How To Earn $55m Stripping For A Minute

Jill Carpenter

8 years ago

Well, how your lawyers win 55m maybe.

Wonder how much of that she will actually get.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

"May I have ten thousand marbles, please?"

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10575829].message }}

TimPhelan

8 years ago

Originally Posted by positivenegative

...but the companies behind the Nashville hotel where the incident took place had to pay the $55m. WTF!!! How is it their fault? How could they have prevented something like this happening?

The stalker specifically asked for a room next to her. She wasn't notified. I bet that doesn't happen again and that's a good thing.

[ 8 ] Thanks

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10575880].message }}

irawr

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by positivenegative

Yes, the world has finally gone completely mad... or at least a court in America has.

Can anyone tell me how having a short clip of you in the buff in your hotel room posted online is worth the equivalent of a massive lottery win?

The guy who filmed the woman in question through the peephole of her hotel door received a 30 month prison sentence, but the companies behind the Nashville hotel where the incident took place had to pay the $55m. WTF!!! How is it their fault? How could they have prevented something like this happening?

Erin Andrews received more than she would probably have earned working in several lifetimes - helped by her ability to turn on the waterworks (tears) on demand in court.

Something smells pretty bad here. In fact something stinks!

US reporter Erin Andrews wins $55m over secret nude video

That's not how that works, but she will definitely get paid. I would have to see the details of the case, but the case of the hotels was likely build upon the fact that they are not associated in anyway with the criminal or that the lawsuit was frivolous because they obviously had no part in this crime. Since they likely made no case that the amount was unreasonable, the judge didn't have any other option but to award the full amount.

I'm pretty sure they still have the opportunity to counter-sue. There's no way that video caused 55m in damages. I'm not trying to be a sexist jerk or something but that didn't cause fifty-five-million in damages...

I'm not a lawyer. So.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10575990].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 8 years ago

Well, when some strange pervert, serial killer, rabid ex-husband/boyfriend, etc wants to request a room next to one of your guests, perhaps the hotel should use just a tad of common sense and say no. It could have been any of the above and they just booked him a room next to her to make it easy for him to do whatever he had planned to do. Good for her.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10576184].message }}

Cali16

8 years ago

Originally Posted by positivenegative

How is it their fault? How could they have prevented something like this happening?

Gee, I don't know. Perhaps by protecting the privacy of their guests. While they couldn't have known the guy's intentions, anyone with an ounce of sense knows that celebrities, in particular, attract stalkers, perverts, and opportunists like bees to honey. It's not that celebrities should get special treatment, but his request to have the room next to hers should have raised at least a yellow flag.

As for the $55 million; yes, that's a lot of money - and her attorney(s) will no doubt get a huge cut of that. However, this type of settlement should make the hotel (and all other hotels) be a lot more cautious in the future when it comes to the privacy of all their guests. Large settlements like this send a very strong message.

She was an innocent victim. That video of her will be around forever, unfortunately. She (and her family, and future children if she has any) has to live with the emotional pain and humiliation this incident caused.

I certainly don't think it's fair at all to assume her tears or emotional distress were fake. You obviously underestimate how traumatizing something like this can be. Severe depression and anxiety can absolutely be triggered by this type of trauma, and those can significantly impact every aspect of a person's life.

To suggest she got "paid" for "stripping" is incredibly callous, not to mention absurd.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

If you don't face your fears, the only thing you'll ever see is what's in your comfort zone. ~Anne McClain, astronaut

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10576254].message }}

positivenegative

8 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

The stalker specifically asked for a room next to her. She wasn't notified. I bet that doesn't happen again and that's a good thing.

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Well, when some strange pervert, serial killer, rabid ex-husband/boyfriend, etc wants to request a room next to one of your guests, perhaps the hotel should use just a tad of common sense and say no.

Firstly, I was unaware that he had requested a room next to her; there was no mention of that fact in the article I read.

Secondly, why would a hotel think the request strange. There are tens of thousands of real celebrities stopping at hotels throughout the world at any one time. Fans like to be as close to them as possible. Most real celebrities hire the whole floor, or have a security guard.

Erin was just a reporter. Hardly someone I'd call an A or even B-list celeb.

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

they just booked him a room next to her to make it easy for him to do whatever he had planned to do. Good for her.

How did it make it easier? The peephole he tampered with was on the door to her room - not some interconnecting door from the room next door.

He could have been staying at any room on the same floor and still have done what he did.

Originally Posted by irawr

There's no way that video caused 55m in damages. I'm not trying to be a sexist jerk or something but that didn't cause fifty-five-million in damages...

My point exactly

Originally Posted by Cali16

I certainly don't think it's fair at all to assume her tears or emotional distress were fake.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Strange how she (with the help of her lawyer) decided to first sue for $10m, then $20m, and then up the ante to $50m and then $75m. That's an awful lot of money to want just because someone shot a clip of you in the nude. "Tears and emotional distress" are obviously going to help in court.... they're hardly going to hinder your case, are they?

Originally Posted by Cali16

You obviously underestimate how traumatizing something like this can be. Severe depression and anxiety can absolutely be triggered by this type of trauma, and those can significantly impact every aspect of a person's life.

She wasn't filmed having sex. She wasn't filmed with sex toys. She wasn't filmed having an affair. She was filmed nude through a hole in a door for a minute or so.

This sort of thing happens all the time, including angry people who separate or want revenge on an ex-partner/lover posting shit online about them. I don't see a whole lot of those receiving $55m in compensation.

Originally Posted by Cali16

To suggest she got "paid" for "stripping" is incredibly callous, not to mention absurd.

Hardly "callous", and definitely not absurd.

The suggestion is not that she set out to strip to earn money/damages, but rather that she did set out to exploit it in full by filing a claim for £50m. That in effect IS being paid for stripping.

I hope on appeal it's reduced to something much, much more realistic.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10576448].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by positivenegative

Firstly, I was unaware that he had requested a room next to her; there was no mention of that fact in the article I read.

Secondly, why would a hotel think the request strange. There are tens of thousands of real celebrities stopping at hotels throughout the world at any one time. Fans like to be as close to them as possible. Most real celebrities hire the whole floor, or have a security guard.

Erin was just a reporter. Hardly someone I'd call an A or even B-list celeb.

I expect the hotel to do their best to protect both my privacy and safety, and this hotel did neither. So you're saying that a celebrity has to endure papparazzi or crazed fans being placed in the next room just because they want to be placed close to them? I think not and I wouldn't visit a hotel that had that type of policy.

Originally Posted by positivenegative

He could have been staying at any room on the same floor and still have done what he did.

But he didn't. He asked to be there and was granted permission to be there, even though the hotel did not ask her if that was ok ... nor did they know the reason he wanted to be there.

Originally Posted by positivenegative

That's an awful lot of money to want just because someone shot a clip of you in the nude. "Tears and emotional distress" are obviously going to help in court.... they're hardly going to hinder your case, are they?

She wasn't filmed having sex. She wasn't filmed with sex toys. She wasn't filmed having an affair. She was filmed nude through a hole in a door for a minute or so.

You really minimize the experience this woman went through. I would be at least $55M worth of furious given the same circumstances happened to me. By the way, she'll only see around $6M of that if and when they are able to collect.

Originally Posted by positivenegative

That in effect IS being paid for stripping.

No, it is punishing the hotel for not exercising at least a minimal amount of caution to protect their client. All that would have been required is for them to say No to the goon who filmed her.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10576589].message }}

Kay King

8 years ago

I was unaware that he had requested a room next to her

So your opinion is not based on the facts of the case.

NO reputable hotel would give the room number of a guest to some random person who asked for it.

NO reputable hotel would even acknowledge someone with a certain name was registered there.

The hotel employee acknowledged this well known person was staying at the hotel....told the voyeur what room she was in...and then allowed him to register the room next to the woman.

Without her knowledge - in what should have been a totally safe and private area - she was filmed at the most vulnerable time. She was undressing in what she believed was total privacy.

He invaded her privacy - he films her without her knowledge or permission - he then distributed that film online for all to see.

He probably doesn't have money to pay her - but the hotel does and they are equally liable. Stakes are bigger for Marriott.

This is how verdicts like that really work:

Erin Andrews: How $55 Million Gets Whittled Away ... to $6 Mil | TMZ.com

Might make some hotel employee think twice in the future. I predict a lot of retraining at Marriott hotels....and attempts at damage control.

Something smells pretty bad here. In fact something stinks!

What stinks is that anyone would stand up for the stalker or the hotel in this case.

He admitted to stalking her hoping to sell photos....he could have as easily been targeting her for rape or murder. If you pay for a hotel room in a respected hotel chain - you assume your privacy will be protected. I'm glad she didn't give up the fight on this.

[ 2 ] Thanks
3 replies

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10576651].message }}

lanfear63 8 years ago

If someone went to that much trouble to film me getting out of the shower I would consider it a compliment.

If someone went to that much trouble to film Claude getting out of the shower I would consider it a miracle .
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature

Feel The Power Of The Mark Side
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10576681].message }}

Mike Anthony

8 years ago

What a poor taste and sexist thread. Seriously

Man violate a womans privacy by filming her undressing and thats equated to her stripping. then her being upset about it on the stand and crying is "waterworks". Time to join the 21st century. caveman sexist views don't fly nowadays

Thats why she got paid. He exposed her to all the sexists and women objectifying sad men (boys - can't call them mature ) on the planet and the hotel facilitated the stalking..

She should have got more.

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10576705].message }}

yukon

Banned 8 years ago

Later, in a statement posted on Twitter, she thanked the court, the jury, and her legal team and family.

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

What a poor taste and sexist thread. Seriously

Man violate a womans privacy by filming her undressing and thats equated to her stripping. then her being upset about it on the stand and crying is "waterworks". Time to join the 21st century. caveman sexist views don't fly nowadays

Thats why she got paid. He exposed her to all the sexists and women objectifying sad men (boys - can't call them mature ) on the planet and the hotel facilitated the stalking..

She should have got more.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10577565].message }}

Mike Anthony 8 years ago

Originally Posted by yukon

Somebody seriously needs to update their tech knowledge. You don't have run anywhere nowadays to tweet
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10577749].message }}
- yukon Banned 8 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Mike Anthony
  
  Somebody seriously needs to update their tech knowledge. You don't have run anywhere nowadays to tweet
  
  FYI, no cell phones in courtrooms.
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10579420].message }}
  
  Mike Anthony 8 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by yukon
  
  FYI, no cell phones in courtrooms.
  
  Who stays inside the court room itself after their case is over?. For Your FYI - nobody.
  
  No one has to run anywhere to tweet - dead point
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10579691].message }}

irawr

Banned 8 years ago

DISCLAIMER: MY COMMENTS ARE 100% BASED ON THE LEGALITY OF THE CASE, NOT THE SEX OF ANYBODY IN IT.

Originally Posted by Kay King

He probably doesn't have money to pay her - but the hotel does and they are equally liable. Stakes are bigger for Marriott

Ok, I was able to look into this a bit. There's a seriously bad precedent set here for the hotel. Can she prove that the hotel staff enabled this crime to occur?

I'm sorry but you said some things like:

NO reputable hotel would give the room number of a guest to some random person who asked for it.

NO reputable hotel would even acknowledge someone with a certain name was registered there.

When you stay at a hotel, you are on their property. Neither of those things you mentioned are illegal, or would necessarily lead me to believe that somebody would use that information to commit a crime. There's plenty of legitimate reasons why a "reputable hotel" would honor those requests. I highly doubt this went down exactly the way you're making it sound. He probably lied and said he was also a journalist and they were working on a story together. It's possible the Hotel had no idea who she was and he might have said that he was her sister. I highly doubt he walked up to the desk and explained what he was going to do. If she disclosed that she had a stalker and under no circumstances to allow him to have a room anywhere near her and to contact her immediately and they failed to do so, that's still not a case for negligence because she has a request that is unreasonable. They are not the police. The hotel should try their best to honor the request as a courtesy, but they are not required by any law to do so.

So the precedent is now set for a hotel that a guest can sue you, the hotel, over something another guest did. What about the property rights of the hotel owner? I'm sorry no:

Marriott, has to fight that, they don't have a choice. That's ridiculous. Saying they are responsible is completely insane.

If a criminal uses a gun to commit a crime, the gun-store owner that the gun was purchased from is not responsible for the crime the gun owner committed.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10576862].message }}

positivenegative

8 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

I expect the hotel to do their best to protect both my privacy and safety, and this hotel did neither. So you're saying that a celebrity has to endure papparazzi or crazed fans being placed in the next room just because they want to be placed close to them?

You keep glossing over the fact that she is NOT a celebrity. She is simply a reporter.

What exactly do you think hotels should do for any 2-bit, z-lister that books in? Phone up their room or knock their door every time they want to book someone into a room either side of them?

When sports teams stay at hotels they can be occupying up to 40 rooms, what with trainers, coaches and medics in addition to the players. Do the hotel contact every single person with a; "Hey there, we've got a guy who wants to be in a room on your floor. Is that ok with you, pretty please?"

Get real Suzanne. No-one would have thought he'd tamper with the spy hole on the door, and as I said previously.... he could have done that regardless of what room or floor he was at the hotel.

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

You really minimize the experience this woman went through. I would be at least $55M worth of furious given the same circumstances happened to me. By the way, she'll only see around $6M of that if and when they are able to collect.

I've not minimized her experience whatsoever. You say: "I would be at least $55m worth of furious given the same circumstances". Talk about OTT.

As for collecting just $6m, my whole point (which you seem to have completely overlooked or ignored) is that she actively pursued escalating claims up to $75m, and ABSOLUTELY NO-ONE is worth that kind of money for simply having some snaps of their boobs and bum made public.

So, she's either a gold-digger or mad. Either way, she has a way over the top inflated perception of her importance. She's a two-a-penny reporter, not a celebrity. Ironically, she's made more money (in addition to this case) and had more success since this happened than she would ever have believed.

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

No, it is punishing the hotel for not exercising at least a minimal amount of caution to protect their client. All that would have been required is for them to say No to the goon who filmed her.

They didn't know the "goon" was going to film her.

They didn't deserve to be fined $55m.

They didn't know she was going to sue for $50m

Suzanne, you are usually a pretty astute person. I don't want to get in further debate and long protracted arguments (a la Mike Anthony). My whole point was the amount of money in question, the fact that he should have been punished and not the hotel, and the fact that I don't perceive her as a celebrity in any way - and which I doubt the hotel did either.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10576678].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by positivenegative

You keep glossing over the fact that she is NOT a celebrity. She is simply a reporter.

What exactly do you think hotels should do for any 2-bit, z-lister that books in? Phone up their room or knock their door every time they want to book someone into a room either side of them?

I don't give a rat's ass if she was a hooker. What she is isn't the point at all. Any reputable hotel goes out of their way to protect the privacy of their clients. I have not ever heard of one that will give out room numbers or place someone next to another upon request without permission from the first party. No hotel would damage their reputation in that manner .... except this one. Who knows, maybe he slipped the desk clerk some money to do what reputable hotels will not do.

Originally Posted by positivenegative

Get real Suzanne. No-one would have thought he'd tamper with the spy hole on the door, and as I said previously.... he could have done that regardless of what room or floor he was at the hotel.

And it could have been done without legal liability for the hotel. Their choice.

Originally Posted by positivenegative

As for collecting just $6m, my whole point (which you seem to have completely overlooked or ignored) is that she actively pursued escalating claims up to $50m, and ABSOLUTELY NO-ONE is worth that kind of money for simply having some snaps of their boobs and bum made public.

I would have gone as high as my lawyer said we could go. I would have gone for the gold and sent a real clear message to this hotel that their clients expect privacy. Which she did. And I'm happy for her for standing her ground and not letting them get away with compromising her privacy in that manner. This hotel is very lucky the guy didn't assault, rape or harm her physically. They could lock it up and throw away the key if that had happened because they wouldn't have any customers to violate.

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10576692].message }}

Kay King

8 years ago

Do the hotel contact every single person with a; "Hey there, we've got a guy who wants to be in a room on your floor. Is that ok with you, pretty please?"

If a famous/infamous person or a well known sports team is in the hotel...often the other rooms on that floor or part of the floor are NOT rented out. It doesn't matter - EVERY person who rents a hotel room is entitled to their privacy.

No one has said the hotel should ask permission to rent the room next to the woman.....that's not the same as assisting a stalker in targeting the woman which is what happened here.

If you go into a reputable hotel (or call them) and ask "is XXX staying here" or "what room is XXX in" - the hotel will NOT give out that information. Doesn't matter if it's a famous person or not.

I don't think you realize what a major mistake this was on the part of the hotel staff...protecting privacy of hotel guests is a major part of staff training. This is a big hit on the brand reputation.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10576738].message }}

positivenegative

8 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

So your opinion is not based on the facts of the case.

NO reputable hotel would give the room number of a guest to some random person who asked for it.

NO reputable hotel would even acknowledge someone with a certain name was registered there.

They didn't acknowledge anything. I suggest YOU know YOUR facts before making assumptions. The guy asked for a specific numbered room in the hotel, and not a room next to her.

Barrett had reserved the room next to Andrews' and said he found her room through a directory within the house phone at the hotel.

The hotel would have thought no more of this as it could have been a client re-booking a room that he had stayed in before.

Originally Posted by Kay King

What stinks is that anyone would stand up for the stalker or the hotel in this case.

There you go again, completely making things up. And people wonder why so many folk have left this forum, and why those like Mike Anthony constantly take umbrage with you.

Kay, please tell me EXACTLY WHERE IN THIS THREAD HAVE I STOOD UP FOR THE STALKER?

I have said that I believe that $50m+ is way over the top and opens the door to countless future copycat claims. I also think fining the hotel this huge figure is crazy, and the stalker should have had 10 years and not 30 months.

I thought you were one of the better one's Kay. Why do you feel the need to poison the discussion and try to twist things around and make false assumptions. Is it a female thing?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10576753].message }}

Mike Anthony

8 years ago

Originally Posted by positivenegative

There you go again, completely making things up. And people wonder why so many folk have left this forum, and why those like Mike Anthony constantly take umbrage with you.

Dude kindly leave me out of it because on this I am fully agree with Kay. My issues with some people is how they deal with things based on friendships etc so I would be a flaming hypocrite not to side with Kay on this one. You are clearly on the wrong side of this one

Kay, please tell me EXACTLY WHERE IN THIS THREAD HAVE I STOOD UP FOR THE STALKER?

obvious and clear - By belittling the victim and writing like a sexist

I thought you were one of the better one's Kay. Why do you feel the need to poison the discussion and try to twist things around and make false assumptions. Is it a female thing?

I'm a heterosexual guy that sees it the same way all the other women in this thread see it (and am not the only guy that does either). Kindly take the sexist "female thing" somewhere else.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10576780].message }}

positivenegative 8 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

What a poor taste and sexist thread. Seriously

Wondered how long before the agitator decided to make an appearance.

I made a genuine comment about how a $50m court decision is crazy. How exactly is that "poor taste and sexist?" It could have been a guy as the claimant... I would have said the same.

My point was about the amount of money. Does it make you feel puffed up and important to twist and turn the facts, as you do in most other threads you butt in on. The ironic thing is that it's the very thing you keep accusing others of doing.

You've rubbed so many people up the wrong way on this forum over the years it should be them getting $50m from you .
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10576782].message }}

Mike Anthony

8 years ago

Originally Posted by positivenegative

Hardly "callous", and definitely not absurd.

The suggestion is not that she set out to strip to earn money/damages, but rather that she did set out to exploit it in full by filing a claim for £50m. That in effect IS being paid for stripping.

Total nonsense. Stripping is voluntary/being aware others are looking. She fit under neither conditions.

So if a woman gets raped and decides to sue to get the most from a rich creep who raped her (and the group that helped him to) then she is effectively getting paid for being a prostitute?

Thats just insane

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10576794].message }}

positivenegative 8 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Thats just insane

I guess we're on a level playing field then.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10576801].message }}

Princess Balestra

8 years ago

Bingo!

Gonna go show some skin in the mall while I choose my dream yacht.

Thanks

Signature

Lightin' fuses is for blowin' stuff togethah.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10576332].message }}

whateverpedia

8 years ago

I'm with everyone else on this PN.

As this sort of thing is going to happen a lot more in the future, the court has decided to set a precedent to deter others from doing the same thing.

A $55 fine/payout isn't going to stop anyone, however a $55 million penalty is bound to make people think long and hard about allowing it to happen again.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?

So that blind people can hate them as well.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10576772].message }}

positivenegative

8 years ago

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

I'm with everyone else on this PN.

As this sort of thing is going to happen a lot more in the future, the court has decided to set a precedent to deter others from doing the same thing.

A $55 fine/payout isn't going to stop anyone, however a $55 million penalty is bound to make people think long and hard about allowing it to happen again.

I take your point, Whatty. But it also works in the reverse - the floodgates will now be open for people to make all sorts of claims for similar vast sums of money, and a precedent for that has been set.

When we're talking these telephone number sums of money it also leaves the door open for "staged" incidents. I'll bet there's a few who wouldn't mind a few years in jail for a share of $50m.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10576817].message }}

whateverpedia

8 years ago

Originally Posted by positivenegative

I take your point, Whatty. But it also works in the reverse - the floodgates will now be open for people to make all sorts of claims for similar vast sums of money, and a precedent for that has been set.

When we're talking these telephone number sums of money it also leaves the door open for "staged" incidents. I'll bet there's a few who wouldn't mind a few years in jail for a share of $50m.

I take your point as well. That's where the courts come into play. It's their job to separate genuine claims from opportunistic ones.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?

So that blind people can hate them as well.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10576866].message }}

Mike Anthony

8 years ago

Originally Posted by positivenegative

Wondered how long before the agitator decided to make an appearance.

Lol after calling me by name to bolster your argument no less. You can expect seconds (and they say the people upstairs are silly. YOU bring up my name in a conversation I was not in with Kay and now claim I am butting in....thats funny stuff.)

My point was about the amount of money. Does it make you feel puffed up and important to twist and turn the facts, as you do in most other threads you butt in on. The ironic thing is that it's the very thing you keep accusing others of doing.

lol.......You can't mention me by name in a thread and then say I m butting in you poor soul. Totally illogical just like your OP. You didn't just argue the money. You equated the violation of her privacy with getting paid for stripping which like it or not is SEXIST. You then went on to belittle her hurt at the action by claiming her tears were "waterworks" "turned on" "on demand". then you objectified her body and her right to privacy by referencing "boobs and bums" rather than a person whose rights had been violated

You've rubbed so many people up the wrong way on this forum over the years.

Thanks!! Now new people reading this can see the kinds of people I rub wrong .

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10576829].message }}

Mike Anthony

8 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

I don't give a rat's ass if she was a hooker. What she is isn't the point at all. Any reputable hotel goes out of their way to protect the privacy of their clients. I have not ever heard of one that will give out room numbers or place someone next to another upon request without permission from the first party.

They don't. I have been on the road and been in many hotel chains and not one of them give out the room number of a guest. PN has no idea what he is talking about (nothing new there). Someone calling for you on a hotel line might be transferred to you but in several occasions over the years anyone asking for my room number or where I was in the hotel has had the front desk refusing to give that information.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10576843].message }}

positivenegative

8 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

They don't. I have been on the road and been in many hotel chains and not one of them give out the room number of a guest. PN has no idea what he is talking about (nothing new there). Someone calling for you on a hotel line might be transferred to you but in several occasions over the years anyone asking for my room number or where I was in the hotel has had the front desk refusing to give that information.

Carry on with the abuse. It follows your usual pattern. It's what you do when you don't have facts, and another reason why almost no-one has any time for you on here.

FYI (and which was posted earlier but you chose to ignore), the guy obtained her room number from an in-house directory, and then asked to book a specific room number next door.

Barrett had reserved the room next to Andrews' and said he found her room through a directory within the house phone at the hotel.

Contrary to what you think you know, the hotel had no way of knowing what his intentions were. As I mentioned earlier - but in your haste to diss everything here you've chosen to ignore it - the hotel may have thought it was a returning guest booking a room previously used. He never asked for a room next to her, but rather for a specific room number.

I won't bother replying to you any more as it's a futile exercise against someone who is never wrong and is simply on here to stir the pot to fuel his own inflated ego.

I will say that any more snide remarks from you, such as the above quoted, and it's about time you got reported. Not something I like to do but I've had enough of standing by whilst you deliberately antagonize and insult numerous members. I know of at least four who've previously left the forum permanently because of you. There are probably many more.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10576901].message }}

Mike Anthony

8 years ago

Originally Posted by positivenegative

Carry on with the abuse. It follows your usual pattern. It's what you do when you don't have facts

Abuse? You already admitted you had read like one article on the subject. Hmm....lol...lets see who doesn't have the facts

FYI (and which was posted earlier but you chose to ignore), the guy obtained her room number from an in-house directory, and then asked to book a specific room number next door.

NOPE. There was no "in-house directory". Hotels have a security policy not to give out the room number of guests so they don't keep directories. The phone in the lobby however showed the room number when he requested connection to her . Thats not an "in house directory" listing guests...thats a security slip up. Where a phone system ends up giving out info that the hotel recognizes under other circumstances is a violation of security then the hotel is going to find themselves liable. They can appeal if they wish but its pretty obvious nothing should give out the room number.

Contrary to what you think you know, the hotel had no way of knowing what his intentions were.

No need to resort to Fibbing on what I said. I claimed to know nothing about what the hotel knew about intentions. Liability has nothing to do with knowing intentions. Go read up on some law. You are potentially liable whenever yo do something that leads to harm. double so when you violate accepted security standards. No system within the hotel should give out a room number of a person for the same reason that the front desk does not give out the room number

As I mentioned earlier - but in your haste to diss everything here you've chosen to ignore it - the hotel may have thought it was a returning guest booking a room previously used. He never asked for a room next to her, but rather for a specific room number.

and as I have laid out and the jurors knew the phones system the hotel was responsible for effectively gave out the room number and location.

I won't bother replying to you any more as it's a futile exercise against someone who is never wrong and is simply on here to stir the pot to fuel his own inflated ego. I will say that any more insults from you, such as the above quoted, and it's about time you got reported.

be my guest. If you can call people's ego inflated because they disagree with you the mods wills see you throwing insults around. If saying someone doesn't know what they are talking about is a violation then just about everyone on some issue should be banned. As for all the rest I know ton loads more than four people who have left this forum and who refuse to post anymore because of really poor thought out threads which most sexist ones are

Not something I like to do but I've had enough of standing by whilst you deliberately antagonize and insult numerous members

You ripped Kay and out of the blue used my name to do it as well. You went back and changed it but I had already quoted it so you were the one doing the antagonizing because almost no one agrees with your sexist point of view.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10576960].message }}

Kay King

8 years ago

, the guy obtained her room number from an in-house directory, and then asked to book a specific room number next door.

ncorrect fact - hotels do not have "in house directory" that provides room number and guest name. Any hotel that did would be out of business fast.

Sometimes when you form an opinion and then learn you weren't in possession of all the facts....it's a good idea to stop pushing that opinion.

the hotel had no way of knowing what his intentions were

For all they knew, he was a psycho fan or a rapist or ex with a grudge.

They knew he wasn't a friend or he'd have the info.

I'm one of the first to jump on Mike A when he gets snarky - but you are the one doing that in this thread. There's nothing to support what this man did - nothing to explain away the deficiencies in this hotel. It was wrong and they will pay for it.

You seem to be arguing that a woman's privacy and a hotel guest's safety are irrelevant. That breaking laws and violating privacy is not a big deal.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

One secret to happiness is to let every situation be

what it is instead of what you think it should be.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10576986].message }}

positivenegative

8 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

You seem to be arguing that a woman's privacy and a hotel guest's safety are irrelevant. That breaking laws and violating privacy is not a big deal.

No I'm not, Kay. Why do you feel the need to keep coming back with statements that say or imply I've said something that I haven't.

The only reason I posted this thread was to ridicule the fact that someone can be awarded $55m for something (although very wrong) that neither injured her or caused others harm. If you think that's fine then ok, that's your opinion. I don't think others who've suffered dreadfully yet received a pittance by comparison would agree with you.

Erin Andrews' $55m award makes a mockery of pain and suffering

It seems the OTF has become a pathetic hotbed of one-upmanship. Most opinions expressed recently are quickly shot down and newcomers, especially, have no chance as they are quickly derided. It never used to be like that.

Take Shane's post about aura's. Was there ever any need for several people to attack him in such a way in the thread? He's posted similar views about other things, including much nonsense, for years. But we've never had this baiting and venom shown before.

It seems there's a hardcore "gang" on here who believe the OTF is their domain alone. Mutual admiration, backslapping and thanks. Sadly, one by one the people who really make this forum are now leaving. It's very easy to understand the reasons why.

I posted nothing sexist, as the venomous Mike Anthony would have you believe. Just an opinion on an award I felt was grossly excessive, and another opinion that it was perpetrated by someone who gamed the system (she originally tried to get $75m).

Too many sad people on here for whom this forum is their only life.

[ 1 ] Thanks
3 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10577025].message }}

Princess Balestra

8 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10577096].message }}

Mike Anthony

8 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10577119].message }}

Princess Balestra

8 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10577125].message }}

Claude Whitacre

8 years ago

Originally Posted by positivenegative

It seems there's a hardcore "gang" on here who believe the OTF is their domain alone. Mutual admiration, backslapping and thanks. Sadly, one by one the people who really make this forum are now leaving. It's very easy to understand the reasons why.

"Mutual admiration"? OK, I admit that nearly everyone admires me...but the reverse isn't true. Ask anyone here if they admire me, and...other than the "No"s...you'll only hear "Yes". I consider that conclusive proof.

Originally Posted by positivenegative

Too many sad people on here for whom this forum is their only life.

The forum is all I have. I've got no place else to go.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10577132].message }}

positivenegative 8 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

The forum is all I have. I've got no place else to go.

A thriving business based on getting people to pick up dirt. A new pussy in your life. And a hairline traversing the head that defies all logical explanation. What more could a man want.

You've no place else to go.I understand, Claude. I really do.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10577290].message }}

Cali16

8 years ago

Originally Posted by positivenegative

The only reason I posted this thread was to ridicule the fact that someone can be awarded $55m for something (although very wrong) that neither injured her or caused others harm.

So, from your perspective, there is no such thing as emotional trauma, and the only "real" injuries a person can suffer are physical.

Clearly everyone who's ever experienced something traumatic that triggered depression, severe anxiety, suicidal thoughts or behavior, substance abuse, PTSD, or paranoia are just over-reacting... at least in your world...

Good to know.

Originally Posted by positivenegative

It seems the OTF has become a pathetic hotbed of one-upmanship. Most opinions expressed recently are quickly shot down and newcomers, especially, have no chance as they are quickly derided. It never used to be like that.

It seems there's a hardcore "gang" on here who believe the OTF is their domain alone. Mutual admiration, backslapping and thanks.

That's the lamest excuse ever for why most people here aren't supporting your position in this thread. C'mon, PN, you're smarter than that.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

If you don't face your fears, the only thing you'll ever see is what's in your comfort zone. ~Anne McClain, astronaut

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10577674].message }}

discrat

8 years ago

Originally Posted by positivenegative

It seems the OTF has become a pathetic hotbed of one-upmanship. Most opinions expressed recently are quickly shot down and newcomers, especially, have no chance as they are quickly derided. It never used to be like that.

It seems there's a hardcore "gang" on here who believe the OTF is their domain alone. Mutual admiration, backslapping and thanks. Sadly, one by one the people who really make this forum are now leaving. It's very easy to understand the reasons why.

Nothing to do with One upmanship or a hardcore gang here with mutual admiration.

It has everything to do with this below in bold

Originally Posted by positivenegative

Yes, the world has finally gone completely mad... or at least a court in America has.

Can anyone tell me how having a short clip of you in the buff in your hotel room posted online is worth the equivalent of a massive lottery win?

The guy who filmed the woman in question through the peephole of her hotel door received a 30 month prison sentence, but the companies behind the Nashville hotel where the incident took place had to pay the $55m. WTF!!! How is it their fault? How could they have prevented something like this happening?

Erin Andrews received more than she would probably have earned working in several lifetimes - helped by her ability to turn on the waterworks (tears) on demand in court.

Something smells pretty bad here. In fact something stinks!

US reporter Erin Andrews wins $55m over secret nude video

It wouldn't matter if Allen Says came on here. He would have gotten the same response with writing this. Same with Claude, Kay or anyone else !

The fact is you threw disparaging remarks about a woman you say was pretending to cry ..when you absolutely Know nothing about her and her life experiences and what she is experiencing right now as well as NO shred of evidence that she was in fact faking it.

This is not only insensitive but sexist !

As I said earlier, this could be a hugely traumatic event for any human being. Having your bare a$$ and genitals on the Net and having that thrown in your face from now til the moment you die. And even after that, your grandchildren's grandchildren may even see it

It's enough to send many people literally over the edge.

[ 2 ] Thanks

Signature

Nothing to see here including a Sig so just move on :)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10577718].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by positivenegative

The only reason I posted this thread was to ridicule the fact that someone can be awarded $55m for something (although very wrong) that neither injured her or caused others harm.

This only confirms what Kay said and what I said early on in the thread, that you minimize the damages that this woman endured and still endures. I guess to you, she needed to be bloodied and beaten or lose limbs or be disfigured in some way.

Emotional pain and suffering is just as bad as physical pain and suffering and it could have been most likely prevented by the hotel had they followed the standard operating procedures that all hotels follow ... that of protecting the safety and privacy of their guests above all else.

I already mentioned that the guy uploaded a video of her nude and it of course went viral and to this day, anyone can see her in the nude, compounding the crime over and over again millions of time. She has suffered from depression and anxiety and neither of those is any fun at all. Her life has changed in very real ways. Embarrassment, humiliation .... also very real and constant. The law provides for both physical harm and emotional harm, as well as financial harm.

I really don't know why you don't get that. Maybe you don't have any women in your life, no wife or daughters or mother or grandmother, or maybe they don't mind millions of men passing around their nude video for years and years. That wouldn't be the normal response of most women though. The normal response would be just as Erin's ... depression, anxiety, embarrassment, fear, humiliation, shame ... and not just for a moment, but it still continues.

Do you actually think it matters that you have some links with others who agree with you? The only thing that matters is whether or not the jury agreed, and they did. No one else gets to decide.

You constantly bemoan the fact that people here who have known each for years sometimes agree with each other. You imply that makes them some special little club. The fact is, I've disagreed with all of them on one thread or another and so have they. Your little club is fiction. It's nothing more than people who enjoy debating each other who sometimes agree with each other and others times ... do not.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10584773].message }}

yukon

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

The normal response would be just as Erin's ... depression, anxiety, embarrassment, fear, humiliation, shame ... and not just for a moment, but it still continues.

Yet she posted on Twitter dragging herself through more depression, anxiety, embarrassment, fear, humiliation, shame ...

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10584832].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by yukon

Yet she posted on Twitter dragging herself through more depression, anxiety, embarrassment, fear, humiliation, shame ...

Is posting on Twitter illegal? Nope. Does she have a right to defend herself and give her story? Yep. Men posted nude stills from the video on her Twitter feed. So why wouldn't she comment?

Of course blaming the victim is a tactic as hold as the hills.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10584838].message }}

yukon

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Is posting on Twitter illegal? Nope. Does she have a right to defend herself and give her story? Yep. Men posted nude stills from the video on her Twitter feed. So why wouldn't she comment?

Of course blaming the victim is a tactic as hold as the hills.

You're right, being a public drama queen isn't illegal.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10584859].message }}

sbucciarel Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by yukon

You're right, being a public drama queen isn't illegal.

Just more bashing the victim.

So what do you think about the Hulk Hogan / Gawker sex tape lawsuit for $100M. What do you think about that tart that received penis pics of Bret Lefavre and sold them to Gawker to publish so everyone could see his penis? That one didn't make it to court because he actually did send them himself.

And how about this one? I smell a big settlement in this one
http://www.argusleader.com/story/new...line/80858638/
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10584895].message }}
- yukon Banned 8 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by sbucciarel
  
  Just more bashing the victim.
  
  Nobody needs to bash the victim [cough], she's doing just fine on her own.
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10584957].message }}

positivenegative

8 years ago

Originally Posted by tagiscom

I thought long and hard about saying that without it being misunderstood, but l obviously messed that up?

You didn't mess anything up, Shane.

You should know by now that a certain small clique on here consistently and deliberately misinterpret other peoples comments and intentions, to feed their own distorted and vitriolic nature.

Originally Posted by tagiscom

Thanks for the support PN, but unfortunately the link you posted is fake.

I posted that one a while ago, and the Tokyo University has zero information on it, and Whatev, caught that and told me to look it up, which l did.

But the last Auric one had valid sources or links.

No problem. That's just a single article I quickly plucked out at random.

As I said before, there are countless articles online that support your theory, and likewise countless articles that are negative. It's not a subject that either interests me or that I want to get embroiled in a heated discussion over as I simply don't have the time. It's also something that would have no favorable outcome for anyone as there is no concrete proof either way. It's for this reason that I never posted in your thread about the subject matter.

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

This only confirms what Kay said and what I said early on in the thread, that you minimize the damages that this woman endured and still endures. I guess to you, she needed to be bloodied and beaten or lose limbs or be disfigured in some way.

There you go, yet again. You just can't quit can you?

IT CONFIRMS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! AND I DIDN'T MINIMIZE ANYTHING!

You seem to make it a lifetime habit of distorting what people have said. Sure I'm going to compare it to something like someone losing limbs or being a vegetable for the rest of your life as a result of some car bombing, or terrorist action or the like. If folk like that don't get awarded anywhere even close to $55m then what on earth makes you presuppose that she's entitled to it?

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Emotional pain and suffering is just as bad as physical pain and suffering

I'm fully aware of that, and I'm fed up of having to keep repeating myself telling you that my only point was that $55m WAS WAY TOO MUCH.

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

I already mentioned that the guy uploaded a video of her nude and it of course went viral and to this day, anyone can see her in the nude, compounding the crime over and over again millions of time. She has suffered from depression and anxiety and neither of those is any fun at all. Her life has changed in very real ways. Embarrassment, humiliation .... also very real and constant. The law provides for both physical harm and emotional harm, as well as financial harm.

I agree. But why can't you understand or even make an attempt to let what I've said sink in to your head.

There's absolutely no way anyone else would have got anything close to a $55m award for something like this. It's never happened before and it will likely never happen again. Whether she gets any, a part, or most of it is irrelevant. It's the fact it was awarded.

Sure she's suffered from depression. and anxiety. Sure she's suffered embarrassment and humiliation. But I personally don't think that's worth anywhere close to $55m.

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

I really don't know why you don't get that. Maybe you don't have any women in your life, no wife or daughters or mother or grandmother, or maybe they don't mind millions of men passing around their nude video for years and years.

Nice vile statement from you yet again.

Yeah sure I've got family. Plenty daughters and a son.

I find the implication of your suggestion that maybe my not having female relatives is the reason I "don't understand or think like you", both presumptuous and grossly offensive.

You try to be judge and jury over a persons complete character and outlook, based solely on a few words that you completely misinterpreted. Really!

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Do you actually think it matters that you have some links with others who agree with you? The only thing that matters is whether or not the jury agreed, and they did. No one else gets to decide.

You see, right there is your problem. Even a jury can get things wrong. Nothing in life is set in stone.

The fact I posted links is irrelevant. You don't seem to either want or try to accept the fact that there are a whole lot more people out there who think the sum awarded is gross, than those who think it acceptable.

FYI, for someone who continually turned the tap on the tears in court, made wild claims for $75m compo, and whose father said this has totally destroyed her life, she seems remarkably capable of still working in a full time job effectively and having a regular social life complete with boyfriend.

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

You constantly bemoan the fact that people here who have known each for years sometimes agree with each other. You imply that makes them some special little club. The fact is, I've disagreed with all of them on one thread or another and so have they. Your little club is fiction. It's nothing more than people who enjoy debating each other who sometimes agree with each other and others times ... do not.

Wrong yet again.

I'm not the first and I certainly won't be the last person to comment on the little clique that exists here. It's splattered all over the anti-WF message boards and blogs, and numerous people on the forum have commented about the bias that exists here.

I've watched it get progressively worse, particularly over the last year or so as things have got really quiet on here. I find myself now wanting to spend less time on here as a result of both.

What I will say to you, Suzanne, is that it takes a big person to back down and acknowledge the fact they made a mistake. You know I'm neither sexist or anti-female in any way. You also know that my views in the thread were about the obscene amount of money awarded, and nothing more. Anything else was implied and concocted up by others.

I'm not a vindictive person. Here's an olive branch to you.

People - including myself - will think better of you if you just accept the fact you got it wrong. Move on. There are far more important things in life than sweating the small stuff.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10585018].message }}

Claude Whitacre

8 years ago

You guys argue about the amount of money she got, and whether the hotel should be liable....and the suffering of the victim.

The main thing that jumped out at me was the difference between men and women, if this happened to them.

If someone was stalking me, and took the video....I'd laugh my ass off, watch the videos...use the incident in speeches (to prove some point)....and move on.

It would never occur to me to sue anybody.

If someone did this to my wife or step daughter?

It would never occur to me to go to court. The guy gets arrested, and goes to jail.

No idea how my wife would react, and I'm not going to ask.

Ten years ago, I would have just beaten him. But I'm old now...so jail.

I'm not saying that's how the victim here should react. I'm stating the differences between how some men (Meaning myself, I suppose) would react, and how women react.

Thanks
3 replies

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10585099].message }}

positivenegative

8 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

You guys argue about the amount of money she got, and whether the hotel should be liable....and the suffering of the victim.

Claude, you miss the point completely.

The thread has become protracted because I expressed my viewpoint - realistically I thought - and got shot down by a handful of members who followed the instigator and responded with venom and distortion of what was actually said or implied. I won't be the victim of anyone's lies.

Incidentally, I didn't fail to notice the smattering of thanks dispensed by you to the perpetrators, which is obviously a sign of your approval without you needing to post. At least you didn't feel the need to resort to gutter tactics, and I still think you're an ok guy.

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

The main thing that jumped out at me was the difference between men and women, if this happened to them.

If someone was stalking me, and took the video....I'd laugh my ass off, watch the videos...use the incident in speeches (to prove some point)....and move on.

It would never occur to me to sue anybody.

If someone did this to my wife or step daughter?

It would never occur to me to go to court. The guy gets arrested, and goes to jail.

No idea how my wife would react, and I'm not going to ask.

Ten years ago, I would have just beaten him. But I'm old now...so jail.

I'm not saying that's how the victim here should react. I'm stating the differences between how some men (Meaning myself, I suppose) would react, and how women react.

Yes, and that's your personal take on it - we've all got opinions. Lets see if the bully brigade now decide to turn their rifle sights on you because of your opinions.

You're an intelligent man. Do you see where I'm coming from?

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10585122].message }}

Mike Anthony

8 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

The main thing that jumped out at me was the difference between men and women, if this happened to them.

If someone was stalking me, and took the video....I'd laugh my ass off, watch the videos...use the incident in speeches (to prove some point)....and move on.

Sorry Claude. Thats just nonsense. A lawyer approaches a man and says

"You know you could get a few million dollars in damages for this"

99 out of 100 men will say

"ummmm Really? well i guess I'm not moving on then"

Men don't want to get paid like women my eye.

and sure any father would go after the cash for his daughter. Due to what was done she has a sexual predator target on her until she is old. Extra security for her could easily add up to Millions of dollars over that time.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10585161].message }}

bizgrower

8 years ago

I think it comes down to individual differences as well.

Erin Andrews seems like a more of a wholesome, modest woman than some of her counterparts who
do bikini and lingerie shots all over the place.

So, to her it might be over a 100 on a scale, to a counterpart who is not as conservative and
modest it might be a 75 to 90 on a scale... And, to Claude a next to nothing if it happened to him.

Of course, since Erin's career involves a kick ton of travel, there is all the time and stress
and maneuvers she now goes through.

Dan

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

You guys argue about the amount of money she got, and whether the hotel should be liable....and the suffering of the victim.

The main thing that jumped out at me was the difference between men and women, if this happened to them.

If someone was stalking me, and took the video....I'd laugh my ass off, watch the videos...use the incident in speeches (to prove some point)....and move on.

It would never occur to me to sue anybody.

If someone did this to my wife or step daughter?

It would never occur to me to go to court. The guy gets arrested, and goes to jail.

No idea how my wife would react, and I'm not going to ask.

Ten years ago, I would have just beaten him. But I'm old now...so jail.

I'm not saying that's how the victim here should react. I'm stating the differences between how some men (Meaning myself, I suppose) would react, and how women react.

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Sorry Claude. Thats just nonsense. A lawyer approaches a man and says

"You know you could get a few million dollars in damages for this"

99 out of 100 men will say

"ummmm Really? well i guess I'm not moving on then"

Men don't want to get paid like women my eye.

and sure any father would go after the cash for his daughter. Due to what was done she has a sexual predator target on her until she is old. Extra security for her could easily add up to Millions of dollars over that time.

Thanks

Signature

"If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10585317].message }}

Claude Whitacre

8 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Sorry Claude. Thats just nonsense. A lawyer approaches a man and says

"You know you could get a few million dollars in damages for this"

99 out of 100 men will say

"ummmm Really? well i guess I'm not moving on then"

Men don't want to get paid like women my eye.

and sure any father would go after the cash for his daughter. Due to what was done she has a sexual predator target on her until she is old. Extra security for her could easily add up to Millions of dollars over that time.

Maybe I should have said that I think differently than most men, and all women. That would have been more accurate.

I can't imagine a scenario where I would sue someone. It's just not in my DNA.

Added later; Years ago, my wife was mugged by a young black man in a hoodie outside our apartment building.

She was upset, but a day or so later, it was nearly forgotten. After that, she didn't panic every time she saw a young black man, didn't panic when she saw someone wearing a hoodie, and wasn't afraid of apartment buildings. He had a gun to her face. She doesn't panic when she sees a gun. When we share the story, she never cried, trembled, got upset, or thought of suing anyone.

She doesn't run from the theater in tears, when she sees someone getting mugged, in a movie.

I actually asked her about the article (she read it, or one similar, online). I asked how she would react. She told me she would be upset, and have the guy arrested. And that would be it. Of course, she isn't normally hysterical. And she never thinks of herself as a victim. Is my wife typical? Probably not. And I asked if she would want to sue the guy. She said, "Probably not, but certainly not the hotel".

But since it's impossible for me to know how other women would handle a situation like this, their insights would be helpful.

Originally Posted by positivenegative

Incidentally, I didn't fail to notice the smattering of thanks dispensed by you to the perpetrators, which is obviously a sign of your approval without you needing to post. At least you didn't feel the need to resort to gutter tactics, and I still think you're an ok guy.

Honestly I only read a few of the posts. Once you, Mike, and Suzanne got into it, I skipped most of that.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10585451].message }}

Mike Anthony

8 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

Added later; Years ago, my wife was mugged by a young black man in a hoodie outside our apartment building.

She was upset, but a day or so later, it was nearly forgotten. After that, she didn't panic every time she saw a young black man, didn't panic when she saw someone wearing a hoodie, and wasn't afraid of apartment buildings.

Why should she? Thats not remarkable. No need to stereotype any of those things as any one of them would be ridiculous to be afraid of ever after. I don't even know why some people have to mention the race of person who commits a crime. I can see it as helpful to a police officer but I once was robbed and didn't even think to mention in casual accounting of the story. the color of the man. I certainly wouldn't be afraid of all guns , apartments or hoodies either - few would (unless it was very reminiscent of the crime scene)

He had a gun to her face. She doesn't panic when she sees a gun. When we share the story, she never cried, trembled, got upset, or thought of suing anyone.

I've read you say a similar thing like you don't get upset or emotional. Then there was last week where turns out it was in your DNA. At any rate I don't know why thats to be associated with anything good. Its perfectly normal to get upset and you don't have to associate it with suing people. Anxiety with its adrenaline has very legit purposes.

Suing isn't an emotional decision either. its a logical and economical one so grouping emotional responses with suing isn't logical. As for your wife not wanting to sue the hotel who gave out the room number in violation of their security policies - I wouldn't find that very logical. On one hand not suing does no good for the next person who may suffer. the way you make businesses change is by hitting the pockets On the other hand In this case this reporter is going to have some very real financial deficits so its equally illogical not to look into covering them.

There are expenses from security measures she would never have to take otherwise, places she might have chosen to live but can't now, schools she might have felt easier sending her kids to etc. Just about every thing she does for years to come has to take security into accounts where you and I don't.

Much has been made of the amount but it always was symbolic more than real. She , her lawyers and everyone else knows she would never collect from the criminal who actually took the pictures and she knew going in that the lawyers will take 40% AND as I am sure they have informed her there would be an appeal and a negotiation.

With all that being taken out of whatever she gets then of course you have to go for a higher number - simple maths with no emotion having to go into it

and emotions are good and beneficial anyway

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10585499].message }}

Kurt

8 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

You guys argue about the amount of money she got, and whether the hotel should be liable....and the suffering of the victim.

The main thing that jumped out at me was the difference between men and women, if this happened to them.

If someone was stalking me, and took the video....I'd laugh my ass off, watch the videos...use the incident in speeches (to prove some point)....and move on.

It would never occur to me to sue anybody.

If someone did this to my wife or step daughter?

It would never occur to me to go to court. The guy gets arrested, and goes to jail.

No idea how my wife would react, and I'm not going to ask.

Ten years ago, I would have just beaten him. But I'm old now...so jail.

I'm not saying that's how the victim here should react. I'm stating the differences between how some men (Meaning myself, I suppose) would react, and how women react.

If this happened to you and the video was put in the Net, we'd sue you!

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10585391].message }}

bizgrower 8 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

If this happened to you and the video was put in the Net, we'd sue you!

Can the Internet be sued?
- Thanks
Signature

"If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10585394].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by positivenegative

There you go, yet again. You just can't quit can you?

IT CONFIRMS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING! AND I DIDN'T MINIMIZE ANYTHING!

Oh, excuse me for requoting your own words.

that neither injured her or caused others harm.

You seem to make it a lifetime habit of distorting what people have said. Sure I'm going to compare it to something like someone losing limbs or being a vegetable for the rest of your life as a result of some car bombing, or terrorist action or the like. If folk like that don't get awarded anywhere even close to $55m then what on earth makes you presuppose that she's entitled to it?

There have been many huge awards for physical pain and suffering as well as huge awards for mental pain and suffering as well as huge awards for financial harm.

Landmark Case:

Anderson vs. GM (General Motors)

The Verdict:

$4.9 Billion

Trial Attorney:

Brian Panish
Practice Areas:

Auto Product Liability, Catastrophic Injury, Product Defects

CASE SYNOPSIS:

A jury ordered General Motors to pay $4.9 billion to the Anderson family for a defectively designed fuel system that caused their Chevy Malibu to burst into flames after it was rear ended on December 24, 1993. Brian Panish of Panish Shea & Boyle LLP represented the Andersons in their auto product liability suit which resulted in the largest personal injury verdict in history.

$330,682,500,001.00 in US dollars
In 2012, Agnes Collier, then 17 and studying at a college in England, was awarded $23 million pounds in compensation for injuries she sustained in a car crash during 2009. Collier’s mother was killed in the crash, and she herself sustained severe, paralyzing injuries that will require constant care for the rest of her life. As part of court arrangements, Collier will receive around $7 million pounds in an upfront payment and then around $270,000 pounds annually for the rest of her (estimated) natural life. The case is considered one of the largest personal injury payouts in English legal history.

Milly Evans
In a tragic development at the time of her birth, the heart rate of Milly Evans was not properly monitored by staff and as a result of this oversight she sustained lifelong injuries. Being unable to speak, wheelchair bound and in need of high-end care, an action was launched on Evans’ behalf alleging negligence on the part of the National Health Service (NHS). Following developments in court, the NHS agreed to pay the Evans family $5.9 million pounds immediately and further payments of $200,000 pounds, coming to a total of $10.8 million pounds ($15815250000 us dollar) to cover the scale of Evans’ injuries.

Payout for Child Abuse
In what is possibly the largest payout in the record books, a judge in Texas ordered accused child molester Don Wilburn Collins to pay $150 billion dollars in compensation to the family of Robbie Williams, a boy who Collins was alleged to have doused in gasoline and set on fire in 1998. Even though it is impossible for Collins to make the payment, it is nonetheless legally binding and Williams’ parents say they mainly wanted legal recognition of Collins’ wrongdoing. The payment awarded is said to be close in value to the entire economy of Peru, making it an exorbitant (but symbolically important) compensation order.

This is contemporary; July 2013 saw the award of a staggering $58 million to an individual, the victim of being beaten up by a bouncer, outside a bar in California. His injuries were horrific – loss of 25% of his skull, loss of speech and left in need of 24 hour medical care. The damages were against the security firm employing the bouncer. This final case reflects the human tragedy behind many of these compensation payouts. It also reflects the astronomical costs of care for disabled individuals. The award calculated $35 million for pain and suffering already endured, $11.5 for future pain and suffering and $11.5 million for future medical costs.

Record-Setting VA Verdict (year 2000) - $60 million verdict ($46 million jury verdict; $60 million with interest) for traumatic brain injury in train derailment accident

Case name: French v. Norfolk Southern

HOUSTON — A jury in Texas has awarded $150 billion in damages to the family of a man who died 12 years after he was horrifically burned on his eighth birthday in what is reportedly the largest personal injury award in U.S. history.

$145 billion judgment handed down against the tobacco companies in Florida in 2000.

Originally Posted by positivenegative

I'm fully aware of that, and I'm fed up of having to keep repeating myself telling you that my only point was that $55m WAS WAY TOO MUCH.

... and I disagree.

Originally Posted by positivenegative

I agree. But why can't you understand or even make an attempt to let what I've said sink in to your head.

There's absolutely no way anyone else would have got anything close to a $55m award for something like this. It's never happened before and it will likely never happen again. Whether she gets any, a part, or most of it is irrelevant. It's the fact it was awarded.

Sure she's suffered from depression. and anxiety. Sure she's suffered embarrassment and humiliation. But I personally don't think that's worth anywhere close to $55m.

What you think doesn't matter. It's what the jury thinks that matters. I personally would have voted for more.

Originally Posted by positivenegative

Nice vile statement from you yet again.

Yeah sure I've got family. Plenty daughters and a son.

I find the implication of your suggestion that maybe my not having female relatives is the reason I "don't understand or think like you", both presumptuous and grossly offensive.

You'll get over it sooner or later .... or not. I don't really care if you find my opinions offensive. I found your opinions offensive too, so we'll both get over it, I'm certain. You don't seem at all knowledgeable or sensitive to women, so I simply asked.

You also didn't answer what you thought about the current $100M Hulk Hogan/Gawker lawsuit for a sex tape. [tongue in cheek] I personally think he probably got a lot more dates after it was viewed and it opened up a whole new lucrative career path in the porn industry for him.

Originally Posted by positivenegative

FYI, for someone who continually turned the tap on the tears in court, made wild claims for $75m compo, and whose father said this has totally destroyed her life, she seems remarkably capable of still working in a full time job effectively and having a regular social life complete with boyfriend.

I'm happy for her that she's made progress and won the case as well.

Originally Posted by positivenegative

I'm not the first and I certainly won't be the last person to comment on the little clique that exists here.

I don't care how many people comment on it. It simply ain't so. Ask any of the alleged clique members if i agree with them completely ... like we have some little secret handshake and you will find that I agree when I agree and I disagree when I disagree. But who knows, maybe my membership packet got lost in the mail.

Originally Posted by positivenegative

What I will say to you, Suzanne, is that it takes a big person to back down and acknowledge the fact they made a mistake. You know I'm neither sexist or anti-female in any way. You also know that my views in the thread were about the obscene amount of money awarded, and nothing more. Anything else was implied and concocted up by others.

I'm not a vindictive person. Here's an olive branch to you.

People - including myself - will think better of you if you just accept the fact you got it wrong. Move on. There are far more important things in life than sweating the small stuff.

Don't hold your breath. I stated my opinion and it hasn't changed. I don't know why you think it would. You would do well to follow your own advice, but you won't either.

You don't need to extend an olive branch. I don't take these conversations seriously. I spent the day unaffected by it watching Deadwood with one of my daughters. This is nothing more than casual conversation to me and I don't think any differently about you than before. I've just seen a new side of you that I had not seen before, but in the grand scheme of things ... it makes no difference.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10585467].message }}

positivenegative

8 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10586370].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by positivenegative

You're a sad, sad person really, fully in sync with a handful of others on here. You'll spend an age wriggling and trying to twist, turn, manipulate and distort what others have said, what you've said, and the actual facts themselves. Anything but the truth.

Before you say it again we all know you "really don't care". It's your favorite saying, and one that's commonly uttered by people who've cornered themselves through being economical with the truth. In other words, liars.

More personal attacks. You really can't debate facts if others don't agree with you.

What a sad little toad you are. lol.

whilst I can be magnanimous despite being victimized

... and a comedian to boot.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10586408].message }}

positivenegative 8 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

You really can't debate facts if others don't agree with you.

Nothing to debate.

You've just completely agreed with me in the compensation case histories you posted. But we won't mention that shall we No comment to make on that, Suzanne? Thought not.

You dropped a howler of a mistake and now have to live with it. Concrete evidence that you don't know what you're talking about, but will wriggle and squirm like a worm on a fish hook to try and get away from it. Inevitably the worm loses the battle.

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

More personal attacks.

What a sad little toad you are. lol.

Pot. Kettle.

You've been found out to be not only a person who distorts facts to suit themselves, and a liar, but now also in the grossly stupid category for posting a list of genuine large compensation claims for horrific cases.

The person who's sad is YOU. Backed into a corner via your own stupidity, you still can't let it be. Your rep on here is going down the pan faster than a jalapeno chilli burger the next morning.

As I type this, people are already reading your dumb post and thinking what a Grade A fool you are. Sure to have some knock-on effects on your *ahem* sig link.
- Thanks
- 1 reply
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10586464].message }}
- sbucciarel Banned 8 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by positivenegative
  
  Sure to have some knock-on effects on your *ahem* sig link.
  
  you've chosen the wrong person to attack with your lies this time.
  
  ahem ... lol. Now you're resorting to veiled threats and personal attacks. You really have a nasty little temper when disagreed with.
  
  As for the sig ... yada yada yada. I stopped advertising here some time ago due to no ROI, as many have. The sig only remains for a little stray sale here and there. I am retired and live from investments and retirement income, as most here have already heard.
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10586526].message }}
Mike Anthony 8 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

More personal attacks. You really can't debate facts if others don't agree with you.

What a sad little toad you are. lol.

... and a comedian to boot.

He's attempting to argue past the points he can't refute to get onto something else he thinks he can CLAIM victory on.

Him asking Kay if twisting things is a female thing has him forever pegged. All the denials after that are just saving face maneuvers and a big yawn. No intelligent person can either buy his history revisions or bail him out of that one.

Sexism - plain simple and obvious.- confirming all the other points.
- [ 2 ] Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10586572].message }}
- perryny 8 years ago
  
  I'm pretty sure PN is a chick.
  
  [ 2 ] Thanks
  
  Signature
  End procrastination with this simple project time tracker.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10586594].message }}

Mike Anthony

8 years ago

Originally Posted by Princess Balestra

Ha!

I figure Me and Mikey are on a break right now.

break? Ever seen the movie or read the book "he's just not that into you?

Originally Posted by tagiscom

Obvious and proven sexist?

I remember that PN is outspoken at times, but you might have to PM me, with examples?

Well that only proves you didn't read the thread like you said you did.

Originally Posted by positivenegative

Why do you feel the need to poison the discussion and try to twist things around and make false assumptions. Is it a female thing?

IN WHAT PLANET IS THAT NOT SEXIST?

....the silly denial people play down here. Totally illogical

Originally Posted by yukon

Yet she posted on Twitter dragging herself through more depression, anxiety, embarrassment, fear, humiliation, shame ...

She has supporters on twitter so she communicates with them. Big deal zero point. She doesn't drag herself through anything more. The videos I understand are out there (refuse even out of curiosity to look) she can't hide that they are so she might as well get her story out there.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10585146].message }}

yukon

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

She has supporters on twitter so she communicates with them. Big deal zero point. She doesn't drag herself through anything more. The videos I understand are out there (refuse even out of curiosity to look) she can't hide that they are so she might as well get her story out there.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10585360].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by Kay King

ncorrect fact - hotels do not have "in house directory" that provides room number and guest name. Any hotel that did would be out of business fast.

Sometimes when you form an opinion and then learn you weren't in possession of all the facts....it's a good idea to stop pushing that opinion.

For all they knew, he was a psycho fan or a rapist or ex with a grudge.

They knew he wasn't a friend or he'd have the info.

Exactly so. No hotel publishes a guest directory. Legal or illegal isn't the point. Hotels don't give out guest info to anyone without a warrant for said information. They value their guests and they protect their privacy. They wouldn't be in business a month if they did not do so. I have tried to get that info from a hotel for a legit purpose. I forgot to get it from a relative and I could not get it from them no matter what I said. They did call the room themselves and tell them I was there.

There are many reasons for that policy. Hotel guests want privacy. It's the hotel's job to provide their customers with the services that they most want if they want to thrive. Stalkers, ex-husbands, rapists, thieves ... any number of criminals would want that info available. And those criminals who want to view and video a woman naked apparently, which is also a crime. To deliberately set him up right next to her because he requested it, was nothing less than facilitating a crime. Lucky for her, horrific as this incident was, it was not a rapist, or killer.

No one would feel safe in a hotel that published or gave out guest information to anyone that requested it.

A woman in an entertainment establishment taking her clothes off for money is a stripper. A woman who has paid for a private room in a hotel changing her clothes is not, and I agree with the sexist label to anyone who compares the two as the same. That kind of crime would rock me to my core. I would sue to bloody hell anyone who did that or facilitated it.

[ 1 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10578278].message }}

irawr

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

NOPE. There was no "in-house directory". Hotels have a security policy not to give out the room number of guests so they don't keep directories. The phone in the lobby however showed the room number when he requested connection to her . Thats not an "in house directory" listing guests...thats a security slip up. Where a phone system ends up giving out info that the hotel recognizes under other circumstances is a violation of security then the hotel is going to find themselves liable. They can appeal if they wish but its pretty obvious nothing should give out the room number.

Is that what occurred? I was busy today and didn't have time to sit around researching something that doesn't effect me.

Uh problem, I can't find a law that says a hotel must keep it's guests private. It's a policy, I don't think law mandates it.

hotels-dont-have-to-hand-over-guest-records-appeals-court-says

The converse is true, a hotel has the right to keep the list private, but they don't have to.

So in regards to the hotel, the case is frivolous in my opinion.

As far as the guy, well he's a piece of garbage and honestly after reading about this case, the title of this thread is really tasteless. 30 months isn't enough in my opinion, the guy is obviously sick and this type of stuff should be just as criminally sever as child pornography.

This thread turned into some kind of sexism war. Look, this entire case is inherently sexist. If this happened to a male and that man went to court and tried to sue for 75 million dollars, the judge would laugh the guy out of court immediately. I realize women find what this guy did to be completely outrageous and I do as well, but I hope you can understand that there's a massive double standard.

Disclaimer: I studied law, but I'm not a lawyer.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10577429].message }}

Mike Anthony

8 years ago

Originally Posted by irawr

Uh problem, I can't find a law that says a hotel must keep it's guests private. It's a policy, I don't think law mandates it.

Nope no problem. There is no law that you can't spill water in the lobby either but if you do and someone slips on it you have liability. You are under them impression that the only way you have liability is if you do something designated as illegal. Thats false

The converse is true, a hotel has the right to keep the list private, but they don't have to.

and hotels have policies about security of their clients by not giving out the list. Like it or not the polices are an admission that the security of the their guest can be compromised without the policy. Again liability is not limited to actions that are illegal

the title of this thread is really tasteless.

Of course it is and its sexist in the title and in several comments made trying to accuse the victim of being a "gold digger", claims of her faking her emotional response and a few more tasteless comments by the OP

If this happened to a male and that man went to court and tried to sue for 75 million dollars, the judge would laugh the guy out of court immediately. I realize women find what this guy did to be completely outrageous and I do as well, but I hope you can understand that there's a massive double standard.

Nope the case would not be thrown out. Judges do not laugh off the law or they will find themselves up for review and out of a job. If a woman had done this she probably would have been considered more a perv than this man was. In the end in most cases its going to be the judge and/or jury determining the amount anyway.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10577513].message }}

irawr

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Nope no problem. There is no law that you can't spill water in the lobby either but if you do and someone slips on it you have liability. You are under them impression that the only way you have liability is if you do something designated as illegal. Thats false

Really depends on who spilled the water right? I understand criminal liability exists to an extent but this is a big stretch. I'll bite, but I'm telling you, an appeals court might not agree with the decision made.

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

and hotels have policies about security of their clients by not giving out the list. Like it or not the polices are an admission that the security of the their guest can be compromised without the policy. Again liability is not limited to actions that are illegal

There's no disagreement that hotel screwed up, I just don't think the amount is justified. This case definitely stretches liability. I mean what next? The credit card company is liable because the criminal used it to get the room? Aren't the police responsible for not knowing there was a stalker in the room next to her? Isn't who ever hosted the movie online contributing as well? Isn't the maker of the camera liable for not clearly stating that their product was not to be used for illegal purposes? The hotel provides a service, the goon used it in a way that was unintended, I mean how the hell were they suppose to know? There's no guidance from law either. So... This case stretches liability to a point that's extremely thin.

If you agree with the decision then I hope you agree that cola companies and fast food restaurants should get decimated by class action lawsuits for not preventing the consumption of their products and routinely employing strategies to manipulate the FDA, while millions of people incur REAL DAMAGES to their health which have massive financial consequences to themselves and society.

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Of course it is and its sexist in the title and in several comments made trying to accuse the victim of being a "gold digger", claims of her faking her emotional response and a few more tasteless comments by the OP

I don't think it's going to work out anyways so. The guy has no money, at least not money like that, and I think the hotel will fight this tooth and nail.

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Nope the case would not be thrown out. Judges do not laugh off the law or they will find themselves up for review and out of a job. If a woman had done this she probably would have been considered more a perv than this man was. In the end in most cases its going to be the judge and/or jury determining the amount anyway.

I think we both agree it's suppose to work that way.

it appears as if the criminal justice system actually treats women more leniently than men

http://users.clas.ufl.edu/lhasel/Spr...AltAssign8.pdf

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10577547].message }}

Mike Anthony

8 years ago

Originally Posted by irawr

Really depends on who spilled the water right? I understand criminal liability exists to an extent but this is a big stretch.

Nope on both counts - anyone could spill the water and if the establishment doesn't clean it up in a timely manner and make sure none of the patrons slide in it then its their liability. Thats why in grocery stores they are awfully fast to either mop it up or put a marker down.

There's no disagreement that hotel screwed up, I just don't think the amount is justified. This case definitely stretches liability. I mean what next? The credit card company is liable because the criminal used it to get the room?

Nope no stretch whatsoever. if a credit card company revealed where she was to someone then they would be liable as well. Your examples and comparisons just don't match

The guy has no money, at least not money like that, and I think the hotel will fight this tooth and nail.

nah they'll appeal just so they can settle. No matter how you complain and claim otherwise the common protocol for hotels is not to give out room numbers. They goofed. They had a system that displayed and therefore gave out the room number from the lobby. the appeal will be to set up negotiations to settle for a lower amount. I severely doubt they want to go back to trial again.

If you agree with the decision then I hope you agree that cola companies and fast food restaurants should get decimated by class action lawsuits for not preventing the consumption of their products

That makes no sense whatsoever on any level. You are trying to compare someone agreeing to buy a product with a company facilitating information that allows someone to be victimized. Plus Cola companies and Fast food restaurants don't tell you to eat their food everyday don't work out and eat no fruits and vegetables.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10577716].message }}

irawr

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Nope on both counts - anyone could spill the water and if the establishment doesn't clean it up in a timely manner and make sure none of the patrons slide in it then its their liability. Thats why in grocery stores they are awfully fast to either mop it up or put a marker down.

Uh kinda, there's a case sorry, I tried Googling it but it won't work since I can't remember their names.

If you spill water on a property owner's establishment and somebody else slips on it and falls, you are responsible, not the property owner, unless it can be proven the property owner was negligent. This makes sense and somewhat meshes with your response. It generally makes sense as well. If you spill ketchup all over the place, inform a clerk that it occurred, they respond with "Yeah I don't care" and do nothing, then somebody slips and falls, well hey yeah, the property owner should be responsible there. If you spill water, report the issue to representatives and they are responding in a timely manner to the problem, but somebody slips and falls on it, that's still your problem.

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Nope no stretch whatsoever. if a credit card company revealed where she was to someone then they would be liable as well. Your examples and comparisons just don't match

I went crazy with it, but where does it end?

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

nah they'll appeal just so they can settle. No matter how you complain and claim otherwise the common protocol for hotels is not to give out room numbers. They goofed. They had a system that displayed and therefore gave out the room number from the lobby. the appeal will be to set up negotiations to settle for a lower amount. I severely doubt they want to go back to trial again.

I previously stated that they screwed up and I'm not so sure they'll settle. A massive organization against an individual? Are you sure they'll settle? I wouldn't. Let's be realistic, this person is a peon compared to that company.

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

That makes no sense whatsoever on any level. You are trying to compare someone agreeing to buy a product with a company facilitating information that allows someone to be victimized. Plus Cola companies and Fast food restaurants don't tell you to eat their food everyday don't work out and eat no fruits and vegetables.

But they have manipulated the FDA to keep the recommended amount of sugar off dietary labels. Many doctors consider sugar to be a poison and contributing to disease and ultimately, the death of millions of people. The innocent victims consume the product in unhealthy amounts because they are ignorant to the health risks. The victim in this case was ignorant to the fact that this hotel could erroneously provide their room number to strangers, which they are not required to keep secret. Sorry. It's not that much different. If the hotel is responsible in this case, then so is McDonalds and CocaCola.

Which of coarse, the hotel did not contribute to the action actively taken by another person, they will counter sue and win.

I do not have details of the case, but it's very possible the arguments by the hotel were considered invalid by the judge and if they had no other defense then they basically lost by default.

BUT. If in 2 to 10 years, when the counter-suit is resolved, I WILL RETURN TO THIS THREAD. To either accept defeat or to say "I told you so." Assuming this thread isn't deleted, I'm not banned, WF is still around, I can get through the flood of spam, I still remember my account password, I still have internet, the zombie apocalypse has not occurred, I'm still alive, I just forgot, or nothing else that is reasonable prevents me from posting.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10577766].message }}

Mike Anthony

8 years ago

Originally Posted by irawr

Uh kinda, there's a case sorry, I tried Googling it but it won't work since I can't remember their names.

If you spill water on a property owner's establishment and somebody else slips on it and falls, you are responsible, not the property owner, unless it can be proven the property owner was negligent.

Pretty much what I stated. Bottom line - It is easily proven that its hotel industry standard to not reveal guest's room numbers so the liability is obvious. No stretch of anything. Furthermore companies no matter how large do settlements with individuals all the time.

Officially bored.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10578419].message }}

irawr

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Officially bored.

Yeah I have things to do today. We will see! They also might want to settle so they can NDA. I always felt that was the main reason to settle, they can come up with their own terms.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10578710].message }}

bizgrower

8 years ago

Originally Posted by irawr

Yeah I have things to do today. We will see! They also might want to settle so they can NDA. I always felt that was the main reason to settle, they can come up with their own terms.

Settlements/attempted settlements are also usually private so guilt or innocence or liability gets left alone
so the press can't drag things on, and so judges and juries don't get predisposed ideas if it goes back to trial.

Thanks

Signature

"If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10578736].message }}

discrat 8 years ago

To the OP, did you honestly think you were going to Post what you Posted and NOT get the flack your getting ?

Come on now ! You have been here long enough to know better , geesh

Anyway, I think Cali and some others touched upon this. And that is this poor woman and her unknowingly nude video will be on the Internet for an Eternity.

Forever !!

There is no taking it down. Even if they tried ,there are people that through "Mirror" Sites will put it right back up.

Think about that !!
And think about the Gravity of that for a second if that was YOU.... i.e. your children ,friends, family, neighbors,
co workers, grandparents, stalkers. sex perverts, grandchildren. etc..etc.. all to see for the rest of your Life !!
- [ 2 ] Thanks
Signature

Nothing to see here including a Sig so just move on :)
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10577514].message }}

bizgrower

8 years ago

It was not "stripping for a minute" as OP chose to use for a thread title. It was not stripping at all.

With respect to hotel liability for slip-and-fall type of cases, if it happens inside a room there
is probably no liability because we don't know what the guest did to get injured, and would
only know about a spill if they called us. If it happens outside the rooms, then we might be
liable.

Celebrity or not, we are going to do our best to protect a guest from a stalker or gawker.
I trust my "spidey senses" more and more these days, so it does raise a red or yellow
flag if a person asks for a specific room number and I don't know them as a regular guest
who likes that room. I have a Yelp review where the guy says I'm the rudest man he's met
in 65 years. Well, he asked for a room for Scott (or whatever his first name) when the
reservation was under his wife's name. We try to only let the authorized people into a room.

Liability of the type in the Andrews case might come from guest's expectations of privacy
because they are paying for temporary leasing of a room for the dates of their reservation.
Also, what kind of messages does the hotel have in or on their facilities about safety
and protecting privacy, and in their marketing and advertising? Was there a training
deficiency that caused them to place the stalker near her, or in the hotel at all? (Seems
so to me.) Is the directory flaw a liability? (Seems so to me.)

It also seems to me that it's such a common industry practice for hotels to not give
room information out that doing otherwise would be a liability issue. If a guy wanted
room information about a woman he's seen around my hotel, he's not going to get it
from us, and she's going to be discretely advised.

At my hotel, people can dial a one digit number and then the room number to call
the guest staying in that room. We don't tell the first time callers to that guest that
it works that way. We transfer the call from the switch board, or take a message
when we are on the cordless.

I've heard that long ago, Motel 6 got sued and lost for the "we'll leave a light on for you" thing.
One of their motels did not have the lighting in order and someone got assaulted in the dark
parking lot. They stopped using that phrase for a long time.

[ 2 ] Thanks

Signature

"If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10577837].message }}

bizgrower

8 years ago

Good report in the Sports Illustrated article posted below.

They say a hotel employee was duped into confirming where Andrews was and placing
the creep in the room next to her. They also cover why the hotel is liable and that the
jury may not have liked the insensitivity of the hotel's legal tactics. The creep is 51%
liable, and the hotel owners 49%, so 28 mil and 27 mil, respectively (with some legal
exceptions still possible).

From the article:
"Andrews, who has spent significant time and money in trying to remove the videos from the Internet, originally sued Marriott International as well. In January 2016, however, Marriott International was dismissed from the lawsuit by establishing that it was not legally responsible. The operators of the Nashville Marriott, in contrast, were deemed negligent—behaving in an unreasonable way—in how they protected Andrews’s privacy. Keep in mind, under an area of law known as hotel premises liability, hotels and inns are expected to make reasonable efforts in guaranteeing the privacy of guests. Here, the operators of the Nashville Marriott failed to do so."

Will Erin Andrews be paid the $55M she was awarded in lawsuit? | SI.com

Also here is a good outline of the impact upon her and her Dad:

http://thinkprogress.org/sports/2016...ws-55-million/

"Andrews broke down repeatedly during the trial discussing how the shame of the incident still follows her around seven years later.

‘‘This happens every day of my life,’’ she said. ‘‘Either I get a tweet or somebody makes a comment in the paper or somebody sends me a still video to my Twitter or someone screams it at me in the stands and I’m right back to this. I feel so embarrassed and I am so ashamed.’’

Her father also took the stand and talked about how much his daughter has changed since the video was released online.

“She’s terrified. She’s depressed. She cries. She’s full of anxiety. She’s a very, very changed person. She’s not the girl that we used to know at all,” he said.

So while yes, there are plenty of people suffering all over the world, this jury was presented with a woman who has experienced very real emotional and mental distress by no fault of her own. So often pain and suffering is measured by visible scars, and it’s significant for victims everywhere that jurors found Andrews’ unseen scars worth compensating.

But as another writer at Barstool Sports noted, it’s crucial to remember that this was not a “win” for Andrews. “I bet Erin Andrews would trade the settlement she got yesterday to undo the feelings she felt during this whole process,” he wrote.

The point is, Andrews never asked for any of this. She was travelling for her job — a job that she was already incredibly successful at — and was violated by a criminal whose acts were made possible because of the negligence by a hotel that she was paying to stay in.

She has to deal with the consequences of those acts every day of her life. The video is still on the internet. People are still watching. She is still being blamed for what happened, and it’s likely that no matter what she achieves in her career, she always will be. She’s depressed. She’s anxious. She doesn’t feel safe anymore. And the ramifications are felt by women across the sports industry.

She took this case to civil court because she wanted to hold those responsible for safety and privacy accountable, so that other women don’t have to go through what she has.

When you look at it that way, $55 million doesn’t seem like nearly enough."

[ 4 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

"If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10578457].message }}

positivenegative

8 years ago

Originally Posted by Cali16

So, from your perspective, there is no such thing as emotional trauma, and the only "real" injuries a person can suffer are physical.

Point out to me exactly where I said there's no such thing as emotional trauma. YOU CAN'T.

Point out to me exactly where I said the only real injuries a person can suffer are physical. YOU CAN'T.

Why do you feel it necessary - like some others - to jump on the bandwagon and attack someone with lies?

I gave an example article where the author states something like this can't be compared to loss of life or horrendous disabilities.I've always acknowledged she was entitled to receive damages - just not $53m worth of damages.

Originally Posted by Cali16

Clearly everyone who's ever experienced something traumatic that triggered depression, severe anxiety, suicidal thoughts or behavior, substance abuse, PTSD, or paranoia are just over-reacting... at least in your world...

Good to know.

Where did I say that? Again you're lying.

I give a single opinion on someone who tried to claim $75m for an incident that occurred. Suddenly, you think that gives you the right to say that represents my view on everything you've quoted above. Pretty sad, Cali. I didn't think you were like that.

Originally Posted by Cali16

That's the lamest excuse ever for why most people here aren't supporting your position in this thread. C'mon, PN, you're smarter than that.

Yes, I am smarter than that. A lot smarter than you'll ever know.

I've made no excuses. I've not asked for people to support me on the thread. Why do you have to keep making assumptions for someone else's behavior and actions, without any proof.

I expressed an opinion that I thought $53m in damages is ridiculous.

I expressed an opinion that I thought she was trying to "bleed" it for as much as she could.

Those were my opinions. I never asked anyone to agree with me.

Originally Posted by discrat

NO shred of evidence that she was in fact faking it.

And there's no shred of evidence she wasn't.

Originally Posted by discrat

This is not only insensitive but sexist !

Point out to me exactly where I was sexist towards this woman. You're another that likes to make things up.

Originally Posted by discrat

As I said earlier, this could be a hugely traumatic event for any human being. Having your bare a$$ and genitals on the Net and having that thrown in your face from now til the moment you die. And even after that, your grandchildren's grandchildren may even see it

I'd take that chance for $53m.

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Hotels don't give out guest info to anyone without a warrant for said information. They value their guests and they protect their privacy.

To deliberately set him up right next to her because he requested it, was nothing less than facilitating a crime.

No one would feel safe in a hotel that published or gave out guest information to anyone that requested it.

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

its hotel industry standard to not reveal guest's room numbers

I don't know exactly what part of this you two don't understand. It's been explained several times but still you persist with the idea that the hotel gave out her information.

There are many reports online, and also one from an interview the stalker gave that he either got the information from a hotel registry, or was told the room she was staying in by an employee. Whichever, the fact is he did not just walk up to reception and ask which room she was in and if he could have the adjacent one.

The guy asked for a specific room number after finding out which room she was staying in. The hotel would have thought nothing unusual about that as many guests repeatedly stay in the same room (where available) on subsequent visits. They are not going to inform her as obviously she's hardly Madonna or Oprah Winfrey, just a reporter.

As for motormouth Mike Anthony repeatedly saying they are still liable, all I have to say is there was another thread on here a few weeks ago discussing employers liability. Something to do with a shooting I think. Whatever, the fact remains that NO employer can know exactly what his employees could do at any time. You can't allow for human nature. Yes, the hotel are still liable, but $53m, c'mon. Do you really think in your wildest dreams a member of your family would get paid that sum for something similar?

My single and only point was that I felt $53m was grossly OTT. For some unknown reason, the pack mentality comes out on here and I'm savaged for things I never said and opinions I never had. Pretty sad bunch.

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

A woman in an entertainment establishment taking her clothes off for money is a stripper. A woman who has paid for a private room in a hotel changing her clothes is not, and I agree with the sexist label to anyone who compares the two as the same.

Well I never knew that

Here you go again, completely making things up.

My thread header was meant tongue-in-cheek (we are in the OTF aren't we?) to imply that you can earn $50m for stripping your clothes off (undressing), and not as a professional stripper as you're trying to imply. Why do you feel the need to constantly interpret my thoughts, actions and beliefs to comply with your mental assessment of me?

Originally Posted by bizgrower

They say a hotel employee was duped into confirming where Andrews was.

That's what I keep repeatedly telling these goons. They just won't have it.

Originally Posted by bizgrower

When you look at it that way, $55 million doesn’t seem like nearly enough."

A country or worldwide poll would soon show you how many people think that's MORE THAN enough.

It's just pure greed. You have to remember that Andrews and her lawyer repeatedly increased their demands from an initial $10m to $75m.

I've never said she wasn't entitled to claim, but the goon squad on here don't care about facts.

[ 1 ] Thanks
4 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10578672].message }}

Dan Riffle

8 years ago

Originally Posted by positivenegative

I don't know exactly what part of this you two don't understand. It's been explained several times but still you persist with the idea that the hotel gave out her information.

There are many reports online, and also one from an interview the stalker gave that he either got the information from a hotel registry, or was told the room she was staying in by an employee. Whichever, the fact is he did not just walk up to reception and ask which room she was in and if he could have the adjacent one.

The guy asked for a specific room number after finding out which room she was staying in. The hotel would have thought nothing unusual about that as many guests repeatedly stay in the same room (where available) on subsequent visits. They are not going to inform her as obviously she's hardly Madonna or Oprah Winfrey, just a reporter.

That's what I keep repeatedly telling these goons. They just won't have it.

I've never said she wasn't entitled to claim, but the goon squad on here don't care about facts.

PN, the stalker got the room number from the hotel. Whether it was from a poorly constructed hotel directory/registry that openly gave customer information to the public or directly from a hotel employee, the hotel is still liable for the breach of privacy.

The $55M award is high, but it's meant to be punitive. It's to set an example, not to specifically reward the victim. On top of that, she'll never see the vast majority of it, thus it's mostly a warning shot.

[ 3 ] Thanks

Signature

Raising a child is akin to knowing you're getting fired in 18 years and having to train your replacement without actively sabotaging them.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10578699].message }}

bizgrower

8 years ago

Originally Posted by positivenegative

Point out to me exactly where I said there's no such thing as emotional trauma. YOU CAN'T.

Point out to me exactly where I said the only real injuries a person can suffer are physical. YOU CAN'T.

Why do you feel it necessary - like some others - to jump on the bandwagon and attack someone with lies?

I gave an example article where the author states something like this can't be compared to loss of life or horrendous disabilities.I've always acknowledged she was entitled to receive damages - just not $53m worth of damages.

Where did I say that? Again you're lying.

I give a single opinion on someone who tried to claim $75m for an incident that occurred. Suddenly, you think that gives you the right to say that represents my view on everything you've quoted above. Pretty sad, Cali. I didn't think you were like that.

Yes, I am smarter than that. A lot smarter than you'll ever know.

I've made no excuses. I've not asked for people to support me on the thread. Why do you have to keep making assumptions for someone else's behavior and actions, without any proof.

I expressed an opinion that I thought $53m in damages is ridiculous.

I expressed an opinion that I thought she was trying to "bleed" it for as much as she could.

Those were my opinions. I never asked anyone to agree with me.

And there's no shred of evidence she wasn't.

Point out to me exactly where I was sexist towards this woman. You're another that likes to make things up.

I'd take that chance for $53m.

I don't know exactly what part of this you two don't understand. It's been explained several times but still you persist with the idea that the hotel gave out her information.

There are many reports online, and also one from an interview the stalker gave that he either got the information from a hotel registry, or was told the room she was staying in by an employee. Whichever, the fact is he did not just walk up to reception and ask which room she was in and if he could have the adjacent one.

The guy asked for a specific room number after finding out which room she was staying in. The hotel would have thought nothing unusual about that as many guests repeatedly stay in the same room (where available) on subsequent visits. They are not going to inform her as obviously she's hardly Madonna or Oprah Winfrey, just a reporter.

As for motormouth Mike Anthony repeatedly saying they are still liable, all I have to say is there was another thread on here a few weeks ago discussing employers liability. Something to do with a shooting I think. Whatever, the fact remains that NO employer can know exactly what his employees could do at any time. You can't allow for human nature. Yes, the hotel are still liable, but $53m, c'mon. Do you really think in your wildest dreams a member of your family would get paid that sum for something similar?

My single and only point was that I felt $53m was grossly OTT. For some unknown reason, the pack mentality comes out on here and I'm savaged for things I never said and opinions I never had. Pretty sad bunch.

Well I never knew that

Here you go again, completely making things up.

My thread header was meant tongue-in-cheek (we are in the OTF aren't we?) to imply that you can earn $50m for stripping your clothes off (undressing), and not as a professional stripper as you're trying to imply. Why do you feel the need to constantly interpret my thoughts, actions and beliefs to comply with your mental assessment of me?

That's what I keep repeatedly telling these goons. They just won't have it.

A country or worldwide poll would soon show you how many people think that's MORE THAN enough.

It's just pure greed. You have to remember that Andrews and her lawyer repeatedly increased their demands from an initial $10m to $75m.

I've never said she wasn't entitled to claim, but the goon squad on here don't care about facts.

If an employee was duped, it goes back to the training and supervision of that employee and the hotel is still liable. Hotels are not supposed to give out guest information without permission. Period.

I don't care if somebody is the father of a guest, I am going to message the guest before I let him contact her directly. He could be an abusive father...

-------------------------

Even if a lot of people think the award is excessive, you're missing the point the author was making.

Thanks

Signature

"If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10578790].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by positivenegative

Point out to me exactly where I said there's no such thing as emotional trauma. YOU CAN'T.

Point out to me exactly where I said the only real injuries a person can suffer are physical. YOU CAN'T.

Why do you feel it necessary - like some others - to jump on the bandwagon and attack someone with lies?

I gave an example article where the author states something like this can't be compared to loss of life or horrendous disabilities.I've always acknowledged she was entitled to receive damages - just not $53m worth of damages.

Where did I say that? Again you're lying.

I give a single opinion on someone who tried to claim $75m for an incident that occurred. Suddenly, you think that gives you the right to say that represents my view on everything you've quoted above. Pretty sad, Cali. I didn't think you were like that.

Yes, I am smarter than that. A lot smarter than you'll ever know.

I've made no excuses. I've not asked for people to support me on the thread. Why do you have to keep making assumptions for someone else's behavior and actions, without any proof.

I expressed an opinion that I thought $53m in damages is ridiculous.

I expressed an opinion that I thought she was trying to "bleed" it for as much as she could.

Those were my opinions. I never asked anyone to agree with me.

And there's no shred of evidence she wasn't.

Point out to me exactly where I was sexist towards this woman. You're another that likes to make things up.

I'd take that chance for $53m.

I don't know exactly what part of this you two don't understand. It's been explained several times but still you persist with the idea that the hotel gave out her information.

There are many reports online, and also one from an interview the stalker gave that he either got the information from a hotel registry, or was told the room she was staying in by an employee. Whichever, the fact is he did not just walk up to reception and ask which room she was in and if he could have the adjacent one.

The guy asked for a specific room number after finding out which room she was staying in. The hotel would have thought nothing unusual about that as many guests repeatedly stay in the same room (where available) on subsequent visits. They are not going to inform her as obviously she's hardly Madonna or Oprah Winfrey, just a reporter.

As for motormouth Mike Anthony repeatedly saying they are still liable, all I have to say is there was another thread on here a few weeks ago discussing employers liability. Something to do with a shooting I think. Whatever, the fact remains that NO employer can know exactly what his employees could do at any time. You can't allow for human nature. Yes, the hotel are still liable, but $53m, c'mon. Do you really think in your wildest dreams a member of your family would get paid that sum for something similar?

My single and only point was that I felt $53m was grossly OTT. For some unknown reason, the pack mentality comes out on here and I'm savaged for things I never said and opinions I never had. Pretty sad bunch.

Well I never knew that

Here you go again, completely making things up.

My thread header was meant tongue-in-cheek (we are in the OTF aren't we?) to imply that you can earn $50m for stripping your clothes off (undressing), and not as a professional stripper as you're trying to imply. Why do you feel the need to constantly interpret my thoughts, actions and beliefs to comply with your mental assessment of me?

That's what I keep repeatedly telling these goons. They just won't have it.

A country or worldwide poll would soon show you how many people think that's MORE THAN enough.

It's just pure greed. You have to remember that Andrews and her lawyer repeatedly increased their demands from an initial $10m to $75m.

I've never said she wasn't entitled to claim, but the goon squad on here don't care about facts.

I'm not going to bother responding to this thread any longer. You obviously can't take it when people don't drink your Kool Aid and agree with you.

You started out immediately attacking both me and Kay for simply airing our point of view. I completely disregard your point of view and the jury agrees with me. You said something like you are usually so reasonable ... as if I'm not now because I disagree with you. You said about Kay ... you were one of the good ones ... as if she's now one of the bad ones because she simply disagrees with you. Fuc*ing get over it. We disagree with you. Completely and you got our honest take on the situation whether you fuc*ing like it or not.

This is getting really tedious. People start threads, other disagree with. Op then plays the victim and accuses those that disagree with attacking them. Yada yada yada.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10578840].message }}

discrat

8 years ago

I think the OP has reacted in a way that I think I have done as well in the past when I was younger so here is what I think is the process of how he MIGHT see it : Iam starting a Thread and it is a "slam dunk" observation about this woman and her lawsuit. No disputing it and I think everyone will agree with it ....
Wait, what's this ?? How dare you disagree with my "slam dunk" observation. My Ego is hurt so you must be attacking me and ganging up on me !!

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Nothing to see here including a Sig so just move on :)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10578863].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by discrat

I think the OP has reacted in a way that I think I have done as well in the past when I was younger so here is what I think is the process of how he MIGHT see it : Iam starting a Thread and it is a "slam dunk" observation about this woman and her lawsuit. No disputing it and I think everyone will agree with it ....
Wait, what's this ?? How dare you disagree with my "slam dunk" observation. My Ego is hurt so you must be attacking me and ganging up on me !!

You're probably right ... but by now everyone in OT should realize that there ain't no such animal as a slam dunk. Have you ever seen a thread that everyone agreed on the topic? Not me.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10578867].message }}

Dan Riffle

8 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Have you ever seen a thread that everyone agreed on the topic? Not me.

I have. ...

[ 3 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Raising a child is akin to knowing you're getting fired in 18 years and having to train your replacement without actively sabotaging them.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10578881].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by Dan Riffle

I have. ...

Seriously? What was it about? lol.

"I like sex" (consensual, that is)

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10578883].message }}

Princess Balestra 8 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Seriously? What was it about? lol.

"I like sex" (consensual, that is)

Ha!

I foresee a wildly indulgent mutual thank off.
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

Lightin' fuses is for blowin' stuff togethah.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10578917].message }}
- sbucciarel Banned 8 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Princess Balestra
  
  Ha!
  
  I foresee a wildly indulgent mutual thank off.
  
  Ok ... just found one that so far everyone agrees on that penguins are adorable. lol. Ok ... so I guess there are some cutesy, animaly, and basically inspirational stuff that people agree on ... usually. Who knows, the penguin one may go south yet.
  
  http://www.warriorforum.com/off-topi...l#post10578344
  
  Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10578968].message }}

Dan Riffle

8 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Seriously? What was it about? lol.

"I like sex" (consensual, that is)

I was just being contradictory.

By the way, I don't like sex.

(I love it.)

[ 3 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Raising a child is akin to knowing you're getting fired in 18 years and having to train your replacement without actively sabotaging them.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10578974].message }}

Princess Balestra

8 years ago

Originally Posted by Dan Riffle

(I love it.)

I figure we are gonna split hairs over the verbs here.

Like vs Love.

Need vs Want.

Am vs Exude.

Adore vs Invented.

Perform vs Hiccup.

Aaand so on...

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Lightin' fuses is for blowin' stuff togethah.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10579010].message }}

bizgrower

8 years ago

Originally Posted by Princess Balestra

I figure we are gonna split hairs over the verbs here.

Like vs Love.

Need vs Want.

Am vs Exude.

Adore vs Invented.

Perform vs Hiccup.

Aaand so on...

No, we're not.

Thanks

Signature

"If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10579018].message }}

Claude Whitacre 8 years ago

Originally Posted by Dan Riffle

I was just being contradictory.

By the way, I don't like sex.

(I love it.)

Dan Riffle loves what he calls sex.
- Thanks
Signature
One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10579048].message }}

positivenegative

8 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

I'm not going to bother responding to this thread any longer. You obviously can't take it when people don't drink your Kool Aid and agree with you.

Well why do you keep responding then?

I bring up the fact that you're just accusing me of doing certain things, and basically telling outright lies. You come back with nothing more than a dismissive block of text that offers neither proof nor apology. Get real. Plenty people will read this and see right through you.

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

You started out immediately attacking both me and Kay for simply airing our point of view. I completely disregard your point of view and the jury agrees with me. You said something like you are usually so reasonable ... as if I'm not now because I disagree with you. You said about Kay ... you were one of the good ones ... as if she's now one of the bad ones because she simply disagrees with you. Fuc*ing get over it. We disagree with you. Completely and you got our honest take on the situation whether you fuc*ing like it or not.

What I said was that you both lied about my comments, and both seem to have deluded yourselves as to knowing both my thoughts and views on everything

I don't give a damn who disagrees with my point of view. For the umpteenth time, and please try to drive it into your head now, I started the thread to point out what I believe is a gross sum of money awarded. I asked no-one to agree with me but you and your tribe of goons decided to attack me with outright lies as to what I'd said.

I genuinely did think you and Kay were better people than you've portrayed yourselves here. Seems your nothing but someone who resorts to expletives when you can't get out of the corner you've backed yourself into.

Put up or shut up. If you're going to accuse me of stuff then lets see the hard evidence. There won't be any coming because I've neither thought, said or done any of the crap you've accused me of.

I expect you'll be back with another nonsense, expletive ridden and dismissive reply. It's all you're capable of.

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

This is getting really tedious. People start threads, other disagree with. Op then plays the victim and accuses those that disagree with attacking them. Yada yada yada.

If it's tedious then move on instead of trying to ram your lies down other people's throats on here.

I'll tell you yet another time.... I never asked anyone to agree with me. I posted a viewpoint on a sum of money awarded, full stop. It's yours and the other bunch of accusations and lies about what I did or didn't say and mean that riles me.

Originally Posted by discrat

I think the OP has reacted in a way that I think I have done as well in the past when I was younger so here is what I think is the process of how he MIGHT see it : Iam starting a Thread and it is a "slam dunk" observation about this woman and her lawsuit. No disputing it and I think everyone will agree with it ....
Wait, what's this ?? How dare you disagree with my "slam dunk" observation. My Ego is hurt so you must be attacking me and ganging up on me !!

Once again you post a load of crap. Another mind-reader who observes through dark glasses, comments without engaging the brain, and feels smug and self-satisfied at being part of the herd mentality.

If you were half a man you'd read the thread again and realize that all these observations you seem to have about me are wrong, but there again I guess this forum is all you've got and you don't want to rock the boat with your little circle of friends that you've tried oh so hard to ingratiate yourself with.

Thanks
3 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10579215].message }}

Claude Whitacre

8 years ago

Originally Posted by positivenegative

If you were half a man you'd read the thread again

If Robert was half a man, he'd be Dan Riffle.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10579218].message }}

Kurt

8 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

If Robert was half a man, he'd be Dan Riffle.

If you were half a man, you'd be twice the man you are now.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10579225].message }}

Claude Whitacre

8 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

If you were half a man, you'd be twice the man you are now.

First, Masterfully done.

Second, why are you wasting your time answering Dan Riffle insults?

By allowing Riffle to share credit for the comeback, you are sharing Mojo...which makes you half the man I am...which makes you an eighth of a man.

The law of geometric quantum assessments.

And have you ever met Riffle? He's three feet tall, and covered in hair. He's the second most popular Cousin It impersonator alive (or so his business card says).

I go to lunch with him, because children eat for free.

If idiots ate for free, you could join us.

Yes, I feel very very good about this post.

Thanks
3 replies

Signature

One Call Closing book https://www.amazon.com/One-Call-Clos...=1527788418&sr

What if they're not stars? What if they are holes poked in the top of a container so we can breath?

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10579302].message }}

Dan Riffle 8 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

I go to lunch with him, because children eat for free.

And this, folks, is why I always pay.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature

Raising a child is akin to knowing you're getting fired in 18 years and having to train your replacement without actively sabotaging them.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10579306].message }}
positivenegative 8 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

If idiots ate for free, you could join us.

Claude, kindly supply us with your waist measurement. Corpus delicti will not be denied if you've taken advantage in this way.
- Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10579307].message }}

Kurt

8 years ago

Originally Posted by Claude Whitacre

First, Masterfully done.

Second, why are you wasting your time answering Dan Riffle insults?

By allowing Riffle to share credit for the comeback, you are sharing Mojo...which makes you half the man I am...which makes you an eighth of a man.

The law of geometric quantum assessments.

And have you ever met Riffle? He's three feet tall, and covered in hair. He's the second most popular Cousin It impersonator alive (or so his business card says).

I go to lunch with him, because children eat for free.

If idiots ate for free, you could join us.

Yes, I feel very very good about this post.

Be careful...we don't want too many Claude jokes interrupting the flame wars.

[ 4 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Discover the fastest and easiest ways to create your own valuable products.
Tons of FREE Public Domain content you can use to make your own content, PLR, digital and POD products.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10579315].message }}

TimPhelan 8 years ago

Originally Posted by Kurt

Be careful...we don't want too many Claude jokes interrupting the flame wars.

It's a fine line to walk for sure but mixed just right it's like a fine wine. Lol. All we need now is for someone to say they will never post here again and maybe some vulgarity to boot.
- Thanks
Signature
Over 50 Dating
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10579617].message }}

discrat

8 years ago

Originally Posted by positivenegative

If you were half a man you'd read the thread again and realize that all these observations you seem to have about me are wrong, but there again I guess this forum is all you've got and you don't want to rock the boat with your little circle of friends that you've tried oh so hard to ingratiate yourself with.

Nope, just making an observation about something that has probably happened to about 99% of us here.

But your taking things way too personally and getting bent out of shape claiming that people are ganging up on you and claiming people are saying lies about you.

Which is unequivocally NOT true.

On top of that you have continuously been ridiculing everyone here just because they are disagreeing with you and calling them names..

Obviously, you are very thin skinned. And cannot take the heat.

Haven't you ever hung out in a bar with friends and acquaintances? People get drunk. people have fun, and sometimes may get a little loose

But it's for kicks, and this is a Bar down here. Proceed on to somewhere else if you can't take it

Believe me I can empathize with you as I have gotten my head handed to me many times down here in the past . Just ask Kay, Claude,Sbucurrial, Dennis, Riffle, Big Frank and a number of others who have ripped me to shreds in the past LOL But it is just WWF Pro Wrestling down here. Nothing real or at least important enough to get all torn up about :>)

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Nothing to see here including a Sig so just move on :)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10579326].message }}

positivenegative

8 years ago

Originally Posted by discrat

Nope, just making an observation about something that has probably happened to about 99% of us here.

But your taking things way too personally and getting bent out of shape claiming that people are ganging up on you are claiming people are saying lies about you.

Which is unequivocally NOT true.

On top of that you have continuously been ridiculing everyone here just because they are disagreeing with you.

Obviously, you are very thin skinned. And cannot take the heat.

Silly man. It's been explained in detail to you yet you're still deluded and blind. Go back in your hutch.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10579329].message }}

Mike Anthony

8 years ago

Originally Posted by positivenegative

Put up or shut up. If you're going to accuse me of stuff then lets see the hard evidence. There won't be any coming because I've neither thought, said or done any of the crap you've accused me of.

Naaaaaah, Won't work. You dug your own hole with your own words. Lets review for the court

Originally Posted by positivenegative

Earn $55 million for stripping

That was just the beginning of the sexism - Exhibit A if you will. I don't think with all the back and forth people even realize how much nonsense was added to that.

Exhibit B - Claiming the victim of a sexual crime was just overreacting and acting

Originally Posted by positivenegative

helped by her ability to turn on the waterworks (tears) on demand in court.

Exhibit C - Invoking money grubbing stereotypes of women suing for sexual crimes and belittling the victim

Originally Posted by positivenegative

So, she's either a gold-digger or mad. Either way, she has a way over the top inflated perception of her importance.

Exhibit D - Implying net gain and benefit from sexual victimization (almost like we should count the benefits of being violated)

Originally Posted by positivenegative

she's made more money (in addition to this case) and had more success since this happened than she would ever have believed.

Exhibit E - ascribing alleged evil beahviour on gender

Originally Posted by positivenegative

Why do you feel the need to poison the discussion and try to twist things around and make false assumptions. Is it a female thing?

Cough cough...not sexist at all there eh?

The prosecution rests. The judge has heard enough and the jury is rolling with giggles at how fast the deliberations will be.

OP dug his own hole and you can't back pedal in a ditch. No room to moonwalk.

[ 4 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10579747].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Naaaaaah, Won't work. You dug your own hole with your own words. Lets review for the court

I don't think with all the back and forth people even realize how much nonsense was added to that.

I did so thanks for going back and doing what I was too lazy to do and finding the rest of the truly sexist remarks made by the OP in this thread, apart from just the title.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10580290].message }}

Cali16

8 years ago

Originally Posted by positivenegative

Point out to me exactly where I said there's no such thing as emotional trauma. YOU CAN'T.

Point out to me exactly where I said the only real injuries a person can suffer are physical. YOU CAN'T.

You said (see the quote below) that she wasn't "injured". That clearly implies that you don't regard any of the effects of emotional trauma as a form of injury.

Originally Posted by positivenegative

The only reason I posted this thread was to ridicule the fact that someone can be awarded $55m for something (although very wrong) that neither injured her or caused others harm.

Originally Posted by positivenegative

Why do you feel it necessary - like some others - to jump on the bandwagon and attack someone with lies?

My opinions are my own, and have nothing to do with any perceived "bandwagon".

As for "attacking" you "with lies" - the person doing all the attacking in this thread is you.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

If you don't face your fears, the only thing you'll ever see is what's in your comfort zone. ~Anne McClain, astronaut

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10579418].message }}

positivenegative

8 years ago

Originally Posted by Cali16

You said (see the quote below) that she wasn't "injured". That clearly implies that you don't regard any of the effects of emotional trauma as a form of injury.

It doesn't clearly imply anything. It's you making assumptions again. The effects of emotional trauma are exactly that - emotional or mental damage to the psyche, and not physical injury. I merely quoted an article (one of many online in agreement) that questions how you can equate a $53m settlement with some of the derisory payouts for vastly greater horrors. Maybe you missed it in your haste to join the bashing brigade. Never mind, here it is again just for you . . .

Erin Andrews' $55M award makes a mockery of pain and suffering

Originally Posted by Cali16

My opinions are my own, and have nothing to do with any perceived "bandwagon"

Says you.

Originally Posted by Cali16

As for "attacking" you "with lies" - the person doing all the attacking in this thread is you.

You really are as delusional as some of the others. I've attacked no-one in this thread. I've just defended myself against the wild accusations regarding my overall views, opinions and character. These include that "I'm sexist", that "I support the stalker", and of course dear old Kay saying "You seem to be arguing that a woman's privacy and a hotel guest's safety are irrelevant. That breaking laws and violating privacy is not a big deal". WTF. Just where does saying I thought the settlement was crazy imply any of that??? Come on then Ms Smart, answer that. You and the crazy bunch made it all up.

It's quite amazing how many so called "educated" people on here can reach those decisions about me based solely on the fact that I started a thread about how I thought a $53m settlement was grossly over the top, and gave it a tongue-in-cheek thread title. As for my comment that her tears "helped" with the size of the payout, here's a quote from NBC News . . .

Two of the jurors who awarded sportscaster Erin Andrews $55 million in a peeping-tom video scandal said the entire panel was persuaded by the sportscaster's tearful recollection of the trauma she endured

Instead of trying to analyze people why don't you read the thread through again and see for yourself who started attacking who.

Some of you folk really amaze me. You make these wild statements yet when asked to provide substance to back it up you simply warp things and change tack. Everything to avoid facing up to the fact you're wrong.

I know an awful lot of people who don't post here any more because of the idiosyncrasies of people like you.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10579472].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by positivenegative

You really are as delusional as some of the others. I've attacked no-one in this thread. I've just defended myself against the wild accusations regarding my overall views, opinions and character. These include that "I'm sexist"

You've attacked very nearly everyone, and in case you don't know what sexist really is, the very title of this thread is sexist. $55M for a minute of stripping, when clearly the woman was changing her clothes in the privacy of what she thought was a private room that she paid for. As I said, and I repeat in case you also are not aware of what "stripping" is and what "changing your clothes" is, stripping is getting paid to take off your clothes as entertainment for others who are paying you to do so. Changing your clothes in a hotel room is not stripping.

[ 5 ] Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10579584].message }}

discrat

8 years ago

Originally Posted by positivenegative

You really are as delusional as some of the others. I've attacked no-one in this thread. I

.

And of course calling people names is no form of attack ,right ??

Originally Posted by positivenegative

As for motormouth Mike Anthony repeatedly saying they are still liable

That's what I keep repeatedly telling these goons. They just won't have it.

I've never said she wasn't entitled to claim, but the goon squad on here don't care about facts.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Nothing to see here including a Sig so just move on :)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10579629].message }}

irawr Banned 8 years ago

I'm going to turn this thread into a blog and monetize it with Google Adsense.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10579680].message }}

discrat

8 years ago

Originally Posted by bizgrower

“She’s terrified. She’s depressed. She cries. She’s full of anxiety. She’s a very, very changed person. She’s not the girl that we used to know at all,” he said.

So while yes, there are plenty of people suffering all over the world, this jury was presented with a woman who has experienced very real emotional and mental distress by no fault of her own. So often pain and suffering is measured by visible scars, and it’s significant for victims everywhere that jurors found Andrews’ unseen scars worth compensating.

"

Not trying to sound Ageist but as I have gotten older I realize that it's more than just money that matters.

A lot of the younger people think the $53 million is the end all be all.

Basically, because they do not have the Life Experiences to realize that there is way more than that.
Also Frontal Lobe development where Empathy is present has something to do with it ( and honestly not trying to be sarcastic)

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Nothing to see here including a Sig so just move on :)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10578687].message }}

bizgrower

8 years ago

Originally Posted by discrat

Not trying to sound Ageist but as I have gotten older I realize that it's more than just money that matters.

A lot of the younger people think the $53 million is the end all be all.

Basically, because they do not have the Life Experiences to realize that there is way more than that.
Also Frontal Lobe development where Empathy is present has something to do with it ( and honestly not trying to be sarcastic)

The author of the Think Progress article brought
up the Barstool Sport's article that made the point
that Erin Andrews would probably rather turn back
the hands of time than get any award.

As her father has experienced, I'd hate to see any
loved one's personality negatively altered by any event.

I had a guest at my hotel who must have been through
an awful hotel experience in the past. She had tape on her
door so she could tell if anyone had been in her room, She
refused housekeeping service. She gave a firm and panicky
"No, I'll come pick them up." when I offered to deliver her
requested extra pillows to her room.

Andrews now goes through quite a routine when she checks
into any hotel. And, we have to remember that she travels a
lot for her career.

Thanks

Signature

"If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10578759].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by positivenegative

You just have to have the last word, don't you. And you have to keep lying.

Kindly prove to folk on here that you're not a liar by answering the following. Of course I doubt you will. You'll simply prevaricate, postulate and say you can't be bothered - as is your way.

Where exactly did I say she didn't deserve money?

Don't bother looking because you won't find it. I actually said she DID deserve money - only not $55m, which I thought was outlandish.

Can anyone tell me how having a short clip of you in the buff in your hotel room posted online is worth the equivalent of a massive lottery win?

Here's where you belittle her experience and make it sound like she got an enormous amount of money for a few moments in the buff, as you say.

The fact is, the criminal uploaded the video to the Internet, and of course it went viral and still exists to this day. She spent untold amounts of money trying to get it removed unsuccessfully. She has suffered for 7 years with the shame and humiliation and degradation of that video being viewed (still, 7 years later) by millions of people and pervs tweeting her stills of it or a mention in newspapers being made of it and some people even blaming her for it.

Strange how she (with the help of her lawyer) decided to first sue for $10m, then $20m, and then up the ante to $50m and then $75m. That's an awful lot of money to want just because someone shot a clip of you in the nude. "Tears and emotional distress" are obviously going to help in court.... they're hardly going to hinder your case, are they?

She wasn't filmed having sex. She wasn't filmed with sex toys. She wasn't filmed having an affair. She was filmed nude through a hole in a door for a minute or so.

This sort of thing happens all the time, including angry people who separate or want revenge on an ex-partner/lover posting shit online about them. I don't see a whole lot of those receiving $55m in compensation.

I also thought she was hugely greedy as her claims escalated over time from $10m to $20m to $50m and then to $75m. This is all common knowledge and why plenty news articles agreed with me that it was too much. You didn't have to agree.

First off, the hotel is only liable for half of the award. She'll not receive a penny of the other half as the guy who did the film is broke and living in father's basement. Then, after an attempt is made to appeal, if she ever receives a dime from the hotel's half, the IRS will step in and of course, her lawyers will take or already took their share.

Erin Andrews received more than she would probably have earned working in several lifetimes - helped by her ability to turn on the waterworks (tears) on demand in court.

But you sound just like the hotel defense lawyer who said that she should be happy about the video as it likely helped her career. Truly reprehensible and no wonder the jury gave a big award. It boggles my mind that an educated lawyer would suggest that this crime was a benefit to her career. Did he really think that would go over big with a jury?

Originally Posted by positivenegative

Don't try to be smug with me. You've jumped on a thread where one or two were bashing me with lies, then added your own for good measure. You're not adult enough or wise enough to acknowledge the fact you're wrong. But it doesn't bother me,,, plenty people on here now know you for what you are.

Right ... go ahead and make it personal. My opinion hasn't changed. This thread reeks of sexism and it's not surprising that you don't see it. Most sexists don't acknowledge that trait, and now people know you for what you are.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10583550].message }}

positivenegative

8 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

It boggles my mind that an educated lawyer would suggest that this crime was a benefit to her career. Did he really think that would go over big with a jury?

Obviously not much of a mind to boggle then. According to you her lawyer is wrong and so are the numerous newspaper and online and offline articles by respected writers. Oh, and lets not forget the countless "normal" people in the real world who also think that $55m is waaay too much.

Of course you're entitled to your opinion, I've never said you were not.

This is about you and your foul mouth abusive remarks directed at me when you jumped on the thread and joined the small but select bashing brigade.

You still haven't provided any proof where I said she wasn't entitled to any money and where I said she was a "stripper. And I doubt you will because those are things I never said. The definitions are in a post I made here - which again was in response to you trying to bash me in another thread.

The difference between stripping and a stripper

You're problem (which you're fully aware of) is that you're wrong. You jumped on a thread and made inaccurate comments. When this was pointed out to you, instead of backing down like any normal person would, you then employed your usual tactics of becoming abusive. Usually this behavior of yours works on the countless newbies you've torn to shreds on here, but you've picked on the wrong one in me.

Why cant you just admit you overreacted and assumed and said things about me that were not true? People will think better of you and the whole lot is forgotten about in no time. Somehow, I know for sure that's not the person you are.

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Right ... go ahead and make it personal. My opinion hasn't changed. This thread reeks of sexism and it's not surprising that you don't see it. Most sexists don't acknowledge that trait, and now people know you for what you are.

If it reeks of sexism then that's been instigated and continued by you and your pet rottweiler, Anthony. I'm no sexist and never have been. Funny how no-one else has accused me of that in 10 years of posting on here.

It's sad that because you cant compete intellectually on a level playing ground you have to resort to a continuous stream of abuse and lies. Need proof? If people want to see just what a hateful, outspoken and nasty piece of work you are they can view your post history where anyone that's not in your little exclusive pack of mutual backslappers on here has received the sharp end on your vile, expletive ridden tongue.

Maybe if you keep prodding me I'll make a point of pasting up a few hundred of those post history remarks on here, just for the avoidance of doubt you understand.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10583919].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by positivenegative

Obviously not much of a mind to boggle then. According to you her lawyer is wrong and so are the numerous newspaper and online and offline articles by respected writers. Oh, and lets not forget the countless "normal" people in the real world who also think that $55m is waaay too much.

Of course you're entitled to your opinion, I've never said you were not.

This is about you and your foul mouth abusive remarks directed at me when you jumped on the thread and joined the small but select bashing brigade.

You still haven't provided any proof where I said she wasn't entitled to any money and where I said she was a "stripper (as you accused me of, and where I pointed out in another thread that there's a big difference between stripping and being a stripper). And I doubt you will because those are things I never said.

You're problem (which you're fully aware of) is that you're wrong. You jumped on a thread and made inaccurate comments. When this was pointed out to you, instead of backing down like any normal person would, you then employed your usual tactics of becoming abusive. Usually this behavior of yours works on the countless newbies you've torn to shreds on here, but you've picked on the wrong one in me.

Why cant you just admit you overreacted and assumed and said things about me that were not true? People will think better of you and the whole lot is forgotten about in no time. Somehow, I know for sure that's not the person you are.

If it reeks of sexism then that's been instigated and continued by you and your pet rottweiler, Anthony. I'm no sexist and never have been. Funny how no-one else has accused me of that in 10 years of posting on here.

It's sad that because you cant compete intellectually on a level playing ground you have to resort to a continuous stream of abuse and lies. Need proof? If people want to see just what a hateful, outspoken and nasty piece of work you are they can view your post history where anyone that's not in your little exclusive pack of mutual backslappers on here has received the sharp end on your vile, expletive ridden tongue.

Maybe if you keep prodding me I'll make a point of pasting up a few hundred of those post history remarks on here, just for the avoidance of doubt you understand.

You continue your personal attacks, I see, because it's the only response you're capable of apparently. Go ahead and escalate and make it personal. You're making Mike Anthony look like an angel. It's pretty obvious what you originally intended with your title although you now claim simple tongue in cheek. I suggest it was more like foot in mouth, but that's my opinion, and as you can see, we both have a different one.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10583924].message }}

discrat

8 years ago

Originally Posted by positivenegative

If it reeks of sexism then that's been instigated and continued by you and your pet rottweiler, Anthony. I'm no sexist and never have been. Funny how no-one else has accused me of that in 10 years of posting on here.

Thought I would see Ali and Frazier making out before seeing the Day someone said something like this LOL

And "the times they are a changing....."

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Nothing to see here including a Sig so just move on :)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10583949].message }}

Mike Anthony 8 years ago

Originally Posted by discrat

Thought I would see Ali and Frazier making out before seeing the Day someone said something like this LOL

And "the times they are a changing....."

Lol....he isn't even original though. He is taking his lead from Claude last week. You missed the real shocker though.

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

. You're making Mike Anthony look like an angel..

You should know you are really off the deep end when Suzanne compares me to an Angel...lol.

I'll disagree strongly on principle and agree on principle. Always opposed sexism but even more so after having daughters
- [ 1 ] Thanks
Signature
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10584008].message }}

positivenegative

8 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

You continue your personal attacks, I see, because it's the only response you're capable of apparently. Go ahead and escalate and make it personal. You're making Mike Anthony look like an angel. It's pretty obvious what you originally intended with your title although you now claim simple tongue in cheek. I suggest it was more like foot in mouth, but that's my opinion, and as you can see, we both have a different one.

You still haven't pointed out EXACTLY where I said all the things you previously accused me of saying

Put up or shut up.

Thanks
2 replies

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10583952].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by positivenegative

You still haven't pointed out EXACTLY where I said all the things you previously accused me of saying

Put up or shut up.

Whatever .... I already quoted all the offensive material you posted, and so did MA. Can you read? Everyone else can and most got the same impression that I did.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10583969].message }}

positivenegative

8 years ago

Originally Posted by sbucciarel

Whatever .... I already quoted all the offensive material you posted, and so did MA. Can you read? Everyone else can and most got the same impression that I did.

Yeah, I understand. It's called selective editing. You chose only some of my replies, and then ensured you didn't include the comments, false accusations and bashing that preceded them in the posts before. You and MA are really not that smart.

And FYI, NO-ONE got the same impression that you did other than a handful of your cronies.... members of the mutually back-slapping "in-club" that exists on here. People who also comment irrespective of fact, without engaging their brains, and follow the herd mentality.

I'd tread carefully. All liars eventually get exposed.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10584007].message }}

Mike Anthony

8 years ago

Originally Posted by positivenegative

You and MA are really not that smart.

We'd have to teach you so you would be able to decide

And FYI, NO-ONE got the same impression that you did other than a handful of your cronies.... members of the mutually back-slapping "in-club" that exists on here.

Robert where you at? I have just been inducted into the fraternity. I'm a cronie. When is my first secret club meeting where I learn the secret handshake? Should a put money down in Vegas on those odds

I'd tread carefully. All liars eventually get exposed.

Aint that the truth and then all they have left to say is that all their sexist statements were taken out of context.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10584015].message }}

tagiscom

8 years ago

Originally Posted by positivenegative

No I'm not, Kay. Why do you feel the need to keep coming back with statements that say or imply I've said something that I haven't.

The only reason I posted this thread was to ridicule the fact that someone can be awarded $55m for something (although very wrong) that neither injured her or caused others harm. If you think that's fine then ok, that's your opinion. I don't think others who've suffered dreadfully yet received a pittance by comparison would agree with you.

Erin Andrews' $55m award makes a mockery of pain and suffering

It seems the OTF has become a pathetic hotbed of one-upmanship. Most opinions expressed recently are quickly shot down and newcomers, especially, have no chance as they are quickly derided. It never used to be like that.

Take Shane's post about aura's. Was there ever any need for several people to attack him in such a way in the thread? He's posted similar views about other things, including much nonsense, for years. But we've never had this baiting and venom shown before.

It seems there's a hardcore "gang" on here who believe the OTF is their domain alone. Mutual admiration, backslapping and thanks. Sadly, one by one the people who really make this forum are now leaving. It's very easy to understand the reasons why.

I posted nothing sexist, as the venomous Mike Anthony would have you believe. Just an opinion on an award I felt was grossly excessive, and another opinion that it was perpetrated by someone who gamed the system (she originally tried to get $75m).

Too many sad people on here for whom this forum is their only life.

Yes, PN, l can understand your position.

I think that the Off topic, just has a lot less open minded individuals left than it used to.

Which makes discussions like this more one sided.

Which makes it a drain on the person who started the thread.

You can close this thread whenever you want, when you have had enough!

Take care.

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Archimedes-The Truth Seekers Forum..

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10584421].message }}

Cali16 8 years ago

Originally Posted by tagiscom

I think that the Off topic, just has a lot less open minded individuals left than it used to.

You know, Shane, it's getting really old having you label people as "close-minded" whenever they disagree with you (or anyone who starts a thread). That's not even what the term means. Being open-minded doesn't mean agreeing with everyone.

You disagree with people here all the time. So, by your own definition, that makes you close-minded as well.

Have you even bothered to read this thread before passing your judgment on everyone (and siding with PN)??

Originally Posted by tagiscom

You can close this thread whenever you want, when you have had enough!

No, only the mods can close threads.

Here are two suggestions for both of you (Shane and PN) - stop posting here if you don't like it or can't handle it when people disagree with you. Or, put all of the "close-minded" individuals (or "liars", per PN) on your ignore list. Will make things more peaceful for the two of you and everyone else.

(I'm sure both your ignore lists will be quite long if you do the latter, since you both clearly love playing the victim here.)
- [ 3 ] Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature
If you don't face your fears, the only thing you'll ever see is what's in your comfort zone. ~Anne McClain, astronaut
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10584447].message }}
- positivenegative 8 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by Cali16
  
  Have you even bothered to read this thread before passing your judgment on everyone (and siding with PN)??
  
  Have you?
  
  You know I stopped responding to the last few posts of MA because Shane is right, it does become tiring after a while and it's futile arguing with someone who has a blinkered, one-track and totally warped interpretation of everything. That, and apart from being an outright liar that is.
  
  But hey ho here you are now, one of the small but elite band of "knock people with lies" brigade. Responding to a post made by Shane, but you still can't resist dragging me into it and having another pop.
  
  Originally Posted by Cali16
  
  Here are two suggestions for both of you (Shane and PN) - stop posting here if you don't like it or can't handle it when people disagree with you.
  
  Why don't you stop posting here instead? You'd do a lot of people a huge favor as we wouldn't have to listen to the constant stream of biased diatribe and mutual appreciation of each other that you and your phony little group keep ramming down our throats.
  
  Talking about "close minded", as you put it. I never posted in Shane's Aura thread regarding the subject matter. Firstly because I have no opinion on it either way, and secondly because I didn't want to become embroiled in the bashing frenzy that you and your cronies were conducting.
  
  But hey, lets have a few facts here.
  
  There are thousands of web sites out there who endorse his views. And there are countless millions of people worldwide who likewise do. In addition to that, there has also been hundreds of instances of reputable scientific investigation into the subject. It's not been proven, but there again it's not been categorically disproved either. Here's just a single sample for you:
  
  Japanese Scientists Prove That Auras Actually Exist
  
  There are hundreds of articles similar to this, from hundreds of different research bodies and hundreds of different sources. If you want to ignore them that's fine, everyone has an opinion and I'm sure Shane accepts that. Equally you have to accept the way Shane is when it's something he feels strongly about. We've all been there.
  
  Do you know what the real problem is? It's the vile way a handful of you attacked him in the thread, much the same as how you turned on me in this thread. Funny how it was the exact same small group of people in both instances, complete with lots and lots of mutual "thanks" for each others poison work. Coincidence?
  
  It wasn't mild teasing in a humorous fashion, as Whateverpedia, Claude, Ken Michaels, Ian Fear, Dan Riffle, myself and most others would do in that situation. Oh no. It was a disgusting foul-mouthed tirade by some, and aggressive or abusive by all of you - equally supporting each others pathetic behavior which egged each of you on to continue with it.
  
  Throughout all of it Shane kept his composure. He argued his corner - as anyone would for their belief - but not once did he feel the necessity to stoop as low as you lot and resort to gutter talk, abuse and derision. I guess you're mighty proud huh?
  
  Shane has been a member here a long time. You know his ways. I've also been a member here a long time. But in just two threads you and the other handful have shown yourselves up for exactly what you all are. Hypocrites and liars.
  
  You see the OTF doesn't get an awful lot of new folk who stay as regulars in the section. That's mainly because of the snide remarks and put-downs that fly their way. It's also the reason that you lot have effectively got away with your behavior for so long, as in a small closed shop there's not many aware of the full extent of the little clique that operates here. Luckily I do, and you'll find I'm a whole lot tougher than any newbie to put down.
  
  Originally Posted by Cali16
  
  Or, put all of the "close-minded" individuals (or "liars", per PN) on your ignore list. Will make things more peaceful for the two of you and everyone else.
  
  I'm not so childish as to want or need an "ignore list". And remember - before you start spouting more lies - it's you that's started this by responding to Shane's post and deciding to have a go at me at the same time.
  
  You've never taken the time to actually look at the remarks of those who posted here, prior to my answering them. The person who was filmed stripping (taking clothes off), you deliberately twisted into saying that I said she was a "stripper", which I never did and never would.
  
  It could have been male or female, my point would have been the same..... that I thought the settlement was too much, that she increased her demands to an outrageous $75m, and that she used tears and emotion to benefit her cause.
  
  Whether you agreed with me or not, I couldn't give a damn. The topic was posted and open for discussion. You lot twisted what I'd said and were abusive first. READ THE THREAD PROPERLY AND SEE.
  
  And if you don't stop baiting Shane and endeavor to conduct yourselves with a modicum of decorum then you'll find that your cosy little basement flat may not be here for you in the future. The reason why? I'm damn sure the Management and Mods don't want the vicious style of posting that's being exhibited here by you lot to be what new members are exposed to. They'll end up closing this section.
  
  [ 1 ] Thanks
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10584553].message }}

Mike Anthony

8 years ago

Originally Posted by tagiscom

Yes, PN, l can understand your position.

I think that the Off topic, just has a lot less open minded individuals left than it used to.

Which makes discussions like this more one sided.

Poor form. though I am sure you will deny it this is obviously in response to your Aura thread. To attach yourself to an obvious and proven sexist OP just because people did not fall over in believing your claims weakens your case. It shows you don't follow and align with the truth based on principles.

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10584508].message }}

Mike Anthony 8 years ago

Originally Posted by positivenegative

You still haven't pointed out EXACTLY where I said all the things you previously accused me of saying

Put up or shut up.

ROFL..........We have several times. You just will deny defeat forever.

It seems we have found this forum's Black Knight

Monty Python-The Black Knight - YouTube
- Thanks
Signature
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10583987].message }}

Mike Anthony

8 years ago

Originally Posted by positivenegative

The difference between stripping and a stripper

You're problem (which you're fully aware of) is that you're wrong. You jumped on a thread and made inaccurate comments.

No she was entirely right. I proved that earlier with like five points that YOU wrote and all you can do is spin and accuse of lying because your spinning is incoherent in trying to claim you didn't say what you did.

EARN $55 Million stripping is very clear in its meaning - Its meant to compare it to a stripper EARNING (by work done) their cash.

Fess up or no fess up. You got busted on not only that but a number of other sexist statements.

The end.

You might as well try to close the thread like Shane stated. Like I said no rational way to back peddle/moon walk it back. your sexist comments to Kay asking her if twisting things was a female thing was the icing on the sexist cake.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10584517].message }}

positivenegative

8 years ago

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Poor form. though I am sure you will deny it this is obviously in response to your Aura thread. To attach yourself to an obvious and proven sexist OP just because people did not fall over in believing your claims weakens your case. It shows you don't follow and align with the truth based on principles.

Ah, the rottie has returned. Time to bash Shane again now then, is it?

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

No she was entirely right. I proved that earlier with like five points that YOU wrote and all you can do is spin and accuse of lying

Your 5 points were bullshit and fabricated in your tiny mind.

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

EARN $55 Million stripping is very clear in its meaning - Its meant to compare it to a stripper EARNING (by work done) their cash.

How do you know what I meant? If I'd meant to say stripper then I would have said that. Thick man.

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Fess up or no fess up. You got busted on not only that but a number of other sexist statements.

You really are pathetic.

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

You might as well try to close the thread like Shane stated. Like I said no rational way to back peddle/moon walk it back. your sexist comments to Kay asking her if twisting things was a female thing was the icing on the sexist cake.

That hardly makes me a sexist you sad deranged man. In the context of the remarks she'd made prior to that, I believe I bit my tongue and replied with a great deal of restraint. As for closing the thread, I've nothing to hide and won't let a troublemaker like you who is used to bullying and pushing people about on here, tell me what to do.

Ok Mr Twist The Facts Anthony, you want to play hardball. What say we talk about and give a little exposure to your sham signature link.

Like how can you charge money for something that's nothing but a spammy link carousel? In addition, you want to suck money off people with a web site that's tacky looking, full of bullshit and riddled with grammatical errors, has loads of links that don't work, and has absolutely no point of contact whatsoever; no email address, no telephone number, no physical address. Genuine people don't operate that way.

Unlike you I don't have a signature link, and am not on here to incessantly post and plug a two-bit shady product from an equally shady web site, as you do.

Don't try to play the wise guy with me. You're biting off much more that even your mouth can chew.

Any more twisting facts, lies, and getting a perverse pleasure from trying to tarnish my name on here and you'll find plenty posts appearing on the forum about you. Maybe the IRS would be interested as well. It's your choice.

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10584572].message }}

discrat

8 years ago

Man Mike .....PB must be making you a proud pappa tonight. He's laying into the "backslappers" like nobody's business, and I hadn't seen you post with so much Passion like he has in at least a few weeks LOL

Your game's slipping, son

Btw, PN you are gaining All Star status only reserved for a few... including that infamous Rottweiler

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Nothing to see here including a Sig so just move on :)

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10584579].message }}

Princess Balestra

8 years ago

Originally Posted by discrat

Man Mike .....PB must be making you a proud pappa tonight.

Ha!

I figure Me and Mikey are on a break right now.

But I am glad the concept of knights has been raised in this unseemly tribute to bile an' vitriol.

Oh for the canter of heels 'pon the flagstones!

The glint of sunlight on an armored torso, the valiant swingin' of a razor sharp weapon, the sexy nomenclature makes your tongue wanna dance sayin' the words over an' over!

What kind an' courageous soul gonna swoop in to spare me the bickerin'?

(No, it is not you, Claude: you would kill the frickin' horse.)

Tellya, I am always glad to see Fearo and Frank Donovan postin' here.

They bring a smile to my face on days when I am moved to pout like a poisoned fish, an' their tone is civil, even when graced with barb.

It is almost worth trippin' on a stone an' fallin' to the ground with a yelp, jus' to summon the vambraces of their nobility -- but I got my best jeans on an' it is wet outside.

So I am gonna mis-snap some celery an' hope my anguish sends ripples through the cosmos.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Lightin' fuses is for blowin' stuff togethah.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10584632].message }}

tagiscom

8 years ago

Originally Posted by Cali16

You know, Shane, it's getting really old having you label people as "close-minded" whenever they disagree with you (or anyone who starts a thread). That's not even what the term means. Being open-minded doesn't mean agreeing with everyone.

You disagree with people here all the time. So, by your own definition, that makes you close-minded as well.

Have you even bothered to read this thread before passing your judgment on everyone (and siding with PN)??

No, only the mods can close threads.

Here are two suggestions for both of you (Shane and PN) - stop posting here if you don't like it or can't handle it when people disagree with you. Or, put all of the "close-minded" individuals (or "liars", per PN) on your ignore list. Will make things more peaceful for the two of you and everyone else.

(I'm sure both your ignore lists will be quite long if you do the latter, since you both clearly love playing the victim here.)

Geesh, calm down.

I said l understood what PN is going through, l don't agree or disagree with his views on this, and don't want to get involved with this discussion.

And l did read all of this!

And the mods will close down a thread if the creator sends them a ticket!

I suppose that you are putting me in with him, because of the misunderstanding of my comment of understanding his position.

I thought long and hard about saying that without it being misunderstood, but l obviously messed that up?

Well, that and the internet being painfully slow here, which tended to shorten my replys yesterday.

Open minded, probably needs a definition. Someone who won't use excessive colorful language, bully or degrade someone else to be right. Or ignore obvious evidence, is another one to classify that remark.

Originally Posted by Mike Anthony

Poor form. though I am sure you will deny it this is obviously in response to your Aura thread. To attach yourself to an obvious and proven sexist OP just because people did not fall over in believing your claims weakens your case. It shows you don't follow and align with the truth based on principles.

Obvious and proven sexist?

You did give one example further down, but it seems to be more of a knee jerk response, than a deliberate sexist remark?

Although probably not the best thing to say, all things considered?

I remember that PN is outspoken at times, but you might have to PM me, with examples?

Attach, no, not really l just know what he is going through, and offered some advise.

Weakens my case, possibly, but l offered advise, and didn't take any sides!

Originally Posted by positivenegative

Have you?

You know I stopped responding to the last few posts of MA because Shane is right, it does become tiring after a while and it's futile arguing with someone who has a blinkered, one-track and totally warped interpretation of everything. That, and apart from being an outright liar that is.

But hey ho here you are now, one of the small but elite band of "knock people with lies" brigade. Responding to a post made by Shane, but you still can't resist dragging me into it and having another pop.

Why don't you stop posting here instead? You'd do a lot of people a huge favor as we wouldn't have to listen to the constant stream of biased diatribe and mutual appreciation of each other that you and your phony little group keep ramming down our throats.

Talking about "close minded", as you put it. I never posted in Shane's Aura thread regarding the subject matter. Firstly because I have no opinion on it either way, and secondly because I didn't want to become embroiled in the bashing frenzy that you and your cronies were conducting.

But hey, lets have a few facts here.

There are thousands of web sites out there who endorse his views. And there are countless millions of people worldwide who likewise do. In addition to that, there has also been hundreds of instances of reputable scientific investigation into the subject. It's not been proven, but there again it's not been categorically disproved either. Here's just a single sample for you:

Japanese Scientists Prove That Auras Actually Exist

There are hundreds of articles similar to this, from hundreds of different research bodies and hundreds of different sources. If you want to ignore them that's fine, everyone has an opinion and I'm sure Shane accepts that. Equally you have to accept the way Shane is when it's something he feels strongly about. We've all been there.

Do you know what the real problem is? It's the vile way a handful of you attacked him in the thread, much the same as how you turned on me in this thread. Funny how it was the exact same small group of people in both instances, complete with lots and lots of mutual "thanks" for each others poison work. Coincidence?

It wasn't mild teasing in a humorous fashion, as Whateverpedia, Claude, Ken Michaels, Ian Fear, Dan Riffle, myself and most others would do in that situation. Oh no. It was a disgusting foul-mouthed tirade by some, and aggressive or abusive by all of you - equally supporting each others pathetic behavior which egged each of you on to continue with it.

Throughout all of it Shane kept his composure. He argued his corner - as anyone would for their belief - but not once did he feel the necessity to stoop as low as you lot and resort to gutter talk, abuse and derision. I guess you're mighty proud huh?

Shane has been a member here a long time. You know his ways. I've also been a member here a long time. But in just two threads you and the other handful have shown yourselves up for exactly what you all are. Hypocrites and liars.

You see the OTF doesn't get an awful lot of new folk who stay as regulars in the section. That's mainly because of the snide remarks and put-downs that fly their way. It's also the reason that you lot have effectively got away with your behavior for so long, as in a small closed shop there's not many aware of the full extent of the little clique that operates here. Luckily I do, and you'll find I'm a whole lot tougher than any newbie to put down.

I'm not so childish as to want or need an "ignore list". And remember - before you start spouting more lies - it's you that's started this by responding to Shane's post and deciding to have a go at me at the same time.

You've never taken the time to actually look at the remarks of those who posted here, prior to my answering them. The person who was filmed stripping (taking clothes off), you deliberately twisted into saying that I said she was a "stripper", which I never did and never would.

It could have been male or female, my point would have been the same..... that I thought the settlement was too much, that she increased her demands to an outrageous $75m, and that she used tears and emotion to benefit her cause.

Whether you agreed with me or not, I couldn't give a damn. The topic was posted and open for discussion. You lot twisted what I'd said and were abusive first. READ THE THREAD PROPERLY AND SEE.

And if you don't stop baiting Shane and endeavor to conduct yourselves with a modicum of decorum then you'll find that your cosy little basement flat may not be here for you in the future. The reason why? I'm damn sure the Management and Mods don't want the vicious style of posting that's being exhibited here by you lot to be what new members are exposed to. They'll end up closing this section.

Thanks for the support PN, but unfortunately the link you posted is fake.

I posted that one a while ago, and the Tokyo University has zero information on it, and Whatev, caught that and told me to look it up, which l did.

But the last Auric one had valid sources or links.

Thanks

Signature

Archimedes-The Truth Seekers Forum..

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10584706].message }}

Mike Anthony

8 years ago

Originally Posted by discrat

Man Mike .....PB must be making you a proud pappa tonight. He's laying into the "backslappers" like nobody's business, and I hadn't seen you post with so much Passion like he has in at least a few weeks LOL

Your confusing rabies with passion my son.

Anyone points out what I wrote I logically answer it. poor pup (hey hes repetitively called me a Rottweiler so I guess he's smaller) just gets the salivation juices going and gets unhinged and has another seizure. but what else has he got? His own words nailed him so he has to shout Liar Liar because he has nothing else. Well theres that and trying to hide in one of Tag's "auras"....lol

Thanks

Signature

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10585136].message }}

bizgrower

8 years ago

What makes it more pathetic is that the perp tried to sell the video because he was in dire straits financially and did not get any buyers. Then, he still posts the video.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

"If you think you're the smartest person in the room, then you're probably in the wrong room."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10584899].message }}

yukon

Banned 8 years ago

Who's winning?

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10585920].message }}

Princess Balestra 8 years ago

Originally Posted by yukon

Who's winning?

At what?

Losin'?
- Thanks
Signature

Lightin' fuses is for blowin' stuff togethah.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10585976].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 8 years ago

Who's winning?

Charlie Sheen

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10586254].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 8 years ago

Ha ha ... you completely ignored the Hulk Hogan lawsuit that I've mentioned now twice ... a man who wants $100 Million for a moment of doing something he loves doing .... shagging. lol.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10586471].message }}

positivenegative

8 years ago

[DELETED]

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10586535].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by positivenegative

FYI, I didn't mention it as it's completely irrelevant. Just another dork trying his hand at a grossly inflated claim. I don't really know anything about the Hulk Hogan lawsuit other than the small piece I've just read now.

My view would be the same as about Erin Andrews. If the judge finds in their favor then yes, they do get compensation. As you say, it's the courts decision. But compensation has to be reasonable, pro rata, and not exceed the derisory awards that some people are paid for hugely greater suffering..

Well, there's something else we disagree on. I personally think that the man had a right to have consensual sex without being surreptitiously taped and the video ending up in Gawkers hands. And I do hope he wins all $100M of the lawsuit. I would like nothing more than seeing Gawker bleed to death.

But keep up the personal attacks rather than debating the issues. I like them.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10586548].message }}

sbucciarel

Banned 8 years ago

Originally Posted by positivenegative

No veiled threats or personal attacks. Another figment of your imagination.

When people know you're a liar then it's pretty obvious it may have an effect on any sales you make on here. As for the level of sales or how you make your money, I really don't give a damn. You keep slating my character and I'll make a point of letting as many people as possible know what a liar and nasty piece of work you are - by whatever means possible. I think that's fair.

And you have picked the wrong one to mess with. That's not a threat it's a promise. Unlike the hundreds of newbies you've gotten used to browbeating, squashing and insulting on here, I categorically promise you that you will regret continuing the same towards me.

I will continue to disagree with you as long as you post something I disagree with. It's pretty obvious who has resorted to personal attacks, mud slinging and threats... anyone who can read, that is.

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[10586571].message }}

How To Earn $55m Stripping For A Minute

Trending Topics

How do I effectively build and nurture an email list for affiliate marketing purposes?

Are billboards still effective in driving customers?

Are Solo ADs the Most Cost Effective Way to Promote your Product?

Been a while! Any of you Old Timers here?

How much does the rebranding affect CR ?