The text says what it says. You had the opportunity to clarify and you chose to double down. I, and many others, have tried to explain it to you. You're either amazingly ignorant, or a troll. If you're ignorant, nothing I say will matter, and you'll just continue to call people liars despite all evidence to the contrary. If you're a troll, then own your words.
Your words are still there for everyone to see. No matter how many times you claim otherwise that your words were twisted. They're right there for everyone to see, and all of your responses afterward.
What am I lying about in this post? Your words are still there for everyone to see. That is 100% the truth. No matter how many times you claim otherwise that your words were twisted. That is 100% the truth. They're right there for everyone to see, and all of your responses afterward. That is 100% the truth. Just because you can't face the truth, it doesn't make what I say a lie.
You shouldn't trust me necessarily because although I'm a lawyer, I'm not a defamation lawyer. Law is a specialized practice and even within a practice area, there might be a call for dedicated research to get an answer to a question and from state to state. Most times when I post things about the law I include at least some express disclaimers along those lines. That said, if you were serious and consulted with an actual defamation lawyer in your state, here are some of the things I think they likely would tell you: You seem to be under the impression that if something is said about you that is harmful and not factual, you have a valid case for defamation. That's at best an oversimplification. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/defamation So to break it down a little more, here would be some of your obstacles to winning: 1. Are the statements in question false? 2. If so, are the false statements purporting to be fact? 3. Is there a level of fault by the speakers of the false statements that rises to negligence? 4. Did your reputation actually take a hit from these statements? Truth is an absolute defense to defamation. Personally, I think it is safe to say that you're not a pedophile. But at the very least, anyone you sue for supposedly claiming that you were a pedophile would get to go on a deep dive into uncomfortable subjects to prove or imply that you are. Given how evasive you have been in answering the question about whether or not you ogle underaged girls, I think that you probably wouldn't want to give up information about your fantasies about underaged girls, your porn habits, your relationships with your young relatives, etc. Nor would you want your young relatives and their parents deposed to ask about whether they've noticed you ogling them. You have complained a number of times about people twisting your words on this subject. To the extent that is true, the people doing that are literal amateurs and they are working with just what you've said in on this message board in the last few days. Think of what a professional might be able to do armed with, say, 5 years of statements by you to cherry-pick through. Let's say it's the given I think it is that you're not a pedophile. Then you run into the question if anyone would reasonably take the statements in question as fact. And the probable answer is no. Opinion is heavily protected in defamation lawsuits. It's possible whoever you might target with this lawsuit will have to admit that they do not have the facts to back up the notion you are a pedophile, but that you've caused them to come to the good-faith opinion that you might be. Saying everyone ogles underage girls (spoiler alert: they don't) is at least arguably a reasonable basis to come to the conclusion that you think that everyone ogles underage girls because you are projecting how much everyone does because you in particular ogle underage girls, which is in turn at least arguably a reasonable basis to come to the opinion that because you are a pedophile because you ogle underaged girls. Even if that opinion may seem to you to be a stretch, it's one that would almost certainly shield a defendant. Humor is also heavily protected in defamation lawsuits. It's possible that whoever you might target with a lawsuit would say that they knew you were not in fact a pedophile, but they were busting your chops/balls. I think most of the people calling you Federal Groomer and what not are having jokes at your expense. I'm pretty sure that would be apparent to any jury, if it got to that point. Context is important. If the same statement/joke were made in your workplace or a church, you would have a better potential claim as to reputational damage. But this is on a website that prides itself about being a freewheeling place for discussion and you're here voluntarily. Finally, we get to damages. As I originally said, you would have a hard time proving that all this was anything more than a minor annoyance. The esteem you have been held in here cannot be reasonably said to have dropped precipitously because people either believe you to be a pedophile or are trolling you about it. I think that a reasonable jury would have to find after all this Federal Groomer stuff, that to paraphrase Mal Reynolds, Wordforge's days of not taking you seriously have certainly come to a middle. But I would be interested if you contact a defamation lawyer and they tell you something different.
There's the legal definition of "underage" and there's my own judgement of what's "underage". I'm at an age where women young enough to be my daughter encompasses any of them who are less than 50. I'm not saying that I don't look at any women under 50, but the degree of interest goes way down and the cruel fact is that I'm neither charming enough, handsome enough or rich enough to attract them. There is also that grouping of women who are young enough to be my granddaughter and I'm damned if I'm going to fall into the "dirty old man" category. Wy anyone would be willing to go down that road is beyond me, but
I don't know that anyone here knows FF's actual name, but of course he thinks he can sue someone for defamsation of his made-up handle (one of dozens he's used) on an obscure message board. But that totally tracks with his thinking regarding most things.
I'd almost welcome him suing me if only because discovery would be so much fun. Plus, if he gets this worked up over the people on WF, I can't wait for him to meet my lawyer. The guy who triggered my wife's ex into screaming "You're an asshole!" at him during a deposition.
I feel the same way these days. I notice women in their 20s and 30s, and can aesthetically appreciate their attractiveness, but I can't imagine doing anything with them. Like, I know Sydney Sweeney is an attractive woman. But I can't muster up any actual interest in her. She's my daughter's age, for God's sake. It just feels weird.
Is it better than Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe? I know. As usual, I’m a day late and a comedic response short.
I've often heard the rule of "half plus seven"... but even that's seeming a little bit of a reach these years. I'm 55, after all. Factor in being a bit on the demi/sapio side, and there's just not enough possibly available to offer or receive by getting involved with somebody in their mid 30s.
I first heard the "half plus seven" thing in Malcolm X. The math for me on that means the girl would only be three years older than my oldest kid.
I don't think FF is a pedo, but the GOP is circling the wagons around the actual pedos in their ranks, and FF can't help himself but to parrot their crap no matter how ugly it gets. What does he fucking want for that? Love? Hugs?
yeah, I think it works better for your 40s as you're still in the same generational cohort. By 50 that math kind of maxes out.
I knew FF's name at one point because he was dumb enough to post an excerpt from a history paper of his that was published, and five seconds of Googling revealed the full paper with his name and university. But I'm old and the days are shorter, so I didn't hold onto that particular tidbit. No Tamarchives am I.