Don’t want to be posting, but am. In Texas defamation includes criticism of professional services to an extent the person is a professional. Have no idea of general rules/law in other states such that I’d post here. But a plaintiff in such a defamation case need not prove actual damages…
Just a thought and again, as always, I am not your lawyer, this isn’t legal advice just merely a casual observance and I’m not your lawyer. We all like posting on message boards and like to do so here, right? So let’s all just get along!
But he’s not posting under his real name, so we’re just ‘defaming’ an anonymous user-name, not an actual, known professional-type person. Technically, we don’t know if he’s even a lawyer, so I feel quite safe in defaming his professional qualifications in this case, although I prefer to question his actual religious denomination. He doesn’t sound like any of the many Catholics I’ve known. Including me, when I count the ex-Catholics.
sheesh - at the risk of learning something in a pit thread -
I know of no post here that has criticized anything but said person’s behaviour and posts on this board - therefore, it would not amount to ‘criticism of professional services’ and is more of a questioning of the alleged ability of said person to perform the above adequately based on said posters history here and here alone (with some external evidence provided that this not the first time that said competence has been questioned). Herewith and forthwith and shit.
Ah well, glad anything I’ve said.hasn’t continued the current posts. Again, not your lawyer, not advice, most probably not licensed in your jurisdiction or know specifics of law.
Yeah, that was a lame-ass excuse by pchaos when he said that it’s hard to stay current with the law because the law in question hasn’t changed in 118 years! He should have admitted defeat after you told him that California hasn’t recognized common law marriages since the nineteenth century rather than coming up with excuses.
Yeah, pchaos giving incorrect legal advice is potentially dangerous. What if some poster actually takes him seriously? When pchaos claims to be an attorney he may be taken more seriously than he should be.
The good news is that I got to recycle part of a brief I wrote on due process in admin law where I got to, for a second time, include the parenthetical (holding that a ceiling is not a floor) in a cite.
FWIW, I think ya’lll are barking up the wrong tree. It seems to me pchaos is an attorney as claimed. An idiot, sure, but obviously those two things aren’t mutually exclusive. Take his mistake about the Marvin case. In fact, that was based on contract law rather than common law marriage. But the two theories are pretty close for someone not practicing in that particular field. (Indeed, I only know the difference because I’m kind of wonky that way.) When I’ll care about his claimed credentials is in a thread about an actual legal topic.
Stated a little differently, if ya’ll want to press pchaos on his credentials, ask him how he thinks the Supreme Court will rule on the dog sniff cases pending this term. THAT will tell us more about whether he’s a poseur than haggling over Catholicism vs. atheism. Even if it’s not his field (nor mine), he should be able to remember enough Con Law from school to express an intelligible opinion.
Son, you really shouldn’t be posting here, let alone starting threads, if you’re expecting jokes in return.
I like to think of myself as a pretty smart guy. But many of the posters here are actual polymaths and true intellectuals. That’s why I come here: to ask questions when I’m curious about something. I know that the people here are mostly smarter and more educated than myself
I only engage in debate here when I am 100% sure of what I’m talking about.
You might consider following that policy yourself in the future.
The whole premise of this thread is that it’s implausible the guy is a lawyer. Why? Because he posts demonstrably false stuff that lawyers wouldn’t typically say? In that case, it’d be just as easy to start a thread entitled “It is implausible that pchaos is a theist” – as per the latest post over in another anti-pchaos thread:
[QUOTE=Locrian]
Reading the pit thread is insurmountable evidence that religion /faith is harmful, possibly because of the lack of common sense is not a factor when believing absolute bullshit. And by bullshit I mean the religion, and meaning of it, that you create yourself.
[/QUOTE]
:eek: