Quantcast
Jump to content

Jambun82

Members
  • Content Count

    490
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Posts posted by Jambun82

  1. 8 hours ago, badbird said:

    they lied to you to make you feel better

    Thank you for clarifying that Badbird. No one ever said anything to me about it, I just heard or read somewhere that ladies love a man in black and white vertical stripes.  

  2. On 1/15/2021 at 4:15 PM, DarterBlue2 said:

    Hey, in all seriousness, it is difficult to be an official. At the high school level it is done because of the love of the game. Just like in Florida, high school coaches for the love and not the money. 

    I have also heard that you have to be good-looking to be an official. 

  3. On 1/15/2021 at 12:16 PM, badbird said:

    What kind of privilege do you speak of?  I've heard a lot of talk about people being privileged lately and was just curious if you have benefited from it. 

    The privilege of posting on this message board. I did have a political post removed several months ago. I understand why, but other political posts should be removed as well. 

  4. 1 hour ago, muckboy561 said:

    Can't we all just get along lol

    Muckboy561, you and I can always get along. I have appreciated the point-of-view that you provide on this message board, and I have always respected the the sugarcane area. I was privileged to be able to view a game at Glades Central once many years ago, and I was impressed not only with the passion of the fan base, but the class and dignity as well. I remember having a long conversation with Jimmy Spencer's father, who played for several teams in the NFL as a DB.  

  5. 13 hours ago, DarterBlue2 said:

    @Jambun82, I have met the young man in person. And, I have spoken to you on the phone. I believe that both of you are decent, reasonable people. If due to different perceptions and/or beliefs caused by age, politics, or some other matter, you decide you don't like each other, the rational thing to do would be to just ignore each other. As the elder of the two, I would admonish you to exercise mature, adult judgment and let the matter go. 

    DarterBlue2, I agree with your point-of view here. That message board poster can leave me alone, and I will leave him alone. I enjoy posting on this message board, and I hope that I am still able to be afforded that privilege. However, I am not going to treated with disrespect, and threatened. 

  6. 13 hours ago, peezy28 said:

    Jambun.... Please do us all a favor and not do this again... You 100% have the right to ask someone not to speak to you on a public message forum... unfortunately much when you asked me that person 100% has the right to ignore your wishes and continue to talk, respond, talk isht, and troll to the person... As a matter of fact and I am sure with the younger fella it will be even more of a urge that invites that person to troll respond to you....  It did with me I admit it.

    I would say just "ignore" that persons posts... You cannot control what other folks post but you can easily control what you read... I do it all the time with Neutral LMAO. 

    Also I do not mean this in any harmful way just offering some advice as you did this once before and it didnt work... Matter of fact we actually respond cordially and respectfully all the time now.  Am I right?

     

    Peezy, I was 100% justified in what I said. This message board poster insults and degrades other message board posters all the time, and I have never see him threatened with being removed from this message board as you are doing with me now. I don't have to make an effort to ignore this message board poster, as I have done nothing wrong. If you, Josh, or whoever else is now a moderator decides that I am not invited to post on this message board  anymore, then I will have to accept that. I have read several times that politics are no longer to be discussed on this message board, and this message board poster went right ahead and started discussing politics, with no repercussions. I am not sure why this rules of this message board do not seem to be pertain to this particular message board poster, but I have had enough of this message board poster, and I do no want to hear from or read what this message board poster has to say. 

  7. 9 hours ago, DarterBlue2 said:

    One of my wife's brothers is battling Covid-19 in a NYC hospital. JW has lived a humble life but has always been an avid sports fan, going to watch the Giants in sub freezing weather. He is one of the most genuine people I have ever known. 

    Right now, it does not look good. Please say a prayer for him. 

    DarterBlue2, I wish your brother-in-law a speedy recovery, and I will say a prayer for him. 

  8. 13 hours ago, peezy28 said:

    Yes perhaps 2nd "Man" but that would be to Perspective, plus my wife will tell you any day she is smarter than me so your dropping down that totem pole LMAO

    Yes, I made sure to include the word "man." I am sure that your wife is smarter than both of us, and I would like to think that my late wife was pretty brilliant as well. After all, she had great taste in men! lol 

  9. 13 hours ago, badbird said:

    Someone had to take it to the next level.

     

    Columbiafan stop riding the presidents D***.  Don't be that guy that brings up politics every time.  You're like the race card guy.   

    You're just being a divider.  We have enough dividers in this world.  Time for most people with a brain to come together.

    Thank you Badbird. Hopefully, the adults on this message board can continue to come together, and have a productive dialogue. 

  10. 23 hours ago, ColumbiaHighFan2017class said:

    Then take it up with the person who first brought up the topic about the constitution

    Oh wait that was you

     

     

    Your the one who started the conversation about the constitution in which I replied to presepective about an observation I made while seeing what he is describing but it's this two faced crap that is slowly making this board more a chore than a joy to post on

    You know something? Please do me a favor, and don't respond to me or speak to me on this message board again. I am not interested in going back and forth with a 21 year old thinks he knows-it-all, smart a-- like you. You don't have anything to say that I consider constructive, and I would just like to speak with the people whose opinions and points-of-view that I care about. Good riddance. 

  11. 1 minute ago, ColumbiaHighFan2017class said:

    Then take it up with the person who first brought up the topic about the constitution

    Oh wait that was you

     

     

    Your the one who started the conversation about the constitution in which I replied to presepective about an observation I made while seeing what he is describing but it's this two faced crap that is slowly making this board more a chore than a joy to post on

    I made an innocent comment about an area of law that I was interested in. 

  12. 10 hours ago, peezy28 said:

    Now this really might be defamation insinuating he works for Morgan and Morgan which could certainly damage his image/reputation.  Perspective do I need to call the Turk to represent you?

    Yes, I believe that I owe Perspective an apology. 

  13. 10 hours ago, peezy28 said:

    Well its clearly a false statement so lets start there :lol:

    Yes, sorry about that, what I meant was "Jambun82 is the second smartest man alive after Peezy28." Thank you for helping me correct that. If there were more people like you, this world would be a much better place! 

  14. 11 hours ago, ColumbiaHighFan2017class said:

    Yeah you mean like the people falsely claiming it is against the first amendment for a private company (I'll say Twitter) to shut down accounts for someone inciting a riot 

     

    2 major problems that show it has nothing to do with the first amendment

     

    1) the first amendment only applies to the GOVERNMENT restricting free speech, a private company is not under the same umbrella, it would be the same as someone telling their boss they smell like raw onions, you ain't gonna be able to use the first amendment to keep him from firing you because a private company isn't bound by those first amendment restrictions/protections (however someone chooses to view it)

     

    2) the first amendment also has a clause that doing so wouldn't interfere with someone else's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Therefore if you yell fire in a crowded theatre it would not be protected as doing so would put other's lives at risk and therefore not be protected so inciting a riot would interfere with that principle

     

     

     

    Also the laughable comments that I saw with people claiming it was unconstitutional for a private business to require masks for entry, it would be as stupid as someone saying I don't want to wear clothes so therefore I should be allowed to go shopping naked and it's unconstitutional for the store to stop me

     

    Some people clearly never read a single line of the constitution in their entire lives but would argue until I'm blue in the face about how right they are, honestly it's kinda pathetic

    I thought that politics were banned from being talked about on this message board? 

  15. 7 hours ago, Perspective said:

    No, I don't.   In fact, I added the parenthetical in hopes of avoiding any speculation along those lines.   But, I can see how a reader could think otherwise.   I don't even do THAT area of the law . . .  if I did, you would have all known it by my third post on this site.   :P 

    I always have found Constitutional Law interesting. I wish that I would have studied that more in college. 

  16. 10 hours ago, Perspective said:

    Hmmm, let's see . . .

    "Smartest man alive" - likely a 'false statement of fact.'  :D  Check. 

    By posting the comment on this Board we can assume that at least one other person (likely DarterBlue) will read it, so it probably constitutes a 'communication to a third party.'  Check. 

    There was a time when being a smart person was a good thing, but I'm not so sure about that any more.  Now, being smart just opens you up to ridicule and the stigma of being a nerd.  So, I think I could convince a jury that a comment to the effect that you're the smartest man in the world could 'harm your reputation or financial well-being.'  So, Check. 

    In conclusion, I'm pretty sure you just defamed yourself.  B)

    Today only, I'll offer to represent you -- both as the plaintiff and the defendant , although I'll need both of you to sign a conflict waiver.  I also will need substantial fee retainers from 'both' of you.  But don't worry about my astronomically high hourly rates; once you prevail against yourself, we can go after the losing party to recover those fees.  :D

    Perspective

    For the People (as long as I'm one of the people). 

     

    B)

     

     

    Thank you Perspective, but since you ended with "For the People" it makes me wonder if your work for THAT! law firm? lol 

  17. 10 hours ago, badbird said:

    If I said Jambun82 was the worst ref in Central Florida that would be my opinion and you couldn't sue me for libel.  It also might be a fact.  :D

    That statement might be correct Badbird. Of course, first it would have to be established that "Jambun82" is a "ref" which may or may not be true.  Since we know that the "ref' wears a white hat. not a black hat with white piping, it stands to reason that this reportedly insanely good-looking man owns a white hat, which he may or may not. So your statement might not be true at all because "Jambun82" may not be a "ref" at all. 

  18. On 1/6/2021 at 2:32 PM, Perspective said:

    Peezy,

     

     

     

    A couple of quick thoughts/observations:

     

     

     

    1.  We have a common friend who undoubtedly knows this area of the law better than I do.  It might be worth reaching out to him if you happen to know any wild Turkey calls? 

       

     

     

    1.  In short, I think you are correct.  But let’s break this down a little, as we have a couple of different potential issues.  The first issue is whether a defamatory statement has been made (and, just in case you wondering, libel is simply defamation in written form).   Under Florida law, defamation is basically defined as a false statement of fact communicated to a third party that is intended to harm the reputation or financial well-being of a person or business.  To repeat, for a comment to be defamatory, it would have to be a statement of fact and not an opinion.   Also remember what you no doubt have often heard:  truth is a defense.  In other words, if I say “Jim is a thief” and it turns out that Jim has been convicted of theft, my comment would not be defamatory because my statement is a truthful one, not a false one, however embarrassing it may be to Jim.    

       

     

     

    1. If I were to say “Hawkwood High School fans pay money to Hawkwood High School players,” there is a question in my mind as to who, if anyone, would have the right to bring a defamation lawsuit against me.  I didn’t make reference to a particular fan/person, nor did I say that anyone at the school was a guilty party.  So, I might be able to get away with that comment, even if it were not true.  

       

     

     

    1. Recall a couple of weeks ago when President Trump was refusing to sign the spending bill to keep the military funded?   One of his stated reasons for doing so was because Congress was refusing to repeal Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act.  Say what?   In short, this is the law that companies like Facebook are able to use as a shield to avoid defamation claims when someone posts a false negative review or makes a statement on their Internet site that would otherwise rise to the level of defamation.  To be precise, here’s what Section 230 says:    "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider" (47 U.S.C. § 230).  In my humble opinion, and based on limited facts and research, Section 230 would provide immunity to Josh’s website for defamatory statements made by forum posters.  And, arguably, even if it became known that a particular comment was defamatory, the site would not be obligated to take it down.  See, Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997).

       

     

     

    1.  With all that said, I would go through the following analysis:  Was the statement made a statement of fact or an opinion?  If an opinion, the analysis stops as the website and its owner will have no exposure to liability.  If the statement was one of fact, can the person who made the statement establish that the statement is true?  If so, it’s not defamation.  If not (i.e., the statement is a false statement), was it intended to harm the reputation or financial status of a person or legal entity?  If so, the person who made the statement – assuming that person could be identified – could be sued for defamation (and a plaintiff in a defamation lawsuit might be able to use discovery/subpoena powers to uncover the true identity of a poster).  However, under Section 230, it is unlikely that the website or its owner could be held responsible for the defamatory statement.   

       

     

     

    1. But, here’s the critical last step of the analysis for someone like Josh:  even if he is confident that he cannot successfully be sued for defamation, does he really want to take that chance?  More importantly, is he prepared to spend his limited time and resources defending himself/his company against people who likely have superior resources.   That’s a call only he can make.  It’s easy to say “C’mon, hold your ground; fight the fight!” when it’s not your money or business at risk. 

       

     

     

    Last, but not least, to cover my own butt, this post is not intended as legal advice for Josh, this website or anyone who might read it.   While I believe it is accurate, it’s just intended to further the conversation, not to be relied upon by anyone who might face the issues addressed above. 

     

    Perspective, since you are evidently a lawyer, what would be the legal ramifications of a statement such as "Jambun82 is the smartest man alive?"  

  19. 7 hours ago, peezy28 said:

    I believe the missing part was there was an accusation from a poster about STA boosters paying players... I think is what sent STA Brass over the edge to start threatening law suits and such.

    Yes, that is not something that should be discussed without any solid evidence. There is no need to be sued for libel. 

  20. 12 hours ago, Perspective said:

    Jambun, I'll stick my neck out and take a shot at summarizing what I know (with the caveat that, as my wife often reminds me, I don't know everything):

    Leading up to the Bloomingdale/St. Thomas Aquinas game, tickets were sold online.  I do not know the details of how or when the tickets sales announcement was first made.  In any event, I believe one or more Board members purchased tickets.  At some point that week, the tickets sold out. 

    An announcement was made a few days later (and a day or two before the game) that a determination was made that STA fans had not had a fair chance to buy tickets.  As a result, some of the ticket sales that already had been made were 'reversed' and money was refunded.    Again, I don't know how the process worked.   Did the purchasing system go back and reverse the last couple hundred transactions or was it done randomly?  I don't know.   However, I believe one or two of the Board members who had purchased tickets had their transactions reversed (and their money refunded).    That created a new allotment of tickets that were then scarfed up by STA fans. 

    Those Board members who had their transactions reversed were not particularly happy about that.  They had stood in the (virtual) ticket line, and had made their purchases, only to be told that their tickets would be invalidated because STA fans didn't know where the line was and, therefore, did not have the (same?) opportunity to stand in the virtual line and buy their tickets.    I now return to my caveat and state for the record that I do not know the particulars regarding how some people knew where the virtual line was and when the virtual ticket window opened while others did not. 

    Some of the folks who had purchased tickets, only to have the purchases reversed, used this forum as a means of . . . shall we say, 'expressing their dissatisfaction' with the quality of service they were provided.   Some, rightfully or wrongfully, suggested that STA had started swinging its weight around, perhaps with the FHSAA, in order to secure ample tickets after tickets had been sold out.  As I recall, some even suggested that STA had threatened legal action. I even went so far as to pen a light-hearted, satirical checklist of all the things the STA fans had to do before making the trip across the state and that somehow, purchasing the game tickets had failed to show up on the list.  If memory serves me correct, I posted my post Wednesday or Thursday afternoon before the Friday night game.   I then left my office and went home.  

    On a personal note, I don't typically check this site from home.  By the time I got to work the next morning, all hell had apparently broken loose.  By all appearances, forum posters became a little more 'aggressive' with their posts and accusations.  I'm assuming one or more posters leveled some serious allegations against STA/STA fans, which appear to have resulted in one or more posts/DM's/faxes/certified letters/overnight deliveries/process servers, etc. from embarrassed/outraged STA personnel and/or fans threatening legal action against this site and its owner. Not wanting to go to war with the 800-pound gorilla, Josh made the business decision to take down the thread.  For reasons that are not clear to me, he also made the decision to terminate administrator rights of some or all of the site administrators.  Perhaps Josh or someone can explain that decision.  Or perhaps all that needs to be said has been said. 

    Again, as you can see, there is big gap in my timeline between what happened and what was posted after I left my office the one day of game week and the next morning when I came in and checked the site.  Perhaps someone else can fill in the missing information.   But, from what I have seen and heard, the bottom line is that a few posters (some of whom may have been members and/or administrators) suggested that STA and/or its fans acted in a heavy-handed manner to the detriment of those who already had purchased tickets to the game.  When called out, STA and/or its fans doubled down.  Not wanting to go to war with a heavily-armed and well-funded enemy, Josh made the decision to pull the whole 'discussion' off the site. 

    I hope that what I have said is both accurate and non-confrontational.   As with many of my posts, this post contains both my factual recitations and my opinions.  Hopefully, I have not stepped over any lines.  I guess we'll see.  Josh, if you believe that I've crossed the line, DM me and I'll take this post down. 

    Thank you Perspective, I think that I vaguely remember this now. Josh did the right thing removing the thread in my opinion. 

  21. 11 hours ago, peezy28 said:
    10 hours ago, badbird said:

    20 years later STA still causing problems on message boards.  Bunch of arrogant cheaters.  

    I think (and not 100% sure) that when everything went down with the St. Thomas Aquinas thing a few weeks back Old School may have been removed as a moderator and either suspended, banned or chose to leave the site on his own volition (spelling).

    Josh or Hunter would have to confirm this.

    What exactly is the STA situation that happened a few weeks back?  Thank you. 

  22. 11 hours ago, badbird said:

    No idea.  They are taking advantage of a loop hole.  So even if he was it wouldn't change my opinion of him as a man.  The state is to blame in allowing it to happen.

    Badbird, as I am familiar with both coaches and their respective coaching styles on the sideline during games, I would assume that Coach Coe and Coach Darlington are friendly or at least acquaintances with each other. Would I be correct? 

×
×
  • Create New...