#1 2009-04-06 16:01:15
Slager has it on his site. he is proud to be a journalist
Offline
#2 2009-04-06 17:02:53
Oh well. You're still not going to stop the truth-bloggers.
Offline
#3 2009-04-06 18:26:01
commonsense wrote:
Oh well. You're still not going to stop the truth-bloggers.
It's a victory for all who value their 1st amendment rights!
That includes this site and it's posters.
I thought I explained it here some where....
Offline
#4 2009-04-06 18:43:06
HEY IT MEANS TO MEAN THAT I CAN SAY ANYTHING I WANT ON THIS SITE AND IF SLAGER SUES ME I WILL WIN HANDS DOWN APPARENTLY. SO NO MORE HOLDING BACK ON ANYTHING I SAY. LOOK OUT!
Offline
#5 2009-04-06 18:53:44
IHATESLAGER wrote:
HEY IT MEANS TO MEAN THAT I CAN SAY ANYTHING I WANT ON THIS SITE AND IF SLAGER SUES ME I WILL WIN HANDS DOWN APPARENTLY. SO NO MORE HOLDING BACK ON ANYTHING I SAY. LOOK OUT!
You've been holding back.....
Offline
#6 2009-04-06 19:17:13
What does it mean that he had his case dismissed? Is it like being found not guilty? But then, weren't OJ and Lizzie Borden found not guilty?
Offline
#7 2009-04-06 19:53:04
Responding to Ragman's recent interview of himself, Hamatron issues the following statement:
"WHAT THE FUCK?!"
Pardon me folks, but that's what first came to mind. Everyone should get an F Bomb once in awhile, and I save mine for occasions like these.
More detailed analysis to follow as soon as I'm done banging my head against the wall.
Offline
#8 2009-04-06 20:18:50
Who the hell interviews themselves in the third person? Talk about psych issues! We all know that you are the only one working at the paper. And yes, we all the only ones that read it. That's why your stories mention, cater, and pander to us.
Offline
#9 2009-04-06 22:01:58
It's either him or Andrea, and I don't see Andrea's byline on there. He's got to be the only reporter that interviews himself. "Hello Ragman, I'm Ragman! What do you think of Ragman? Oh Ragman, I think Ragman is awesome, thank you for asking, Ragman!"
This one is hard to swallow. A lying sack of crap can print anything he wants, and the system is so screwed up he can just get up and say "oh im a poor abused ragman please throw this suit out" and it's thrown out. You can call a guy a kidney stone all day long and still say you feel intimidated.
The Chief had a real complaint, brought because he believed there was defamation. His case should have been heard on the merits.
I hope he will appeal. True, it might be costly, but the ability for people to not have their rights stomped on by a defacto state run newspaper is at stake.
Offline
#10 2009-04-07 08:02:24
well we on this blog have freedom of speech also , slager you are a shithead, also to jeb freedom of speech means boundarys like not yelling fire in a movie theater , i say to tell a lie about someone like slager does is wrong and i dont give a crap what the court says , slager we all know is a liar and a partisan he makes up race charges against the police and doesnt tell you that bruce doesnt pay his taxes.
Offline
#11 2009-04-07 08:58:08
According to Slager: According to Wikipedia, a SLAPP (strategic litigation against public participation) lawsuit is "a lawsuit that is intended to intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense until they abandon their criticism or opposition. Winning the lawsuit is not necessarily the intent of the person filing the SLAPP. The plaintiff's goals are accomplished if the defendant succumbs to fear, intimidation, mounting legal costs or simple exhaustion and abandons the criticism.
Does my memory serve me correctly? I recall several more of Slager's criticisms of Joyce in his rag after the suit was filed. He did not "abandon" the criticism. Do you all remember the article that said his lawyers told him not to do it, but he was going to speak out against Joyce anyway? And hasn't he since made comments about the chief in a less than flattering light??? A shallow victory if you ask me.
Offline
