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  

First off, its obvious that this asshat is still monitoring the site as eveidenced by his change in legal tactics. If his attempt to get his name removed from the shady dealers thread was not so absolutely pathetic, it might actually be funny, then again what else would you expect from an whining, crying Emo kid.   Sorry Emo kid, you don't have a legal leg to stand on, maybe you should go cry now like all the other Emo kids do.

Moving on to my point though, despite his now moving target legal tactics(boy that was a surprise wasn't it), he has no more legal chance with a libel suit than he would with his "copyright infringement" & "trademark infringement" lawsuits.  The fact of the matter is, as Beemotor points out above, that in order for him to successfully sue for libel, what was said by people on the site about has to false. If what is being said by people is true, it doesn't matter one iota how nasty or vile it is, it's not libel(or was it slander according to the moronic crying Emo kid ).  Additionally, it has to be a direct attack on him by the people involved with intention of him losing out finacially because of it.  That's why you can't get sued for slander or libel for calling someone a name, it has to be more than that.  

Sorry, dayeCON, you lose again.

I'm just glad he did all this, it's good that his name got dragged out of the archives to remind us all not to deal with him.  GASP!  If he had not done this lawsuit joke, some of us might have forgotten his shady ways and accidently dealt with him.

Any publicity is good publicity eh??      

I think Brian's referring to that irritating asshole of a character from the 1980's or so who had a whiny tv show that made you want to kick in the front of your tv every time it came on.

Easy there, Chief.  He's one of my favorites.  

Okay, I can see he can be irritating at times, though.  But I'm glad he's out there.

Thanks for the link, BC.  This may be the funniest thing I have seen in ages, quoted from the first site:

1. Girls say they like "sensitive guys" (lie)
2. Guy finds out, so he listens to faggy emo music and dresses like a dork so chicks will see that he is sensitive and not afraid to express himself (lie). He dyes his hair black, wraps himself in a stupid looking scarf, develops an eating disorder, and rants about how "nobody understands".
3. Now an emo guy, he meets Emo chick and they start dating, talking about how their well-off suburban lifestyles are terrible and depressing (lie)
4. Emo guy is just too much of a pussy. His penis is too small, he's too depressed to bathe, and has more mood swings than emo chick, and he doesn't even have a menstrual cycle. Emo chick dumps him, saying "It's not you, it's me." (lie) as she drives off with Wayne, the school jock and captain of the football team.
5. Emo guy goes home and cries, proceeds to write a weak song and strum a single string on his acoustic guitar. Another emo chick sees how he is so in touch with his feelings, and the cycle continues.

I know these kids from my school teaching days, but I did not know they had a name.    

All well and good, brothers, but here's the little bastard that started it all.

The original Emo.  Remember this guy?  I bet none of today's emos were even born when his show was on.

Now tell me, what does this picture make you feel like doing?  

Dude, that IS Emo.  The guy I was referring to a few posts earlier.

Is Wayne Brady gonna have to choke a bitch?  That's what the picture makes ME think...