And he too is a Chicken Hawk.

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

that doesn't mean anything - or are you actually a sage green quilt piece?

(and given Miller's crush a few years back, you should have identified the poster as a Korean Canadian actress, not a Sephardic Jew)

If I am incorrect about the photo, fine; however, Miller and I are two separate people. I Foofie am an obnoxious New York Jew. I cannot speak for Miller, other than a short interchange where I thought she mentioned she was of Sephardic background? Regardless, Setanta's accusation is libelous, since he is accusing Miller of being an obnoxious person, which I Foofie am.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

Miller works? that's a new one

From her recent post: Post: # 5,019,947 you can likely go to her "profile" and see yourself. Just click on her name.

0 Replies

@Foofie,

Quote:

since he is accusing Miller of being an obnoxious person,

Another stellar example of Set's hypocrisy.

1 Reply

@JTT,

He is expressing his opinion just as you too often do.

1 Reply

Will the mystery of Foofie and Miller ever be solved? Confused

The drama continues ...

1 Reply

@wmwcjr,

There is no mystery, just Miller's smoke screen, being put up with the Foofie sock puppet.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

on the upside, it's one voter for Romney not two Very Happy

3 Replies

@ehBeth,

0 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

on the upside, it's one voter for Romney not two

Foofie will vote for Romney. I have no idea who Miller will vote for. Please look at her "profile," and you will see that she is an employed person. By claiming that Foofie's obnoxia is really her obnoxia, one is assassinating her character. That is called libel. Not legal, if one is still employed, and it can affect one's career.

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

Quote:

He is expressing his opinion just as you too often do.

That doesn't in any way negate the fact that Setanta is hypocritical as hell, Rable.

Ignore my opinions and deal with the facts. The facts are crystal clear. The US has been, and is to this day, one of the worst war criminal nations that has ever existed.

The complaints about other countries come regularly - it's all part of the monumental propaganda campaign that you folks swallow early and often.

0 Replies

@Foofie,

Quote:

By claiming that Foofie's obnoxia is really her obnoxia, one is assassinating her character. Not legal, if one is still employed, and it can affect one's career.

That's total horse ****. Comments about a person's screen name, whether positive or negative, can not be considered as libel. Perhaps you should make comments about something you have some actual real world knowledge.

2 Replies

@Ragman,

I find it hilarious when Miller forgets herself and writes about Foofie in the third person.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Personally, due to that and other various shell games and dramas put forth, I had Miller, Foofie and a player-to-be-named-later, on ignore back since Christ wore knee-breeches.

The exception generally being when there's a discussion and other's repost their quotes. I will lift an ignore to figure things out - then return iggy.

Some folks will do anything to call attention to themselves. It's called being an attention-whore.

Attention-whores, drama queens and sock-puppets...OH MY!

1 Reply

@Ragman,

Ragman wrote:

Quote:
By claiming that Foofie's obnoxia is really her obnoxia, one is assassinating her character. Not legal, if one is still employed, and it can affect one's career.

That's total horse ****. Comments about a person's screen name, whether positive or negative, can not be considered as libel. Perhaps you should make comments about something you have some actual real world knowledge.

The criterion for libel/slander is if someone can be "identified," not just by one's legal name, so if one person with a specific screen name is obligated at work to give all their online social identities (or gave it to work associates for some reason), and someone online then claims that that identity is really also another identity, that reflects a certain degree of obnoxia, then that can deleteriously affect a person's employment. That is when libel/slander can come into the picture. The libel comes from implying that one person, that conducts him/herself civily, has an alter-ego (under another screen name)that makes comments that would make his/her being a good team member at work questionable. It is libelous to imply untrue statements about a person's ability to be a good employee. My ongoing concerns about anti-Semitism being, in my opinion, intractable in society, is really not a good work team persona. Do you see my point? If not, do not reply.

1 Reply

@Foofie,

Quote:

The libel comes from implying that one person, that conducts him/herself civily, has an alter-ego (under another screen name)that makes comments that would make his/her being a good team member at work questionable.

Courts will see no reason to accept your made up definition of libel/slander.

It isn't libelous to imply untrue statements about a person's ability when that person is anonymously online. In fact, it would make it impossible to meet the standards for libel when the person is anonymous.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Quote:
The libel comes from implying that one person, that conducts him/herself civily, has an alter-ego (under another screen name)that makes comments that would make his/her being a good team member at work questionable.

Courts will see no reason to accept your made up definition of libel/slander.

It isn't libelous to imply untrue statements about a person's ability when that person is anonymously online. In fact, it would make it impossible to meet the standards for libel when the person is anonymous.

You are not following my logic. A person these days might be required at work to give the company all their social online identities to see if that employee is reflecting the kind of person that company hires. Then if it is read that that civil/decent person has an alter ego that is obnoxious, and that is not an alter ego at all, but another person, then there was libel. The company thinks that the decent person has an obnoxious alter ego identity, when it is not true. In this case, there are two different people, and it is being claimed that they are the same person.

Nothing is necessarily anonymous these days, since some employers may want to confirm that their employees have "correct" company images on social networking/forum sites.

2 Replies

Not in Canada, then again, your privacy laws are not as strict. However, I can't see this ever happening and if it were the case I could see lawsuits being filed.

0 Replies

@Ragman,

Don't worry, Dorothy, we'll get to the Wizard in the end . . .

0 Replies

@Foofie,

Quote:

A person these days might be required at work to give the company all their social online identities to see if that employee is reflecting the kind of person that company hires.

Really? Where is that?

You can make **** up but it doesn't make it true.

0 Replies

@Foofie,

Quote:

Nothing is necessarily anonymous these days, since some employers may want to confirm that their employees have "correct" company images on social networking/forum sites.

Are you saying Miller works for a company that requires she reveal all her online identities? Are you saying that the company she works for monitors on a daily basis all her online accounts? Are you saying that said company has retaliated against her?

Until you can show all those things, there is no legal basis for libel.

By the way, if such a company exists, please let us know. I would love to be in the the lawsuit that takes them for every dollar they have.

1 Reply

And he too is a Chicken Hawk.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know