Be careful what you post, you could end up in court.

I read (some of) the lengthy court documents posted here (and elsewhere).

I do not have anything to say about the core issues.

I did notice that SSW Forum and several people who post here were mentioned by name in the official transcript.

If this issue had proceeded through the system, it's possible that people who posted here might have been subpoenaed and forced to explain what they said and why they said it.

Maybe there are some "lawyer-types" among us who already knew this, but I'd imagine that a lot of guys would be surprized to see their SSW Forum comments as part of a Federal District Court transcript.

So watch your spelling.

Howard Rush

I would note that it's important not to portray something as fact that is your opinion. Say it's your opinion.

And use good grammer.

Paul,

I saw nothing that was not available in the public records of the Courts involved.

Not everyone goes to the effort of finding such public documents, but for those who do, there is no restriction against sharing, again, public documents.

The parties to the matter certainly knew who they were, and the public nature of the court papers indicates that the court had no purpose to keep them sealed, closed, or otherwise out of public access.

I do agree, though, that there are some lawyers around who might try to twist things like this for their own profits, and that caution should be applied for any private, or still-in-process matters a court needs to restrict. These courts did not restrict what we saw posted, here.

Looks like Brodak's lawyer made a profit. Doubt he did all this on contingency. Live and learn.
Jon Ramsden
<@_@>

While you must register to post on this site (and many others), you do NOT have to register to read the stuff posted here.

There are people in the world who are paid to read internet postings.

I would strongly suggest everyone be careful, use good grammar, and spell things correctly. You don't want to look like an ignorant boob to these intel guys.

Clean underwear. Never forget, clean underwear.

>I would strongly suggest everyone be careful, use good
>grammar, and spell things correctly. You don't want to look
>like an ignorant boob to these intel guys.
>
If one is an ignorant boob, how does one go about not appearing so in writing? Some of us Texas boys ain't got much book learnin. I mean you probaly cain't tell it when y'all hear us talk, but we has trouble with writin.
Besides, how bright does a person have to be if they have a job reading forums on the web?

Pat

Bushmen. Heard Bushmen learn to read and write. (No offense meant to Bushmen.)

Hey Len. How about installing spell check..

That just leads to malapropisms.

Respectively,
Howard Rush

There flying they're plains over their on the planes ?

>That just leads to malapropisms.
>
>Respectively,
>Howard Rush

That's very seldom of you, Howard.

Randi

>Hey Len. How about installing spell check..

I would love to, but it is tough to do (and expensive). What I would suggest, which has been suggested before, is to install the Google tool bar at the top of your browser. This has a spell check on it and would enable you to spell check anything before posting. It doesn't cost anything and you don't get pop-ups or other "commercials", so it isn't a bad thing.

(Note: This post was checked with Google's spell check. Ironically, "Google's" didn't pass through.)

>Bushmen. Heard Bushmen learn to read and write. (No offense
>meant to Bushmen.)

,,,,,,,,,,and also do Geiko ads,,,,,,,,,

>I read (some of) the lengthy court documents posted here (and
>elsewhere).
>
>I do not have anything to say about the core issues.
>
>I did notice that SSW Forum and several people
>who post here were mentioned by name in the official
>transcript.
>
>If this issue had proceeded through the system, it's possible
>that people who posted here might have been subpoenaed and
>forced to explain what they said and why they said it.
>
>Maybe there are some "lawyer-types" among us who
>already knew this, but I'd imagine that a lot of guys would be
>surprized to see their SSW Forum comments as part of a
>Federal District Court transcript.

As long as what you say is truthful and factual, you have no problems. You can also state your opinions as such, as long as they are noted. I would hope, however, that the rest of us would not simply sue each other just because someone disagreed with us. Most of us are not public figures, but a public figure is subject to scrutiny--especially during an election, whether it be an election on an issue or their election to office. Witness the political ads that are run on television where "facts" are routinely twisted and a person's character assasinated. Yet you don't see law suits rising out of these.

Perhaps what we need to do is to learn to accept a diversity of opinion and let majority rule. And in America, above all, we all should have the right to be able to speak out against an issue without fear of someone suing us because we did. I won't always agree with you. You won't always agree with me. So be it. God bless America.

>>I read (some of) the lengthy court documents posted here
>(and
>>elsewhere).
>>
>>I do not have anything to say about the core issues.
>>
>>I did notice that SSW Forum and several
>people
>>who post here were mentioned by name in the official
>>transcript.
>>
>>If this issue had proceeded through the system, it's
>possible
>>that people who posted here might have been subpoenaed
>and
>>forced to explain what they said and why they said it.
>>
>>Maybe there are some "lawyer-types" among us
>who
>>already knew this, but I'd imagine that a lot of guys
>would be
>>surprized to see their SSW Forum comments as part of a
>>Federal District Court transcript.
>
>As long as what you say is truthful and factual, you have no
>problems. You can also state your opinions as such, as long
>as they are noted. I would hope, however, that the rest of us
>would not simply sue each other just because someone disagreed
>with us. Most of us are not public figures, but a public
>figure is subject to scrutiny--especially during an election,
>whether it be an election on an issue or their election to
>office. Witness the political ads that are run on television
>where "facts" are routinely twisted and a person's
>character assasinated. Yet you don't see law suits rising out
>of these.
>
>Perhaps what we need to do is to learn to accept a diversity
>of opinion and let majority rule. And in America, above all,
>we all should have the right to be able to speak out against
>an issue without fear of someone suing us because we did. I
>won't always agree with you. You won't always agree with me.
>So be it. God bless America.
I think you may have gone way over some people's heads with that one, Leonard. [photo not recovered: sipcof.gif]

Leonard-

You have addressed several issues that I would dearly love dealt with appropriately on the federal level, as well as in our own hearts. Maybe some sanity would filter down to our own disagreements AND EXPECTATIONS!

>Witness the political ads that are run on television where "facts"
>are routinely twisted and a person's character assasinated. Yet you
>don't see law suits rising out of these.

I saw somewhere on a TV court drama that "truth in advertising" laws seem not to apply in political ads. Why is this? You'd think that, in choosing this nation's leaders, the highest standards of honor and truth would be demanded and enforced. Instead, we saw in 2004 the worst, easily debunked, lies from people who should have been indicted for libel and/or slander. They were effective.

>Perhaps what we need to do is to learn to accept a diversity of
>opinion and let majority rule.

This is a tough one! The problem is that a right to majority rule is seen by some as an open invitation to enforce their own intolerance of diversity. If diversity is not tolerated, then within the "winning" group, more subtle diversity will be stamped out by "winning" factions, and the process repeated enough and ingrained enough that only a very few people RULE. Then there is no democratic process. Democracy depends on tolerance and encouragement of divergent views. We see on our CL forums all of this in a microcosm, where several imply that others' work lacks worth if not done their way - right down to HOW the hobby/sport is perceived or even enjoyed. That mentality is a threat to us all at all levels.

>And in America, above all, we all should have the right to be able
>to speak out against an issue without fear of someone suing us
>because we did.

Fear is the enemy of democracy and the tool of oppressors. It should only be used for genuine and sincere self-defense. Bullying is not only un-American, but it diminishes any of us who engage in it.

I won't always agree with you. You won't always agree with me. So be it. God bless America.

GOOD.

SK

P.S. This comes from a computer far from home in a situation of loss. This and some really repugnant posts on another thread have me at my own limit of intolerance. Sorry!

Edited for spelling error.