-
FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.
Got busted WITH(out) a MetroCard
- Thread starter prunenoir
- Start date
Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills Please click a topic or scroll down for more.
- Status
CarlJStoneham
Member
Ahhh, and the trolling continues. Not sure which is worse, that a person with a Doctorate who can speak 5 languages is reduced to such puerile behavior or that said person actually knew about Ms. Lawson's website. Kindred spirit...?
By all means rmet, keep posting. It's truly fascinating to see someone with a (presumably) distinguished education fall to such pitiable lows. Still, it is quite amusing, especially since you and ENSANI take turns. The tag teaming just adds to the comedy (or perhaps tragedy is more appropriate...) OTOH, I guess you need to do something to keep your post count up.
What IS sad is that with your education and skills, that post is the best you can come up with. Surely the two of you are capable of something far more clever and witty. Between yourselves you must share at least ONE clever bone...
And ENASNI, for what it's worth, it's "apropos". It's a pretty common spelling mistake, so I'm honestly not jabbing at you. Just the French major in me
By all means rmet, keep posting. It's truly fascinating to see someone with a (presumably) distinguished education fall to such pitiable lows. Still, it is quite amusing, especially since you and ENSANI take turns. The tag teaming just adds to the comedy (or perhaps tragedy is more appropriate...) OTOH, I guess you need to do something to keep your post count up.
What IS sad is that with your education and skills, that post is the best you can come up with. Surely the two of you are capable of something far more clever and witty. Between yourselves you must share at least ONE clever bone...
And ENASNI, for what it's worth, it's "apropos". It's a pretty common spelling mistake, so I'm honestly not jabbing at you. Just the French major in me
um
If you are going to stick around... quit with the trolling remarks. that is used for people who peep out from their bridges and cause trouble... GET IT! That is you. IF ( Oy Vey) if you decide to stay and are allowed to stay by the all hallowed moderater.. STOP calling the senior members TROLLS... sheesh... do you not get it by now... what I said in my last post... IT IS NOT ALL ABOUT YOU AND YOUR ENTERTAINMENT. If you cause any trouble on a post where the people here post to help... you will be brought to the all holy MARY of moderators... otherwise we here have to tolerate you... we did try to get you to go away.. but do not hi-jack to your own designs.. try to keep your posts short, though we know you like to see your own words in print...
Your attack on one of the most important members on this forum has made me go politic and it tics me off to no end... so just BACK OFF and just ask your legal questions... don't do debates... don't do wannabe homework because you picked the wrong major... if you watch the forum, have some experience in the situation and have something to contribute LEGAL the do so. OTHERWISE GET LOST.
If you are going to stick around... quit with the trolling remarks. that is used for people who peep out from their bridges and cause trouble... GET IT! That is you. IF ( Oy Vey) if you decide to stay and are allowed to stay by the all hallowed moderater.. STOP calling the senior members TROLLS... sheesh... do you not get it by now... what I said in my last post... IT IS NOT ALL ABOUT YOU AND YOUR ENTERTAINMENT. If you cause any trouble on a post where the people here post to help... you will be brought to the all holy MARY of moderators... otherwise we here have to tolerate you... we did try to get you to go away.. but do not hi-jack to your own designs.. try to keep your posts short, though we know you like to see your own words in print...
Your attack on one of the most important members on this forum has made me go politic and it tics me off to no end... so just BACK OFF and just ask your legal questions... don't do debates... don't do wannabe homework because you picked the wrong major... if you watch the forum, have some experience in the situation and have something to contribute LEGAL the do so. OTHERWISE GET LOST.
CarlJStoneham
Member
Since that sounds like a somewhat reasonable response ALMOST devoid of insults, let me try a reasonable reply and see what happens...
A fascinating definition of "internet troll" appears on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll), so we might all use a bit of education on the use of the word (since we have all applied it)...
Now, I had decided to leave my original thread alone except for responses to serious comments on my case. if I remember correctly, after I did this you or rmet couldn't leave well-enough alone and followed up. Seems like those messages were sent to "to entice other users into angry or fruitless responses". On THIS thread, I was engaged in a meaningful discussion with YAG about SL Crime. Granted the thread was hijacked, but that had been done before I joined in. All was well until rmet joined in with the quote below. I have "starred" the only part I can see that did not fall under the above definition of trolling. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to how the other parts were NOT trolling.
"Simple Logic" is often a defense those who have been unclear use. And a "simple explanation" may not be logical, especially if the other person replies "I think I see a contradiction". Furthermore, I didn't do it get attention or show my ignorance. I'm a talkative guy and found a fascinating discussion. And I'm not sure how my wife has anything to do with the discussion. These three comments (to me) define the post as "[a message] on the Internet hoping to entice other users into angry or fruitless responses, or a message sent with such content." Unless rmet knows something about how my wife and I interact, my particular grasp of logic (which is actually quite solid), or my desire to attract attention or demonstrate ignorance, I can't see how that statement was relevant to the discussion. I could have seen just "You all have hijacked OP's thread" (since YAg and jk had been doing the same I was, albeit with more vitriol (sp?)). Unfortunately, it was a message in a thread where I had made no comment to rmet, referencing an insult in a previous thread and almost entirely devoid of anything constructive. now, if it was "PMS Attack #4" as you said you experienced, so be it. My advice in that case? Resist the impulse to post.
Now, my responses were probably trolling as well. After all, it's fascinating how people on the internet place so much of who they are in an anonymous medium. I've never really cared what anyone though of me due to what Wikipedia describes as, "the fundamental attribution error" ("it is impossible to know the real traits of an individual solely from their online discourse"). It surprised me that others cared so easily, especially when I believed my very first response to rmet was appropriate (even if it wasn't). nevertheless, I am not innocent in all this, but neither do I believe I'm "more at fault"...
Now, final point and I'll leave it alone unless the discourse continues on the budding "adult" course... I could be wrong, but if I survey my posts and yours, I tend to avoid personal attacks and instead focus on how amusing the wrath I've incurred is. Yours use ?creative? insults such as "Stonehead" etc. My initital post which started all this was in response to what I consider to be a response indicative of "holier than thou" attitudes on this forum. The response was one sentence that offered little meaningful advice to someone taking a first step into the world of SCC. Much like many of IAAL's posts which seek to ridicule without helping (cf the man who felt he'd experienced discrimination on a softball field), rmet's post gave a cryptic answer that offered little help at all (esp since I was specifically asking about court). No explanation was given that might further clarify the advice (such as "and this will show the judge that you have begun a process to support your otherwise hard-to-prove claims"). Since I was in a difficult spot, the last thing I needed was cryptic, apparently useless advice. After all, when a "newbie" posts, the responsibility falls on the *senior members* to help that person in a clear manner, even if it means a little hand-holding. As I browse this forum, I see very little of that. perhaps it's jaded lawyers or people just having fun at other people's misofrtunes. Perhaps I'm, overly sensitive. Dunno. But maybe you all NEEDED this little exchange to realize that your attitude is VERY callous for many people who post here with legitimate problems...
There. I've tried to communicate my point in a calm manner. I feel my criticisms are "spot on". If you think I'm wrong about something or there's background info I need, I'm happy to hear it, assuming it's couched in similarly calm language. This thread is basically destroyed with respect to the OP's post. In fact, if I may be so bold, if this post was put to a neutral party, there would not be a single individual (aside from OP and maybe somone who posted once) here who could not be accused of trolling/poor ettiquette/hijacking the thread, senior members included. If anything I've said is unclear or seems contradictory, please ask and I'll try to clarify. Otherwise, if you want the thread to die, I don't mind complying...
PS The amount that I write has nothing to do with drawing attention. it merely comes from a desire to be as clear as possible, cover eventualities and from the fact that two masters degrees gives one a bit of practice at "waxing long"...
A fascinating definition of "internet troll" appears on Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll), so we might all use a bit of education on the use of the word (since we have all applied it)...
Now, I had decided to leave my original thread alone except for responses to serious comments on my case. if I remember correctly, after I did this you or rmet couldn't leave well-enough alone and followed up. Seems like those messages were sent to "to entice other users into angry or fruitless responses". On THIS thread, I was engaged in a meaningful discussion with YAG about SL Crime. Granted the thread was hijacked, but that had been done before I joined in. All was well until rmet joined in with the quote below. I have "starred" the only part I can see that did not fall under the above definition of trolling. Perhaps you can enlighten me as to how the other parts were NOT trolling.
"Simple Logic" is often a defense those who have been unclear use. And a "simple explanation" may not be logical, especially if the other person replies "I think I see a contradiction". Furthermore, I didn't do it get attention or show my ignorance. I'm a talkative guy and found a fascinating discussion. And I'm not sure how my wife has anything to do with the discussion. These three comments (to me) define the post as "[a message] on the Internet hoping to entice other users into angry or fruitless responses, or a message sent with such content." Unless rmet knows something about how my wife and I interact, my particular grasp of logic (which is actually quite solid), or my desire to attract attention or demonstrate ignorance, I can't see how that statement was relevant to the discussion. I could have seen just "You all have hijacked OP's thread" (since YAg and jk had been doing the same I was, albeit with more vitriol (sp?)). Unfortunately, it was a message in a thread where I had made no comment to rmet, referencing an insult in a previous thread and almost entirely devoid of anything constructive. now, if it was "PMS Attack #4" as you said you experienced, so be it. My advice in that case? Resist the impulse to post.
Now, my responses were probably trolling as well. After all, it's fascinating how people on the internet place so much of who they are in an anonymous medium. I've never really cared what anyone though of me due to what Wikipedia describes as, "the fundamental attribution error" ("it is impossible to know the real traits of an individual solely from their online discourse"). It surprised me that others cared so easily, especially when I believed my very first response to rmet was appropriate (even if it wasn't). nevertheless, I am not innocent in all this, but neither do I believe I'm "more at fault"...
Now, final point and I'll leave it alone unless the discourse continues on the budding "adult" course... I could be wrong, but if I survey my posts and yours, I tend to avoid personal attacks and instead focus on how amusing the wrath I've incurred is. Yours use ?creative? insults such as "Stonehead" etc. My initital post which started all this was in response to what I consider to be a response indicative of "holier than thou" attitudes on this forum. The response was one sentence that offered little meaningful advice to someone taking a first step into the world of SCC. Much like many of IAAL's posts which seek to ridicule without helping (cf the man who felt he'd experienced discrimination on a softball field), rmet's post gave a cryptic answer that offered little help at all (esp since I was specifically asking about court). No explanation was given that might further clarify the advice (such as "and this will show the judge that you have begun a process to support your otherwise hard-to-prove claims"). Since I was in a difficult spot, the last thing I needed was cryptic, apparently useless advice. After all, when a "newbie" posts, the responsibility falls on the *senior members* to help that person in a clear manner, even if it means a little hand-holding. As I browse this forum, I see very little of that. perhaps it's jaded lawyers or people just having fun at other people's misofrtunes. Perhaps I'm, overly sensitive. Dunno. But maybe you all NEEDED this little exchange to realize that your attitude is VERY callous for many people who post here with legitimate problems...
There. I've tried to communicate my point in a calm manner. I feel my criticisms are "spot on". If you think I'm wrong about something or there's background info I need, I'm happy to hear it, assuming it's couched in similarly calm language. This thread is basically destroyed with respect to the OP's post. In fact, if I may be so bold, if this post was put to a neutral party, there would not be a single individual (aside from OP and maybe somone who posted once) here who could not be accused of trolling/poor ettiquette/hijacking the thread, senior members included. If anything I've said is unclear or seems contradictory, please ask and I'll try to clarify. Otherwise, if you want the thread to die, I don't mind complying...
PS The amount that I write has nothing to do with drawing attention. it merely comes from a desire to be as clear as possible, cover eventualities and from the fact that two masters degrees gives one a bit of practice at "waxing long"...
M
meganproser
Guest
Insane, several people were having a constructive conversation in this thread about LAW.
You entered the thread with the following: “Get him Yag... he is a blow-hard!”
Never mind the fact that YAG did not need or ask for your “support”. You entered this thread for the purpose of disrupting an otherwise on topic discussion. This is the very definition of TROLL behavior.
Rmet then entered with this completely OFF TOPIC post: “I'm sorry, but if you can't understand simple English logic, how can you teach math? OP's question was answered long ago and you hijacked this thread to get attention and demonstrate your ignorance. Please spend your time being kind to your wife. Have you got her the candy and flowers? Have you scheduled the Spa day? That is your homework.”
TROLL behavior.
Somehow Senior Troll Member Insane, you then morphed into the moderator and owner of this site, issuing orders galore to Carl:
If you are going to stick around... quit with the trolling remarks.
Or what?
that is used for people who peep out from their bridges and cause trouble... GET IT!
It is used on this site, for any individual who has dared to disagree with one of a small group of regulars who seem to feel they own the site. You don’t own or dictate the use of the term...GOT IT?
STOP calling the senior members TROLLS... sheesh...
Several of you have taken trolling to an art form here recently. I’m glad Carl called it as it is.
but do not hi-jack to your own designs.. try to keep your posts short, though we know you like to see your own words in print...
You and your buds have done nothing BUT hijack threads for the past few weeks, overwhelming them with short but idiotic posts that are completely off topic. The real moderator of this site has been running behind you locking these threads but you simply start over on another thread.
Your attack on one of the most important members on this forum
Rmet is one of the most important members of this forum? Do tell??? If you have some authority here that you are keeping secret, now is the time to share.
so just BACK OFF and just ask your legal questions... don't do debates... don't do wannabe
Ok, did someone DIE and leave you in charge of the entire site? It’s going to come out sooner or later...if you are the big boss now, you may as well say so.
so just BACK OFF and just ask your legal questions... don't do debates... don't do wannabe homework because you picked the wrong major... if you watch the forum, have some experience in the situation and have something to contribute LEGAL the do so. OTHERWISE GET LOST.
I'm relieved that some of the needy folks here have found comfort in banding together and though the constant injection of off topic posts is getting old, I try to ignore it.
It’s just too bizarre to see the “commands” above issued by one of those responsible for the “gang” activity that is destroying good threads all over this site.
Carl, this was priceless:
*presumably (after all, this IS the internet, and I meant to say I have 4 Ph.D.s and speak 10 languages)
Thanks for the laugh and please do stick around!
You entered the thread with the following: “Get him Yag... he is a blow-hard!”
Never mind the fact that YAG did not need or ask for your “support”. You entered this thread for the purpose of disrupting an otherwise on topic discussion. This is the very definition of TROLL behavior.
Rmet then entered with this completely OFF TOPIC post: “I'm sorry, but if you can't understand simple English logic, how can you teach math? OP's question was answered long ago and you hijacked this thread to get attention and demonstrate your ignorance. Please spend your time being kind to your wife. Have you got her the candy and flowers? Have you scheduled the Spa day? That is your homework.”
TROLL behavior.
Somehow Senior Troll Member Insane, you then morphed into the moderator and owner of this site, issuing orders galore to Carl:
If you are going to stick around... quit with the trolling remarks.
Or what?
that is used for people who peep out from their bridges and cause trouble... GET IT!
It is used on this site, for any individual who has dared to disagree with one of a small group of regulars who seem to feel they own the site. You don’t own or dictate the use of the term...GOT IT?
STOP calling the senior members TROLLS... sheesh...
Several of you have taken trolling to an art form here recently. I’m glad Carl called it as it is.
but do not hi-jack to your own designs.. try to keep your posts short, though we know you like to see your own words in print...
You and your buds have done nothing BUT hijack threads for the past few weeks, overwhelming them with short but idiotic posts that are completely off topic. The real moderator of this site has been running behind you locking these threads but you simply start over on another thread.
Your attack on one of the most important members on this forum
Rmet is one of the most important members of this forum? Do tell??? If you have some authority here that you are keeping secret, now is the time to share.
so just BACK OFF and just ask your legal questions... don't do debates... don't do wannabe
Ok, did someone DIE and leave you in charge of the entire site? It’s going to come out sooner or later...if you are the big boss now, you may as well say so.
so just BACK OFF and just ask your legal questions... don't do debates... don't do wannabe homework because you picked the wrong major... if you watch the forum, have some experience in the situation and have something to contribute LEGAL the do so. OTHERWISE GET LOST.
I'm relieved that some of the needy folks here have found comfort in banding together and though the constant injection of off topic posts is getting old, I try to ignore it.
It’s just too bizarre to see the “commands” above issued by one of those responsible for the “gang” activity that is destroying good threads all over this site.
Carl, this was priceless:
*presumably (after all, this IS the internet, and I meant to say I have 4 Ph.D.s and speak 10 languages)
Thanks for the laugh and please do stick around!
Megan,meganproser said:
Why on earth are you encouraging Carl? Is he next on your hit list? He is an admitted troll. Please make appropriate citations, it is difficult to follow what you say when you don't do that and you have a tendency to twist what was said and by whom, or in what context.
He has a simple legal question about a scratch on a bumper for which he failed to follow up with insurance claims. He used that as his license to infect this site. When YAG realized what was happeneing, he dismissed Carl. The discourse in meaningless, not priceless and Carl, feckless. Carl should not be encouraged to pursue a case for <$400 for a scratch on a bumper for which he has no proof and failed to make an insurance claim against the person at fault in a timely manner?
At this point in time since he failed to take reasonable legal advice, which was to spend his time being kind to his wife rather than wasting his time here writing rambling page after feckless page of of meaningless text. That is a troll. The other troll mentioned, the links were provided by another member and someone from previous sites where Ms. Lawson had been banned. I didn't spend any time researching it other than to click on the link provided and posting it. Actually, Carl and Ms. Lawson could likely carry on a fulfilling cyber relationship through email and discuss to their hearts content common interests while she is in exile in Mexico. That would benefit everyone as well, perhaps you could join them offline for a cyber 3sum, then we can answer sincere questions.
You Are Guilty
Senior Member
Being that not only was the OP's question answered long ago, but it appears he never even came back to see it, why is this thread still active? Just let it die!
CarlJStoneham
Member
Megan,
I appreciate your post. I've been browsing this forum over the past week and have read enough to know that there are some very jaded people here... and some very helpful ones. The former seem to be present in larger numbers than I an used to on a forum, but perhaps that's the nature of law. What's unfortunate is that people with legitimate law questions are being ridiculed almost as often as they're being helped. It's a sad commentary. Nevertheless, I tried to spell it all out in my last post and I have taken INASNI's silence to be either "Let's agree to disagree and just move on" or, hopefully, "I don't nercessarily agree with you, but I understand your point." Either way, it's good enough for me, so I'll just continue on unless someone specifically poses a question that I have an answer for. I just wanted to thank you for your comments.
I appreciate your post. I've been browsing this forum over the past week and have read enough to know that there are some very jaded people here... and some very helpful ones. The former seem to be present in larger numbers than I an used to on a forum, but perhaps that's the nature of law. What's unfortunate is that people with legitimate law questions are being ridiculed almost as often as they're being helped. It's a sad commentary. Nevertheless, I tried to spell it all out in my last post and I have taken INASNI's silence to be either "Let's agree to disagree and just move on" or, hopefully, "I don't nercessarily agree with you, but I understand your point." Either way, it's good enough for me, so I'll just continue on unless someone specifically poses a question that I have an answer for. I just wanted to thank you for your comments.
Carl,CarlJStoneham said:Megan,
I appreciate your post. I've been browsing this forum over the past week and have read enough to know that there are some very jaded people here... and some very helpful ones. The former seem to be present in larger numbers than I an used to on a forum, but perhaps that's the nature of law. What's unfortunate is that people with legitimate law questions are being ridiculed almost as often as they're being helped. It's a sad commentary. Nevertheless, I tried to spell it all out in my last post and I have taken INASNI's silence to be either "Let's agree to disagree and just move on" or, hopefully, "I don't nercessarily agree with you, but I understand your point." Either way, it's good enough for me, so I'll just continue on unless someone specifically poses a question that I have an answer for. I just wanted to thank you for your comments.
If you could have read some of Megan's posts that have been deleted or seen what she has done to some posters, you would understand why I used the word, victim. She is not an attorney and not qualified in any way shape or form to provide legal information. She stalks her victims and gains great pleasure from torturing them. This forum is meant for providing information on legal topics, it is not a forum for discourse or debate, it is not a rant/vent or support group. When that happens, it confuses the original poster when they have to wade through page after page of argument, not relevant to their issue. While I gave you the correct answer in my first answer, it was not what you wanted so now you have posted how many pages of irrelevant text as you hijacked another thread. You are a Troll, but even Troll's deserve to be warned about Megan.
Shay-Pari'e
Senior Member
meganproser said:
This long post above is a perfect example of STALKING TROLL behavior. She even bothers to read ALL of our threads.
WOW.. I said it here.ENASNI said:Well I have 5 PMS episodes a day... and know how to say Fugazi without spitting on myself or others... Carl Stonehamheaded person. Why do you come here with your arrogant attitude and trash people who have earned respect and have given time and patience and very good advice to people on this site.
You may have insults, but you also seem to stay to your own threads and not meander around.
There are lawyers, judges, cops, Doctors, forensic specialists, real estate agents, insurance agents, Human Resource professionals, bankers and I think a hidden IRS agent besides the unsung others who take their FREE time and assist. They are not all biased, they listen they help and they do it on their own time.
You on the mean time between bike rides and teaching Math, seem to think you can come here and be ALL THAT and discuss Law.. I am sorry YAG had anything to do with you... but that is his prerogative. But it just seemed to feed your ego... or whatever..
Stop calling Doc Rmet a troll... You are the one that is the Troll. Get it? Got it? Good!
And I did not spell check this but you can put fiber up your glass if you want to pick it apart it, is late and you just chap my buttermilk.
CarlJStoneham
Member
rmet4nzkx said:
Troll's what deserve to be warned? Did you mean plural, as in "trolls"? Remember, possessive is " 's ". Plural is just plain "s". Plural possessive (or words ending with "s") is, of course " s' ".
Now, being the hopeless optimist I am, I'll try to explain one more time (briefly) why I took issue with your advice. I feel like I already have, but perhaps I need a good analogy to clear things up. This will be my last try and then I'll just count it as a hopeless cause.
I know a lot about cycling (as some of my posts have alluded to). If you had just bought a bike and hadn't ever really ridden one and something went wrong-- say a spoke came loose-- you might go to an online forum for advice. There's two types of advice I could give:
1. "15"
2. "You can either take it to a local shop or you could buy a 15mm spoke wrench, place at the nipple (where the spoke is attached to the rim) and turn it slowly and gradually until you start to feel some pressure. Remember, if you turn it too much, you could alter the balance of the wheel and make things worse, so if you're not comfortable doing this, go to a shop."
Both answers are accurate advice. Still, the first answer is simply horrible and I wouldn't blame you if you flamed me saying "What the Hell does the number 15 have to do with anything? Stop being an a-hole and give me some meaningful advice." The problem with the first answer is that I gave you an answer in as few words as possible and didn't bother to explain any of the background or context. I didn't offer other possible solutions, and I certainly didn't attempt to see the situation from someone with little or no experience in repairing/maintaining bikes. Of course, I could say "You just didn't want to hear the right answer" but I think the more accurate response would be "How on Earth could you have known that was the right answer if you're completely new to this?"
That's what your first post did. It gave an answer with no context, didn't explain why that would be the only option and certainly didn't *clearly* address my questions. Since going to court is a stressful situation for just about anyone, explaining your advice is helpful (and maybe even a moral imperative).
Now, you'll either see that or you won't. If you don't see why it wasn't helpful (in the context in which you presented it), there's not much I can do. If you DO, maybe we can put this ugly mess behind us.
And whether Megan's a victimizer is for me to determine, not you, though if you were sincerely looking out for me, I appreciate the thought.
Last edited:
Shay-Pari'e
Senior Member
Carl,
She was looking out for you. Other than that, I can't comment on your thread.
She was looking out for you. Other than that, I can't comment on your thread.
CarlJStoneham
Member
Thanks for the word Paridise. I still prefer to make up my own mind, but it's nice to know rmet doesn't hate just every bone in my body 
- Status