elcid89: profile 
elcid89
born: 1938
gender: male
golo member since: September 6, 2007
about elcid89
With all of the complaining that goes on here (some of you honestly seem incapable of doing anything else BUT complaining ...), GoLo has become depressing.
With the general trend towards the banal and inane, GoLo has become a waste of my time.
What is it about this place, which has so much promise of bringing people together to discuss ideas and learn from one another, that it brings out the worst in people instead?
You'll forgive me if I take my leave of it.
perm. adhesive created a blog post.
gobble gobble you all!
Nov. 24 11:00 p.m.
rev. rb aka troll magnet created a blog post.
stories from a challenged senior...
Nov. 24 9:58 p.m.
imyourhuckleberryiii posted new profile info.
Nov. 24 9:30 p.m.
007 - granco.shhhhh dont tell joined a group.
privately public
Nov. 24 9:23 p.m.
brat is kestrel posted new profile info.
Nov. 24 9:11 p.m.
smorgas_of_borg created a blog post.
speak up, patriots! a great american hero!
Nov. 24 9:06 p.m.
timbo posted new profile info.
Nov. 24 8:57 p.m.
rosebud created a blog post.
my sick kitty cat... has anybody ever had to go thru this??
Nov. 24 6:03 p.m.
con amor luvs u regardless posted new profile info.
Nov. 24 3:37 p.m.
irishiii created a blog post.
it's a first! airline fined for keeping passengers hostage on tarmac
Nov. 24 3:09 p.m.
close![[no avatar]](http://wwwcache.wral.com/presentation/v1/images/golo/noavatar.gif){kind=avatar}
Welcome to GOLO, where WRAL.com visitors can comment on stories and create profile pages, blogs and photo galleries.
You must be a registered WRAL.com user to use these tools. Click here to register or log in.
The partial solution to this would be having GOLO require a double optin for all personalities. Someone signs up and they must do so with a "keeper" email account, not something from hotmail, yahoo or gmail that is a throwaway. Then GOLO sends back an email which must be responsed to before the user is allowed to post at all. That verifies exactly who the person is and where they ultimately can be located.
Of course, idiots will still be able to post from general accounts like earthlink, but at least if push comes to shove, they can be traced.
The big problem is anonymity, though.
December 3, 2007 12:14 a.m.
Uh...I never saw the original posts, do not know their specific content, and have no idea of who was named. So sue me...
December 3, 2007 12:16 a.m.
I happen to equate liberalism with a sign of mental illness and therefore rendering the person insane. And as a public figure, even though I do not know precisely who you are, that makes you fair game for satire and other such derisive comments when it involves especially the arena of politics and public opinion, the areas in which I have engaged you exclusively.
As ot the others, I know or suspect that there is a commonality among them with respect to their phony user names. And I could have added another dozen to that list. Anyone who would manufacture multiple, phony user names solely for the purpose of flaming is a loser, plain and simple.
December 3, 2007 12:31 a.m.
A lot of folks have used multiple user names on GOLO since its inception. And for most of them it was the direct result of being "promoted" by the GOLO staff. But when they come back in, their new user name itimately reflects their old one such that there is no question that one is dealing with the same spefidic individual. And they rarely, if ever, use more than one user name at a time.
No, the losers I am talking about are the ones who intentionaly, concurrently, and with the intent to create disturbances, use multiple user names, and names which are completely unconnected with each other. Many of them do not even post GOLO profiles, extending their anonyminity to an even greater degree. Some use GOLO profiles, but then have a roster of phony user names with which to flame others.
There is something fundementally irrational and twisted about that tactic. I would call it some form of insanity -- in the same vein as liberalism.
December 3, 2007 12:36 a.m.
Now you've gone off the deep end and I have to consider you dangerous, and not in a legal sense either. It's interesting that I make no pretense of hiding who I am -- never have, never will. The only reason to even bring up my address in your post is to intimidate. But I don't get intimidated. At all. The Nazis on Usenet used to use that same tactic against those who posted against them and their ignorant ravings. They would glean some personal information and work it into a post as if knowing that information somehow proved them to be a formidable opponent to be feared.
It only results in further revilement.
Now go to sleep before you burst an anurysm.
December 3, 2007 12:44 a.m.
Right elcid...tell that to Ann Coulter and see how far that argument gets you.
December 3, 2007 12:46 a.m.
No, the reason it was requested is to ensure that service is directed at the correct individual if it becomes necessary to instigate it, as previously stated.
If, as you say, you feel your arguments are correct and you've committed no injury, there wouldn't be any basis for your being intimidated, would there?
GOLO member since September 6, 2007
December 3, 2007 12:50 a.m.
Coulter enjoys protections and assumptions as a member of the media which do not exist in the context of a private individual, Steve.
You know just enough about the law to be dangerous to yourself, in my opinion. Recognize that and take my advice.
G'night.
GOLO member since September 6, 2007
December 3, 2007 12:52 a.m.
So which one of my three corporate attorneys would you prefer going up against? I would initially say my primary corporate attorney, but he handles mostly patents and trademarks. Then there is my personal attorney to whom I bow for advice, but he is not a trlal lawyer, though one of his 40 or so firm partners would be. I suspect that my best choice would be my catch-all lawyer who was a lead federal prosecutor with over 20 years experience almost solely in the realm of fraud and extortion cases. She's the one I use when someone in the business arena blows their own deal and then accuses me of not being nice and I need them squashed like bugs.
So do you have a particular preference?
December 3, 2007 12:55 a.m.
Am I missing anything else?
December 3, 2007 1:24 a.m.
"Had someone done a bit of homework she would have read that I said I LAID the foundation IN CASE THIS DOES NOT STOP…after being called on my phone and threatened, or attempted threat until I cut that person short. I have no intention of pursuing any case as long as I am left alone." Feistier Redneck Diva
Looking at that doesn't it appear that there was no threat? So for a whole week this person has been saying they were threatened, and then by their admission, did not get threatened. They just hung up on someone that called them. How do you attempt to threaten someone. It would appear that someone is lying. There has only been one person in here making threats against others, and that isn't a lie.
GOLO member since December 3, 2007
December 3, 2007 5:58 a.m.
Elcid- what part of "Leave me alone" did YOU not understand.
For Pete's sake- ALL of you nut jobs LEAVE ME ALONE!!!
December 3, 2007 7:41 a.m.
December 3, 2007 7:47 a.m.
ELCID - LEAVE FEISTY ALONE!!
December 3, 2007 7:52 a.m.
ELCID - LEAVE FEISTY ALONE!!"
My communications with you have been in a professional context and therefore non-threatening. You have been advised of the existence of behaviors committed by you which are objectionable and unlawful. You have been further advised to cease and desist in these behaviors.
You are hereby notified that any further communications with any party regarding these events will be collected and utilized in furtherance of claims against you, in the event it is necessary to pursue such claims in a court of law in this State.
Any claims or counter-claims you feel you may have in this regard should be discussed with your attorney and pressed if you choose to do so.
GOLO member since September 6, 2007
December 3, 2007 10:19 a.m.
December 3, 2007 10:27 a.m.
So let me see if I have this all straight.
1. You have been formally retained as council of record for one of more individuals in this situation.
2. Even though I did not directly see the original posts in question, I feel that, as of this morning and from several opposing individuals, I have been informed to the extent that I know their contents. And unless there are things I am not aware of, you claim that any alleged harassment has risen to the level of criminal action.
3. You seem to think that the mere publication of what is already public and widely known information concerning names and places of employment constitutes a threat under any of the GS's you cited.
4. You seem to think that someone who name drops relationships as warning or presumed capabilities and who does so apparently after being harassed herself constitutes threatening behavior that is actionable.
Have I got those assumptions correct?
December 3, 2007 10:28 a.m.
December 3, 2007 10:35 a.m.
Another thing I find interesting is that feisty has repeatedly asked you not to communicate with her and yet you continue to post to her profile, That would seem to indicate a clear violation of the terms of service for GOLO as well as potentially harassment on your part as you continue to do so against her stated and public wishes.
Or does the law not apply to everyone equally?
December 3, 2007 10:46 a.m.
December 3, 2007 10:50 a.m.
Now I'm sure as a professor of law, especially in the area of torts, you fully know that when you use a service or software you are fully obligated to all terms of service. And the WRAL GOLO terms of service clearly and unambigiously state:
Prohibited Behavior Includes:
You further agree that you will not:
* contact anyone who has asked not to be contacted;
Can't get much clearer than that. Now since you post on GOLO and especially since you have your own profile, I have to presume that you read and understood those TOS prior to making any posts. But you now seem to want to pull an "ignorance of the law" defense in continuing to post to feisty after she has clearly indicated that you are not to do so. And I also wasn't aware that compliance of any TOS or contractual agreement was only in force when reminded with it being null and void prior to that
December 3, 2007 11:04 a.m.
Yes, I will use satire to deride when such is appropriate. But unlike you and your clients, I recognize that a public forum is a place to tussle and nothing is meant by it. I also realize that there are people out there who are truly disturbed individuals like Truck and who have nothing better to do than to make fools of themselves. So I will help them along with that task when I can. It makes life enjoyable to watch someone implode as the result ot their own ignorance or stupidity.
December 3, 2007 12:02 p.m.
One thing I do find extremely interesting and just have to ask you about, though. There are five or so abuse violations for posts on my profile page currently in the cue. They are all for your own posts. Did you hit the abuse button on your own posts since I can not see anyone else doing that especially on someone's personal profile page. And if so, what was the reason? Are you trying to delete what can be potentially condidered exculpatory evidence?
December 3, 2007 12:39 p.m.
Remember el cid, everytime you hit the abuse button it is reviewed by a GOLO staff member and a determination is made as to the content with respect to the TOS. I have so few posts removed simply because I rarely violate those TOS. You can't just hit the abuse button because you don't care for an opinion which given your admission that you hit it all the time is apparently what you do, at least with respect to me.
I also wonder what the NC Bar would think about your public threats of legal suits? Isn't there some sort of ethical consideration against a lawyer publicly and repeatedly threatening suit as a tactic to gain an end result?
You're the laywer here.
December 3, 2007 1:06 p.m.
I may be wrong.
December 3, 2007 1:08 p.m.
December 3, 2007 1:29 p.m.
December 3, 2007 1:32 p.m.
In particular, I think you need to go back and take a look at RPCs 3.7, 4.2 & 4.3. I think you are way to close to the epicenter of all this and it is clouding your judgement.
As an attorney, I am especially troubled by your continued contact of FRD after she repeatedly asked for you to discontinue communication and referenced seeking legal representation.
Again, I don't really know what this is all about - I don't really want to know what this is all about - but I'm not comfortable with what I am seeing.
You and I have never agreed on much, but I hope you will take a moment and consider what I am saying.
What ever is going on here, it can (and probably should) be handled without you.
GOLO member since July 17, 2007
December 3, 2007 4:33 p.m.
GOLO member since July 17, 2007
December 3, 2007 5:37 p.m.
Don't thank him too much. My involvement became inappropriate due to my intense dislike towards you clouding my better judgment. That in no way precludes the involvement of any other attorney or lessens the merits of their case. The only thing removed from it is me.
GOLO member since September 6, 2007
December 3, 2007 7:57 p.m.
So, with that said, back into your corner. Stay out of my yard, and I'll do the same. I will, of course, be reviewing your comments on a daily basis in order to flag any that I feel are directed at me, disparaging towards me or which are in violation of TOS for abuse.
Only fair, you think? There are, after all, many ways to skin a cat (in the colloquial language your set seems to be so fond of ...)
GOLO member since September 6, 2007
December 3, 2007 9:25 p.m.
GOLO member since July 2, 2007
December 3, 2007 9:57 p.m.
GOLO member since December 3, 2007
December 4, 2007 8:20 a.m.
What a GREAT comeback.I have had the same advice thrown at my proflie when the person giving the advice just needed to be involved in something...when they actually were not originally involved in it at all.
December 4, 2007 11:26 a.m.
An untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or through broadcast media, that injures the person's reputation or standing in the community. Because libel is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement. Libel is a form of defamation , as is slander (an untruthful statement that is spoken, but not published in writing or broadcast through the media).
Anyway, I didn't want things to go wrong for the blogger. I have seen in the past, what I THOUGHT was friends being funny and it ended up ugly, but don't remember anything related to murder.
I do understand it was all in fun, and if everyone understands that, then all is good.
GOLO member since July 15, 2007
December 4, 2007 12:56 p.m.
GOLO member since July 15, 2007
December 4, 2007 12:57 p.m.
Beth
GOLO member since July 2, 2007
December 4, 2007 3:14 p.m.
GOLO member since September 1, 2007
December 4, 2007 8:05 p.m.
That said, I really don't like to take things to cheap ad hominems. I have urged Crisp to use more logic in his arguments and to think things through more. I've even given him several websites listing common logical fallacies.
Instead of using these tools, Crisp in his huge ego, took umbrage, declared he was much smarter than "such a liberal," and went on his own attack. As I'm not one to repeat myself and I can't abide stupid, maybe insults are the only way to get through his thick head. He's like a gorilla - poke him enough and he will finally pee himself and fall to the floor of his cage. Perhaps then, he will think.
GOLO member since September 14, 2007
December 5, 2007 10:18 a.m.
As Crisp with delete my post, I wanted to clarify my objective to you.
Sorry for the interruption.
I do represent a group of skeptical activists though, and Steve is a contender for the Dim Bulb Award for the year.
GOLO member since September 14, 2007
December 5, 2007 10:19 a.m.
December 5, 2007 12:12 p.m.
Agreed it's much better to attack the argument rather than the arguer. However, it is hard to do with Crisp as he doesn't respond well to logic. Even at my most patient, he stamps his feet and whines like a three year old. I can only take so much before I take the low road, as do Penn & Teller, and ridicule him. Granted, I've not become the most hated skeptic on the internet in 2 years and called a "vicious tongued harpy" because I'm full of sweetness and nice.
Steve, for all his ruff about how intelligent he is, is not very smart. His arguments are hopelessly thrown together. He cherry-picks his sources. As he's pretty hopeless, it's best to watch his daily crash and burn as a source of entertainment. Knowing someone willfully stays that dumb is terribly sad. The majority of people laughing at his posts are not laughing with him;they are laughing at him.
GOLO member since September 14, 2007
December 5, 2007 3:17 p.m.
I read this comment and busted out laughing. Everyone at work looked at me and asked me what was so funny. Thanks for the laugh.
You do know why she works for her self? LOL
GOLO member since July 3, 2007
December 5, 2007 4:51 p.m.
GOLO member since July 3, 2007
December 5, 2007 4:58 p.m.
December 5, 2007 5:34 p.m.
GOLO member since October 19, 2007
December 5, 2007 10:10 p.m.
GOLO member since October 19, 2007
December 6, 2007 12:58 a.m.
GOLO member since July 4, 2007
December 6, 2007 1:08 a.m.
If I have any questions, I will let you know...thanks so much.
GOLO member since July 4, 2007
December 6, 2007 1:41 a.m.
You are very helpful to many people in Golo. Thank you!!!
GOLO member since July 2, 2007
December 6, 2007 2:36 a.m.
Please log in to add comment.