have to prove malice, which never happens. Private figures do not. It's a little easier for them.

The whole thing is a shitshow.

Yes they do, it will cost them money to defend themselves. Sorry.

My comment about public officials was not about tying this all together. It was just a comment about how bad things get said about people all the time. People going around suing anyone who dares say something negative, that is just silly. When someone brings a terrible claim like this and causes you to have to spend money to defend yourself, then they are just as liable for those damages as you would be for any damages you might actually cause to someone verbally.

Did she lose her husband over this? Did she lose her job? Did she only have her pride hurt? These guys have reason to counterclaim. It is a terrible lawsuit and its going to cost them money. This is someone with money trying to use it in very vindictive fashion. If her claim is found unworthy then they deserve to at least have their legal fees covered.

That isn't the basis for a "counterclaim."

The injury has to come from the operative facts.

Sorry, but you have literally no clue what you are talking about. It is actually pretty funny. Please continue!

It is there and I have seen such countersuits in action. But by all means continue to try and say otherwise.

Nice new friends you have there. I just caused you to befriend the Connecticut mob around here. Now THAT is funny.

Such a puppet.

Not nearly as funny as Iowa athletics.

Oh wait...you're an Arizona State fan too....now that's twice as funny.

(02-07-2015 07:31 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 07:29 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 06:55 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 06:46 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 06:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  They don't have an underlying claim to sue for as a counterclaim. It's all one sided. There is no injury in fact, at least yet, on which to base a counterclaim.

The whole thing is pointless.

BTW, public and private figures get different treatment in these sorts of things. Public figures have to prove malice, which never happens. Private figures do not. It's a little easier for them.

The whole thing is a shitshow.

Yes they do, it will cost them money to defend themselves. Sorry.

My comment about public officials was not about tying this all together. It was just a comment about how bad things get said about people all the time. People going around suing anyone who dares say something negative, that is just silly. When someone brings a terrible claim like this and causes you to have to spend money to defend yourself, then they are just as liable for those damages as you would be for any damages you might actually cause to someone verbally.

Did she lose her husband over this? Did she lose her job? Did she only have her pride hurt? These guys have reason to counterclaim. It is a terrible lawsuit and its going to cost them money. This is someone with money trying to use it in very vindictive fashion. If her claim is found unworthy then they deserve to at least have their legal fees covered.

That isn't the basis for a "counterclaim."

The injury has to come from the operative facts.

Sorry, but you have literally no clue what you are talking about. It is actually pretty funny. Please continue!

It is there and I have seen such countersuits in action. But by all means continue to try and say otherwise.

Nice new friends you have there. I just caused you to befriend the Connecticut mob around here. Now THAT is funny.

Such a puppet.

Not nearly as funny as Iowa athletics.

Not nearly as funny as people that look to Sports for everything in life. Obviously those barbs work on people such as yourself. It never gets a rise out of me yet you keep repeating the same simpleton plebian garbage.

As I have said before, it doesn't matter because Iowa is where you want to be and despite all your "success" at sports, it isn't going to get you there.

(02-07-2015 07:31 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 07:29 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 06:55 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 06:46 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 06:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  They don't have an underlying claim to sue for as a counterclaim. It's all one sided. There is no injury in fact, at least yet, on which to base a counterclaim.

The whole thing is pointless.

BTW, public and private figures get different treatment in these sorts of things. Public figures have to prove malice, which never happens. Private figures do not. It's a little easier for them.

The whole thing is a shitshow.

Yes they do, it will cost them money to defend themselves. Sorry.

My comment about public officials was not about tying this all together. It was just a comment about how bad things get said about people all the time. People going around suing anyone who dares say something negative, that is just silly. When someone brings a terrible claim like this and causes you to have to spend money to defend yourself, then they are just as liable for those damages as you would be for any damages you might actually cause to someone verbally.

Did she lose her husband over this? Did she lose her job? Did she only have her pride hurt? These guys have reason to counterclaim. It is a terrible lawsuit and its going to cost them money. This is someone with money trying to use it in very vindictive fashion. If her claim is found unworthy then they deserve to at least have their legal fees covered.

That isn't the basis for a "counterclaim."

The injury has to come from the operative facts.

Sorry, but you have literally no clue what you are talking about. It is actually pretty funny. Please continue!

It is there and I have seen such countersuits in action. But by all means continue to try and say otherwise.

Nice new friends you have there. I just caused you to befriend the Connecticut mob around here. Now THAT is funny.

Such a puppet.

Not nearly as funny as Iowa athletics.

Oh wait...you're an Arizona State fan too....now that's twice as funny.

Oh wait, you actually went back and made another comment about ASU? Your ignorance is astounding. I now live here but havnt for very long. Do I follow them? Yes, but they hardly merit enough of my consciousness to cause me to do anything other than chuckle when I read your child like attempt to troll me with their mention.

It is funny because they also are where folks like you wish UConn was.

(02-07-2015 07:36 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 07:31 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 07:29 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 06:55 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 06:46 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Yes they do, it will cost them money to defend themselves. Sorry.

My comment about public officials was not about tying this all together. It was just a comment about how bad things get said about people all the time. People going around suing anyone who dares say something negative, that is just silly. When someone brings a terrible claim like this and causes you to have to spend money to defend yourself, then they are just as liable for those damages as you would be for any damages you might actually cause to someone verbally.

Did she lose her husband over this? Did she lose her job? Did she only have her pride hurt? These guys have reason to counterclaim. It is a terrible lawsuit and its going to cost them money. This is someone with money trying to use it in very vindictive fashion. If her claim is found unworthy then they deserve to at least have their legal fees covered.

That isn't the basis for a "counterclaim."

The injury has to come from the operative facts.

Sorry, but you have literally no clue what you are talking about. It is actually pretty funny. Please continue!

It is there and I have seen such countersuits in action. But by all means continue to try and say otherwise.

Nice new friends you have there. I just caused you to befriend the Connecticut mob around here. Now THAT is funny.

Such a puppet.

Not nearly as funny as Iowa athletics.

Oh wait...you're an Arizona State fan too....now that's twice as funny.

Oh wait, you actually went back and made another comment about ASU? Your ignorance is astounding. I now live here but havnt for very long. Do I follow them? Yes, but they hardly merit enough of my consciousness to cause me to do anything other than chuckle when I read your child like attempt to troll me with their mention.

It is funny because they also are where folks like you wish UConn was.

You say you're a fan in your "I root for" section. If that's not the case, then why say ASU? Gosh...pathetic is pathetic.

(02-07-2015 07:40 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 07:36 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 07:31 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 07:29 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 06:55 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  That isn't the basis for a "counterclaim."

The injury has to come from the operative facts.

Sorry, but you have literally no clue what you are talking about. It is actually pretty funny. Please continue!

It is there and I have seen such countersuits in action. But by all means continue to try and say otherwise.

Nice new friends you have there. I just caused you to befriend the Connecticut mob around here. Now THAT is funny.

Such a puppet.

Not nearly as funny as Iowa athletics.

Oh wait...you're an Arizona State fan too....now that's twice as funny.

Oh wait, you actually went back and made another comment about ASU? Your ignorance is astounding. I now live here but havnt for very long. Do I follow them? Yes, but they hardly merit enough of my consciousness to cause me to do anything other than chuckle when I read your child like attempt to troll me with their mention.

It is funny because they also are where folks like you wish UConn was.

You say you're a fan in your "I root for" section. If that's not the case, then why say ASU? Gosh...pathetic is pathetic.

It says "I root for" to be precise but nothing about being a "fan". That doesn't mean I am going to do anything other than laugh when a child or a man child tries to troll me with sports fan insults.

(02-07-2015 07:29 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 06:55 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 06:46 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 06:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  They don't have an underlying claim to sue for as a counterclaim. It's all one sided. There is no injury in fact, at least yet, on which to base a counterclaim.

The whole thing is pointless.

BTW, public and private figures get different treatment in these sorts of things. Public figures have to prove malice, which never happens. Private figures do not. It's a little easier for them.

The whole thing is a shitshow.

Yes they do, it will cost them money to defend themselves. Sorry.

My comment about public officials was not about tying this all together. It was just a comment about how bad things get said about people all the time. People going around suing anyone who dares say something negative, that is just silly. When someone brings a terrible claim like this and causes you to have to spend money to defend yourself, then they are just as liable for those damages as you would be for any damages you might actually cause to someone verbally.

Did she lose her husband over this? Did she lose her job? Did she only have her pride hurt? These guys have reason to counterclaim. It is a terrible lawsuit and its going to cost them money. This is someone with money trying to use it in very vindictive fashion. If her claim is found unworthy then they deserve to at least have their legal fees covered.

That isn't the basis for a "counterclaim."

The injury has to come from the operative facts.

Sorry, but you have literally no clue what you are talking about. It is actually pretty funny. Please continue!

It is there and I have seen such countersuits in action. But by all means continue to try and say otherwise.

Nice new friends you have there. I just caused you to befriend the Connecticut mob around here. Now THAT is funny.

Such a puppet.

It isn't worth answering.

We all know you are talking out of your ass about something over your head.

Keep lashing out though it shows how petty and insecure you are.

(02-07-2015 07:49 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 07:29 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 06:55 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 06:46 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 06:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  They don't have an underlying claim to sue for as a counterclaim. It's all one sided. There is no injury in fact, at least yet, on which to base a counterclaim.

The whole thing is pointless.

BTW, public and private figures get different treatment in these sorts of things. Public figures have to prove malice, which never happens. Private figures do not. It's a little easier for them.

The whole thing is a shitshow.

Yes they do, it will cost them money to defend themselves. Sorry.

My comment about public officials was not about tying this all together. It was just a comment about how bad things get said about people all the time. People going around suing anyone who dares say something negative, that is just silly. When someone brings a terrible claim like this and causes you to have to spend money to defend yourself, then they are just as liable for those damages as you would be for any damages you might actually cause to someone verbally.

Did she lose her husband over this? Did she lose her job? Did she only have her pride hurt? These guys have reason to counterclaim. It is a terrible lawsuit and its going to cost them money. This is someone with money trying to use it in very vindictive fashion. If her claim is found unworthy then they deserve to at least have their legal fees covered.

That isn't the basis for a "counterclaim."

The injury has to come from the operative facts.

Sorry, but you have literally no clue what you are talking about. It is actually pretty funny. Please continue!

It is there and I have seen such countersuits in action. But by all means continue to try and say otherwise.

Nice new friends you have there. I just caused you to befriend the Connecticut mob around here. Now THAT is funny.

Such a puppet.

It isn't worth answering.

We all know you are talking out of your ass about something over your head.

Keep lashing out though it shows how petty and insecure you are.

Keep talking about me but this is a pretty heavy answer despite you saying "It isn't worth answering".

Take your own advice, I know you wont, but do try.

(02-07-2015 07:48 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 07:40 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 07:36 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 07:31 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 07:29 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  It is there and I have seen such countersuits in action. But by all means continue to try and say otherwise.

Nice new friends you have there. I just caused you to befriend the Connecticut mob around here. Now THAT is funny.

Such a puppet.

Not nearly as funny as Iowa athletics.

Oh wait...you're an Arizona State fan too....now that's twice as funny.

Oh wait, you actually went back and made another comment about ASU? Your ignorance is astounding. I now live here but havnt for very long. Do I follow them? Yes, but they hardly merit enough of my consciousness to cause me to do anything other than chuckle when I read your child like attempt to troll me with their mention.

It is funny because they also are where folks like you wish UConn was.

You say you're a fan in your "I root for" section. If that's not the case, then why say ASU? Gosh...pathetic is pathetic.

It says "I root for" to be precise but nothing about being a "fan". That doesn't mean I am going to do anything other than laugh when a child or a man child tries to troll me with sports fan insults.

It's not trolling. You are criticizing UCONN and their fans when it's a known fact that Iowa and Arizona State have crappy athletic programs. Get off your P5P high-horse and face reality.

(02-07-2015 07:52 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 07:48 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 07:40 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 07:36 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 07:31 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  Not nearly as funny as Iowa athletics.

Oh wait...you're an Arizona State fan too....now that's twice as funny.

Oh wait, you actually went back and made another comment about ASU? Your ignorance is astounding. I now live here but havnt for very long. Do I follow them? Yes, but they hardly merit enough of my consciousness to cause me to do anything other than chuckle when I read your child like attempt to troll me with their mention.

It is funny because they also are where folks like you wish UConn was.

You say you're a fan in your "I root for" section. If that's not the case, then why say ASU? Gosh...pathetic is pathetic.

It says "I root for" to be precise but nothing about being a "fan". That doesn't mean I am going to do anything other than laugh when a child or a man child tries to troll me with sports fan insults.

It's not trolling. You are criticizing UCONN and their fans when it's a known fact that Iowa and Arizona State have crappy athletic programs. Get off your P5P high-horse and face reality.

I couldn't write a better script for your responses to the stimuli I am throwing at you. It is truly fascinating how people are predictable in that fashion. Especially the ones operating on much more simple programs.

(02-07-2015 07:54 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 07:52 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 07:48 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 07:40 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 07:36 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  Oh wait, you actually went back and made another comment about ASU? Your ignorance is astounding. I now live here but havnt for very long. Do I follow them? Yes, but they hardly merit enough of my consciousness to cause me to do anything other than chuckle when I read your child like attempt to troll me with their mention.

It is funny because they also are where folks like you wish UConn was.

You say you're a fan in your "I root for" section. If that's not the case, then why say ASU? Gosh...pathetic is pathetic.

It says "I root for" to be precise but nothing about being a "fan". That doesn't mean I am going to do anything other than laugh when a child or a man child tries to troll me with sports fan insults.

It's not trolling. You are criticizing UCONN and their fans when it's a known fact that Iowa and Arizona State have crappy athletic programs. Get off your P5P high-horse and face reality.

I couldn't write a better script for your responses to the stimuli I am throwing at you. It is truly fascinating how people are predictable in that fashion. Especially the ones operating on much more simple programs.

Again...let me know when Iowa is athletically relevant. (Big bro Iowa State doesn't count.)

(02-07-2015 07:57 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 07:54 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 07:52 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 07:48 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 07:40 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  You say you're a fan in your "I root for" section. If that's not the case, then why say ASU? Gosh...pathetic is pathetic.

It says "I root for" to be precise but nothing about being a "fan". That doesn't mean I am going to do anything other than laugh when a child or a man child tries to troll me with sports fan insults.

It's not trolling. You are criticizing UCONN and their fans when it's a known fact that Iowa and Arizona State have crappy athletic programs. Get off your P5P high-horse and face reality.

I couldn't write a better script for your responses to the stimuli I am throwing at you. It is truly fascinating how people are predictable in that fashion. Especially the ones operating on much more simple programs.

Again...let me know when Iowa is athletically relevant. (Big bro Iowa State doesn't count.)

Simply being Iowa and simply being in the Big Ten makes them relevant. That fact burns you in your tiny little soul. That much is obvious.

(02-07-2015 07:58 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 07:57 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 07:54 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 07:52 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 07:48 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  It says "I root for" to be precise but nothing about being a "fan". That doesn't mean I am going to do anything other than laugh when a child or a man child tries to troll me with sports fan insults.

It's not trolling. You are criticizing UCONN and their fans when it's a known fact that Iowa and Arizona State have crappy athletic programs. Get off your P5P high-horse and face reality.

I couldn't write a better script for your responses to the stimuli I am throwing at you. It is truly fascinating how people are predictable in that fashion. Especially the ones operating on much more simple programs.

Again...let me know when Iowa is athletically relevant. (Big bro Iowa State doesn't count.)

Simply being Iowa and simply being in the Big Ten makes them relevant. That fact burns you in your tiny little soul. That much is obvious.

Congrats on winning conference affiliation. Too bad that's all you've accomplished.

(02-07-2015 07:59 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 07:58 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 07:57 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 07:54 PM)He1nousOne Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 07:52 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  It's not trolling. You are criticizing UCONN and their fans when it's a known fact that Iowa and Arizona State have crappy athletic programs. Get off your P5P high-horse and face reality.

I couldn't write a better script for your responses to the stimuli I am throwing at you. It is truly fascinating how people are predictable in that fashion. Especially the ones operating on much more simple programs.

Again...let me know when Iowa is athletically relevant. (Big bro Iowa State doesn't count.)

Simply being Iowa and simply being in the Big Ten makes them relevant. That fact burns you in your tiny little soul. That much is obvious.

Congrats on winning conference affiliation. Too bad that's all you've accomplished.

I'm still laughing because you used the word "you" when referring to what persons on the sports teams that Iowa has sponsored. That is your tribalistic and primitive mind controlling your thinking process.

You really cannot comprehend how a person can cheer and root for a COLLEGE team because they are tied to them yet they do not base their self worth at all upon how well those other people do in their endeavor?

See that kind of thinking is foreign to me despite the fact that the majority of Americans think in similar fashion as you. Then again I don't consider it a compliment to be normal or to be like the majority in such ways when we are talking about very simple and primitive thought patterns.

This is getting childish.

Come on talk about the thread topic and don't let Heinous hijack this with his little tantrums.

(02-07-2015 08:47 AM)Chappy Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 08:16 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  The lawsuit article said the allegedly defamatory rumor was posted on 9/13/13. I went to the thread to see what it was, and there is a big gap showing no posts between 9/11 and 9/21. Looks like all that was deleted, and one of those sued, "Desertbronco", is banned.

The Deadspin article linked on the MAC board thread on this gives more details. It contains the 'f' word so if you work in a sensitive environment, open it somewhere other than at work.

http://deadspin.com/wmu-boosters-wife-su...1684191151

Also, the following post by GTS is probably worthy of being repeated here:

(02-06-2015 07:40 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  FWIW: I get all kinds of dumb*** legal threats and demands, practically weekly. 99.9% of it is meritless, bogus, and sometimes not even directed at the right site. The most humorous to date is a doctor who practiced at the University hospital for Cincinnati without license, was convicted of malpractice, and fled to Malaysia. She threated to sue me under United Nations law. YEA.

I usually demand contact from a barred attorney, or, if they are not legally represented, at least a copy of a government issued ID to know I am dealing with who they claim they are. 9 out of 10 times that alone is enough for them to never email me again. But this Fleck-gate thing was one of those 1 in 10. I am a hardcore libertarian, and a stickler for civil liberties. I actually demanded a subpoena before I turned over any private information about the posters in question. Once I was dutifully served that subpoena ... that was all she wrote. I then have to turn over poster's IP/email/etc or I go to jail.

So I don't want anybody to get the impression I sit around giving away poster's info in my spare time. I actually go (and went) well out of my way to demand that I be legally compelled to turn over any private info. But once that high hurdle is cleared (happened only once in 12 years now) I have to turn it over.

There's that "-gate" meme I was talking about in the other thread.

(02-07-2015 08:07 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  This is getting childish.

Come on talk about the thread topic and don't let Heinous hijack this with his little tantrums.

I agree. Just sick of the constant UCONN trolling...especially from fans of schools that bring limited value to the P5 table.

(02-07-2015 08:13 PM)HuskyU Wrote:  

(02-07-2015 08:07 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  This is getting childish.

Come on talk about the thread topic and don't let Heinous hijack this with his little tantrums.

I agree. Just sick of the constant UCONN trolling...especially from fans of schools that bring limited value to the P5 table.

Yea, just put him on ignore.

Don't get into the gutter with him because that's what he knows.

And, ignore anything he said on this thread because anybody with even a touch of legal knowledge knows he is clueless on this subject.

(02-07-2015 08:07 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  This is getting childish.

Come on talk about the thread topic and don't let Heinous hijack this with his little tantrums.

I was, its just you cant handle it. I was perfectly on topic. Nice attempt to cover your retreat.