You are the one who keeps talking about windmills. I used the word only once, almost two months ago.
>>
You are being disingenuous.
You are trying to distance yourself from what you said earlier. In addition to the Quixote reference you called it a "piddly squabble , fueled by vanity" and even recommended "professional help" and not just of the legal kind. Sounds like your problems
with the original lawsuit are more than just
on a legal basis. The posts are there.
If at some point you departed from these points of view you certainly didn't acknowledge it
and admit that those original points of view were perhaps not correct. I sense that after
TWI added two more attorneys to the initial
lawsuit you perhaps started taking it more seriously because you had no choice. Law firms
seldom add more billable hours to a case thats
a slam dunk for them.
Let the courts try both cases. Whether or
not you , me , or anyone else approves doesn't make any difference at this point. Why is that
not you , me , or anyone else approves doesn't make any difference at this point. Why is that
so hard for you to accept ?
Frankly Diazbro, that Long Gone comments on the validity of the case, or lack thereof has absolutely no bearing on whether the courts will try the cases or not. Thats like saying that when people verbalize as to which president will be the best for this country, that the verbalization would be interfering with 'let the people vote and decide for themselves'. They are going to do so anyway.
I seriously doubt that the courts that are trying these cases are even going to be looking our way at the Greasespot forums for any ground breaking legal information to render their judgement with.
This thread is about TWIM v. TWI. You are carrying on about your impressions of me, apparently based on your erroneous “sense” of the thoughts and attitudes behind my posts to a thread on a different topic, that started two months ago and ended two weeks later. If you wish to discuss the topic of that thread, then I suggest that you post there. If you wish to discuss me, then I suggest that you start a thread about me, where you can analyze me to your heart’s content.
Frankly Diazbro, that Long Gone comments on the validity of the case, or lack thereof has absolutely no bearing on whether the courts will try the cases or not.
If you wish to discuss the topic of that thread, then I suggest that you post there. If you wish to discuss me, then I suggest that you start a thread about me, where you can analyze me to your heart’s content.
Rolls eyes...
This is misdirection and distraction. Your "study" of the law has obviously yielded
a talent for dodging the issues. Instead of answering the question you are deflecting them
On the same thread that you are citing, in THIS POST, you demonstrated that you didn’t understand that the disputed domain name is thewayinternational.com, rather than theway.com. That was your last post to the thread, 13 days after the thread started. The disputed domain name had been discussed in Pat’s opening post and repeatedly in the thread, yet you still hadn’t “sensed” that basic fact. How in the world did you “sense” all these “issues” you keep harping on?
I already dealt with these important “issues,” when you raised them previously. Now, please drop them or take them somewhere else.
If TWI changed its name to the Prevailing Household, I suppose those churches or ministries with either the names "Prevailing" or "Household" would be forced to sue TPH for copyright, trademark, and patent infringements.
I think it would be safer to take on a name nobody would sue them over, Like, Doctrines Under Ministry Business After Staying Sober, or D.U.M.B.A.S.S. I kind of figure the DUMBASS Ministry would have no lawsuits filed against it for name infringement. I hope my contribution helps here.
When TWIM or I win our cases, and TWI's trademarks are cancelled, they won't have to change their name. TWI just won't be able to throw its weight around like a schoolyard bully anymore under the pretense of trademark infringement....
Although, TWI might want to change their name with about 500 religious groups that have The Way in their name. They are already lost in the crowd......
Right on the money Pat. That little cult in Ohio having the trademark of "The Way" is like a baseball team having a trademark for the terms "double play" or "home run". How they ever got this in the first place is a mystery. It must have been given because the trademark people did not read the bible and don't realize how generic this phrase is to Christianity. Anyone that knows anything about trademarks knows they are suppose to be distinctive. "The Way" as a trademark for one particular denomination is not distinctive in the least bit.
I heard on the news this morning that Steak & Shake is filing a lawsuit against Burger King for naming their new burger something with "steak burger" in the name and Steak & Shake says they own the term "steak burger". Burger King says it's a generic description of a hamburger.
This will be interesting to watch as it's so similar to the TWIM vs TWI lawsuit.
On the same thread that you are citing, in THIS POST, you demonstrated that you didn’t understand that the disputed domain name is thewayinternational.com, rather than theway.com.
>>
More misdirection. Again if you characterize
the initial lawsuit as the result of "vanity"
and feel it be a mere "piddling squabble"
I would like to know why you are still posting ? The courts clearly don't think
I am NOT still posting about the topics that gave rise to your questions. You are nagging me with questions that were answered in the threads that gave rise to them, which questions are completely off topic here. All I'm doing is trying to redirect you to a) a thread about Pat's lawsuit or b) a thread about me, should you wish to start one. If you really have honest questions, go ahead and start a private topic if you wish. Otherwise, please let it go.
quote: I think it would be safer to take on a name nobody would sue them over, Like, Doctrines Under Ministry Business After Staying Sober, or D.U.M.B.A.S.S. I kind of figure the DUMBASS Ministry would have no lawsuits filed against it for name infringement.
:D--> :D--> :D--> twi would never sue over that one, even tho that is what they are.
quote:The courts clearly don't think about it like that. Its being taken quite seriously.
Diazbro,
With all due respect, we won't know what the courts are thinking about any of this until there has at least been a hearing. Anyone can file a lawsuit claiming anything, and any defendant can file a counterclaim. To say the courts are taking this seriously requires a bit of prognosticating. You don't have the slightest idea whether the courts will take Pat seriously, or whether they will take TWI's claim seriously for that matter.
am NOT still posting about the topics that gave rise to your questions. You are nagging me with questions that were answered in the threads that gave rise to them, which questions are completely off topic here.
>>
No yo didn't answer the questions. You have
AVOIDED answering them. You characterized it
all as vanity and squabbling and said you were
going to walk away from it all but didn't and not only that but mounted a pseudo legal battle to prove to readers that the lawsuit was in vain. I've offerred to take this to private topics.. its up to you....
To say the courts are taking this seriously requires a bit of prognosticating. You don't have the slightest idea whether the courts will take Pat seriously, or whether they will take TWI's claim seriously for that matter.
>>
At some point TWI's legal team saw fit
to add additional legal expertise (two attorneys right ?) to their defense. They
are taking it seriously aren't they ? I don't
know of any business practice ,legal or not,
that adds expense to situations that are easily
or trivially disposed of.
So lets see - we have three attorneys (billable
at hourly rates I'm guessing) working to prepare
for a court case. so someone is indeed taking this seriously. I'm sure when TWI gets the bill they'll be taking it seriously also.
Once the initial case (PR's) reaches the courts
it could go anyhwere but the fact remains is that the court system exists to hear these situations and laws would never change unless
You do know the difference between apples and oranges, don't you?
TWI's lawyers are not the court system. I agree that they're taking this seriously. They should be. But they are not "the court." The court is the judge and, if it gets that far, the jury. For all we know, the judge is going to look at the claim and the counterclaim and dismiss both. You don't know what they're going to do and neither do I. So don't speak for the courts when you really only mean to say TWI's lawyers.
TWI's lawyers are not the court system. I agree that they're taking this seriously. They should be. But they are not "the court."
>>
that was quick !
the legal system at least in my mind encompasses
agents of the court system such as attorneys. Most attorneys don't take cases that are a waste of time nor do they add additional labor to cases
easily disposed of. This says nothing about what
a judge will think though I would expect any lawyer worth his or her salt to be able to estimate a judges potential reaction. If its
easy for them to do that I don't think they need
to triple preparations.
Raf siad:
For all we know, the judge is going to look at the claim and the counterclaim and dismiss both. You don't know what they're going to do and neither do I.
>>
That is very true but the legal preparatiosn taking place don't appear to suggest that its
a cut and dried situation but true - the judge
might look at PR's case and rapidly dispose of it. As I said - unless people challenge laws they won't change and I dont see this lawusit
as imporper use of the system. I'm sure if a judge does he won't hesistate to say so.
I just happened to sign back on right after you posted.
I understand what you're saying about the lawyers being a part of the legal system, but a phrase like "the courts are taking this seriously" (or however it was originally worded) is not accurate when no hearings have been held. Lawyers file frivolous lawsuits all the time, and opposing lawyers invariably take those lawsuits very seriously. They have to. In fact, they have to argue, seriously, that the lawsuit is frivolous. It isn't until a judge has begun to look at the arguments to decide whether or not they are worth pursuing that one can say whether "the courts" are taking it seriously.
You wouldn't say "the courts are taking TWI's position seriously" just because Pat does, would you? Or just because TWIM's lawyers do? Of course not.
I could sue you right now, and you and your lawyer would take it seriously. But as I have no reason to sue you, the moment a judge gets a look at my lawsuit, it ain't gonna take him more than a few seconds to dismiss it.
You think TWI's lawyers are taking Pat's challenge seriously. I agree. They'd be fools not to.
I could sue you right now, and you and your lawyer would take it seriously. But as I have no reason to sue you, the moment a judge gets a look at my lawsuit, it ain't gonna take him more than a few seconds to dismiss it.
Since you won’t stop nagging, I’ll go ahead and cover it AGAIN, even though it has nothing to do with this topic. I’ll save these links, in case you decide to nag me again, in some other thread.
My apologies to everyone else for what will be a long, off-topic post.
On April 4, in thread 1, I said, “This piddling little squabble is fueled by vanity.” I had previously written in thread 2, “It's a piddling little suit over a domain name. You can fantasize all you want about turning up some ‘damaging or embarrassing fact’ but discovery will be limited to questions relevant to the subject matter of the suit.” Pat started and was participating in both threads, so he knew the context. (I later noted to diazbro the relevance of thread 2 to my comment in thread 1.) “Vanity” referred to Pat’s vanity, as shown by his extolling of himself and the significance of the suit in both threads 1 and 2. “Piddling little suit” and “piddling little squabble” were in contrast to Pat’s representation of it as a grand opportunity to require TWI to answer any questions he might ask and hand over copies of any documents he might request. The sentence about limitations on discovery should make that clear.
Over the next couple of days, I posted to thread 1 some facts about TWI’s trademarks and some opinions about aspects of the case. I followed that, on April 6, with this: “BTW, I'm not defending TWI. I think they're a sorry outfit, and I'm all for anyone with a legitimate grievance against them seeking justice. But I'm not going to cheer on someone who wants to don a rusty suit of armor, mount an old nag, and charge windmills.” That was my one and only reference to windmills or Don Quixote, except in response to diazbro, who keeps nagging me about it. Again, it was written in the context of threads 1 and 2, but also with thread 3 in mind, as my response to diazbro that same day (April 6) indicates.
Later on April 6, I posted what I intended at the time to be my last post to that thread. A week after that, because of some things that had since been posted, I changed my mind. I posted a couple more posts over the next day or so. On April 14, diazbro addressed me about “amateur lawyering.” Among other things, he said, “I respect your right to suggest that PR's suit is not founded in the best of principles but the suggestion that your reading of the law is sufficient to try the case here is a problem for me and perhaps others who don't see it as you do.” Of course, I had never suggested that, and said so in my response. I also said that I wouldn’t quibble over the term “amateur lawyering.” Nobody has posted to that thread since April 15.
***
Now we get to thread 4, started by Pat on May 1. I posted a few thoughts about Pat’s answer and counterclaim. On May 3, diazbro asked, “Are you a lawyer?” He already knew the answer, so I ignored the question.
On May 7, diazbro jumped on me about me being guilty of “fighting windmills” and of “trying to be an attorney.” Again, I ignored him.
On May 10, diazbro wrote to Raf, “I think PR is not particulalry well prepared for this thing nor do I agree with his strategies such as they are but I don't think that painting him as an embitterred quixotic figure (Long Gone's assessment) because of it is *not* a natural first conclusion except perhaps to those who don't like how he rolled all this out.” In another post, he said, “Folks like Long Gone took this one to the extreme relative to the legal stuff.” I decided to respond to both these and the May 7 post. (Click to read.)
The next day, May 11, diazbro addressed another post to me. I responded HERE. Because of its relevance to diazbro’s claim that I haven’t previously answered his questions, I’m going to quote my response, in its entirety.
quote:Originally posted by Long Gone:
I’ll ignore criticism but not misrepresentations or falsehoods.
quote:Originally posted by diazbro:
Long Gone -
You critiize PR for not being a lawyer
or refusing to consult with one though
you yourself act like one so a case
, no pun intended, can be made for hypocrisy
or at the very least a double standard - its
okay for you to come on with the Perry Mason
routine but no one else ?
1) I’ve never criticized anyone, including Pat, for not being a lawyer.
2) I have never acted like a lawyer or represented myself to be anything but a layman.
3) I have said that Pat should consult with a lawyer and employ one if he proceeds with this.
4) I would say the same regarding anyone being sued in anything but small claims court.
5) If I were being sued, I would consult with and be represented by one or more lawyers.
6) I have been sued. I did employ an attorney.
7) I have sued. I did employ an attorney.
8) There is no hypocrisy or double standard in anything I’ve written on this subject or how that relates to my real-life actions.
9) I have not “come on with the Perry Mason routine.” I have discussed legal matters, as a layman who cares to inform himself before expressing an opinion and who accompanies his opinions with reasons behind them.
10) I have never suggested that it is not OK for others to do likewise. Rather, I encourage that.
11) I think you know all of the above.
quote:But lets look at this some more. In the
other thread
Long gone said:
Pat,
It’s no puzzle at all to me. This piddling little squabble is fueled by vanity. Enjoy.
>>
Vanity ?
Yes, vanity. I wrote that on April 4, on page 5 of that thread. That was three days after Pat started his “Lawsuit contest” thread, which provided part of the basis for my conclusion, as did other sources (primarily Pat’s own words elsewhere). I don’t form opinions in a vacuum. I also don’t base my opinions regarding the issues on my opinions of the parties. If I did, I would lean towards supporting Pat’s position because my opinion of him is far better than my opinion of TWI.
Now, if you wish to discuss the topic, please do. Hint: I am not the topic.
I then went back to trying to stick to the topic, rather than attempts to make me the issue.
On May 14, Pat began a post with, “A question for the armchair legal buffs:” Raf began his response with, “NOTICE: PAT IS SPECIFICALLY ASKING FOR "ARMCHAIR LEGAL BUFFS," NOT PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS. HE IS SPECIFICALLY SOLICITING THESE RESPONSES. SO IF YOU DON'T LIKE NON-PROFESSIONALS OFFERING LEGAL OPINIONS, TAKE IT UP WITH PAT.” That observation did not escape diazbro, as can be seen in THIS POST, “So would I be correct in assumming that PR is asking for advice from armchair legal buffs ?” That was his last post to that thread.
So now, we get to this thread, where diazbro starts up with the same things again. I try to stick to the topic, but finally give in and deal with the same old gripes again, hopefully for the last time.
Now, diazbro, if that doesn’t answer your questions to your satisfaction, then tough. If you keep hounding me, you’ll get a link back to this post.
Your extensive and thorough reply to diazbro makes me wonder what your motivations are. You obviously have spent much time in putting together this post.
Why is it that you have not put even a small effort into positively contributing ideas to help with the current lawsuits?
Is your dislike of me more than that of TWI? The lawsuit contest for example asks for the best questions to ask TWI.
Surely you are capable of formulating a few real zingers with the mental faculties and knowledge of the law that you apparently possess....
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
16
19
14
11
Popular Days
May 26
31
Jun 1
22
May 25
20
Jun 12
8
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 16 posts
diazbro 19 posts
LG 14 posts
pjroberge 11 posts
Popular Days
May 26 2004
31 posts
Jun 1 2004
22 posts
May 25 2004
20 posts
Jun 12 2004
8 posts
diazbro
Long Gone said:
You are the one who keeps talking about windmills. I used the word only once, almost two months ago.
>>
You are being disingenuous.
You are trying to distance yourself from what you said earlier. In addition to the Quixote reference you called it a "piddly squabble , fueled by vanity" and even recommended "professional help" and not just of the legal kind. Sounds like your problems
with the original lawsuit are more than just
on a legal basis. The posts are there.
If at some point you departed from these points of view you certainly didn't acknowledge it
and admit that those original points of view were perhaps not correct. I sense that after
TWI added two more attorneys to the initial
lawsuit you perhaps started taking it more seriously because you had no choice. Law firms
seldom add more billable hours to a case thats
a slam dunk for them.
Let the courts try both cases. Whether or
not you , me , or anyone else approves doesn't make any difference at this point. Why is that
so hard for you to accept ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grizzy
so which side contacts and gets the Raelians to side with them?????
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Frankly Diazbro, that Long Gone comments on the validity of the case, or lack thereof has absolutely no bearing on whether the courts will try the cases or not. Thats like saying that when people verbalize as to which president will be the best for this country, that the verbalization would be interfering with 'let the people vote and decide for themselves'. They are going to do so anyway.
I seriously doubt that the courts that are trying these cases are even going to be looking our way at the Greasespot forums for any ground breaking legal information to render their judgement with.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
diazbro,
This thread is about TWIM v. TWI. You are carrying on about your impressions of me, apparently based on your erroneous “sense” of the thoughts and attitudes behind my posts to a thread on a different topic, that started two months ago and ended two weeks later. If you wish to discuss the topic of that thread, then I suggest that you post there. If you wish to discuss me, then I suggest that you start a thread about me, where you can analyze me to your heart’s content.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
diazbro
Garth said:
Frankly Diazbro, that Long Gone comments on the validity of the case, or lack thereof has absolutely no bearing on whether the courts will try the cases or not.
>>
Errr.... well yea. Thats the point I've been
making to LG....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
diazbro
Rolls eyes...
This is misdirection and distraction. Your "study" of the law has obviously yielded
a talent for dodging the issues. Instead of answering the question you are deflecting them
to other topics......
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Diazbro,
On the same thread that you are citing, in THIS POST, you demonstrated that you didn’t understand that the disputed domain name is thewayinternational.com, rather than theway.com. That was your last post to the thread, 13 days after the thread started. The disputed domain name had been discussed in Pat’s opening post and repeatedly in the thread, yet you still hadn’t “sensed” that basic fact. How in the world did you “sense” all these “issues” you keep harping on?
I already dealt with these important “issues,” when you raised them previously. Now, please drop them or take them somewhere else.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eagle
If TWI changed its name to the Prevailing Household, I suppose those churches or ministries with either the names "Prevailing" or "Household" would be forced to sue TPH for copyright, trademark, and patent infringements.
I think it would be safer to take on a name nobody would sue them over, Like, Doctrines Under Ministry Business After Staying Sober, or D.U.M.B.A.S.S. I kind of figure the DUMBASS Ministry would have no lawsuits filed against it for name infringement. I hope my contribution helps here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pjroberge
When TWIM or I win our cases, and TWI's trademarks are cancelled, they won't have to change their name. TWI just won't be able to throw its weight around like a schoolyard bully anymore under the pretense of trademark infringement....
Although, TWI might want to change their name with about 500 religious groups that have The Way in their name. They are already lost in the crowd......
Edited by pjrobergeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Mark Sanguinetti
Right on the money Pat. That little cult in Ohio having the trademark of "The Way" is like a baseball team having a trademark for the terms "double play" or "home run". How they ever got this in the first place is a mystery. It must have been given because the trademark people did not read the bible and don't realize how generic this phrase is to Christianity. Anyone that knows anything about trademarks knows they are suppose to be distinctive. "The Way" as a trademark for one particular denomination is not distinctive in the least bit.
Bravo Pat.
Edited by Mark SanguinettiLink to comment
Share on other sites
WaywardWayfer
I heard on the news this morning that Steak & Shake is filing a lawsuit against Burger King for naming their new burger something with "steak burger" in the name and Steak & Shake says they own the term "steak burger". Burger King says it's a generic description of a hamburger.
This will be interesting to watch as it's so similar to the TWIM vs TWI lawsuit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
diazbro
Long Gone said:
On the same thread that you are citing, in THIS POST, you demonstrated that you didn’t understand that the disputed domain name is thewayinternational.com, rather than theway.com.
>>
More misdirection. Again if you characterize
the initial lawsuit as the result of "vanity"
and feel it be a mere "piddling squabble"
I would like to know why you are still posting ? The courts clearly don't think
about it like that. Its being taken quite
seriously.
I've been asking the question for
several posts now but you continue to dodge it.
We can take it to private topics if you wish ?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
diazbro,
Not misdirection but redirection.
I am NOT still posting about the topics that gave rise to your questions. You are nagging me with questions that were answered in the threads that gave rise to them, which questions are completely off topic here. All I'm doing is trying to redirect you to a) a thread about Pat's lawsuit or b) a thread about me, should you wish to start one. If you really have honest questions, go ahead and start a private topic if you wish. Otherwise, please let it go.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
dmiller
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Diazbro,
With all due respect, we won't know what the courts are thinking about any of this until there has at least been a hearing. Anyone can file a lawsuit claiming anything, and any defendant can file a counterclaim. To say the courts are taking this seriously requires a bit of prognosticating. You don't have the slightest idea whether the courts will take Pat seriously, or whether they will take TWI's claim seriously for that matter.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
diazbro
Long Gone said:
am NOT still posting about the topics that gave rise to your questions. You are nagging me with questions that were answered in the threads that gave rise to them, which questions are completely off topic here.
>>
No yo didn't answer the questions. You have
AVOIDED answering them. You characterized it
all as vanity and squabbling and said you were
going to walk away from it all but didn't and not only that but mounted a pseudo legal battle to prove to readers that the lawsuit was in vain. I've offerred to take this to private topics.. its up to you....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
diazbro
Raf said:
To say the courts are taking this seriously requires a bit of prognosticating. You don't have the slightest idea whether the courts will take Pat seriously, or whether they will take TWI's claim seriously for that matter.
>>
At some point TWI's legal team saw fit
to add additional legal expertise (two attorneys right ?) to their defense. They
are taking it seriously aren't they ? I don't
know of any business practice ,legal or not,
that adds expense to situations that are easily
or trivially disposed of.
So lets see - we have three attorneys (billable
at hourly rates I'm guessing) working to prepare
for a court case. so someone is indeed taking this seriously. I'm sure when TWI gets the bill they'll be taking it seriously also.
Once the initial case (PR's) reaches the courts
it could go anyhwere but the fact remains is that the court system exists to hear these situations and laws would never change unless
someone challenges them to expand them. This is
not an egregious use of the legal system. Thats
what it is for to address situations like this.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
You do know the difference between apples and oranges, don't you?
TWI's lawyers are not the court system. I agree that they're taking this seriously. They should be. But they are not "the court." The court is the judge and, if it gets that far, the jury. For all we know, the judge is going to look at the claim and the counterclaim and dismiss both. You don't know what they're going to do and neither do I. So don't speak for the courts when you really only mean to say TWI's lawyers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
diazbro
Raf said:
TWI's lawyers are not the court system. I agree that they're taking this seriously. They should be. But they are not "the court."
>>
that was quick !
the legal system at least in my mind encompasses
agents of the court system such as attorneys. Most attorneys don't take cases that are a waste of time nor do they add additional labor to cases
easily disposed of. This says nothing about what
a judge will think though I would expect any lawyer worth his or her salt to be able to estimate a judges potential reaction. If its
easy for them to do that I don't think they need
to triple preparations.
Raf siad:
For all we know, the judge is going to look at the claim and the counterclaim and dismiss both. You don't know what they're going to do and neither do I.
>>
That is very true but the legal preparatiosn taking place don't appear to suggest that its
a cut and dried situation but true - the judge
might look at PR's case and rapidly dispose of it. As I said - unless people challenge laws they won't change and I dont see this lawusit
as imporper use of the system. I'm sure if a judge does he won't hesistate to say so.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I just happened to sign back on right after you posted.
I understand what you're saying about the lawyers being a part of the legal system, but a phrase like "the courts are taking this seriously" (or however it was originally worded) is not accurate when no hearings have been held. Lawyers file frivolous lawsuits all the time, and opposing lawyers invariably take those lawsuits very seriously. They have to. In fact, they have to argue, seriously, that the lawsuit is frivolous. It isn't until a judge has begun to look at the arguments to decide whether or not they are worth pursuing that one can say whether "the courts" are taking it seriously.
You wouldn't say "the courts are taking TWI's position seriously" just because Pat does, would you? Or just because TWIM's lawyers do? Of course not.
I could sue you right now, and you and your lawyer would take it seriously. But as I have no reason to sue you, the moment a judge gets a look at my lawsuit, it ain't gonna take him more than a few seconds to dismiss it.
You think TWI's lawyers are taking Pat's challenge seriously. I agree. They'd be fools not to.
But they ain't the courts. Not in that context.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
diazbro
Raf said:
I could sue you right now, and you and your lawyer would take it seriously. But as I have no reason to sue you, the moment a judge gets a look at my lawsuit, it ain't gonna take him more than a few seconds to dismiss it.
>>
Expect to hear from my attorneys directly..... :>
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I rest my case.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Diazbro,
All of this has been covered in the below-linked threads.
Thread 1: TWI has sued me, and I hope TWI's attorneys like to ski (Started by pjroberge, 4/1/04)
Thread 2: Lawsuit contest name the document or question you want me to ask TWI (Started by pjroberge, 4/1/04)
Thread 3: Name the domain price (Started by pjroberge, 4/6/04)
Thread 4: TWI sued me, I sued back (Started by pjroberge, 5/1/04)
Since you won’t stop nagging, I’ll go ahead and cover it AGAIN, even though it has nothing to do with this topic. I’ll save these links, in case you decide to nag me again, in some other thread.
My apologies to everyone else for what will be a long, off-topic post.
On April 4, in thread 1, I said, “This piddling little squabble is fueled by vanity.” I had previously written in thread 2, “It's a piddling little suit over a domain name. You can fantasize all you want about turning up some ‘damaging or embarrassing fact’ but discovery will be limited to questions relevant to the subject matter of the suit.” Pat started and was participating in both threads, so he knew the context. (I later noted to diazbro the relevance of thread 2 to my comment in thread 1.) “Vanity” referred to Pat’s vanity, as shown by his extolling of himself and the significance of the suit in both threads 1 and 2. “Piddling little suit” and “piddling little squabble” were in contrast to Pat’s representation of it as a grand opportunity to require TWI to answer any questions he might ask and hand over copies of any documents he might request. The sentence about limitations on discovery should make that clear.
Over the next couple of days, I posted to thread 1 some facts about TWI’s trademarks and some opinions about aspects of the case. I followed that, on April 6, with this: “BTW, I'm not defending TWI. I think they're a sorry outfit, and I'm all for anyone with a legitimate grievance against them seeking justice. But I'm not going to cheer on someone who wants to don a rusty suit of armor, mount an old nag, and charge windmills.” That was my one and only reference to windmills or Don Quixote, except in response to diazbro, who keeps nagging me about it. Again, it was written in the context of threads 1 and 2, but also with thread 3 in mind, as my response to diazbro that same day (April 6) indicates.
Later on April 6, I posted what I intended at the time to be my last post to that thread. A week after that, because of some things that had since been posted, I changed my mind. I posted a couple more posts over the next day or so. On April 14, diazbro addressed me about “amateur lawyering.” Among other things, he said, “I respect your right to suggest that PR's suit is not founded in the best of principles but the suggestion that your reading of the law is sufficient to try the case here is a problem for me and perhaps others who don't see it as you do.” Of course, I had never suggested that, and said so in my response. I also said that I wouldn’t quibble over the term “amateur lawyering.” Nobody has posted to that thread since April 15.
***
Now we get to thread 4, started by Pat on May 1. I posted a few thoughts about Pat’s answer and counterclaim. On May 3, diazbro asked, “Are you a lawyer?” He already knew the answer, so I ignored the question.
On May 7, diazbro jumped on me about me being guilty of “fighting windmills” and of “trying to be an attorney.” Again, I ignored him.
On May 10, diazbro wrote to Raf, “I think PR is not particulalry well prepared for this thing nor do I agree with his strategies such as they are but I don't think that painting him as an embitterred quixotic figure (Long Gone's assessment) because of it is *not* a natural first conclusion except perhaps to those who don't like how he rolled all this out.” In another post, he said, “Folks like Long Gone took this one to the extreme relative to the legal stuff.” I decided to respond to both these and the May 7 post. (Click to read.)
The next day, May 11, diazbro addressed another post to me. I responded HERE. Because of its relevance to diazbro’s claim that I haven’t previously answered his questions, I’m going to quote my response, in its entirety.
I then went back to trying to stick to the topic, rather than attempts to make me the issue.On May 14, Pat began a post with, “A question for the armchair legal buffs:” Raf began his response with, “NOTICE: PAT IS SPECIFICALLY ASKING FOR "ARMCHAIR LEGAL BUFFS," NOT PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS. HE IS SPECIFICALLY SOLICITING THESE RESPONSES. SO IF YOU DON'T LIKE NON-PROFESSIONALS OFFERING LEGAL OPINIONS, TAKE IT UP WITH PAT.” That observation did not escape diazbro, as can be seen in THIS POST, “So would I be correct in assumming that PR is asking for advice from armchair legal buffs ?” That was his last post to that thread.
So now, we get to this thread, where diazbro starts up with the same things again. I try to stick to the topic, but finally give in and deal with the same old gripes again, hopefully for the last time.
Now, diazbro, if that doesn’t answer your questions to your satisfaction, then tough. If you keep hounding me, you’ll get a link back to this post.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pjroberge
Long Gone:
Your extensive and thorough reply to diazbro makes me wonder what your motivations are. You obviously have spent much time in putting together this post.
Why is it that you have not put even a small effort into positively contributing ideas to help with the current lawsuits?
Is your dislike of me more than that of TWI? The lawsuit contest for example asks for the best questions to ask TWI.
Surely you are capable of formulating a few real zingers with the mental faculties and knowledge of the law that you apparently possess....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.