Crying Wolf? | Nashville News, Weather
news story link

Visit for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
news story link

 This last one I cannot embed:

Please go watch these videos.  The title of this post will become clear in due time.


Nigel Kinbrum said…
'Cos a Twitter account called Shitkrusesays is so totally pretending to be Kruse himself.
There aren't enough palms available on this planet to do the the requisite face-palm.
Sanjeev Sharma said…
Until that Kruse incident I had been reading Richard Nikoley and thinking "yeah, he has some interesting things to say", but then this incident came along ...

... and IMHO the person who came out looking the WORST out of that entire mess was Richard Nikoley.

WTH/WT* was RN talking about when he wrote (writing about Kruse)

"he came to the right guy"?

And the whole chest-thumping, tarzan-screaming-at-the-moon-over-a-dead-carcass[0] RN did around that time?

And then of course just a little while later, RN drops Kruse like a hot potato, citing reasons that should have elicited the drop long before.

The pattern fell into place: loudmouth mouths off loudly, then retreats and hopes no one notices.

That whole incident was all of one piece with the other episode that came soon after, the



and just a little while later

"RETREAT !!!!!"

Which was again of one piece with the whole

"C*NT" which was followed by:

"really, I meant it as a term of endearment"

and a little bit later

"F**K em all I hate them, I'll drop the entire pretense that I don't hate them ... I DECLARE WAR !!!! WAR I TELL YOU, WAAARRRRRRRRR!!!!!!!!!!"

lather, rinse, repeat ...

[0] probably while drunk
Myron Schwarzennecker said…
I know a little bit about this history, though I'm not aware of why it's being discussed again now.

One thing I'd never seen discussed is the following: It is notoriously difficult to win as plaintiff in a defamation suit when the plaintiff is a "public figure". The reason is that a public figure has the additional burden of proving "malice" on the part of the alleged defamer. A blogger would qualify as a public figure.

Nikoley outright declared that he was going to embark on a campaign of saying sleazy things about (3?) people, and further declared that he would even make up lies. Nikoley thus outright DECLARED that he was acting in malice. It's almost unbelievable that anyone would shoot themselves in the foot that way. The usual definition says that the defamer knows what they are saying is untrue (or has reckless indifference). That standard is used to look into the mind of the defamer. Nikoley even went a step further and wrote about the malicious nature of his intent. That would likely also go a long way when any punitive damages were being assessed against him.

So, if he did go on to say anything defamatory, then it's a slam dunk. Also, allegations of sexual impropriety in a woman are still considered to be defamation "per se" in many jurisdictions. Defamation per se is automatically considered to include malice in most/all jurisdictions.

If the alleged defamer lives in CA, then the plaintiff should always demand that the defaming material be immediately removed. If the defamer does not remove it, then that leads to a presumption of malice and, if I recall correctly, that increases damages.

A federal diversity lawsuit requires that the monetary amount in question exceeds $75,000. Defamation per se likely includes statutory damages there and therefore damages are not restricted to actual (often called 'special') damages.

There's more to this.
Myron Schwarzennecker said…
The backtracking was very possibly the result of someone cluing him in to the same legal principles which I'd just written about above, especially if he tried the smokescreen of subsequently making a claim that he had no real malicious intent and was only letting off steam. This view would be bolstered if he also suddenly removed anything he'd written, even while claiming that he was peacemaking or something similar. He'd really be trying to stave off legal assumptions made under CA defamation law as discussed above.

In a federal diversity suit, the Erie Doctrine applies, which says that the substantive state law must be applied when there is no overriding federal law involved. It all gets complicated. He can also be sued directly under CA law, but then as defendant he has the option of trying to get the case removed to a federal court, if he figured that was to his advantage.

Just some casual opinions, which might be fun to discuss. I claim no expertise, though everything is quickly verifiable.
"[0] probably while drunk
[1] I won't even quote the massive amount of whiny, self-justifying "poor, poor, poor me, oh woe is me" nauseating horkage (the noun[2] form of #4 here)[3] (which was somehow[4] mixed in each time with some aggressive, belligerent malice) that surrounded each retreat
[2] already a noun but a different meaning here
[3] yes, I'm footnoting maledicta. Sue me.
[4] I would write "somehow incongrously mixed in" but "incongruous" and Nikoley ... that's a tautology (in the correct meaning of the the term, not the low carb meaning)
[5] if Tarzan had a beer gut, that is ..."

Sanjeev Sharma said…
looks like Evelyn missed your comment but looks like she replied here:


> Mostly these posts are to air the truth. I am tired of being lied about.
carbsane said…
Yeah I try to read all comments but have been busy with other things. Sanjeev hits nail on head. There are other records to set straight. But my stalkers are missing the point. /cryptic ;-)