Yay, I’m in a blog fight
Or Sharon the love
And through absolutely no fault or effort on my own part. Sharon Cobb says in comments:
I am requesting the owner of this site verify that I explicitly explained to him that Michael Moore was in no way involved in my film, that No one was profiting from it,etc., and yet you went ahead and wrote this inspite (sic) of the facts.
I am confused, of course, because in the harassing emails that I have received from her, she asked me not to post her emails. I abided by that. But she did mention that Moore had nothing to do with her film. However, his name does appear in the credits and she says she’s given him permission to use her footage in his upcoming film. I dunno, you tell me.
She sends me these requests because troublemaker #9 posted some less than flattering things about her, which in that email even I said to her I thought they were a bit much. Now, she’s demanding we correct assertions we never made, something she’s good at herself. As Les put it in comments:
Your correction takes the form of making corrections to mistakes that weren’t made.
Now, for the big kicker, she has threatened to sue me for libel, slander and intentionally inflicting emotional harm. It’s probably my fault for telling her that her allegations were unfounded and unless they came from a lawyer, I wouldn’t take them seriously. And if they did come from a lawyer, it’d have to be a pretty stupid lawyer. That said, here’s the deal, I’ve only linked to Sharon a handful of times. I liked her TennCare stuff, wished her well on her surgery, and linked to her insight on Tennessee politics. I’ve not linked to her all that much because, frankly, I don’t generally read her site. If I do, it’s because someone else I do regularly read linked to it. But because she can’t take the criticism leveled by #9, I’m in a pickle. Do I pull the posts to avoid the hassle? Or do I stick to my proverbial guns? Well, I like guns whether they’re real or proverbial. This is not the first time I’ve been threatened with legal action for this blog. It won’t be the last. You will not silence me and your petty threats are laughable. So, bring it.
If you’re going to blog, you need to toughen up. Not everyone who links to you is going to send you accolades, praise, and support. If you can’t deal with criticism, whether you think it’s founded or not, then take your blog down and apologize.
And that’s all I have to say about that.
December 12th, 2005 at 11:23 am
If you can’t deal with criticism, whether you think it’s founded or not, then take your blog down and apologize.
That sums it up.
My response to Miss Cobb
December 12th, 2005 at 12:04 pm
Removing the post and backing down would be – IMO – the wrong thing to do.
Yes, such a “fight” will be draining and who has the time?
But if you back down when you are not wrong, then you have enboldened a “bully”, as it were.
If she is successful in shutting up you / #9, (and Hitman), who will be safe? If I write something she disapproves of, will I be the next target of her virtrol?
So, as much as you probably don’t want to read this, here it is; by defending #9 against her, you are also defending a lot of other people against her and people like her.
(And just to add fuel to the fire, let me add this – you can delete it if you want:
– If you were to remove #9’s post, it would be the equivalent of saying “We shall have peace in our time!” Now, I’m LMFAO writing that line, but there is a bit of truth to it, even if the comparison is over-the-top.)
heh
December 12th, 2005 at 12:26 pm
Jon, I’m afraid I don’t get the last line.
December 12th, 2005 at 12:34 pm
Neville Chamberlain made “We shall have peace in our time!” famous. He was wrong. Appeasement doesn’t work.
http://www.britannia.com/history/docs/peacetime.html
December 12th, 2005 at 1:08 pm
IANAL (OK, I am, but please pretend I’m not ‘cuz this is not my area of practice), but if I had a nickel for every time some angry chump shook his/her fists and yelled “I’m gonna sue yoooo,” I still wouldn’t be rich, but I would have a lot of nickels.
If I were you I’d tell her to identify the specific assertions, chapter and verse, that she thinks are libelous (i.e., factually wrong, not merely unflattering) – and then remove those specific claims if you agree. If you’re feeling charitable, you may also want to send her a free copy of Black’s Law Dictionary so she can find out what slander and intentional infliction of emotional distress are.
December 12th, 2005 at 2:34 pm
Once again, you are misrepresenting me. I never asked you to take down any posts. I requested that #9 stop linking me and making up stories and calling me vicious names and you allowing vicious comments that called me the worst names imaginable.
I never sent harrassing emails. My first email was polite and even warm in spots, yet you are implying differently.
I am not trying to distant myself from Moore. The fact is, as I told you, he has nothing to do with my documentary.
You all are going after me because of MSM and me trying to find out if Hitman is blogging on State dime and on our taxes for the Governor. I am sorry you don’t understand why that is a potential story. Here is what I wrote about it and then it got all blown out of proportion:
“If this turns out to be some kid blogging on a State computer who somehow doesn’t work for the State, then I’ll certainly say so. The way “Hitman” writes and the ISP and additional information that the address is from the State warrants further investigation. I want to underscore I am an investigative journalist and the information I’ve uncovered are a few good leads, and nothing more at this point. I am not prepared to draw a definitive conclusion at this point, and neither should you. But I think you would have to agree all of the above deserves a serious investigation. This isn’t about TennCare, (though it’s certainly a concern of mine) it’s about ethics and values and YOUR TAXES being used to blog.”
I was clear that this was about one person blogging on State time. Furthermore, in my email, I posed the question as to what would you do if someone anonymously came on to lie about you? I also stated thsi could take weeks or months to find out because I wasn’t going to out some kid, but had to be sure he/she was doing this at the admonistrations missive. Then I get called a narcisist. That was so over the top wrong. Wrong. Several people have asked me to write about some of my experiences, so I shared some personal stories and got vicously attacked for it–when the real issue was outing Hitman.
#9 linked a tribute I did to Pat Morita. A lot of people like to hear a personal story when someone they like who is famous dies. I wrote about my ex husband’s heavyweight championship fight on the anniversary of it. I still get a lot of emails from boxing fans, and I thought it was a nice thing to do for them. It wasn’t about ME. But when I wrote raw, straight from the heart piece about John Lennon, #9 was over the top to link that story with calling me a narcisist.
Because of the above, I didn’t write a tribute to Richard Prior, who was a dear friend of my ex husbands and someone we both spent a lot of time with. I simply wasn’t up to being called more names for sharing a personal story. It just isn’t worth the pain. It is wrong that I have to be in fear that if I write something about a celebrity I know/known that I am going to get called terrible names over here for it. My request that you put an end to the ugliness was not an unreasonable request.
Also, I NEVER asked you to remove #9’s comments. I politely asked you to stop linking me because his posts were vicious. Again, that is a misrepresentation. The hateful and totally erronenous comments were okay with you. When someone leaves a comment about another blogger that is remotely rude, I remove it. My site is not a place for vicious, erroneous comments to attack my fellow bloggers. I didn’t realize your site was.
Xriq states I should get familiar with the law and libel. I am very familiar with libel. First, as a long time journalist. Secondly, my husband won the biggest libel lawsuit in history. See Cobb vs Sports Illustrated. (The Supreme Court did not uphold it, but he won the biggest judgment ever) The point being, I am very familiar with libel laws in print AND on the Internet.
Lastly, I did not see Katherine’s comment about Moore being a consultant. For that, I do owe you an apology. I was so clear that Mike didn’t have anything to do with my film in my email, and when I saw #9 wrote he might be consulting, I was furious because I was clear in email he wasn’t doing anything with my film. Nonetheless, I see where you got that. Katherine is a fine woman and a dear person, so my bad and my apology for getting upset about the consulting thing. Moore is not consulting. He and I talked about healthcare when we met.
Lastly, you mention I should toughen up if I am going to blog. I disagree. I think you could agree to disagree in a mature, respectful manner instead of the hatefest #9 has encouraged. I have a good relationship with a lot of bloggers with whom I disagree with and vice-versa, and they would probably hate themselves more than me if they spoke to me the way you allow people on your site to conduct themselves. And the fact that the people attacking me aren’t doing it under their real names makes it that much more cowardly. I doubt #9 would say the things about me he has said on here to my face. If I am wrong, then please have him email me and I will meet him and see if he is such a bully to a woman in person.
The only mistake I made was thinking of bloggers as having the same professional courtesy we have in MSM. You would rather defend an anonymous blogger, however, who is spinning for the Governor, than a woman who has been doing this for almost a year.
Yes. I am sensitive. Oh my. What a horrible quality. Then your #9 strikes at me when I post my most vulnerable post. A total bully. And the fact that I am so physically vulnerable at the moment makes what you allow over here completely egregious and malicious.
Once again, I am asking you to please stop posting about me.
Thanks,
Sharon
December 12th, 2005 at 2:47 pm
Yes, sharon, accusing me of libel, slander and bullying was quite warm. In fact, I put it on my Christmas cards this year. And you are, again, misrepresenting the situation. I never stated that you asked me to remove a post. Or are you again asking that I correct a mistake I never made? You can’t even keep the story straight between comments.
December 12th, 2005 at 2:53 pm
“You all are going after me because of MSM and me trying to find out if Hitman is blogging on State dime and on our taxes for the Governor.”
I wouldn’t call it going after you and you probably weren’t referring to me, but I’m critical of you not because of any of the above, but because you’re an irrational blowhard with an exaggerated sense of self-importance.
“The only mistake I made was thinking of bloggers as having the same professional courtesy we have in MSM. “
Sharon, this is really your only move: the Chief Brody Slap. Find a victim. If you can’t find one, use yourself. Pretend to be the selfless person standing up for the victim against all the evil of the world using all the self-righteous language you can muster.
Me, I’m not buying it. Your arguments aren’t rational, and everything in the world isn’t about Sharon Cobb, who by the way used to be an investigative journalist.
You love dishing out criticism, but you can’t take it. In a documentary you’re in control and the audience only gets to hear your version of events. Blogging is a two-way medium where everyone has a voice, and you can’t handle it.
Example 1. You’re trying to get hitman fired from his job. Maybe hitman was wrong for blogging on the taxpayer’s dime, but I don’t think the taxpayer’s dime was what you were worried about. You just wanted payback for one of your critics. Example 2. This post, where you’re threatening to sue SayUncle for #9’s post.
Your supposed public service looks less and less like philanthropy and more and more like plain old politics and egotism.
December 12th, 2005 at 3:17 pm
IMO, she is a bully. And now that her “bully” routine isn’t working, she’s switchin’ to a “my mistake” and “please” tact. Plus terms like “vulnerable”, “lady”,
I’m sure the matter will be dropped, as it probably should.
But there is something that grinds me about people who believe everyone can “agree to disagree”. The reality in my world is that people’s opinions and problems cannot always be resolved. And bloggers are just people voicing their opinions.
As for the “same professional courtesy we have in the MSM”, I would like to remind everyone of the courtesy treatment that Jeff Gannon received at the hands of the MSM.
I think Barrett Rifles has a different opinion of the “professional”-ism of the MSM as well.
Someone who wraps themselves in such swathings, comments regarding having a conversation with Micheal Moore, and points out that she is “very familiar with libel laws” is not endearing trust or open dialog. Combined with the treatment of Hitman, I’m thankful I blog via a pseudo.
I bristle whenever someone attempts to intrude on anonymous opinionating. The good far outweighs the possible bad. The topic of Hitman and the woman-whose-name-I-shall-not- type is a great example of where two people will not “agree to disagree”.
Here we have a person who is attempting to ruin Hitman’s life, but threatens lawsuits when a harsh comment is directed her way. That almost seems like a “Like you and me but only better” motif.
It would be interesting if I had time to fisk all of the posts by this woman-whose-name-I-shall-not-type. But alas, I must go back to work. The manipulations in verse this woman-whose-name-I-shall-not-type is attempting are classic examples of persuasion. This is frustrating.
(I was going to add a disclaimer to suggest Uncle remove my opinion if it caused him hardship. But after hitting refresh, I see I am not the only one who finds the actions of this woman-whose-name-I-shall-not-type disagreeable.)
December 12th, 2005 at 3:31 pm
The third sentence (first paragraph) should end with “sensitive”.
December 12th, 2005 at 3:58 pm
No, I said you should get familiar with the law on slander and intentional infliction of emotional distress. I never said anything about how much or little you know about libel, though I should point out that your original threats to Uncle betrayed little understanding of the difference between libel and slander, or even of the fact that there is a difference.
In any event, you obviously don’t know the basics about libel, slander, IIED, or anything else if you think you have a leg to stand on when demanding that Uncle and his crew stop blogging about you, linking to you, or expressing unfavorable opinions about you. It sounds like you learned all the wrong lessons you learned from your husband’s bogus trial against Time (beginning with the obvious fact that you can’t sue a magazine, only the legal entity that publishes it). Here’s a crash course for you:
1. Given that your husband’s bogus case was reversed on appeal, he didn’t “win” anything. All his attorney accomplished was to prove that a district court judge and 12 semi-randomly selected individuals are as clueless on the law as you seem to be. A 2-1 reversal with a stinging dissent might have suggested that there was a potentially viable legal argument that may have justified that jury’s crazy verdict. A 3-0 reversal, however, suggests precisely the opposite.
2. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is not the Supreme Court. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you’re really not that important, and neither is your husband. Things might have been different if your husband’s bogus case were not nearly as clearly bogus as it was, in which case another circuit might have ruled differently on the same issue, resulting in a circuit split for the Supremes to resolve. No such luck here. declined to hear the case at all (warning: HUGE PDF, with a very brief dismissal of Mr. Cobb’s non-case on p. 878).
There is no shame in not having the Supreme Court rule on your case, but there IS shame – or should be, anyway – in claiming that they ruled on it when they didn’t.
December 12th, 2005 at 4:33 pm
So Sharon Cobb* claimed her husband’s case went to the Supreme Court and it only went to an appeals court. That seems to be in character.
* The Nashville blogger who, by the way, used to be an investigative journalist, but who is somehow unable to keep basic facts straight.
December 12th, 2005 at 4:52 pm
Sharon wrote, “I never sent harassing emails. My first email was polite and even warm in spots, yet you are implying differently.” Your first and second emails were both harassing and threatening. You charged libel in each one.
Sharon wrote, “Also, I NEVER asked you to remove #9’s comments. I politely asked you to stop linking me because his posts were vicious.” You politely asked to censor me. Then you made threats. My posts were not vicious. You used to be an investigative reporter, get with the program. For example, the title of one posts was “Five indications you MIGHT be a narcissist.” Please note the word MIGHT. You are also interpreting hyperlinks. Is that an exact science? It seems very subjective. There is nothing hateful in what I have written. Mostly it is quotes from your website. How am I responsible for what you write?
Sharon wrote, “Lastly, I did not see Katherine’s comment about Moore being a consultant. For that, I do owe you an apology. I was so clear that Mike didn’t have anything to do with my film in my email, and when I saw #9 wrote he might be consulting, I was furious because I was clear in email he wasn’t doing anything with my film. Nonetheless, I see where you got that. Katherine is a fine woman and a dear person, so my bad and my apology for getting upset about the consulting thing. Moore is not consulting. He and I talked about healthcare when we met.” OK, Then. Thank you for answering my question.
I would appreciate an answer to my question about, “is it your desire that TennCare becomes the first “socialized medicine” in America?” I will continue to ask this until you answer. Put your cards on the table. Let’s have an honest open debate and cut all this foolishness.
Sharon wrote, “The only mistake I made was thinking of bloggers as having the same professional courtesy we have in MSM. You would rather defend an anonymous blogger, however, who is spinning for the Governor, than a woman who has been doing this for almost a year.” Can we get something straight? You are an equal. Period. This woman stuff means nothing. You have the same responsibilities as any citizen man or woman and your plea for special treatment is denied. Where is this alleged, “professional courtesy we have in MSM”? Is that where there is an unspoken covenant to not say anything bad about another journalist no matter how far off the reservation they may stray? We have manners in Tennessee. I suggest you learn the local customs. We do not call people “killers” because they disagree with our philosophical beliefs.
No matter what your childhood was or your current state of affairs you have not conducted yourself well. No exemption is granted. Equality means we are all equal. You are not my master and you do not have the power to censor me or anyone else. Your continuing efforts to do so reflect on you and you only.
Sharon wrote, “When someone leaves a comment about another blogger that is remotely rude, I remove it.” Does that apply to everyone? What about when you write a post that is rude? Does that apply also?
If so Sharon, please remove the following posts on your blog that were not only rude but some of which may have been libel:
http://sharoncobb.blogspot.com/2005/06/sit-in-protesters-denied-food-and.html#c111937886862942284
“The people are there, “technically” by choice. However, some of them are going to die at the hands of this governor if these cuts are allowed to happen, so if Phil Bredesen is going to kill them, they don’t want to go down without a fight.”
http://guerillawomentn.blogspot.com/2005/07/victim-of-bredesens-healthcare-axe.html
http://sharoncobb.blogspot.com/2005/09/memorial-service-tonight-for-one-of.html
http://sharoncobb.blogspot.com/2005/09/governor-bredesen-breaks-his-word.html
http://sharoncobb.blogspot.com/2005/10/another-sick-resident-dies-because-of.html
and of course this one:
http://sharoncobb.blogspot.com/2005/11/governor-bredesens-plan.html
This is a two way street. Either accept the responsibilities that come with it or apologize and take down your blog.
December 12th, 2005 at 6:46 pm
Lee–First, I did not lie about my ex. This case did go to the Supreme Court. He won in Federal court in Nashville, 6th in Ohio overturned, then ultimately it went to the Supreme Court…which upheld the 6th. Yet another example of someone trying to misrepresent me. I stated the end result. TO be clear, a jury awarded my ex husband 10.7 million in Nashville Federal Court, the 6th overturned, the Supreme Court upheld.
#9–If I thought you could actually engage in a sincere discussion you without name calling, I’d be more than happy to engage in a mature debate or discussion about TennCare and healthcare. And to answer your question, yes, I am for national healthcare. Can you refrain from name calling? Also, if I post about someone I know who either I interviewed or I knew from my ex husband’s days in boxing and movies, you need to refrain from calling me names. I spent most of the year NOT talking about who my ex is or who I know, but people have asked me to do so, and I did and now all the name calling. Is it so much too ask though, that you lay off when I can’t defend myself when I’m trying to take a few weks off to recover from surgery?
Jon–You are so wrong. I am not attempting to ruin “Hitman’s”life. I couldn’t be any clearer if it’s no one nothing is going to happen, but if he is sponsering State propaganda as part of tax payers money, then it is a story. I’m not going to argue about him/her.
Regarding Gannon. Gannon only started working for Bobby Eberol, who left his job at Lockheed Martin in Houston to start a webiste? I know. Sounds bizarre. But here’s the deal: They also had the missile defense contracts from this administration. Gannon was NOT an experienced journalist. If you want to know what happened in that case is Bobby, who was frequently at fundraisers with Rove, obtained those “credentials” via Rove and that is how he was able to get a long term White House pass instead of a day pass. This of course, is a whole other story, but if it’s of interest to you, see if you can still google Bobby and Lockheed Martin and see if the Houston Chronicles still have links up to their sites wehre they have a lot of photos with Bobby and Rove. MSM missed this one.
You know, other than Lee, I have not seen any of you on my site or on other sites where we have civilized debates. Maybe this site is hateful and mean-spirited and how you all talk. If that is the case, however, please leave me out of it. I have no interest in talking to anyone who is verbally abusive or misleading. #9….you said you would keep dogging me until I answered your question. That’s bullying. This one time I answered it, but if you think threatening to dog me until I answer something to your liking isn’t harrassing, you’re wrong.
So please, either be polite or leave me alone.
December 12th, 2005 at 6:59 pm
Someone wants to be “left alone” but they just cant quit commenting about themselves now can they? Freedom of speech and expression is apparently limited when someone becomes a talking point.
December 12th, 2005 at 7:08 pm
Again, Sharon, you misrepresent the case. The Supreme Court did not uphold anything. They refused to hear the case.
December 12th, 2005 at 7:19 pm
Hogwash. As my previous links made clear, your husband only “won” his frivolous case in federal court because the judge and the jury didn’t have a clue what the law was, and it was easily reversed on appeal, 3-0, for the same reason. The Supreme Court played no role in that decision, except in the very technical sense that at least six of them (and possibly all nine, we don’t know) “decided” not to hear it.
Between falsely implying in one comment that it was the Supreme Court who reversed the original decision, and falsely claiming in a second that the Supremes had “upheld” an appellate decision they hadn’t ruled on at all, you did a lot more damage your own credibility than anyone else could possibly do by “misrepresenting” you. Either you were deliberately twisting the truth beyond the breaking point, or you are the world’s least investigative “investigative” journalist. Either way, this pattern of misstatements does not reflect well on your credibility.
Meaning what? That’s it’s OK for “investigative” journalists to snoop around trying to destroy innocent non-journalists, but no one dares turn the tables and investigate the investigators? Sorry, it doesn’t work that way anymore. Just ask Dan Rather.
December 12th, 2005 at 7:43 pm
Say Uncle,
I said it went to the Supreme Court. That was not a mistatement. But you are absoulutely right that they didn’t hear it.
Xriq–I didn’t say it was a good decision on his case, I said I was very familiar with the laws about libel because of that case. I agree the lawsuit was without merit. More specifically, Judge Robert Echols allowed evidence that should not have been allowed, and clearly was taken by Tex. But what can you do? Who holds Federal Judges accountable? You want to know why this case proceeded to trial? Because Judge Echols said that SI printed he did cocaine when in fact it was pot Tex tested positie for and therefore Tex would be viewed differently. My question: Aren’t they both illegal? I don’t know that you can blame the jury as much as the judge. I’m serious when I ask this: What can you do about a Federal Judge who is either incompetent or favors a celebrity? I know if you or I filed the same lawsuit–wait–it would never get that far because we’d never even get a lawyer to take it.
To answer the latter part of your question, one of the things that attacted me to blogging was to hold the feet of MSM to the fire when appropriate. But that doesn’t mean viciously attacking people.
But on the first matter, truly, what do you do about Judges like Echols that allow what happened?
December 12th, 2005 at 8:05 pm
It did not. They denied cert hence it never made it there.
December 12th, 2005 at 8:25 pm
SayUncle,
Is it not correct to say it made it there when it was filed there and they reviewed it even though they didn’t hear it? To me it seems if they reviewed whether or not to hear it, then it’s correct to say it went to The Supreme Court. Hence, it did go there and was reviewed there and was turned down. But it did go to the Supreme Court. No one else but the Supreme Court made the decision not to hear it.
Can you address the other isssues I raised…about Federal Judges?
December 12th, 2005 at 8:33 pm
I think if something made it to the SCOTUS, that would involve arguing the case in front of them.
Not familiar enough to opine on the federal judges.
December 12th, 2005 at 8:44 pm
Sharon, there’s not a lot we can do about incompetent federal judges, who cannot constitutionally be fired except for bad (as opposed to incompetent) behavior. Even if it could be shown that the judge was starstruck, that probably wouldn’t be enough in itself; there’d have to be evidence of payoffs or some such, which presumably were absent in this case. I also agree that the judge is more blameworthy than the jury in this instance; both were ignorant of the law, but it’s not the jurors’ job to know the law, only to apply it as instructed by the judge. I merely included them mostly for completeness, i.e., if they had understood the basics of libel law, they’d have likely found for the defendant in spite of the judge’s incompetence, but the one thing I do blame them for is the obscene amount of the award, which strikes me as excessive even if the finding of liability had been legit.
I disagree as to cocaine vs. marijuana, however. Both are illegal, yes, but they’re not equally illegal, either under the law (which imposes much harsher penalties on cocaine) or, more importantly, public perception (which condemns “hard” drugs more strongly than “soft” ones). Stating that so-and-so has smoked marijuana probably will not harm his reputation anywhere near as much as stating that he had used cocaine. Suppose that in 1992, rather than admitting to “not inhaling” marijuana, Bill Clinton had instead admitted to “not inhaling” cocaine. Does anyone seriously think he would have been elected President? I know there are rumors surrounding our current President, but (1) rumors != admissions, and (2) eight years of Clinton may have made us all a bit more tolerant of all drugs in 2000 than we would have been in 1992. Thus, I can envision a viable libel case (albeit not this one) in which an occasional marijuana user could successfully sue someone for falsely portraying him as a cokehead.
In this case, though, the specific drug in question seems more of a background issue. As I understand it, the purpose of the article was not to smear him as a drug addict per se, but to show evidence he had participated in a rigged fight. In that vein, it wouldn’t seem to matter much which drug he had used, only that he had used a drug recreationally on the eve of a fight he was supposedly trying to win. For that showing, just about any drug other than a performance-enhancing one will do.
December 12th, 2005 at 9:21 pm
Only in the most technical sense. Yes, it “made it there,” but no, they only reviewed it in the most perfunctory manner before tossing it. So if your point was that your ex’s lawyers were so determined that they pushed as far as they could, then I suppose the fact that they took the case all the way to the Supreme Court means something. Otherwise, it means nothing, as the Court itself hasn’t given us any clue what they think about the case (except, by negative implication, that it was not so unusually important as to justify their time).
Bear in mind this meta-discussion began with your statement that the Supreme Court “did not uphold” the original judgment, which implied that they reviewed the case in full and struck it down on the merits. Granted, it is technically true that if you don’t rule on a matter, you can’t “uphold” it, either, but that’s more than a little misleading; it’s a bit like saying that the Court of Xrlq didn’t uphold the ruling, which is also true. And the subsequent statement that the Supremes had “upheld the 6th” was simply false. A denial of certiorari is not a ruling on the merits, one way or the other. It’s an opt-out.
December 12th, 2005 at 10:44 pm
Xriq,
You obviously know your law. You seem to be familiar with the ex’s case, so here’s something else you might find interesting. My ex went from a defense of saying the fight was not fixed to saying the fight might have been fixed but he didn’t know about. That was the strategy his lawyer used and I am fairly sure why the jury went in his favor. The case opened with Larry Holmes talking about how hard Tex fought him for 15 rounds. So, if you’re the jury, are you going to believe a man who fought for the title, or, a 340 pound “fighter” who was a substitute at the last minute because Tim”Doc” Anderson refused to fight Tex. A sidebar to all of this, Tim later shot and killed the promoter of the fight, Rick “Elvis” Parker, and Tim is doing life in Florida, which means no one was alive who was in the dressing room, ring and after party that night. Sonny Barch(the fighter who sold his story to Sports Illustrated) didn’t show up for SI to be a witness, so that pretty much solidified the deal. One of the reasons the award was so obscene was Judge Echols told the jury to “consider the deep pockets of Time/SI”while deciding the award. Actually there were two awards: one conpensatory and one punitive. The total was 10.7 million.
If you happen to be into boxing in addition to law, you would find the “Rick Parker traveling circus” very interesting. It’s one of those “truth is stranger than fiction” stories. All one has to do is go to an objective source like the Ralph Citro book of records, and can clearly find their answers there. Unbelieveably, that didn’t come up in the courtroom, either.
Best,
Sharon
December 12th, 2005 at 11:58 pm
Golly gee, this is fun – NOT!
I don’t give a rat’s butt about some guy who used to be related to the woman-whose-name-I shall-not-type. This latest tactic taken by her is called a ‘diversion’. Being unable to press the original issue, she has diverted attention toward a non-related topic. She attempted many times to divert the topic (she brought up “Hitman”, “Supreme Court”, “Federal Judges”, “Boxing”, and “Rick Parker”. None of which applies to the initial problem – that she doesn’t like what #9 wrote about her.
Poor baby.
This woman-whose-name-I shall-not-type is attempting to influence what each of us write in our own blogs by making us uncomfortable through her complaints. She is – in effect – attempting to control our expression of our opinions. It is unacceptable for a person to write; “…you need to refrain from calling me names.”
Here’s a news flash for ya miss: Anyone can call you *anything* they want. Anyone. Anything. While it is possible that some phrases can result in legal procedings, that does not preclude Anyone from calling you *anthing* they want.
This entire “drama” revolves around the _fact_ that you don’t like what someone else wrote. You’ve indicated that you want it retracted. And on multiple occasions, you’ve requested that people express themselves in a different manner. Just who do you think you are? Are you God? Did you write the laws in the US? Do you interpret them? Who are you to tell me how to express myself? Where do you get off ‘setting the ground-rules’ for a disagreement? You commented that we haven’t posted at your site. I wonder why that is? Perhaps we don’t agree with your rules and we’re not about to submit ourselves to your rules? I’ve read your site. I’ve read your writings. And I’m not impressed. And right now I’m pissed because you are consuming precious time and energy from people who I enjoy reading. While these great thinkers are churning over your mis-statements and incorrect interpretations, they aren’t writing creative, enlightening works. And I want to read their work.
Essentially, you are stealing from me. And I want you to stop. Stop writing words that cause these people to have to divert their time to correct you. I recommend that you express yourself in your space – on your own dime – where we can safely ignore it. I want you to stop distracting these wonderful, gifted, ingenious people from their other creations. Stop stealing from their readers and their families. Stop it.
You were wrong to start it. You are wrong to continue it. And you will be wrong to post one more comment on the topic. Just.Stop.It.
December 13th, 2005 at 12:25 am
Sharon,
I have debated folks that use every trick in the book. East Tennessee blogging is not the Country Club of Nashville blogging. You have charmed and disarmed many bloggers. Not here. We look at what you write. That is the standard. Charm, history, and style points do not count here. In one day you have gone from threatening people to signing “Best” as your closing. That is a new record.
Have I called you names? I believe I implied you might be a narcissist. There is a difference. You have repeatedly called Bredesen a killer. There are many many degrees of difference between the two. Why did I do this? To see how you would respond. How did you respond? You overreacted. Big time. How do you think Bredesen felt when he was repeatedly called a killer? This over the top stuff brings too much baggage. Either you figure it out or you don’t. Charm is not credibility. You have to make up a lot of ground on lost credibility.
Some advice. First take a break. Next lose the “killer” stuff. It just makes you seem a little crazy. Admit you made a mistake with your pursuit of the Hitman or at the very least just stop commenting on how it is a story. It was never a story. You just made a big mistake. The only thing worse than making a mistake is holding on to it.
Find substantive issues about TennCare. I seriously doubt that it would be possible to achieve a state income tax in Tennessee. See if you can find a way for TennCare to survive within the current state budget. This may mean asking Gordon Bonnyman to shut up. If you want to accuse someone of causing TennCare to fail make sure you have the right person. Set realistic goals. TennCare will not become socialized medicine. Trust me. It won’t happen. Aim for a target you can hit. Bring reasonable debate and people will debate you. Or just stay on your current glide path.
On your video, I did not care for it. It made me think that TennCare should be shut down. That is not the feeling I had before I saw your video. Sometimes an emotional plea will have a negative response. Trying to make TennCare socialized medicine will fail. Expect heated debate if you chose that course. The formula works like this, TennCare socialized medicine=State Income Tax. Do the math.
December 13th, 2005 at 12:43 am
#9, how come you don’t pick on SayUncle for being a narcissist? He posts about himself all the time. Is it because it would seem stupid to pick on someone for writing about their own life on their own blog? Yes, that is stupid. It was stupid when you accused Sharon of being narcissistic for writing personal material on her personal website, but it surpassed stupid by leaps and bounds into disgraceful and sick because the post that set you off was a courageous and deeply personal post about sexual abuse on the occasion of the 25th anniversary of the murder of a person who helped her survive that abuse.
You have no class, #9, and it is no surprise to see you trotting out a Clintonesque defense hinging on the word “might.” Weenie. Strange that a powerful essay on surviving sexual abuse would trigger such a response from you. Does sexual abuse get you excited? Do you post anonymously to hide your presence in the sex offenders database? Are you more into incest or rape? I’m going to keep asking that question until I get an answer.
And all you assholes defending #9 because you think he is on your team, are you hoping for sloppy seconds? SayUncle, I suspect your wife might be more concerned about you giving author privileges to someone who ridicules a person for writing about how she survived incest than she is about titties in your blogads. Why don’t you have her read Sharon’s essay on John Lennon, then show her #9’s post and she what she thinks.
December 13th, 2005 at 1:33 am
I am surprised Rikki you haven’t brought metulj along for backup. That is one of your more Gomer posts. So what put the burr under your saddle? I take a few days off from the Blab and you come over here to try and pick a fight. BTW, it is a little boring over there. OMG, that was narcissistic wasn’t it? Must be catching.
Your premise above is foolish. It was a hyperlink. Nice try. Tell you what, pick a good topic like socialized medicine and we can go a few rounds. You are a little late to stir anything up here. I believe this has been thoroughly fisked. But thanks for playing.
December 13th, 2005 at 9:20 am
Persimmon,
Even I think that referring to someone as a narcissist for what they wrote on their site is a bit much. After all, isn’t blogging the epitome of narcissism? That said, what’s the point in trying to drag my wife into this? She’s a grown woman who reads what she wants.
Also, sex offender stuff is a bit much.
Now, I’ve not read Cobb’s Lennon tribute but my understanding is that, of all the links #9 listed, that’s the one people take issue with whereas the bulk of comments has been over the outing of hitman.
December 13th, 2005 at 12:14 pm
Isn’t it interesting how #9 takes a principled stand against the outing of Hitman, yet he outs me at first opportunity? What strong principles he has.
I mentioned your wife as a reference to your porn ads post, but also to try to get you to rethink your position here. The fact that you have not read Sharon’s Lennon tribute explains a lot. I support your stance against removing posts and in favor of defending anonymity, but there is more going on here that I don’t think you have fully considered. I doubt my perspective means much to you, but your wife’s surely does, and I do think she would be more disturbed by #9’s treatment of Sharon Cobb than by porn ads.
#9’s narcissism post was a cheap personal attack. Sure, it referenced several posts by Sharon, but the timing leaves no doubt that it was a response to her Lennon essay, which makes it far worse in ways you can’t understand if you have not read that post. Note also how limp #9’s defense of himself has grown. He is using the word “might” as a lubricant and trying to slide out of trouble by changing the subject and saying all he did was put up hyperlinks. He owes her an apology, and he is way too small a man to recognize it. As his enabler, you bear some responsibility here as well. Has he provided the kind of coverage of local issues you hoped for when you gave him author privileges?
December 13th, 2005 at 12:32 pm
Persimmon,
Sorry, I am not a beatles fan. I suppose I’ll have to go read it.
And, I’m not an ogre, your perspective does mean something to me, primarily because you disagree with me politely. Often, blogs become a big circle jerk where the authors and commentators agree, march lock step, and toe the line, even to the point of immediately crushing dissent by deleting or editing comments or accusations of trolling just because someone disagrees, etc. I don’t do that here and welcome the challenge. I have, after all, changed a mind or two, particularly on the gun issue. And I’ve had my mind changed a few times.
However, I don’t tolerate (or even attempt to engage) those who merely attempt to stir shit by being insulting. Hence, I don’t engage metulj in, well, anything.
I like that you comment here, it’s good to hear well-reasoned dissent.
December 13th, 2005 at 1:24 pm
Persimmon, you are a fixture in the blogosphere and outed yourself long ago. I knew you would take glee in that so I teed that up for you. I hope it made you happy. After six months of trying to shout me down on the Blab you still feel some need to pursue me here? I guess the benefit in this is that I will have to proofread my posts more thoroughly.
OK, lets discuss your charges. The link to the Lennon post was poor editing and nothing more. There are nine hyperlinks in that post. I had 14 Windows open and pulled the wrong link. It was not premeditated and was not consistent with the rest of the post. It was not intentional. I left the hyperlink there because another blogger, Katherine Coble, had already written about it and linked to it. When you make a mistake you take your lumps. A few people like you have construed it to be hurtful. For that, I am sorry I made the mistake. But it stands since it is linked to another website. If it caused any pain to Sharon it was not my intention so I will extend my apology to Sharon for that John Lennon hyperlink.
For many months Sharon had good posts about TennCare and was providing a public service. When she left the reservation and tried to get the Hitman fired from his job and starting calling Bredesen a “killer” her message became irrelevant. Kind of like your calling people sex offenders makes your post irrelevant.
Persimmon, you can write meaningful posts like your comments on hurricane Katrina and how New Orleans should be rebuilt. On groundwater and pollution I think you are top shelf. But you can also be a bit of a Gomer as evidenced above. I know Jon’s post pissed you off but there is no reason to insult the other commenters here. It is clear you wish me to stop writing here. Make your case, and see if you can leave the other commenters out of it.
December 13th, 2005 at 3:12 pm
Since you have now apologized for the link to the Lennon post, I apologize for the sex offender remark. I was hoping you’d accuse me of libel or slander, but you didn’t take the bait. Good for you. I don’t want you to stop writing here. I’m always in favor of more information and more perspectives. I just think you made a mistake and were not being held to task for it. In fact, you were getting a lot of support not because you had a strong defense, but because most of the commenters here share your disregard for Sharon.
I think you are distorting the Hitman issue. The BIG story you can’t figure out is the possibility that Hitman is actually being paid by Bredesen to attack Bredesen’s critics in the blogosphere. Admittedly, there is little evidence to support that theory, but that is what Sharon says she is investigating. She is not out to silence him or get him fired from his job. She wants to know if attacking her is in fact his job. She has tried to explain this, but you guys lock in to your positions and stop listening.
You’ve done the same on the Michael Moore issue. Sharon explained that his name appears in the credits not as a contributor, but as an inspiration, much as someone might thank God or their first-grade teacher or a famous dead person. It’s a sensible explanation, but you’d rather give something Katherine Coble said equal weight in order to perpetuate your smear.
It is certainly human nature to divide ourselves into tribes and fight, but it is a base instinct we need to work to overcome. Democracy works best when we remember we are all on the same team. Partisanship and hard-line ideology are regressive forces that keep us from putting up a better fight against those who steal from the public treasury, reinforce inequalities and pollute shared resources.
December 13th, 2005 at 3:16 pm
Persimmon, the fact there is little evidence (or more accurately, no evidence) is why it appears to be, to use Sharon’s favorite word, bullying.
December 13th, 2005 at 9:08 pm
In fact, you were getting a lot of support not because you had a strong defense, but because most of the commenters here share your disregard for Sharon.
I have disregard for Sharon’s aggressive over the top behavior. I don’t know Sharon personally. She has a lot of friends so it would stand to reason that she is probably a nice person.
I think you are distorting the Hitman issue. The BIG story you can’t figure out is the possibility that Hitman is actually being paid by Bredesen to attack Bredesen’s critics in the blogosphere.
Your charge that the Hitman was attacking Sharon is unclear to me. It looked like Hitman was asking questions, just like I have been doing. Questions are not attacks are they? I don’t think it matters either way because the Hitman writes like a regular person. I did not get the feeling he is a “Bill Lyons” type.
I have written before that EVEN IF Hitman is on Bredesen’s payroll I don’t think this is Earth shaking news. For example, what do you think Dwight Van De Vate’s job is with Knox County? His title is Senior Director of Communications & Government Relations.
How about Mike Arms? His title is Chief of Staff. These guys have Blackberry palm computers. They probably get 100 emails a day wherever they are. You don’t think they are out there on the Internet doing damage control?
Please explain to me how this is a BIG story. Wouldn’t this responsibility fall under the job of Director of Communications? Ragsdale even has an Assistant Director of Communications that works under Van De Vate. It might be a waste of money but the City is the same way. How many times did we have marathon sessions at SKB or k2k or the Blab with Bill Lyons? Bill got pretty testy with SKB a few times.
Tyler Harber worked for Mike Ragsdale and was rumored to have many anonymous Internet identities including caswalker.com during a state election. Is there a law that says that government officials cannot be anonymous on the Internet? It might not be ethical but they have the same rights as any citizen. Don’t they? Heck asked Glenn Reynolds about it. I don’t think this is the slam-dunk you seem to think it is. During work people have a right to their personal opinion don’t they?
You’ve done the same on the Michael Moore issue. Sharon explained that his name appears in the credits not as a contributor, but as an inspiration, much as someone might thank God or their first-grade teacher or a famous dead person. It’s a sensible explanation, but you’d rather give something Katherine Coble said equal weight in order to perpetuate your smear.
I do have serious concerns about Michael Moore. Don’t like him and don’t trust him. He is a bad actor. Katherine is a close friend of Sharon’s so what she wrote has both weight and merit. No smear was intended, I just wanted to find out what was true. I take Sharon at her word and I am relieved. Sharon explained that AFTER I asked the question. She apologized for overreacting so the case is closed.
December 14th, 2005 at 12:37 pm
The issue is not whether Bredesen has PR staffers. It is whether his PR staffers are posing as ordinary citizens while conducting government work. Sunshine laws, campaign disclosure rules, and even espionage laws could come into play if government employees attempt to conceal their identity or their activity. Anonymity is for citizens, not for government agents.
And questions can be harassment depending on how they are asked. Bill Lyons was always up front about his identity and role, and he has every right to get testy if someone refuses to listen or tries to spread falsehoods. It would be great if government officials posted on blogs to provide missing information or explanations for decisions and events; they just need to be clear about who they are and what they are doing.
December 14th, 2005 at 1:13 pm
It would be great if government officials posted on blogs to provide missing information or explanations for decisions and events; they just need to be clear about who they are and what they are doing.
I agree with you. But that is not happening. You would not believe the amount of business done with PR firms and local government that is done very quietly in Knoxville. This is an important issue but is it any different than what the PR government guys have been doing with newspaper reporters for decades?
Sunshine laws, campaign disclosure rules, and even espionage laws could come into play if government employees attempt to conceal their identity or their activity.
I am not sure. Sunshine laws are about meetings. Campaign disclosure rules are about campaigns. If the Hitman is a state employee and is expressing his own opinion would he be a “government agent”? Even if he is a state PR guy working on the orders of the Governor is it breaking the law? It seems like it should be but what law? Once again what is the difference between that and what has been going on with newspapers for decades?
Don’t misunderstand me. I am not defending the practice. But what happens with newspapers has much more impact that anonymous websites. Tennessee is not exactly the champion of ethics. I wish I knew Glenn Reynolds or someone that could tell us what the law is on this.
December 14th, 2005 at 4:30 pm
A blog may very well be a meeting, and it could certainly be part of a campaign. If the existing laws are well written, they should be applicable to online forums. It is just a matter of someone filing a suit and forcing a judge to decide how real world concepts like publisher, author, reader and source translate to this medium. Really, though, it is not all that important whether it is illegal. We both seem to agree that it is unethical for government agents, though not for citizens, to post anonymously. It would certainly change my perception of Bredesen if someone proved he had a secret propaganda team working for him. It’s the secrecy part that is troublesome.
I don’t think I’m following your analogy to newspapers. A government spokesman talking to a reporter or to the public as a government spokesman where everyone knows who everyone is and what their interests and biases might be has little to do with the case at hand.