Blogcritics Comments on Fallout follows Super Bowl stunt

Comment by Mac Diva on Fallout follows Super Bowl stunt

Fri, 13 Feb 2004 22:31:01 EST

Yes. There is a typo in 'caviling.' Let's make it tomorrow's word for today. David, this isn't really about content. Even my more normal detractors acknowlege I am a good researcher and writer. BB has been following me around trying to harass me, sometimes in the company of Barger, for weeks. He is totally freaking out this week. May have gone off his medication. The gist of the thing seems to be jealousy, with some sexism and racism thrown in.

Comment by David Conrad on Fallout follows Super Bowl stunt

Fri, 13 Feb 2004 22:04:59 EST

A few points: 1. Of course, any suit is a matter of public record. To Barger: There may not even be a URL. That is, it may be necessary to call or write the court. Not everything is available online for your instant gratification, no matter how good an impression of a baby bird you do. Get off your duff and do a little research. You might (accidentally) learn something. 2. Amazon images: some sites only serve image files if the referring URL is from the same site. They don't allow others to 'borrow' their images and suck their bandwidth. Amazon may be one. 3. There is no such word as "cavailing." You presumably meant "cavilling." Cavail, v. To cavil while wearing a veil....

Comment by BB on Fallout follows Super Bowl stunt

Sun, 8 Feb 2004 11:39:27 EST

Dear Madam MD. If you make allegations in a public arena such as BC then the onus is upon you to back it up with facts. Otherwise it is only hearsay and conjecture. A woman who is supposedly trained in law and journalism as you claim should know that. You claim to be such a person so please back it up otherwise your 'piffle' as you like to put it is pure unadulterated crap and we are not amused. If you want to throw the 'stupid' word around then please don't assume that your audience is any less than yourself.

Comment by Mac Diva on Fallout follows Super Bowl stunt

Sun, 8 Feb 2004 10:10:03 EST

I have decided to modify my position on hand feeding grown people, slightly. If someone I consider a reasonable person emails me seeking the source of the complaint in the frivolous Super Bowl lawsuit, I will respond. The compromise does not include Al Barger or that strange fellow from Britain. Both strike me as having neither oar in the water. Be forewarned, that, from a legal perspective, the complaint is pretty useless. Much of its nearly dozen pages is devoted to cavailing about the supposed harm the brief exposure of part of Janet Jackson's breast did to the 'great American family institution' of the Super Bowl, and, really reaching, the reputation of the U.S. abroad. Anyone other than a political opportunist would have been embarassed to file it.

Comment by Al Barger on Fallout follows Super Bowl stunt

Sun, 8 Feb 2004 06:32:39 EST

Here's where you lose out, Diva: NOBODY, but NOBODY is buying your cheap bluster. You merely calling someone stupid does not mean that they really are stupid, nor does anyone believe it just because you say it. That doesn't work generally, and even less so for you. By your own words [not accusations from others], you have developed a reputation for just MAKING SHIT UP, usually cheap accusations of racism, but really just anything. Anyone paying attention to our silly internecine stuff here knows that accusations of "stupidity" mean that you don't even have the beginning of a half assed answer to some point of argument. Apparently, you can't document your claims, so you just start ranting. Nobody's buying.

Comment by Mac Diva on Fallout follows Super Bowl stunt

Sun, 8 Feb 2004 06:21:54 EST

I believe anyone who is not really, really stupid, like Al Barger, will be able to locate the complaint filed in this frivolous lawsuit for him or herself. It is a matter of public record.

Comment by Al Barger on Fallout follows Super Bowl stunt

Sun, 8 Feb 2004 06:14:14 EST

Ah, Diva's apparently been caught just making shit up again. BUSTED!

Comment by Mac Diva on Fallout follows Super Bowl stunt

Sun, 8 Feb 2004 04:59:31 EST

That I will not do. You constantly try to harass me, claiming to be some brilliant barrister across the pond. Well, even a bumbling barrister should know how to locate a complaint filed in a notorious lawsuit. Hop to it.

Comment by BB on Fallout follows Super Bowl stunt

Sun, 8 Feb 2004 02:22:12 EST

Then I would be interested in reading it myself. Please provide the URL's.

Comment by Mac Diva on Fallout follows Super Bowl stunt

Sun, 8 Feb 2004 01:07:30 EST

I've read the complaint. Anyone willing to do a little research can, too. The information about the lawyer comes from a list of participants in neo-Confederate sites compiled by people who monitor them. Reports about his political activities are available in the press. I used Tennessee newspaper archives, which are more specialized than Google, to do my search. But, a few items can be found there. As I've said before, I was a reporter before going to law school. A good reporter. I would not be at all surprised to discover that I am quite competent in what I blog.

Comment by BB on Fallout follows Super Bowl stunt

Sun, 8 Feb 2004 00:47:58 EST

"Most significantly, the plaintiff does not have standing to sue. There is no evidence she is member of the class she is allegedly trying to protect. Nor does she allege having a child harmed by viewing the two-second or so display of Janet Jackson's partially bare right breast." You don't know that until you have read the statement of claim and supporting affidavit. MD please be reasonable and don't even try to turn this into a right-wing conspiracy or anti-civil rights matter. At this time that is completely baseless and utter nonsense unless you can find facts that say otherwise. I'm certain that many so-called 'liberals' also found it offensive. If there are indeed racist sites making jest of Janet's chest then it is wrong and I will be first in line to object.

Comment by Mac Diva on Fallout follows Super Bowl stunt

Sat, 7 Feb 2004 23:46:47 EST

Yo, Eric or Phil! I've noticed that pictures of underwear from Amazon never post. Is that coming from Blogcritics (seems unlikely) or does Amazon have some kind of algorithm that keeps its undies on site? (They display just fine there.) I thought it would be fun to use Amazon ads for red bustiers with Janet Jackson entries, but, alas, the tongue-in-cheek reference doesn't really work without the pictures. I haven't tested something boring like white cotton Hanes, but wonder if the rule applies to guy's stuff, too.