Badmike wrote:I'd join you, but I might accidentally win some of that crap.

Right, that's always the big worry when these vigilante-types take it upon themselves to mess with other people's bids.

I mean, what the hell would I do — wait! I mean, what the hell would that other guy do — with 4,000 Magic cards?  

You know it still utterly amazes me the new and inventive ways people keep thinking up to prove to everyone that they are total and complete asshats.

Seriously, where the hell do these people come from and what goes on in their tiny brains that makes them think pulling this sh*t is somehow a good idea?  I just don't get it.

Maybe we can sue him for being a nob

Dayecon or cock whatever you are, get a life

One word: SLAPP.

SLAPP lawsuits are illegal, and this is a blatant one.  Which means Dayecon is an idiot, especially if Dayecon believes that people will cave in under the least pressure simply because Dayecon believes he is right.

Oh wow, look at that!  Dayecon used three times in this post.  Wait!  Now it's four times.  *gasp*  I'm so f***ing scared here...NOT!

Dayecon (5th time), you're dismissed.

'Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!'

(gratuitous Monty Python quote!)

Thanks for the laugh guys.

Brute

The Acaeum is still here this morning! Thank the gods! I thought for sure that DAYECONDAYECONDAYECONDAYECON's â„¢ lawsuit would have shut us down by now.

And, yes, you should picture lots of little rolly-eyes icons right about here. What a tool.

I guess the "small caveat" explains her facial expression in your avatar, eh?

So...dayecon wants to sue because his anonymous name has been used in print?

By the same logic, wouldn't it then be possible for any company to sue any print media source for printing anything said company does not like.

For instance, if I were to write that I dislike Ford automobiles or Time magazine or Shell Oil or Sears...then they could sue me because it is illegal to write down their names?

Under that interpretation, for instance, Consumer Reports could be sued for saying that one brand of pancake mix tastes better to them than another.

It would also be possible to sue for complaining that Winston cigarettes cause cancer or that my Wonder Bread wasn't all that wonderful.

Under that interpretation of the law, it would be impossible to mention the name of any company at all in any sort of written media without infringing a trademark.

I imagine that it might be possible to sue for libel if someone made false statements online that damaged another person's reputation.  In that case, the complaintant would have to prove that the statement was false.  In the case of a newspaper, the compaintant would also have to prove not only falsehood but also malicious intent.

Remember when Hustler magazine was sued by Jerry Falwell (of the Moral Majority) for using his picture and some heinous text in their porn magazine?  Specifically, Hustler published a fake advertisment in which Jerry Falwell confessed to having his first sexual experience as a boy, in the family outhouse, with his mother.

Despite the fact that Hustler used Falwell's name and image...and printed outlandishly false and grotesque things about Falwell...and did so in an advertisment claiming to directly quote Falwell...Hustler won the resulting libel suit.  They argued that anyone reading Hustler magazine was already likely to have a negative opinion of Falwell.  They also argued that their spoof ad was over-the-top and not likely to be mistaken for reality by any sensible person.  Falwell lost his suit.

In the 1980's, Time magazine printed a false report about (then) Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon.  There were two versions of the lawsuit...one in Israel and one in the United States.  The Israeli version of the suit lasted two hours and resulted in a victory for Sharon...since the Israeli definition of libel only required that the information be a deliberate falsehood.  (In point of fact...and by their own admission in court, Time knowingly fabricated details in a printed news report.)

Sharon's American lawsuit dragged on for months.  Although Sharon was able to prove that Time knowingly printed false information...and that the article falsely impugned his character...he lost his case.  In America the complaintant in a libel case has to prove malice.  Sharon could prove that Time lied out of thin air...but he could not prove that they deliberately and maliciously tried to damage his reputation.

(For the truly interested...and I realize I am way off topic...follow the link below for  details about the 1735 libel trial of Peter Zenger.  Zenger had printed negative editorials about William Cosby, the British governor of New York colony.  Under British law, all that needed to be established was that Zenger had printed something negative about a representative of the British government.  Zenger won his case and was found innocent because the American jury refused to follow British law.  They ruled that Zenger was innocent because the things he printed about Cosby were true. The case is still considered to be a landmark both for its establishment of a distinctly American legal precedent and because it was one of the first glimmerings of what would eventually become the American Revolution.)

http://www.founderspatriots.org/article ... zenger.htm

So, anyway...good luck dayecon.

It would be wise, however, to confine online statements about Ebay sellers to straightforward statements of fact.

Mark