Canon EOS Rebel T2i kit

[ScubaSteve]

I have mailed him the whole package as was agreed upon. I did communicate with him through email and phone and did everything I could to resolve the situation. His claim that he did not receive the strobe, I can not proof.
It is an unfortunate situation, however I have sold many items in the past over the internet and haven't had a problem.
It is certainly disturbing to read the many defaming and slandering threads from some of you. Him being an attorney as he published himself should know to refrain from publicizing others personal private information.

I request those be removed immediately please, incl. my private personal address. Thank you.


In most states, you can be sued for publishing private facts about another person, even if those facts are true. The term "private facts" refers to information about someone's personal life that has not previously been revealed to the public, that is not of legitimate public concern, and the publication of which would be offensive to a reasonable person.

Sounds almost like a practiced speech. Have to use it many times?

 

[arkstorm]

In most states, you can be sued for publishing private facts about another person, even if those facts are true. The term "private facts" refers to information about someone's personal life that has not previously been revealed to the public, that is not of legitimate public concern, and the publication of which would be offensive to a reasonable person.

Oh wait, I see where you got this: http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/publication-private-facts

"In most states, you can be sued for publishing private facts about another person, even if those facts are true. The term "private facts" refers to information about someone's personal life that has not previously been revealed to the public, that is not of legitimate public concern, and the publication of which would be offensive to a reasonable person. For example, writing about a person's HIV status, sexual orientation, or financial troubles could lead to liability for publication of private facts. However, the law protects you when you publish information that is newsworthy, regardless of whether someone else would like you to keep that information private..." [Emphasis added.]

Information on how to avoid being scammed by a scumbag is certainly of legitimate public concern and is newsworthy. Wouldn't you say?

Also, if you continue to read beyond the headline you will learn that, for liability to exist, the release of private information must be "highly offensive to a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities." [Emphasis added, again.]

Since an address is a matter of public record for anyone with a mortgage I don't see how releasing an address could be considered highly offensive to a person of ordinary sensibilities.

Isn't it funny how every scammer scumbag also thinks they're a lawyer?

My suggestion: Don't worry so much about making idle threats of frivolous legal action. Worry more about when the police knock on your door.

 

[papanano]

you do realize how easy it is to get all your information online don't you? once you do or say anything online it is public knowledge. send him his strobe or buy him a new one to replace it or refund him some money and you will then be known as a stand up guy, otherwise we will all know you as a nothing more than a chunk of excrement and a waste of skin.

 

[ScubaSteve]

:dancinglock:

 

[DSR-3]

I believe the official term is "Wenzeled"...

 

[Scubakraut]

As some of you won''t listen. The matter is between Ramsy and myself, it is a frustrating situation of what happened but your defamation, name calling and slanderism will have to stop.

FYI:
In 2006, a Florida woman was awarded $11.3 million in a defamation lawsuit against a Louisiana woman who posted messages on the Internet accusing her of being a crook, a con artist and a fraud. It was the largest judgment over postings on an Internet blog or message board. The plaintiff pursued the case even though she knew the defendant had no hope of paying the money. She just wanted to make a point to those who unfairly criticize others on the Internet. “People are using the Internet to destroy people they don’t like, and you can’t do that,” she told USA Today.

 

[arkstorm]

Duplicate post.

 

[arkstorm]

As some of you won''t listen. The matter is between Ramsy and myself, it is a frustrating situation of what happened but your defamation, name calling and slanderism will have to stop.

FYI:
In 2006, a Florida woman was awarded $11.3 million in a defamation lawsuit against a Louisiana woman who posted messages on the Internet accusing her of being a crook, a con artist and a fraud. It was the largest judgment over postings on an Internet blog or message board. The plaintiff pursued the case even though she knew the defendant had no hope of paying the money. She just wanted to make a point to those who unfairly criticize others on the Internet. “People are using the Internet to destroy people they don’t like, and you can’t do that,” she told USA Today.

You are a real piece of work Scubakraut. The case you cite was won by default judgment because the defendant didn't show up to post a defense. You should really learn to read beyond the headline. Here's the link: USATODAY.com - Jury awards $11.3M over defamatory Internet posts

I will reiterate my prior suggestion: Don't worry so much about making idle threats of frivolous legal action. Worry more about when the police knock on your door.

 

[Rainer]

Were you born a loser or did you just become one with time?

As some of you won''t listen. The matter is between Ramsy and myself, it is a frustrating situation of what happened but your defamation, name calling and slanderism will have to stop.

FYI:
In 2006, a Florida woman was awarded $11.3 million in a defamation lawsuit against a Louisiana woman who posted messages on the Internet accusing her of being a crook, a con artist and a fraud. It was the largest judgment over postings on an Internet blog or message board. The plaintiff pursued the case even though she knew the defendant had no hope of paying the money. She just wanted to make a point to those who unfairly criticize others on the Internet. “People are using the Internet to destroy people they don’t like, and you can’t do that,” she told USA Today.

 

[on_two_wheels]

Most of us have had internet dealings and experience with FedEx, UPS and USPS, et al. To suggest that part of a package was stolen in transit is absurd. Refund a portion of his money and restore your name without further excuses. Your defense on here only serves to create greater doubt. Obviously, you're not going to sell much on here (with current username) after this until you do.

Wrong is wrong, even if everyone does it. Right is right, even if no one does it.