| |
Main
Date: 22 Feb 2007 18:03:25
From: Ben.
Subject: Zoeller sues Wikipedia
|
Careful what rock you turn over, Fuzz-Man, there might just be a snake
under there that'll bite your drunken, racist ass:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/golf/02/22/bc.glf.wikipedia.zoeller.ap/index.html?cnn=yes
|
|
| |
Date: 24 Feb 2007 20:24:19
From:
Subject: Re: Zoeller sues Wikipedia
|
On Feb 23, 10:17 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net > wrote:
> On 23 Feb 2007 18:56:33 -0800, rabfu...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 23, 3:52 pm, The World Wide Wade
> ><waderameyx...@comcast.remove13.net> wrote:
> >> In article <vfjst259lvajbujhtgojr22n0338aug...@4ax.com>,
> >> Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>
> >> > On 22 Feb 2007 18:03:25 -0800, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > >Careful what rock you turn over, Fuzz-Man, there might just be a snake
> >> > >under there that'll bite your drunken, racist ass:
>
> >> > >http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/golf/02/22/bc.glf.wikipedia.zoe...
> <clip>
> >The problem with Wikipedia is that anyone can post anything about
> >anyone without producing any corroborating proof and anyone can
> >disclaim any liabiilty for slander in posting libelous stuff. Fuzzy
> >may well be trying to teach all of us a lesson but what he is trying
> >to do by suing the alleged poster of such. He could end up opening a
> >can of worms that he had never planned to do so. In the deposition,
> >the defense attorney will go over the alleged abuse and quote sources
> >such as the May 2006 Golf Digest article and ask him if that is true
> >about him. And if that was true about him and he denies it on the
> >witness stand, he will be committing perjury in the eyes of the
> >court. I do not think he would want to take that chance and I am sure
> >his counsel will quickly take action on settlement negotiations that
> >will amicably resolve the lawsuit.
>
> <clip>
>
> >Most likely, this will never come to court. Fuzzy will realize the
> >foolhardy scenario of having to admit that he actually beat his wife
> >and children while under the abuse of drugs/alcohol in order to avoid
> >perjuring himself. The best he will extract will be an apology from
> >the company he is suing and that is it. Or a judge will dismiss the
> >lawsuit as lacking factual detail as one cannot prove who was at the
> >computer the moment the alleged comments were posted.
>
> >Still we all have to behave like adults and accept responsibility for
> >what we post on the net. The vast majority of people who post on the
> >internet behave in a veryr esponsible way - it is the very small
> >minority that behaves irresponsibility and makes things harder for the
> >rest of us.
>
> >James K. Goodwin
>
> Holy crap! This whole essay began with IF Fuzzy was guilty, and IF he
> denies it, then he would be guilty of perjury.
>
> Then you state that " Fuzzy WILL realize the foolhardy scenario of
> having to admit that he actually beat his wife and children while
> under the abuse of drugs/alcohol in order to avoid perjuring himself."
>
> Big leap of supposition by you.
>
> Why didn't it occur to you that he could deny all those charges and
> prove that they were false?
>
> Scary that someone like you might be on any jury.
>
> bk- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Just being the devil's advocate. Not to say that he actually did
those things to his wife and kids, but what was reported in June 2006
Golf Digest when he was interviewed if that was quoted as a source for
the allegations..
He is a public figure. Why would he want to call attention to the
charges while denying them and filing a lawsuit against Wikepedia to
find out who was the poster of such? You would want to leave sleeping
dogs alone. Derek Jeter's profile in Wikepedia is blacked out to all
posters with the exception of those who register to be able to post as
opposed to anyone who could add data to his profile.
There is a lot of garbage out on the net. Teachers forbid students
from quoting sources cited in Wikepedia and make them look long and
hard for reliable information to back up their papers. THey say they
question the veracity of Wikepedia's credibility as a reliable source
of information..But what is to stop a student from making a copy of a
Wikepedia article that lists allt he soruces and then go to the
library to verify that they are credible before citing them in their
papers epecially if they know the article is accurate but have to make
sure in order not to trip the teacher's suspicous nature? Many
students will use the Wikepeida artile as a basis to aid them in doing
their research while verifying the sources online or at the library
before writing their paper.
The poster on Fuzzy Zoeller's Wikipedia profile had fun with Fuzzy
Zoeller from the comfort of his office at the company he worked for
while never thinking that Zoeller would actually go through all the
trouble to track him down via a lawsuit by suing his employer. He
could deny it and say that he did not post those comments from his
work computer but who will believe him if it is proven by time sheets
that he was at work on the day the comments were posted?
That can have a chilling effect on employee use of the office computer
for recreational purposes when they were supposed to be using it for
work related purposes as companies crack down on the long established
practice that has become a nice perk for those who have the computer
on their desk with internet access. Protection from uneeded liability
will become more important to employers..
Still people do not think when they have a good thing on their hands
and cry when they are fired for surfing pornographic work sites from
work. Why should the idiots ruin it for everyone else?
JG
.
|
| |
Date: 23 Feb 2007 19:21:12
From:
Subject: Re: Zoeller sues Wikipedia
|
On Feb 23, 4:32 pm, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> On Feb 23, 10:06 am, lobshot...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > On Feb 22, 8:03 pm, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Careful what rock you turn over, Fuzz-Man, there might just be a snake
> > > under there that'll bite your drunken, racist ass:
>
> > >http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/golf/02/22/bc.glf.wikipedia.zoe...
>
> > You people who throw the R word around at the slightest comment make
> > me laugh. Do you apply your sensitivity standard equally?
>
> Are you a noob to golf, RSG, or both?
I remember Fuzzy's comments. They dont make him a racist.
BTW I am a 6 hdcp.
|
| |
Date: 23 Feb 2007 18:56:33
From:
Subject: Re: Zoeller sues Wikipedia
|
On Feb 23, 3:52 pm, The World Wide Wade
<waderameyx...@comcast.remove13.net > wrote:
> In article <vfjst259lvajbujhtgojr22n0338aug...@4ax.com>,
> Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>
> > On 22 Feb 2007 18:03:25 -0800, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >Careful what rock you turn over, Fuzz-Man, there might just be a snake
> > >under there that'll bite your drunken, racist ass:
>
> > >http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/golf/02/22/bc.glf.wikipedia.zoe...
> > >index.html?cnn=yes
>
> > I couldn't get the link to work, so I went to SI. He's suing
> > Wikipedia for the name of a\the person who added a statement that he
> > abused alcohol and drugs to their bio of him. Whoever he is, he's the
> > one that should be very careful, and have damned good proof. Wikipedia
> > has deleted the paragraph in question.
>
> The original Wikipedia article is at:
>
> http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:VwSN-9HUWgwJ:www.answers.com/t
> opic/fuzzy-zoeller+zoeller+answers.com&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
The problem with Wikipedia is that anyone can post anything about
anyone without producing any corroborating proof and anyone can
disclaim any liabiilty for slander in posting libelous stuff. Fuzzy
may well be trying to teach all of us a lesson but what he is trying
to do by suing the alleged poster of such. He could end up opening a
can of worms that he had never planned to do so. In the deposition,
the defense attorney will go over the alleged abuse and quote sources
such as the May 2006 Golf Digest article and ask him if that is true
about him. And if that was true about him and he denies it on the
witness stand, he will be committing perjury in the eyes of the
court. I do not think he would want to take that chance and I am sure
his counsel will quickly take action on settlement negotiations that
will amicably resolve the lawsuit.
Were Fuzzy to win in court, this would send a very strong signal to
all companies that permit employees to surf the net and post
messages. In response, those companies will take steps to prevent
employees from accessing the web from their personal computers while
on the job. New controls would only enable company email usage and no
internet surfing. That will be explained as a means to protect the
company from liability should an employee say something that triggers
a liability suit. In short, the fringe benefit of being able to surf
the web for a few minutes will be terminated for everyone who works
for a company in order to protect the company from lawsuits filed by
people aggrieved by the postings of employees who were suppoeed to be
working instead of surfing on the net. Remember, surfing on the
company internet is a privilege, not a right and must not be abused..
Most likely, this will never come to court. Fuzzy will realize the
foolhardy scenario of having to admit that he actually beat his wife
and children while under the abuse of drugs/alcohol in order to avoid
perjuring himself. The best he will extract will be an apology from
the company he is suing and that is it. Or a judge will dismiss the
lawsuit as lacking factual detail as one cannot prove who was at the
computer the moment the alleged comments were posted.
Still we all have to behave like adults and accept responsibility for
what we post on the net. The vast majority of people who post on the
internet behave in a veryr esponsible way - it is the very small
minority that behaves irresponsibility and makes things harder for the
rest of us.
James K. Goodwin
|
| | |
Date: 24 Feb 2007 03:17:19
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Zoeller sues Wikipedia
|
On 23 Feb 2007 18:56:33 -0800, rabfur13@aol.com wrote:
>On Feb 23, 3:52 pm, The World Wide Wade
><waderameyx...@comcast.remove13.net> wrote:
>> In article <vfjst259lvajbujhtgojr22n0338aug...@4ax.com>,
>> Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>>
>> > On 22 Feb 2007 18:03:25 -0800, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > >Careful what rock you turn over, Fuzz-Man, there might just be a snake
>> > >under there that'll bite your drunken, racist ass:
>>
>> > >http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/golf/02/22/bc.glf.wikipedia.zoe...
<clip >
>The problem with Wikipedia is that anyone can post anything about
>anyone without producing any corroborating proof and anyone can
>disclaim any liabiilty for slander in posting libelous stuff. Fuzzy
>may well be trying to teach all of us a lesson but what he is trying
>to do by suing the alleged poster of such. He could end up opening a
>can of worms that he had never planned to do so. In the deposition,
>the defense attorney will go over the alleged abuse and quote sources
>such as the May 2006 Golf Digest article and ask him if that is true
>about him. And if that was true about him and he denies it on the
>witness stand, he will be committing perjury in the eyes of the
>court. I do not think he would want to take that chance and I am sure
>his counsel will quickly take action on settlement negotiations that
>will amicably resolve the lawsuit.
>
<clip >
>
>Most likely, this will never come to court. Fuzzy will realize the
>foolhardy scenario of having to admit that he actually beat his wife
>and children while under the abuse of drugs/alcohol in order to avoid
>perjuring himself. The best he will extract will be an apology from
>the company he is suing and that is it. Or a judge will dismiss the
>lawsuit as lacking factual detail as one cannot prove who was at the
>computer the moment the alleged comments were posted.
>
>Still we all have to behave like adults and accept responsibility for
>what we post on the net. The vast majority of people who post on the
>internet behave in a veryr esponsible way - it is the very small
>minority that behaves irresponsibility and makes things harder for the
>rest of us.
>
>James K. Goodwin
Holy crap! This whole essay began with IF Fuzzy was guilty, and IF he
denies it, then he would be guilty of perjury.
Then you state that " Fuzzy WILL realize the foolhardy scenario of
having to admit that he actually beat his wife and children while
under the abuse of drugs/alcohol in order to avoid perjuring himself."
Big leap of supposition by you.
Why didn't it occur to you that he could deny all those charges and
prove that they were false?
Scary that someone like you might be on any jury.
bk
|
| |
Date: 23 Feb 2007 14:32:53
From: Ben.
Subject: Re: Zoeller sues Wikipedia
|
On Feb 23, 10:06 am, lobshot...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> On Feb 22, 8:03 pm, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Careful what rock you turn over, Fuzz-Man, there might just be a snake
> > under there that'll bite your drunken, racist ass:
>
> >http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/golf/02/22/bc.glf.wikipedia.zoe...
>
> You people who throw the R word around at the slightest comment make
> me laugh. Do you apply your sensitivity standard equally?
Are you a noob to golf, RSG, or both?
|
| |
Date: 23 Feb 2007 08:06:31
From:
Subject: Re: Zoeller sues Wikipedia
|
On Feb 22, 8:03 pm, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Careful what rock you turn over, Fuzz-Man, there might just be a snake
> under there that'll bite your drunken, racist ass:
>
> http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/golf/02/22/bc.glf.wikipedia.zoe...
You people who throw the R word around at the slightest comment make
me laugh. Do you apply your sensitivity standard equally?
|
| |
Date: 22 Feb 2007 20:03:10
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Zoeller sues Wikipedia
|
On Feb 22, 9:03 pm, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com > wrote:
> Careful what rock you turn over, Fuzz-Man, there might just be a snake
> under there that'll bite your drunken, racist ass:
>
> http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/golf/02/22/bc.glf.wikipedia.zoe...
I figured the trace would lead back to a computer in the Isleworth
subdivision.
When little Buckwheat Woods was in school the teacher asked him to use
the word "dictate" in a sentence. The Young Master Woods said, "Ay
Fuddy, ow my dictate?'
|
| |
Date: 22 Feb 2007 19:08:13
From: Ben.
Subject: Re: Zoeller sues Wikipedia
|
On Feb 22, 8:47 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net > wrote:
> On 22 Feb 2007 18:39:18 -0800, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Feb 22, 8:14 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
> >> On 22 Feb 2007 18:03:25 -0800, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >Careful what rock you turn over, Fuzz-Man, there might just be a snake
> >> >under there that'll bite your drunken, racist ass:
>
> >> >http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/golf/02/22/bc.glf.wikipedia.zoe...
>
> >> I couldn't get the link to work, so I went to SI. He's suing
> >> Wikipedia for the name of a\the person who added a statement that he
> >> abused alcohol and drugs to their bio of him. Whoever he is, he's the
> >> one that should be very careful, and have damned good proof. Wikipedia
> >> has deleted the paragraph in question.
> .
> >> "Someone likes every shot"
> >> bk
>
> >http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/golf/02/22/bc.glf.wikipedia.zoe...
>
> >Truncated for some reason. Anyway, finding witnesses to corroborate
> >Zoeller's drunkenness is probably only as difficult as finding Zoeller
> >in the hotel bar...IOW - pretty easy. He completely rat-fucked a
> >friend of mine while so shitfaced he could hardly talk. It won't be
> >hard to prove he did whatever they say he did.
>
> The alcohol abuse might be relatively easy, but abusing drugs...and
> his family? That's strong, and if Zoeller actually goes after them,
> it probably will be hard to prove.
You very well may be right. Though, for personal reasons, I hope you
aren't.
|
| |
Date: 22 Feb 2007 18:39:18
From: Ben.
Subject: Re: Zoeller sues Wikipedia
|
On Feb 22, 8:14 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net > wrote:
> On 22 Feb 2007 18:03:25 -0800, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Careful what rock you turn over, Fuzz-Man, there might just be a snake
> >under there that'll bite your drunken, racist ass:
>
> >http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/golf/02/22/bc.glf.wikipedia.zoe...
>
> I couldn't get the link to work, so I went to SI. He's suing
> Wikipedia for the name of a\the person who added a statement that he
> abused alcohol and drugs to their bio of him. Whoever he is, he's the
> one that should be very careful, and have damned good proof. Wikipedia
> has deleted the paragraph in question.
> ___,
> \o
>
|
| | |
Date: 23 Feb 2007 02:47:25
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Zoeller sues Wikipedia
|
On 22 Feb 2007 18:39:18 -0800, "Ben." <kombi45@yahoo.com > wrote:
>On Feb 22, 8:14 pm, Bobby Knight <bkni...@conramp.net> wrote:
>> On 22 Feb 2007 18:03:25 -0800, "Ben." <komb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Careful what rock you turn over, Fuzz-Man, there might just be a snake
>> >under there that'll bite your drunken, racist ass:
>>
>> >http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/golf/02/22/bc.glf.wikipedia.zoe...
>>
>> I couldn't get the link to work, so I went to SI. He's suing
>> Wikipedia for the name of a\the person who added a statement that he
>> abused alcohol and drugs to their bio of him. Whoever he is, he's the
>> one that should be very careful, and have damned good proof. Wikipedia
>> has deleted the paragraph in question.
.
>> "Someone likes every shot"
>> bk
>
>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/golf/02/22/bc.glf.wikipedia.zoeller.ap/index.html?cnn=yes
>
>Truncated for some reason. Anyway, finding witnesses to corroborate
>Zoeller's drunkenness is probably only as difficult as finding Zoeller
>in the hotel bar...IOW - pretty easy. He completely rat-fucked a
>friend of mine while so shitfaced he could hardly talk. It won't be
>hard to prove he did whatever they say he did.
The alcohol abuse might be relatively easy, but abusing drugs...and
his family? That's strong, and if Zoeller actually goes after them,
it probably will be hard to prove.
___,
\o
|
| |
Date: 23 Feb 2007 02:14:51
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Zoeller sues Wikipedia
|
On 22 Feb 2007 18:03:25 -0800, "Ben." <kombi45@yahoo.com > wrote:
>Careful what rock you turn over, Fuzz-Man, there might just be a snake
>under there that'll bite your drunken, racist ass:
>
>http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/golf/02/22/bc.glf.wikipedia.zoeller.ap/index.html?cnn=yes
I couldn't get the link to work, so I went to SI. He's suing
Wikipedia for the name of a\the person who added a statement that he
abused alcohol and drugs to their bio of him. Whoever he is, he's the
one that should be very careful, and have damned good proof. Wikipedia
has deleted the paragraph in question.
___,
\o
|
| | |
Date: 23 Feb 2007 12:52:12
From: The World Wide Wade
Subject: Re: Zoeller sues Wikipedia
|
In article <vfjst259lvajbujhtgojr22n0338augl8k@4ax.com >,
Bobby Knight <bknight@conramp.net > wrote:
> On 22 Feb 2007 18:03:25 -0800, "Ben." <kombi45@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >Careful what rock you turn over, Fuzz-Man, there might just be a snake
> >under there that'll bite your drunken, racist ass:
> >
> >http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/golf/02/22/bc.glf.wikipedia.zoeller.ap/
> >index.html?cnn=yes
>
> I couldn't get the link to work, so I went to SI. He's suing
> Wikipedia for the name of a\the person who added a statement that he
> abused alcohol and drugs to their bio of him. Whoever he is, he's the
> one that should be very careful, and have damned good proof. Wikipedia
> has deleted the paragraph in question.
The original Wikipedia article is at:
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:VwSN-9HUWgwJ:www.answers.com/t
opic/fuzzy-zoeller+zoeller+answers.com&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us
|
|
