|
Note: This is a Text only archive. Go directly to the real forum.
Psychodouche a famous DJ/producer and political pundit? IE a public figure???
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
banner
| Psychodouche a famous DJ/producer and political pundit? IE a public figure???
- Click HERE to go to the original thread with graphics
|
| Crazytree |
Defenses to claims of defamation include:
* Truth is an absolute defense in the United States as well as in Canada. In some other countries it is also necessary to show a benefit to the public good in having the information brought to light.
* Statements made in a good faith and reasonable belief that they were true are generally treated the same as true statements; however, the court may inquire into the reasonableness of the belief. The degree of care expected will vary with the nature of the defendant: an ordinary person might safely rely on a single newspaper report, while the newspaper would be expected to carefully check multiple sources.
* Privilege is a defense when witness testimony, attorneys' arguments, and judges' decisions, rulings, and statements made in court, or statements by legislators on the floor of the legislature, or statements made by a person to their spouse, are the cause for the claim. These statements are said to be privileged and cannot be cause for a defamation claim.
* Opinion is a defense recognized in nearly every jurisdiction. If the allegedly defamatory assertion is an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact, defamation claims usually cannot be brought because opinions are inherently not falsifiable. However, some jurisdictions decline to recognize any legal distinction between fact and opinion. The United States Supreme Court, in particular, has ruled that the First Amendment does not require recognition of an opinion privilege.
* Fair comment on a matter of public interest, statements made with an honest belief in their truth on a matter of public interest (official acts) are defenses to a defamation claim, even if such arguments are logically unsound; if a reasonable person could honestly entertain such an opinion, the statement is protected.
* Consent is an uncommon defense and makes the claim that the claimant consented to the dissemination of the statement.
* Innocent dissemination is a defense available when a defendant had no actual knowledge of the defamatory statement or no reason to believe the statement was defamatory. The defense can be defeated if the lack of knowledge was due to negligence. Thus, a delivery service cannot be held liable for delivering a sealed defamatory letter.
* Claimant is incapable of further defamation–e.g., the claimant's position in the community is so poor that defamation could not do further damage to the plaintiff. Such a claimant could be said to be "libel-proof," since in most jurisdictions, actual damage is an essential element for a libel claim.
In addition to the above, the defendant may claim that the allegedly defamatory statement is not actually capable of being defamatory—an insulting statement that does not actually harm someone's reputation is prima facie not libelous.
Special rules apply in the case of statements made in the press concerning public figures. A series of court rulings led by New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964) established that for a public official (or other legitimate public figure) to win a libel case, the statement must have been published knowing it to be false or with reckless disregard to its truth, (also known as actual malice).
Under United States law, libel generally requires five key elements. The plaintiff must prove that the information was published, the defendant was directly or indirectly identified, the remarks were defamatory towards the plaintiff's reputation, the published information is false, and that the defendant is at fault.
 |
|
|
| Crazytree |
The U.S. state of California enacted Code of Civil Procedure § 425.16 in 1992, a statute intended to prevent the misuse of litigation in SLAPP suits. It provides for a special motion which a defendant can file at the outset of a lawsuit to strike a complaint where the complaint arises from conduct that falls within the rights of petition or free speech. The statute expressly applies to any writing or speech made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law, but there is no requirement that the writing or speech be promulgated directly to the official body. It also applies to speech in a public forum about an issue of public interest and to any other petition or speech conduct about an issue of public interest.
The filing of an anti-SLAPP motion prevents the plaintiff from amending the complaint and stays all discovery. If the special motion is denied, the filing of an appeal immediately stays the trial court proceedings as to each challenged cause of action. Defendants prevailing on an anti-SLAPP motion (including any subsequent appeal) are entitled to a mandatory award of reasonable attorney’s fees.
California's Code of Civil Procedure § 425.17 corrects abuse of the anti-SLAPP statute (CCP § 425.16). Signed into law on September 6, 2003 this statute prohibits anti-SLAPP motions in response to certain public interest lawsuits and class actions, and actions against a business that arise from commercial statements or conduct. Section 425.18, signed into law on October 6, 2005, was enacted to facilitate SLAPP victims in recovering their damages through a SLAPPback (malicious prosecution action) against the SLAPP filers and their attorneys after the underlying SLAPP has been dismissed. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
So its safe...? Thank god...I can continue...:
 |
|
|
| Crazytree |
given: he has held himself out as a public figure, giving lectures, producing film... being generally fabulous and infamous in the Chicago area. BY HIS OWN ADMISSION he is a public figure.
he has yet to identify specific instances of defamation. his accusation of "cyber bullying" does not fall within the purview of 1st Amendment law, but rather into the realm of law that is reserved for 12 year olds being harassed on myspace.
he has clearly instigated most of his harassment by making his identity a huge issue, along with his grossly over-exaggerated personal history. he has elected to remain and continue to stir the pot with legal threats and outlandish personal boasting.
if this case were tried in a Sharia court in Afghanistan, his tongue would be pulled out with red-hot pincers. |
|
|
| JTProcess |
| HA HA HA HA HA... FDub your photoshops are killing! |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by JTProcess
HA HA HA HA HA... FDub your photoshops are killing! |
...I came up with the name, but someone else put toady's head on Picard in an earlier masterpiece...I just cropped and added the "accents" to make his latest avatar out of it...!
A true SFN artistic collaboration...
*sniff*
:ps: |
|
|
| Crazytree |
sounds like parody to me!
Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988) :rolleyes: |
|
|
| BarkonCue |
| We should all thank Crazytree for finding this loophole and saving us from embarrassment on a national level . :bigclap: |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Prepare for fake email from Mike's "lawyer" in 4.....3.....2.....1...
Thanks, CT :bigup:
If I can translate into dummies language, I believe that says:
You cannot give out your personal info everywhere, then cry like a cunt when people make fun of you. |
|
|
| Crazytree |
| if you want to be extra 110% safe.... predicate every statement with "it's my opinion that.... you're a douche", etc. :p |
|
|
| SaintJimmy |
Quote: Originally posted by Crazytree
if you want to be extra 110% safe.... predicate every statement with "it's my opinion that.... you're a douche", etc. :p |
So, what I'm reading here is that his lawyer's a fucking retard, too.
Excuse me, I mean it's my opinion that his lawyer's a fucking retard. |
|
|
| lao tzu |
| WHOS GRIMMACE'S LAWYER....THE HAMBURGLER? |
|
|
| mingmen |
| where are the damages? |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Yeah, too bad for Mike he called CT and many other people here "liars". Since I make my living as a professional truthteller, he has defamed me and potentially damaged my reputation.....
LOL |
|
|
| mingmen |
| counter-suit :burst: |
|
|
| Crazytree |
Quote: Originally posted by SaintJimmy
So, what I'm reading here is that his lawyer's a fucking retard, too.
Excuse me, I mean it's my opinion that his lawyer's a fucking retard. |
typical douchebag client... goes in and tells the lawyer XYZ.... but of course neglects to inform the lawyer of ABC which of course ruins the case. |
|
|
| johnsonrod |
There is absolutely no validity to the claim that the shit-talking that goes on here is actionable.
Beyond that, the best thing for someone to do would be to not post here if they were worried about umm...whatever.
Beyond that, putting the word "psycho" in your own login name is kind of a weird way to express yourself if you are worried about libel.
Beyond that, it is kind of a pussy move to threaten a lawsuit over what happens in a chatroom. |
|
|
| Psychomike |
Because this site is available in the UK you should also check libel laws in the UK.
Be that as it may, the bottom line in litigation is how long and how much can you afford. Assboil claims he can take cases to the Supreme Court (approximate cost 1.2 to 1.5 million dollars) yet he doesn't have $1000 to bet.
I think he might fold under pressure!
Libel laws in the UK are such that the Enquirer isn't sold there. Any place a website can be available in the laws of that country can be used. |
|
|
| Psychomike |
By the way- shit talking on any board is subject to the same laws as the press has.
But it is amusing to read non- lawyer types explain laws!
Check the UK folks- "holding up to ridicule" either a public or non-public figure is equally the same there- unlike here.
Really one of you should consult a real lawyer before you start pontificating on international libel law.
First I'm called a liar and told I couldn't be a public person- then everyone agrees I am and am exempt! LOL.
Check UK law. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Psychomike
Because this site is available in the UK you should also check libel laws in the UK.
Be that as it may, the bottom line in litigation is how long and how much can you afford. Assboil claims he can take cases to the Supreme Court (approximate cost 1.2 to 1.5 million dollars) yet he doesn't have $1000 to bet.
I think he might fold under pressure!
Libel laws in the UK are such that the Enquirer isn't sold there. Any place a website can be available in the laws of that country can be used. |
Fuck off, UK court. Please try and not be such a pussy. A :lol: would have sufficed. But no, more psychomike tripe. :rolleyes: |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Psychomike
By the way- shit talking on any board is subject to the same laws as the press has. |
In your dreams.
Quote: Originally posted by Psychomike
But it is amusing to read non- lawyer types explain laws! |
OK, douche. Shall we post your delusional lawyer threats again.
Quote: Originally posted by Psychomike
Check the UK folks- "holding up to ridicule" either a public or non-public figure is equally the same there- unlike here. |
I will keep that in mind when I am in the UK.
Quote: Originally posted by Psychomike
Really one of you should consult a real lawyer before you start pontificating on international libel law. |
Heed your own advice.
Quote: Originally posted by Psychomike
First I'm called a liar and told I couldn't be a public person- then everyone agrees I am and am exempt! LOL. |
Identify where someone said you are not a public person. Thread and post #.
Quote: Originally posted by Psychomike
Check UK law. |
You have to demonstrate damages, genius. |
|
|
| pluckinstrings |
Quote: Originally posted by Psychomike
Because this site is available in the UK you should also check libel laws in the UK.
Be that as it may, the bottom line in litigation is how long and how much can you afford. Assboil claims he can take cases to the Supreme Court (approximate cost 1.2 to 1.5 million dollars) yet he doesn't have $1000 to bet.
I think he might fold under pressure!
Libel laws in the UK are such that the Enquirer isn't sold there. Any place a website can be available in the laws of that country can be used. |
Because this site is available to ANYONE WHO OWNS A COMPUTER... Fuck the UK. Everyone should check out the laws in Uganda. I mean holy shit... We could be KILLED for saying this stuff.
Ya douche... I mean.... FUCKIN PSYCHO :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Psychomike |
Just keep egging people on to block my right of free speech! Keep up your struggle!
But ya might want to read this:
The internet is subject to the same libel laws as broadcast and printed media.
But there is no legal immunity for authors of defamatory statements on bulletin boards and chat rooms.
And complications can arise when material published in one country is read in another, with tougher libel laws.
Its interim report, published on Wednesday, follows a landmark ruling last week by Australia's highest court.
The court ruled an Australian businessman, Joseph Gutnick, can sue US-based Dow Jones in his home state of Victoria, where the libel laws are tougher.
It also comes just weeks after a gossip website removed an untrue rumour about David Beckham, under threat of repercussions from the footballer's lawyers.
European law
Law Commissioner Hugh Beale, QC, said: "When a website carries material to which someone objects - rightly or wrongly - it is often easier to complain to the ISP than to the author.
"The problem is that the law puts ISPs under pressure to remove sites as soon as they are told that the material on them may be defamatory.
"There is a possible conflict between the pressure to remove material, even if true, and the emphasis placed on freedom of expression by the European Convention of Human Rights."
Libel actions can currently be brought years after a story is placed in an archive, as publication is considered to be continuous.
Two years ago well-known ISP Demon paid more than £200,000 to settle a libel action over material posted on one of its newsgroups.
Demon refused to remove postings about physicist Dr Laurence Godfrey, described by Godfrey's lawyers as "squalid, obscene and defamatory".
The case, settled just four days before a jury trial was due to begin, hinged on whether this ISP could be treated as publisher of material on a newsgroup.
A spokesman said: "We've been dealing with the issue of notice and takedown, when a client is made aware of problematic content, for a long time now.
"ISPs potentially face civil actions from both the persons complaining and also the website, if they are judged by one or the other of getting the takedown wrong.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2587057.stm |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Psychomike
Just keep egging people on to block my right of free speech! Keep up your struggle!
But ya might want to read this:
The internet is subject to the same libel laws as broadcast and printed media.
But there is no legal immunity for authors of defamatory statements on bulletin boards and chat rooms.
And complications can arise when material published in one country is read in another, with tougher libel laws.
Its interim report, published on Wednesday, follows a landmark ruling last week by Australia's highest court.
The court ruled an Australian businessman, Joseph Gutnick, can sue US-based Dow Jones in his home state of Victoria, where the libel laws are tougher.
It also comes just weeks after a gossip website removed an untrue rumour about David Beckham, under threat of repercussions from the footballer's lawyers.
European law
Law Commissioner Hugh Beale, QC, said: "When a website carries material to which someone objects - rightly or wrongly - it is often easier to complain to the ISP than to the author.
"The problem is that the law puts ISPs under pressure to remove sites as soon as they are told that the material on them may be defamatory.
"There is a possible conflict between the pressure to remove material, even if true, and the emphasis placed on freedom of expression by the European Convention of Human Rights."
Libel actions can currently be brought years after a story is placed in an archive, as publication is considered to be continuous.
Two years ago well-known ISP Demon paid more than £200,000 to settle a libel action over material posted on one of its newsgroups.
Demon refused to remove postings about physicist Dr Laurence Godfrey, described by Godfrey's lawyers as "squalid, obscene and defamatory".
The case, settled just four days before a jury trial was due to begin, hinged on whether this ISP could be treated as publisher of material on a newsgroup.
A spokesman said: "We've been dealing with the issue of notice and takedown, when a client is made aware of problematic content, for a long time now.
"ISPs potentially face civil actions from both the persons complaining and also the website, if they are judged by one or the other of getting the takedown wrong.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2587057.stm |
Suck a dick, faggot. Go cry like the baby you are. |
|
|
| Psychomike |
| In defense of free speech, no extreme is too extreme. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Psychomike
In defense of free speech, no extreme is too extreme. |
You are a spammer. Fuck off. |
|
|
| Psychomike |
BTW- are you guys finally admitting that I DJ, write produce and direct, etc?
Seems to me I can't be a public figure if you don't believe I am!
But in the UK and Canada it doesn't matter anyway.
You guys are jumping the gun. Let's wait for the shrinks recommendations.
You know its funny, months ago when I told people libel exists on the web, poster after poster assured me it did not. They said I had no lawyer, it was a lie. I hadn't actually threatened anyone with a a lawsuit, I just said those that were telling people to freely attack me and my posts were incorrect about the laws. I suggested they ask a lawyer, whick led to Assboils infamous libel that I was preparing to sue everyone on the board!
Do not take legal advice from these hysterical haters of free speech.
They are wrong on so many levels. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Psychomike
BTW- are you guys finally admitting that I DJ, write produce and direct, etc?
Seems to me I can't be a public figure if you don't believe I am!
But in the UK and Canada it doesn't matter anyway.
You guys are jumping the gun. Let's wait for the shrinks recommendations.
You know its funny, months ago when I told people libel exists on the web, poster after poster assured me it did not. They said I had no lawyer, it was a lie. I hadn't actually threatened anyone with a a lawsuit, I just said those that were telling people to freely attack me and my posts were incorrect about the laws. I suggested they ask a lawyer, whick led to Assboils infamous libel that I was preparing to sue everyone on the board!
Do not take legal advice from these hysterical haters of free speech.
They are wrong on so many levels. |
:jj: :jj: :jj:
you are a LIAR - if a shrink is reading this, he is as stupid as you are
No one cares about your career. Sorry. Go to the UK or Canada and fucking file, bullshitter. And give me a reacharound too while yer at it.
It is called slander - and you have to demonstrate that it is not true and that you were damaged. Good luck, asswipe. Please die.
It is you that hates free speech, LIAR. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by Psychomike
Because this site is available in the UK you should also check libel laws in the UK.
Be that as it may, the bottom line in litigation is how long and how much can you afford. Assboil claims he can take cases to the Supreme Court (approximate cost 1.2 to 1.5 million dollars) yet he doesn't have $1000 to bet.
I think he might fold under pressure!
Libel laws in the UK are such that the Enquirer isn't sold there. Any place a website can be available in the laws of that country can be used. |
See, you just LIED about me, Psychodouche. You just attributed something to me that I never said. That is LIBEL, moron.
You are NOT David Beckham, and you are NOT a famous physicist. You are a fat old loser who claims he fucked Jenny McCarthy. A claim you would have to PROVE in court, you idiot. I do not think the judge will accept as PROOF the story of your idiot friend who may or may not have seen the 2 of you in the same room. He will need to have Jenny McCarthy sitting there, under oath testifying that she DID in fact allow your toad penis in her human vagina....
And after she denies that it happened, you will be sued by Jenny for the damage to her reputation caused by the mere PROSPECT that she fucked your slimy ass.
When will you return to this planet and join the human race? |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Psychomike
BTW- are you guys finally admitting that I DJ, write produce and direct, etc? |
Would that stop your bedwetting, pillowbiter? |
|
|
| Psychomike |
So you do or do not believe that I write, produce, direct, DJ? Or not? I can't tell by your response.
I have not gone to the anti-free speech cyberbully threads and hijacked their threads.
I think you guys are so shortsided, you can't even see where this is going, can you?
That means, you have lost control of the attacks.
1 against how many?
The pics, the attacks, the name calling- I do not think that people that deny a person free speech should be allowed to have free speech themselves. Period. |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Psychomike
So you do or do not believe that I write, produce, direct, DJ? Or not? I can't tell by your response. |
DO NOT CARE
NEVER HAVE
SORRY
I KNOW THIS MEANS A LOT TO YOU |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by Psychomike
So you do or do not believe that I write, produce, direct, DJ? Or not? I can't tell by your response.
I have not gone to the anti-free speech cyberbully threads and hijacked their threads.
I think you guys are so shortsided, you can't even see where this is going, can you?
That means, you have lost control of the attacks.
1 against how many?
The pics, the attacks, the name calling- I do not think that people that deny a person free speech should be allowed to have free speech themselves. Period. |
who cares what you think
please stop spamming the board and starting shit threads
that is in the guidelines too, attention whore |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by Psychomike
BTW- are you guys finally admitting that I DJ, write produce and direct, etc?
Seems to me I can't be a public figure if you don't believe I am!
But in the UK and Canada it doesn't matter anyway.
You guys are jumping the gun. Let's wait for the shrinks recommendations.
You know its funny, months ago when I told people libel exists on the web, poster after poster assured me it did not. They said I had no lawyer, it was a lie. I hadn't actually threatened anyone with a a lawsuit, I just said those that were telling people to freely attack me and my posts were incorrect about the laws. I suggested they ask a lawyer, whick led to Assboils infamous libel that I was preparing to sue everyone on the board!
Do not take legal advice from these hysterical haters of free speech.
They are wrong on so many levels. |
Yeah, let's wait. Maybe he can explain why you are such a lying cunt?
You claim you never threatened to sue anyone, right?
Quote:
Psychomike
Senior Member
Online
Posting Frequency
(post #10)
What I like is that even with the lawyers name and phone number people STILL call me a liar.
Unfuckingbelievable!
His response was to only three posts- not even all the attacks!
Let's see, he is $300 an hour, and the loser has to pay, figure we'll need dozens of hours of depositions...... which he'll have to travel to do...... oh fucking boy.
If you can't hurt your enemies with the truth- HIT 'EM IN THE WALLETS!
If you google him, you will see he has argued in front of the Illinois Supreme Court.
I would suggest instead of getting Assboil to give you legal advice, you look for a lawyer to advise you- or apologize.
http://www.sternfannetwork.com/foru...threadid=260754 |
And WE have nothing to do with you being a "public figure", idiot. Anyone dumb enough to spread their personal info all over the fucking public commons is a "public figure".....
Did you take extra stupid pills today? |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by Psychomike
So you do or do not believe that I write, produce, direct, DJ? Or not? I can't tell by your response.
I have not gone to the anti-free speech cyberbully threads and hijacked their threads.
I think you guys are so shortsided, you can't even see where this is going, can you?
That means, you have lost control of the attacks.
1 against how many?
The pics, the attacks, the name calling- I do not think that people that deny a person free speech should be allowed to have free speech themselves. Period. |
For the 1 millionth time, please post some examples of your "free speech" being denied....
You keep crying, but never seem to back up your accusations with any proof, do you? |
|
|
| Crazytree |
Quote: Originally posted by Psychomike
Because this site is available in the UK you should also check libel laws in the UK.
Be that as it may, the bottom line in litigation is how long and how much can you afford. Assboil claims he can take cases to the Supreme Court (approximate cost 1.2 to 1.5 million dollars) yet he doesn't have $1000 to bet.
I think he might fold under pressure!
Libel laws in the UK are such that the Enquirer isn't sold there. Any place a website can be available in the laws of that country can be used. |
I am familiar with Commonwealth law, as my firm has done extensive work in Britain and at least two of its overseas territories. Hope you're willing to spend $1,000/hr. on this bullshit because that's how much a reputable barrister who is a member of one of the Inns of Court will cost you. And the idea that a non-British subject who is not within the jurisdiction of any Commonwealth country could somehow avail himself of British law is not in line with reality or the British concept of personal jurisdiction... in that the host country is perfectly able to deal with the problem through its own court systems... the sole exception in British law is the Mareva-style freezing orders as utilized pursuant to the precedent in Motorola v. Uzan. Funny that you pick the one obscure area of international law that I have spent the most time on recently. And yes I can school you on the "international policeman" theory all day long... and I can assure you that your imaginary lawsuit will go no further than your prefrontal cortex. I am currently dealing with British jurisdictional issues at the appellate level [with a LOT of help of course] and we're on the phone with London almost every day. So spare me your google-search legal analysis on British law.
So in conclusion... it is still my earnest opinion that you're an idiot.
And in terms of litigation cost outlay... I can get as many hours as I need for free... and once you get SLAPP'ed down and hit with the malicious prosecution counterclaim... you'll have paid for my next house.
That is, if you actually have any money, which I truly doubt you do. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
Quote: Originally posted by Crazytree
I am familiar with Commonwealth law, as my firm has done extensive work in Britain and at least two of its overseas territories. Hope you're willing to spend $1,000/hr. on this bullshit because that's how much a reputable barrister who is a member of one of the Inns of Court will cost you. And the idea that a non-British subject who is not within the jurisdiction of any Commonwealth country could somehow avail himself of British law is not in line with reality or the British concept of personal jurisdiction... in that the host country is perfectly able to deal with the problem through its own court systems... the sole exception in British law is the Mareva-style freezing orders as utilized pursuant to the precedent in Motorola v. Uzan. Funny that you pick the one obscure area of international law that I have spent the most time on recently. And yes I can school you on the "international policeman" theory all day long... and I can assure you that your imaginary lawsuit will go no further than your prefrontal cortex. I am currently dealing with British jurisdictional issues at the appellate level [with a LOT of help of course] and we're on the phone with London almost every day. So spare me your google-search legal analysis on British law.
So in conclusion... it is still my earnest opinion that you're an idiot.
And in terms of litigation cost outlay... I can get as many hours as I need for free... and once you get SLAPP'ed down and hit with the malicious prosecution counterclaim... you'll have paid for my next house.
That is, if you actually have any money, which I truly doubt you do. |
Crazytree, you are dead WRONG!
Mike's prefrontal cortex was removed years ago! |
|
|
| Crazytree |
here's the cite
Motorola Credit Corporation v Uzan, [2003] EWCA Civ 752 |
|
|
| harley-davidson |
| Did you know that if the population of birds on the planet suffered a mass extinction, it would spell certain death to humans due to insect infestation of crops and trees ? |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by harley-davidson
Did you know that if the population of birds on the planet suffered a mass extinction, it would spell certain death to humans due to insect infestation of crops and trees ? |
:D |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by harley-davidson
Did you know that if the population of birds on the planet suffered a mass extinction, it would spell certain death to humans due to insect infestation of crops and trees ? |
...I wish the population of the planet's chickenhawks would suffer a "mass extinction"...
:ps: |
|
|
| nunpuncher |
Quote: Originally posted by mingmen
who cares what you think
please stop spamming the board and starting shit threads
that is in the guidelines too, attention whore |
just curious ming
do you feel the same way about fdub |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by buttmuncher
just curious ming
do you feel the same way about fdub |
...only steers and queers come from texass... |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by buttmuncher
just curious ming do you feel the same way about fdub |
 |
|
|
| Crazytree |
excellent work.
it should be hanging in galleries next to Neimans, Pollacks, Liechtensteins and Warhols. |
|
|
| Fdubya247 |
Quote: Originally posted by Crazytree
excellent work.
it should be hanging in galleries next to Neimans, Pollacks, Liechtensteins and Warhols. |
:lol:
...too bad a few P&Ners are the only ones that can "interpret" my "work"...
:dude: |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by nunpuncher
just curious ming
do you feel the same way about fdub |
psychodouche is mentally ill, literally |
|
|
| mingmen |
Quote: Originally posted by nunpuncher
just curious ming
do you feel the same way about fdub |
I am spamming dildomike myself
but somehow, in my mind
it is different
I am trying to get him to seek help.
it is an intervention :burst:
you homo |
|
|
| mingmen |
there are garden variety attention whores - and then there is dildomike
100% delusional tweaker logic is all he has |
|
|
| mingmen |
Psychomike.
Is a liar. |
|
|
| Ass Boil |
| You better watch it..... He is a litigious liar. |
|
|
| Crazytree |
| California Penal Code §§ 158 & 159 :rolleyes: |
|
|
|
|
|
