Author: Don Dailey
Date: 06:31:44 09/30/98
Go up one level in this thread
On September 30, 1998 at 01:21:35, Shaun Graham wrote: >On September 26, 1998 at 17:22:18, John Coffey wrote: > >>On September 26, 1998 at 17:15:18, Shaun Graham wrote: >> >>>It has nothing to do with thick skin, it has to do with the right to be free of >>>Harrassment. In Legal terms, if you tell someone on more than two occasions to >>>cease communication with you, that fullfills that statute of Harrassment. >>>Legally on this basis, i could have Bob Hyatt served with a protection order. >>>Because he has continued this harassment after being told to desist. Yes the >>>statute does indeed include electronic comunicae. You act like i'm asking for >>>something big, i'm asking simply that bob hyatt leave me alone. >>>> >>>Shaun >> >> >>This last paragraph has logic that I do not agree with. R.H. didn't communicate >>with you at all. He responded to one of your posts. There is a critical >>difference there. I read his response, and it was directed to all of CCC >>and not to you specifically. Furthermore this is a public forum. If you >>post messages here then you should expect people to respond to them. That >>is how things work here. There is a huge difference between this and someone >>harassing you with personal email. >> >> > > > I'm afraid that you simply don't understand the nature of the statute, and of >course that is no fault of yours, and I did not go into all of the details of >the statute. The case law of harrassment most often but not always involves >even distance, I.e X will not come within 25ft of y. When it comes to >electronic comunicae, Hyatt by directly speaking of what i wrote, when he has no >"LEGITIMATE REASON"(a judge decides what's legitimate) for doing so, especially >when his post claimed that i stated the opposite of what i said, he is still >going to be in violation of the statute. Further since he in writing stated >that he wouldn't read or reply to my postings , he should have never saw what i >wrote in the first place. Further any legal mediator will take HEAVY note of a >person who in writing says that they will not engage in such and such >behavior(replying and reading my posts in this case), who then goes ahead and >blatantly conflicts themselves with their written statement. There are many >many other reasons why his behavior fulffills the stautute as well, but I do not >wish to copy the statute here as it is lengthy, and you probably wouldn't want >to read it. However any law library, has a copy of state and usually federal >statutes, if you wish to look it up. > >Shaun, Shaun, I think it is time for you to stop this unreasonable campaign of yours. This is not a court of law, we are not judges and you are not a laywer. It is not our job to enforce your self-made cease and desist order. As moderators it is not our job to settle your disputes either. You should work to settle your own disputes. If Bob did lie to you, as you say, then so what? Do you imagine it to be our jobs to punish people for lying? It amazes me that you expect us to enforce your agreements. You are being totally unreasonable here and it is time for you live with the fact that we are not going to be your personal bodyguards. From now on this whole discussion is completely inapropriate for this group and we have entertained you long enough. If you want to continue it, then email between you and the moderators will be appropriate and we will entertain this discussion off line. - Don
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.