to John hPosted by Pauline on 8/16/04 at 11:01 (158078)
You are correct, people do feel different from day to day and many do vent here on a regular basis. It's good for them because it's a safe way to vent frustration, anger, and pain.
There is no shame or wrong doing attached with these actions because I think we've all been there, had these days and vented using our own names.
What I'm speaking to are posts that are not done to vent ' ONE'S OWN' frustration, but instead are usually used to 'verbally attack' another person and they hide behind an alias.
Scott suggested this is happening when he said he banned all MARK L's including those using Mark L as an alias.
The first MARK L. was very nasty so it was very easy for someone else to display nasty remarks using the same name. Then all of a sudden a nice Mark L arrives on the scene offering information on where to get ESWT
Oh, but it gets even better because MARK L get nasty again, but is it the real MARK L or an alias playing the part so the guy offering cheap ESWT information is banned for territorial reasons again?
What are you really watching play out here is what you have to ask yourself and for what reason. What is this play really about?
Re: to John hEd Davis, DPM on 8/16/04 at 22:10 (158190)
I did not get the whole story on Mark. I did not find his posts that problematic but if Scott noted that he was using alias' and knew more than we see here, he may or may not give us more information. I don't know if Bill Jr. is the Bill of about 1 1/2 years ago but he is going in the opposite direction criticizing a company that is fighting for ESWT coverage. He has avoided criticizing any individuals on the board but made some remarks about a reputable company that go over the line as far as I am concerned -- I would watch the thread closely on the ESWT Board to see where it goes. The territorial issue is touchy so my approach is to provide the public with as much information as possible so they can make an informed choice. It is a bit difficult to spoon feed information to so many visitors who want a quick answer and not review the material on the site. After a few years, the amount of material here is large and could fill a book or two -- something I contemplated but did not have the time. Interested in a project?
Re: to John hDr. Z on 8/16/04 at 22:34 (158193)
Mark L threated Scott with legal action that is why he banned him. In plain English he went nuts on Scott. So what do you do with someone who threatens you on your own site. BAN HIM
Re: to John hJohn H on 8/17/04 at 12:53 (158255)
I always love it when people threaten to sue. The winners are typically the lawyers. I have been a witness to many times to count and have lost count of the depositions. The last deposition one party (a small town Mayor) was suing 5 different groups so I had all the 5 representing lawyers and the Mayor's lawyer question me for about 7 hours. They started with where was I born and we coverered my life all of which had nothing to do with the trial. When the trail began and all the lawyers were present and the jury entered the room there was a settlement before the trial began. I would not guess how much money was spent leading up to this point. The Mayor who was suing had filed 3 previous similar personal injury suits but that could not be entered into evidence or presented to the jury. At one trial as I sat in a chair after being called before the jury. I reached under the chair to pull my self to the mike. There was a nail there and I ripped a rather deep gash in my hand. I should have sued the court. The trial was stopped while i receive first aid. On one occasion our corporate attorneys hid me for 3 days in a hotel so the other party could not call me as an early witness. I of course had to testify but it was at a time of our attorney's choosing. I have never been on trial but I sure have had enough time in court to get a bit tired of it all. My last big trial our company lost $250,000 defending itself and the guy suing spent at least this much and lost. It drove him into banruptcy. As usual the lawyers won.
Re: to John hEd Davis, DPM on 8/18/04 at 22:27 (158376)
Can an anonymous individual be slandered on the net? Mark could get angry but legally, there is no real case as no one knows who he is.
No doubt, considering legal costs, considering what our legal costs and the insurance costs for protection, we need to take a long hard look at alternate conflict resolution.
Re: to John hjohn h on 8/19/04 at 11:54 (158415)
I would guess that there are millions and millions slandered on the net daily. Unless you have gobs and gobs of money trying to sue on internet postings is a sure loser. See how many lawyers will take such a case on a contingency. None I suspect.