U MAD?

[Edited on July 19, 2011 at 5:59 PM. Reason : **** ****]

7/19/2011 5:11:43 PM

pls pls pls shop "**** ****" onto his nametag

7/19/2011 5:16:40 PM

poor qntmken has his work cut out for him.

7/19/2011 5:23:51 PM

I hear **** **** is going to buy thewolfweb with his settlement money

7/19/2011 5:27:47 PM

this is true. then he-who-must-not-be-name will use it to practice spiritual capitalism and post free jobs. never will anyone ever have to buy an add again. Never.

I, for one, welcome our new goatee wearing and zip down sweater sporting overlord.

7/19/2011 5:35:27 PM

[disclaimer] not participating / endorsing any content in this thread just asking a question to more experienced users [/disclaimer]


Do I need to lawyer up?

7/19/2011 5:36:55 PM

So was that a holiday networking social

with the red snowflake tie and all?

So is it bad that when I get a quiver match on OkCupid and dude looks like **** **** I automatically push "NOT INTERESTED" no matter how many puppies they've saved in their lifetime?

7/19/2011 5:37:11 PM

^^Don't bother, just get out of the country while you still can.

[Edited on July 19, 2011 at 5:38 PM. Reason : ]

7/19/2011 5:37:57 PM

[Edited on July 19, 2011 at 6:00 PM. Reason : **** ****]

7/19/2011 5:39:50 PM

haha yes

7/19/2011 5:41:57 PM

Quote :

"CONSEQUENCES WILL NEVER BE THE SAME"

7/19/2011 5:42:03 PM

^^ is that yes to me?


Oh great, now fucking what - what are the charges? Is it against the host or you the OP or anyone and everyone who posted?

7/19/2011 5:43:34 PM

7/19/2011 5:47:27 PM

What a loser

7/19/2011 5:53:29 PM

Quote :

"North Carolina has written some very good laws that protect people from content on your site."

Quote :

"FREEDOM FROM TWW"

7/19/2011 6:06:28 PM

We need a tww alumnus to become an awesome lawyer to do tww's layering for free.

And the alumnus needs to be a troll.

7/19/2011 6:40:54 PM

Quote :

"We need a tww alumnus to become an awesome lawyer to do tww's layering for free. And the alumnus needs to be a troll."

paging jackleg

7/19/2011 6:50:35 PM

i know one but i doubt he would do it

7/19/2011 6:50:47 PM

Can we pay him in lafta bucks?

7/19/2011 6:51:26 PM

so we cannot post pictures of him that he has publicly posted on the internet?

WEAKSAUCEAGE

7/19/2011 6:51:34 PM

bitcoins SON

7/19/2011 6:51:41 PM

actually, it's not okay

7/19/2011 6:55:08 PM

I, for one, welcome our new goatee wearing and zip down sweater sporting overlord.

7/19/2011 6:56:36 PM

fuckinglol

7/19/2011 6:57:49 PM

"I have drugs"

7/19/2011 6:59:41 PM

POUR SOME MORE GAS ON THE FIRE **** ****

YOU FUCKING BITCH

7/19/2011 7:00:00 PM

**** **** sues qntmfred but qntmfred doesnt have internet insurance, so the judge sentences him to be **** ****'s webmaster

7/19/2011 7:03:50 PM

Quote :

"so we cannot post pictures of him that he has publicly posted on the internet? WEAKSAUCEAGE"

where did qntm say that?

7/19/2011 7:04:17 PM

2 pictures were removed from this page
and i didnt do it

7/19/2011 7:05:21 PM

So, uh.

I'm feeling Euphalo.

7/19/2011 7:06:56 PM

Maybe it was marko

7/19/2011 7:08:19 PM

Any chance we can find another person with the same name who will allow us to use his name to digitally spite fuck this douche?

7/19/2011 7:09:08 PM

no really, we can't post pics now? This is the internet for God's sake.

7/19/2011 7:35:31 PM

fat fuck

7/19/2011 7:37:17 PM

epic TWW thread is epic.

7/19/2011 7:38:26 PM

^^^in before the edit

7/19/2011 7:38:30 PM

^inb4 the edit

7/19/2011 7:38:51 PM

you aren't the one getting threatened with a lawsuit. much easier to avoid than to take it to court, no matter if you know you are going to win.

go harass him on google+

7/19/2011 7:39:38 PM

im timing

7/19/2011 7:39:48 PM

Posting pictures to which he owns the copyright (assuming he owns the copyright) is probably the only thing done so far that Gregory Hymer would have a legit complaint over.

7/19/2011 7:40:50 PM

its probably safe to assume the pictures showing him were not taken by him, and thus he does not hold the copyright to them. somebody does though, unless they released them into the public domain, or sold them to GH

7/19/2011 7:46:00 PM

he does not own One Vision Photography.

7/19/2011 7:46:03 PM

It would appear One Vision Photography has the copyright.

7/19/2011 7:46:27 PM

Greg Higher

7/19/2011 7:47:23 PM

also, i just noticed this in the OP:

Quote :

"I am aware of who most of these people are and where they work"

grεg hyεr knows me, and my place of business? well ain't that a fine how do you do

7/19/2011 7:48:25 PM

Quote :

"he does not own One Vision Photography."

Someone does

7/19/2011 7:49:07 PM

Yeah but they would be the ones that'd have to shell out a money for a lawyer.

7/19/2011 7:49:41 PM

It's a ridiculously tenuous claim, but it's the strongest one yet. QF is best to avoid any legal infringements. Stop being children.

7/19/2011 7:50:22 PM

Quote :

"you aren't the one getting threatened with a lawsuit. much easier to avoid than to take it to court, no matter if you know you are going to win."

It's true, if the libelous content is taken down, whether being timestamped or not it shows a lack of intent on the participating party.

Thus if one attempts to establish the fact that these timestamped statements where made with intent to "knowingly harm ones reputation in their place of business" it seems counter intuitive that they would be taken down upon request. When these statements are taken down it shows an intent to not make them libelous by participating parties.

As for this:

Quote :

"(a) It shall be unlawful for any person: (1) To use in telephonic communications any words or language of a profane, vulgar, lewd, lascivious or indecent character, nature or connotation; (2) To use in telephonic communications any words or language threatening to inflict bodily harm to any person or to that person's child, sibling, spouse, or dependent or physical injury to the property of any person, or for the purpose of extorting money or other things of value from any person; (3) To telephone another repeatedly, whether or not conversation ensues, for the purpose of abusing, annoying, threatening, terrifying, harassing or embarrassing any person at the called number; (4) To make a telephone call and fail to hang up or disengage the connection with the intent to disrupt the service of another; (5) To telephone another and to knowingly make any false statement concerning death, injury, illness, disfigurement, indecent conduct or criminal conduct of the person telephoned or of any member of his family or household with the intent to abuse, annoy, threaten, terrify, harass, or embarrass; (6) To knowingly permit any telephone under his control to be used for any purpose prohibited by this section. (b) Any of the above offenses may be deemed to have been committed at either the place at which the telephone call or calls were made or at the place where the telephone call or calls were received. For purposes of this section, the term "telephonic communications" shall include communications made or received by way of a telephone answering machine or recorder, telefacsimile machine, or computer modem."

I fail to see how this applies in this situation unless someone directly contacted and threatened him, and if someone did that they need to stop that shit. All of these are defined by telephonic communication, and seeing as this is a forum and not a direct communique with the respective parties I fail to see how this applies. However, I could see how this applies to the website owner if in fact somehow a court could establish that the forum was a direct contact with the respective party.


Either way this nonsense needs to stop; it will only breed trouble. Just leave this guy alone, and let him do his thing. And as much as I do not appreciate him threatening site users, I certainly understand that people will do these things when they are pushed into a corner.

7/19/2011 7:53:52 PM

i've had pm conversations with qntmfred before and what's always shocked me was the sheer volume of profanity

7/19/2011 7:53:57 PM