yea see i don't like the idea of making jokes being a sueable offense all the stories say this was the FRIENDS of the kid not students who goto his school. Oh well
----- Original Message ----- From: "William H Bowen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 2:25 PM Subject: Re: Fat Brat sues > But upon who's judgement will this be based? > > The humourless bastard down the block or some committee like the MPAA: > > "It is the judgement of this panel that your Class 1-A Humiliating Joke > (ref: AB3BCDFD-0035-DA36-071409C2DBE49D00 ) "Pants-ing" has been rated > PG-13 -- thusly only requiring nominal parental notification, and > negating the right of the subject to sue in the event the subjects' > embarrassment, humiliation, etc. providing a fully executed hold > harmless document is submitted to this committee with 10 days of final > subject approval -- forms for identification of potential subjects of > the referenced joke (AB3BCDFD-0035-DA36-071409C2DBE49D00) will be found > attached. You will be notified of "go - no go" status in 3 to 6 weeks > pending full investigation of the intended subjects' physical, mental > and financial condidtions. If subject is not considered physically, > mentall, financially able to withstand the full brunt of joke > (AB3BCDFD-0035-DA36-071409C2DBE49D00) you will be notified and execution > of said joke (AB3BCDFD-0035-DA36-071409C2DBE49D00) can proceed only if > this committee receives the fully executed hold harmless document. > > Thanks and as always -- Have fun :-)" > > ^_^ > > will > > > William Wheatley wrote: > > >So people can't do jokes anymore? Because alot of jokes have GOTCHAS and you > >feel like a retard for a bit and then it passes. > >Will we have a joke scale now to see when its TOO humilating? > > > > > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Haggerty, Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 4:33 PM > >Subject: RE: Fat Brat sues > > > > > > > > > >>I stand by my argument that a deliberate attempt to humiliate someone > >>that results in significant psychological trauma should be grounds for > >>litigation. That said, with every rule there are definite limitations as > >>to what it is for and how it should be applied, and each case should > >>have the ability to stand on its own merits. > >> > >>In the two cases you provided, war and the disturbance in the alley, > >>this rule would not apply. It is generally acknowledged that one's > >>presence in a wartime situation will be traumatic at some level. The > >>soldier in a modern, volunteer army will have placed themselves in that > >>situation knowing the potential for harm. Additionally, in this > >>particular arena, soldiers on either side do everything they can to blow > >>up the other guys, and nations recognize this. In the same way no one > >>can be convicted for murdering an enemy combatant in the course of > >>combat, no can should be able to sue for emotional distress resulting > >>from being in a war. > >> > >>As for the case of people getting it on in the alley, one would presume > >>the intent of these people was not to cause harm of any sort to anyone. > >>If someone came before me to say they were traumatized by watching two > >>people engage in consensual adult activities, I would find it difficult > >>to sympathize with that person's argument. There is a massive difference > >>between 'disturbed' and 'damaged', and it is reasonable to assume that > >>most reasonable people would be able to quickly leave this event behind > >>them. > >> > >>Now, if in the second case it were your mother, and she was being forced > >>to do this, and the person did this to get back at you for whatever > >>reason, that's another story. But I have trouble with seeing how either > >>of these cases could be seen as a deliberate attempt to humiliate anyone > >>or cause anyone lasting psychological harm. > >> > >>M > >> > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: William Wheatley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 3:55 PM > >>To: CF-Community > >>Subject: Re: Fat Brat sues > >> > >> > >>Ok let me try to take a Dana type logical approach and dissect your > >>argument ;). > >> > >>And I agree they were trying to embarrass him. > >> > >>So saying because he was traumatized by that he can sue. Can the > >>soliders who sign up for military service and see someone get blown to > >>bits can they sue for emotional distress? What about when my daughter > >>saw someone get murdered if she was emotionally disturbed should she be > >>able to sue the murderer?? > >> > >>If i saw someone having sex in an alley and it disturbed me? > >> > >>I mean of course they can sue but i hope people are not rewarded for > >>being dumbasses. > >> > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >>From: "Haggerty, Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 3:37 PM > >>Subject: RE: Fat Brat sues > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>>Bill, I got to disagree with you on this one. I think the actions of > >>>those kids was intended to publicly humiliate this kid and that they > >>>had no right to put that up without his permission. If the kid is > >>>traumatized as a result, he should have the right to sue. This should > >>>be regardless of the fact they made money off the action, the question > >>> > >>> > >>>is whether or not they hurt this person in some meaningful way. My > >>>take on it is, yes, they did. > >>> > >>>M > >>> > >>>-----Original Message----- > >>>From: William Wheatley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>>Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 3:30 PM > >>>To: CF-Community > >>>Subject: Re: Fat Brat sues > >>> > >>> > >>>Sure file a criminal complaint. > >>> > >>>And if they MADE money off it sue, or sue to get it removed but this > >>>emotional distress crap has gotten way out of hand. People can't deal > >>>with life so they have to get money to get comfort. The problem is > >>>even spreading to canada now :) Oh boy that can be the american legacy > >>> > >>> > >>>a bunch of whiney people who gotta sue for everything. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?forumid=5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/index.cfm?method=subscribe&forumid=5 Signup for the Fusion Authority news alert and keep up with the latest news in ColdFusion and related topics. http://www.fusionauthority.com/signup.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
