::shrug:: I have already said I think there is something to this point of view, but perhaps the medical bills are an issue. I don't know.
Dana William Wheatley writes: > :) Then don't sue and let it go away on its own. > > Nothing screams media whore like making press releases that you are sueing > instead of > quietly handling it through the court and leaving the media out. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dana Tierney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 3:45 PM > Subject: Re: Fat Brat sues > > > > we don't know he is going to get that part. Maybe he doesn't want to get > > that part. I don't think I would. Maybe he just wants to be left alone, > > ipod or no ipod. > > > > Dana > > > > William Wheatley writes: > > > > > LOL Well come on you never had a friend pull a gotcha on you?? > > > > > > I wouldn't mind looking like a retard to the world especially if i got > an > > > ipod and a part in a > > > movie that might break every box office record set?? > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Dana Tierney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > To: "CF-Community" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 2:49 PM > > > Subject: Re: Fat Brat sues > > > > > > > > > > wow > > > > > > > > his friends huh. Wonder how his enemies treat him? > > > > > > > > Dana > > > > > > > > William Wheatley writes: > > > > > > > > > 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 Your ad could be here. Monies from ads go to support these lists and provide more resources for the community. http://www.fusionauthority.com/ads.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
