| |
Main
Date: 17 Dec 2008 11:50:09
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Liability on the Polgar Blog?
|
All those "anonymous" posters to the Susan Polgar Blog beware.
As cathartic as this blog post may have been, it put Richard's business
at risk. Anything posted on a CEO's blog -- including reader comments --
can be construed as carrying the weight of a company's endorsement, says
Marc Zwillinger, an attorney in the Washington, D.C., office of
Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal. "Blogging is a cheap and scalable way to
talk to interested people," adds Seth Godin, an avid blogger and the
author of 10 books on marketing. "But understand that while you advocate
for your company, you are also walking a tightrope from a legal and
business point of view."
http://smallbusiness.aol.com/article/_a/a-cold-call-a-blog-and-a-20-million/20081216230509990001?icid=200100125x1215497859x1201014983
|
|
| |
Date: 17 Dec 2008 13:05:38
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Preservation of Evidence Re: Liability on the Polgar Blog?
|
B. Lafferty wrote:
> All those "anonymous" posters to the Susan Polgar Blog beware.
>
> As cathartic as this blog post may have been, it put Richard's business
> at risk. Anything posted on a CEO's blog -- including reader comments --
> can be construed as carrying the weight of a company's endorsement, says
> Marc Zwillinger, an attorney in the Washington, D.C., office of
> Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal. "Blogging is a cheap and scalable way to
> talk to interested people," adds Seth Godin, an avid blogger and the
> author of 10 books on marketing. "But understand that while you advocate
> for your company, you are also walking a tightrope from a legal and
> business point of view."
>
> http://smallbusiness.aol.com/article/_a/a-cold-call-a-blog-and-a-20-million/20081216230509990001?icid=200100125x1215497859x1201014983
>
Sue, Paul and Gregory, please do preserve all posts in any manner
mentioning me on the Susan Polgar Blog, including but not limited to
comments and postings made by "anonymous" posters. Don't try to destroy
them, we have 90%+ of your site spidered. A promise, if I decide to sue
you for defamation, I WILL plead in my complaint the exact words used to
defame me, where published, when published---discovery should tell us
which of you and/or your minions across the country published on your
blog with your complete approval and control.
|
| | |
Date: 18 Dec 2008 12:40:05
From: Nomen Nescio
Subject: Re: Preservation of Evidence Re: Liability on the Polgar Blog?
|
Smoke-blowing, ambulance-chasing Brian Lafferty Esq wrote:
>please do preserve all posts in any manner mentioning me
>on the Susan Polgar Blog
Request denied, Mr Toad. You are not important. That is,
unless you are willing to pay for the privilege. A very
reasonable $100 per preserved-posting, per day preserved.
Survivor posts only, read all about the accident.
>Don't try to destroy them
The computer hard drive crashed, and this was an Act of
God as any competent, yes competent, attorney could see.
Only a few records survived. Tragic. Regrettable, even!
You might be interested to know that the anonymous forum
posts that portrayed you in the v.worst light originated
from the following internet protocol addresses (IP's) >
1829062D (24.41.6.45)
44C76CBF (68.199.108.191)
44C76EED (68.199.110.237)
44C76EFF (68.199.110.255)
4578959A (69.120.149.154)
457CCDB4 (69.124.205.180)
46119171 (70.17.145.113)
466DE043 (70.109.224.67)
47AE45A1 (71.174.69.161)
627674B6 (98.118.116.182)
8D9ABB31 (141.154.187.49)
97CBA359 (151.203.163.89)
CDBC7443 (205.188.116.67)
Any of them seem familiar, Mr Toad? They should.
No one can argue with the survivor logfile, given the
regrettable accident with the hard drive. There is no
secondary evidence.
>we have 90%+ of your site spidered.
A blatant admission by Mr Toad of a breach of the AUP.
Whatever you produce is tainted with forgery.
OJ walked, Lieutenant, and your radio show flopped.
>A promise
From one such as Mr Toad?!
>if I decide to sue you for defamation
then Mr Toad's ass will get refried.
>I WILL plead
insanity?
>the exact words used to defame me
Almost no words could defame Mr Toad.
>discovery should tell us
that Mr Toad is an inconsequential, puffed-up bullfrog?
Yawn to the rest of your croaking.
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Dec 2008 04:26:55
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Preservation of Evidence Re: Liability on the Polgar Blog?
|
Path: g2news1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.glorb.com!
news.litech.org!news2.arglkargh.de!news.dizum.com!sewer-output!
mail2news-x5!mail2news-x4!mail2news-x3!mail2news-x2!mail2news
From: Nomen Nescio <[email protected] >
Subject: Re: Preservation of Evidence Re: Liability on the Polgar
Blog?
X-No-Archive: yes
References: <[email protected] >
Newsgroups:
rec.games.chess.politics,rec.games.chess.misc,rec.games.chess.computer,alt.chess,misc.legal
Message-ID: <[email protected] >
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 12:40:05 +0100 (CET)
Mail-To-News-Contact: [email protected]
Organization: [email protected]
Smoke-blowing, ambulance-chasing Brian Lafferty Esq wrote:
>please do preserve all posts in any manner mentioning me
>on the Susan Polgar Blog
Request denied, Mr Toad. You are not important. That is,
unless you are willing to pay for the privilege. A very
reasonable $100 per preserved-posting, per day preserved.
Survivor posts only, read all about the accident.
>Don't try to destroy them
The computer hard drive crashed, and this was an Act of
God as any competent, yes competent, attorney could see.
Only a few records survived. Tragic. Regrettable, even!
You might be interested to know that the anonymous forum
posts that portrayed you in the v.worst light originated
from the following internet protocol addresses (IP's) >
1829062D (24.41.6.45)
44C76CBF (68.199.108.191)
44C76EED (68.199.110.237)
44C76EFF (68.199.110.255)
4578959A (69.120.149.154)
457CCDB4 (69.124.205.180)
46119171 (70.17.145.113)
466DE043 (70.109.224.67)
47AE45A1 (71.174.69.161)
627674B6 (98.118.116.182)
8D9ABB31 (141.154.187.49)
97CBA359 (151.203.163.89)
CDBC7443 (205.188.116.67)
Any of them seem familiar, Mr Toad? They should.
No one can argue with the survivor logfile, given the
regrettable accident with the hard drive. There is no
secondary evidence.
>we have 90%+ of your site spidered.
A blatant admission by Mr Toad of a breach of the AUP.
Whatever you produce is tainted with forgery.
OJ walked, Lieutenant, and your radio show flopped.
>A promise
From one such as Mr Toad?!
>if I decide to sue you for defamation
then Mr Toad's ass will get refried.
>I WILL plead
insanity?
>the exact words used to defame me
Almost no words could defame Mr Toad.
>discovery should tell us
that Mr Toad is an inconsequential, puffed-up bullfrog?
Yawn to the rest of your croaking.
|
| | | |
Date: 18 Dec 2008 04:25:47
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Preservation of Evidence Re: Liability on the Polgar Blog?
|
On Dec 18, 6:40=A0am, Nomen Nescio <[email protected] > wrote:
> Smoke-blowing, ambulance-chasing Brian Lafferty Esq wrote:>please do pres=
erve all posts in any manner mentioning me
> >on the Susan Polgar Blog
>
> Request denied, Mr Toad. You are not important. That is,
> unless you are willing to pay for the privilege. A very
> reasonable $100 per preserved-posting, per day preserved.
> Survivor posts only, read all about the accident.
>
> >Don't try to destroy them
>
> The computer hard drive crashed, and this was an Act of
> God as any competent, yes competent, attorney could see.
> Only a few records survived. Tragic. Regrettable, even!
> You might be interested to know that the anonymous forum
> posts that portrayed you in the v.worst light originated
> from the following internet protocol addresses (IP's) >
> 1829062D (24.41.6.45)
> 44C76CBF (68.199.108.191)
> 44C76EED (68.199.110.237)
> 44C76EFF (68.199.110.255)
> 4578959A (69.120.149.154)
> 457CCDB4 (69.124.205.180)
> 46119171 (70.17.145.113)
> 466DE043 (70.109.224.67)
> 47AE45A1 (71.174.69.161)
> 627674B6 (98.118.116.182)
> 8D9ABB31 (141.154.187.49)
> 97CBA359 (151.203.163.89)
> CDBC7443 (205.188.116.67)
> Any of them seem familiar, Mr Toad? They should.
> No one can argue with the survivor logfile, given the
> regrettable accident with the hard drive. There is no
> secondary evidence.
>
> >we have 90%+ of your site spidered.
>
> A blatant admission by Mr Toad of a breach of the AUP.
> Whatever you produce is tainted with forgery.
> OJ walked, Lieutenant, and your radio show flopped.
>
> >A promise
>
> From one such as Mr Toad?!
>
> >if I decide to sue you for defamation
>
> then Mr Toad's ass will get refried.
>
> >I WILL plead
>
> insanity?
>
> >the exact words used to defame me
>
> Almost no words could defame Mr Toad.
>
> >discovery should tell us
>
> that Mr Toad is an inconsequential, puffed-up bullfrog?
> Yawn to the rest of your croaking.
I wrote too soon in the thread entitled "All Quite on RGCP".
Nomen Nescio is back.
|
| | |
Date: 17 Dec 2008 16:44:00
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Preservation of Evidence Re: Liability on the Polgar Blog?
|
On Dec 17, 7:14=A0pm, Mike Murray <[email protected] > wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 15:42:37 -0800 (PST), samsloan
>
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >No. He is arguing, as I am, that most of the anons were Polgar and
> >Truong, not merely agents of Polgar and Truong.
>
> Not necessarily. =A0At one point, it seemed that the authors of some of
> the signed posts from ChessDiscussion were changed to "anonymous",
> moved over to one of Polgar's blogs, with the date changed. =A0
Posts that appeared on the Susan Polgar Blogspot saying, "Go back to
where you came from", Women don't belong on the board", and "we don't
want no freaking foreigners here", were almost certainly written by
Polgar and Truong. Also, attacks on Grandmaster Alexandra Kosteniuk
complaining that she did not wear enough clothing were certainly
written by Susan Polgar.
Sam Sloan
|
| | |
Date: 17 Dec 2008 15:42:37
From: samsloan
Subject: Re: Preservation of Evidence Re: Liability on the Polgar Blog?
|
On Dec 17, 8:37=A0am, [email protected] wrote:
> B. Lafferty wrote:
> > B. Lafferty wrote:
> > > All those "anonymous" posters to the Susan Polgar Blog beware.
>
> > > As cathartic as this blog post may have been, it put Richard's busine=
ss
> > > at risk. Anything posted on a CEO's blog -- including reader comments=
--
> > > can be construed as carrying the weight of a company's endorsement, s=
ays
> > > Marc Zwillinger, an attorney in the Washington, D.C., office of
> > > Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal. "Blogging is a cheap and scalable way =
to
> > > talk to interested people," adds Seth Godin, an avid blogger and the
> > > author of 10 books on marketing. "But understand that while you advoc=
ate
> > > for your company, you are also walking a tightrope from a legal and
> > > business point of view."
>
> > >http://smallbusiness.aol.com/article/_a/a-cold-call-a-blog-and-a-20-m.=
..
>
> > Sue, Paul and Gregory, please do preserve all posts in any manner
> > mentioning me on the Susan Polgar Blog, including but not limited to
> > comments and postings made by "anonymous" posters. =A0Don't try to dest=
roy
> > them, we have 90%+ of your site spidered. A promise, if I decide to sue
> > you for defamation, I WILL plead in my complaint the exact words used t=
o
> > defame me, where published, when published---discovery should tell us
> > which of you and/or your minions across the country published on your
> > blog with your complete approval and control.
>
> What's your legal theory? Assuming for the sake of argument that the
> posts in question were defamatory, wouldn't you have to show that
> Polgar/Truong commissioned or "assisted in developing" the posts?
> Otherwise you're running into the brick wall of the Zeran-Blumenthal-
> Batzel line of cases. Are you arguing that the anons were, in fact,
> provably agents of Polgar/Truong, or are you challenging the
> applicability of the case law?
No. He is arguing, as I am, that most of the anons were Polgar and
Truong, not merely agents of Polgar and Truong.
Sam Sloan
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Dec 2008 16:14:29
From: Mike Murray
Subject: Re: Preservation of Evidence Re: Liability on the Polgar Blog?
|
On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 15:42:37 -0800 (PST), samsloan
<[email protected] > wrote:
>No. He is arguing, as I am, that most of the anons were Polgar and
>Truong, not merely agents of Polgar and Truong.
Not necessarily. At one point, it seemed that the authors of some of
the signed posts from ChessDiscussion were changed to "anonymous",
moved over to one of Polgar's blogs, with the date changed.
|
| | |
Date: 17 Dec 2008 14:46:50
From:
Subject: Re: Preservation of Evidence Re: Liability on the Polgar Blog?
|
B. Lafferty wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > B. Lafferty wrote:
> >> B. Lafferty wrote:
> >>> All those "anonymous" posters to the Susan Polgar Blog beware.
> >>>
> >>> As cathartic as this blog post may have been, it put Richard's business
> >>> at risk. Anything posted on a CEO's blog -- including reader comments --
> >>> can be construed as carrying the weight of a company's endorsement, says
> >>> Marc Zwillinger, an attorney in the Washington, D.C., office of
> >>> Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal. "Blogging is a cheap and scalable way to
> >>> talk to interested people," adds Seth Godin, an avid blogger and the
> >>> author of 10 books on marketing. "But understand that while you advocate
> >>> for your company, you are also walking a tightrope from a legal and
> >>> business point of view."
> >>>
> >>> http://smallbusiness.aol.com/article/_a/a-cold-call-a-blog-and-a-20-million/20081216230509990001?icid=200100125x1215497859x1201014983
> >>>
> >> Sue, Paul and Gregory, please do preserve all posts in any manner
> >> mentioning me on the Susan Polgar Blog, including but not limited to
> >> comments and postings made by "anonymous" posters. Don't try to destroy
> >> them, we have 90%+ of your site spidered. A promise, if I decide to sue
> >> you for defamation, I WILL plead in my complaint the exact words used to
> >> defame me, where published, when published---discovery should tell us
> >> which of you and/or your minions across the country published on your
> >> blog with your complete approval and control.
> >
> >
> >
> > What's your legal theory? Assuming for the sake of argument that the
> > posts in question were defamatory, wouldn't you have to show that
> > Polgar/Truong commissioned or "assisted in developing" the posts?
> > Otherwise you're running into the brick wall of the Zeran-Blumenthal-
> > Batzel line of cases. Are you arguing that the anons were, in fact,
> > provably agents of Polgar/Truong, or are you challenging the
> > applicability of the case law?
> >
> It simply isn't in my interest to answer or comment on your less than
> cogent play lawyering. But, do have a lovely day.
I see. You don't have one, and are simply blowing smoke. Don't say I
didn't give you a chance.
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Dec 2008 22:49:15
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Preservation of Evidence Re: Liability on the Polgar Blog?
|
[email protected] wrote:
>
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> B. Lafferty wrote:
>>>> B. Lafferty wrote:
>>>>> All those "anonymous" posters to the Susan Polgar Blog beware.
>>>>>
>>>>> As cathartic as this blog post may have been, it put Richard's business
>>>>> at risk. Anything posted on a CEO's blog -- including reader comments --
>>>>> can be construed as carrying the weight of a company's endorsement, says
>>>>> Marc Zwillinger, an attorney in the Washington, D.C., office of
>>>>> Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal. "Blogging is a cheap and scalable way to
>>>>> talk to interested people," adds Seth Godin, an avid blogger and the
>>>>> author of 10 books on marketing. "But understand that while you advocate
>>>>> for your company, you are also walking a tightrope from a legal and
>>>>> business point of view."
>>>>>
>>>>> http://smallbusiness.aol.com/article/_a/a-cold-call-a-blog-and-a-20-million/20081216230509990001?icid=200100125x1215497859x1201014983
>>>>>
>>>> Sue, Paul and Gregory, please do preserve all posts in any manner
>>>> mentioning me on the Susan Polgar Blog, including but not limited to
>>>> comments and postings made by "anonymous" posters. Don't try to destroy
>>>> them, we have 90%+ of your site spidered. A promise, if I decide to sue
>>>> you for defamation, I WILL plead in my complaint the exact words used to
>>>> defame me, where published, when published---discovery should tell us
>>>> which of you and/or your minions across the country published on your
>>>> blog with your complete approval and control.
>>>
>>>
>>> What's your legal theory? Assuming for the sake of argument that the
>>> posts in question were defamatory, wouldn't you have to show that
>>> Polgar/Truong commissioned or "assisted in developing" the posts?
>>> Otherwise you're running into the brick wall of the Zeran-Blumenthal-
>>> Batzel line of cases. Are you arguing that the anons were, in fact,
>>> provably agents of Polgar/Truong, or are you challenging the
>>> applicability of the case law?
>>>
>> It simply isn't in my interest to answer or comment on your less than
>> cogent play lawyering. But, do have a lovely day.
>
>
> I see. You don't have one, and are simply blowing smoke. Don't say I
> didn't give you a chance.
Whatever you say, Johnny Boy. Thanks for the "chance," but most
everything from you is truly meaningless. Did you have a lovely day?
|
| | |
Date: 17 Dec 2008 05:37:04
From:
Subject: Re: Preservation of Evidence Re: Liability on the Polgar Blog?
|
B. Lafferty wrote:
> B. Lafferty wrote:
> > All those "anonymous" posters to the Susan Polgar Blog beware.
> >
> > As cathartic as this blog post may have been, it put Richard's business
> > at risk. Anything posted on a CEO's blog -- including reader comments --
> > can be construed as carrying the weight of a company's endorsement, says
> > Marc Zwillinger, an attorney in the Washington, D.C., office of
> > Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal. "Blogging is a cheap and scalable way to
> > talk to interested people," adds Seth Godin, an avid blogger and the
> > author of 10 books on marketing. "But understand that while you advocate
> > for your company, you are also walking a tightrope from a legal and
> > business point of view."
> >
> > http://smallbusiness.aol.com/article/_a/a-cold-call-a-blog-and-a-20-million/20081216230509990001?icid=200100125x1215497859x1201014983
> >
>
> Sue, Paul and Gregory, please do preserve all posts in any manner
> mentioning me on the Susan Polgar Blog, including but not limited to
> comments and postings made by "anonymous" posters. Don't try to destroy
> them, we have 90%+ of your site spidered. A promise, if I decide to sue
> you for defamation, I WILL plead in my complaint the exact words used to
> defame me, where published, when published---discovery should tell us
> which of you and/or your minions across the country published on your
> blog with your complete approval and control.
What's your legal theory? Assuming for the sake of argument that the
posts in question were defamatory, wouldn't you have to show that
Polgar/Truong commissioned or "assisted in developing" the posts?
Otherwise you're running into the brick wall of the Zeran-Blumenthal-
Batzel line of cases. Are you arguing that the anons were, in fact,
provably agents of Polgar/Truong, or are you challenging the
applicability of the case law?
|
| | | |
Date: 17 Dec 2008 13:41:01
From: B. Lafferty
Subject: Re: Preservation of Evidence Re: Liability on the Polgar Blog?
|
[email protected] wrote:
>
> B. Lafferty wrote:
>> B. Lafferty wrote:
>>> All those "anonymous" posters to the Susan Polgar Blog beware.
>>>
>>> As cathartic as this blog post may have been, it put Richard's business
>>> at risk. Anything posted on a CEO's blog -- including reader comments --
>>> can be construed as carrying the weight of a company's endorsement, says
>>> Marc Zwillinger, an attorney in the Washington, D.C., office of
>>> Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal. "Blogging is a cheap and scalable way to
>>> talk to interested people," adds Seth Godin, an avid blogger and the
>>> author of 10 books on marketing. "But understand that while you advocate
>>> for your company, you are also walking a tightrope from a legal and
>>> business point of view."
>>>
>>> http://smallbusiness.aol.com/article/_a/a-cold-call-a-blog-and-a-20-million/20081216230509990001?icid=200100125x1215497859x1201014983
>>>
>> Sue, Paul and Gregory, please do preserve all posts in any manner
>> mentioning me on the Susan Polgar Blog, including but not limited to
>> comments and postings made by "anonymous" posters. Don't try to destroy
>> them, we have 90%+ of your site spidered. A promise, if I decide to sue
>> you for defamation, I WILL plead in my complaint the exact words used to
>> defame me, where published, when published---discovery should tell us
>> which of you and/or your minions across the country published on your
>> blog with your complete approval and control.
>
>
>
> What's your legal theory? Assuming for the sake of argument that the
> posts in question were defamatory, wouldn't you have to show that
> Polgar/Truong commissioned or "assisted in developing" the posts?
> Otherwise you're running into the brick wall of the Zeran-Blumenthal-
> Batzel line of cases. Are you arguing that the anons were, in fact,
> provably agents of Polgar/Truong, or are you challenging the
> applicability of the case law?
>
It simply isn't in my interest to answer or comment on your less than
cogent play lawyering. But, do have a lovely day.
|
|
