Did A. Ready get fired from Brickunderground?

and just so I understand the dispute now, aside from 3 names vs 6, is you take issue with the word "created", so if my post were changed to reflect that they were "used" by you for that purpose but not specifically "created" for that purpose, we are good? And maybe just to be more clear, can we state that foolishrenter was created for that purpose, but the other two were used for that purpose but not created for that purpose?

No names were used to "attack." All three names were "used" to disseminate factually accurate information about the building and landlord. No one name duplicated information provided by another. There is only one renter in the mix; one potential purchaser who had contemplated renting; and one self-disclosed friend of the complaining renter. What would have been unethical (in my opinion) would have been to create multiple fake names all claiming to have had similar poor experiences with the landlord and/or the building.

I don't have time to discuss this further right now, but I do take this matter very seriously and will check back to answer any questions you might have.

So we can just change the term "attack" to "disseminate factually accurate information about"

"No one name duplicated information provided by another. "
-well of course. This way it seems more credible, right?

" What would have been unethical (in my opinion) would have been to create multiple fake names all claiming to have had similar poor experiences with the landlord and/or the building."
Well you got us there. Since you didn't do THAT, it's all good.

You have to repost with edits for me to opine whether new version you propose is factually accurate. As to whether something is more credible or not, I don't get your point - which poster's credibility is bolstered by this? Alternatively, whose credibility would you otherwise doubt? As to whether it's "all good," that is not my place to say; the only thing I can say is that my conscience is clean. You (and every other reader) is entitled to form their own opinion of me based on these facts. However, everyone should be aware that calling an attorney "unethical" is defamatory if not predicated by an accurate statement of facts. You cannot call an attorney "unethical" in a vacuum (i.e. without stating facts on which you are basing your conclusion) and you cannot call an attorney "unethical" prefaced by a false statement of facts.

Speaking generically, if I said, you had 6 names and therefore you were unethical, but you actually had 5 - therefore making 6 inaccurate - you don't get to cry that you have been defamed.
Also, attorneys aren't in a special protected class of people. It can not be the case that NYCAttorney is immune from being called unethical but NYCNotattorney is not.

FC - I suggest you consult a qualified attorney for a tutorial on defamation law. Not understanding the law and its nuances has been the downfall of many Internet posters in the past. I don't think you understand the gravity of some of the things you write. I am not asking you to stop making fun of me, but I am hereby requesting that you do not call me unethical in any discussion without supporting the label with an accurate statement of facts. For example, I have no problem with your writing "I believe X is unethical because she had 3 usernames on Streeteasy." I also have no problem with your writing "I believe it was unethical for X to have a contrived conversation with herself from various perspectives using three user names." That is all fair because that would be your opinion the based on facts that are not in dispute.

All of my postings are opinion NYCNovice. That is incontrovertible.
Look, I understand that a good portion of what litigators do is pound their chests and make blustery statements to intimidate the other guy pounding his or her chest and making similarly blustery statements. So I forgive you.

Sigh. If you are really interested in this subject you can probably get a better understanding than you currently demonstrate from google alone about when what you might think is a simple opinion is actionable defamation. Either way, I hope you will respect my request.

Start with this: http://jonathanturley.org/2015/01/07/dershowitz-threatens-to-due-victims-attorneys-for-defamation-attorneys-respond-by-suing-him-first/
It is interesting reading regardless of whether you are interested in the nuances of slander and defamation with regards to calling an attorney (as opposed to a non-attorney) "unethical."

Of course I respect your opinion. And so I'd like to make sure I have it right and know the boundaries.
On the thread in question, you had not identified yourself as an attorney under any of the names under which you posted. So I'm going to assume - correct me if I'm wrong - that you were not posting in the capacity as an attorney, but rather as a private individual with a personal first party dispute and independent of the fact -unknown at the time to a reader - that you were an attorney. Am I correct?
If I believed your behavior there were unethical, in my opinion of course, would I be ok stating that?
If yes, does the fact pattern only change if you later identify yourself or are identified (and you confirm) as an attorney? Is a significant further distinction if my stated opinion about the ethics of your behavior occurred before vs. after your identification as an attorney?
I just want to get it right.

Thank you for the link. Before I read the article to understand the nuance about whether defamation is applicable based on the status of the subject being an attorney vs. a non-attorney, can you clarify that it is relevant or not if the person making the statement is an attorney or not? The headline alone brings out the fact that Mr. D's adversary is an attorney, and the first sentence of the article states that the allegedly defamatory statement was made in context of a legal matter in which the person making the statement was counsel on the other side.

"On the thread in question, you had not identified yourself as an attorney under any of the names under which you posted. So I'm going to assume - correct me if I'm wrong - that you were not posting in the capacity as an attorney, but rather as a private individual with a personal first party dispute and independent of the fact -unknown at the time to a reader - that you were an attorney. Am I correct? " CORRECT

"If I believed your behavior there were unethical, in my opinion of course, would I be ok stating that? " I DO NOT KNOW; I am only concerned about this issue because I am an attorney and because I have in the past worked for the government and do not rule out seeking to work for the government again.

"If yes, does the fact pattern only change if you later identify yourself or are identified (and you confirm) as an attorney? Is a significant further distinction if my stated opinion about the ethics of your behavior occurred before vs. after your identification as an attorney? " REFER BACK TO LAST PARAGRAPH: I don't know; I only care for the reasons I stated above.
Thank you for respecting my request (if that is what you meant when you wrote "opinion" in first line of your post above.

Whether the publisher (person making the statement) is an attorney or not is not relevant.

Although the extent to which the reader of that link will be able to understand all of it may well hinge on the whether the reader is an attorney. I don't have time to look for a more accessible resource right now because now I really, really do have to go, but I've got you pointed in the right direction I hope.

Well, there, in my opinion, we have it. Or we don't. I'm not sure actually. Let me clarify: in my opinion I'm not sure.

Separate topic from this thread NYCNovice:
YCNovice
2 days ago
Posts: 979
Member since: Jan 2012
ignore this person
report abuse
Well thank you. The work I do now is completely removed from the rough and tumble world of trial court level litigation. Re presidential candidates that most represent my style, I would say I range between Donald Trump and Jeb Bush on the Republican side, but tend most towards Barack Obama

Can we assume - and I say this in context of believing (in my opinion) that you were recently or are currently at least partly residing in DC - that George W. Bush has your solid support?

That was funny. BTW, my husband thinks my fictional portrait was a bit on the mean side; I told him that I was pretty sure that you have a sense of humor and did not lose any sleep over it (though he did note that at least I left the doll out of the last two entries; I had to admit that I had forgotten about the doll, otherwise I would have included it). Along the same lines, the intermediary on that other matter relayed to me that the former landlord kept bringing up how mean my posts were about him. Not my most admirable trait. I am aware of it, and while I try to rationalize that I never unleash it on an innocent target, it is not a trait that I am proud of.

Don't worry about me, missy. The whole basement theory was started by w67thstreet - you and he are a good match. In my opinion of course. In my opinion.

I guess she's on another vacation.

NYCNovice any update on your request?

?

!

Aren't you clever? Not.

Bhurg, you seem kind of dour lately, did you get fired from something?

Guess not NYCNovice. And kind of ironic after all.

The only request NYCNovice made on here was of you, and you said that you would respect it, which you have as far as I can tell (though I admit I was on vacation for past two weeks so I have not been as attentive as I am when I am at my desk on a regular basis), so I am confused by the question as to whether there has been an update on NYCNovice's request.

When you "reported abuse", was that not to have certain posts deleted? Were you just tattling to the teacher?

No you nitwit. NYCNovice's reporting abuse was just giving SE one data point. I cannot speak for SE, but one way for an online company to run its discussion forum is to keep ultimate control through its user agreement and privacy policies so that it retains the right to delete a user accoun if it deems such to be in its best interest. It might deem such to be in its best interest if it receives a critical mass of complaints about posts by any given user. I did not ask Streeteasy to take any specific action based on my complaint, and indeed, when they contacted me about my reporting abuse, I thanked them for taking the time to respond and told them that I had dealt with it directly with the user in the context of the discussion. In no way is it Streeteasy's problem if one user defames another; the only way Streeteasy would come into play is if legal action were to ensue and the objecting user were to subpoena the offending user's identity from Streeteasy. Streeteasy would then have to decide whether it was in Streeteasy's best interest to disclose the offending user's identity or fight disclosure. Again, I cannot speak for Streeteasy, but many companies believe it is in their best interest to disclose user identities in that context. There are many reasons why a company might decide it is in their best interest to disclose user identities in that context, one being that they want their forums to be places of serious discussion where users do not carelessly post nonsense that might have real world repercussions. You are an interesting case study indeed. I do not think you are malicious, just mischievous, but I suppose time will tell. Am I ever going to sue "The Troll Knowns as HB/GD/GB/FC/FB/etc." and subpoena your identity from SE? Likelihood (almost) zero. Moreover, in this day and age, who knows if SE even knows your real world identity (though remember how Petraeus got caught - look it up if you never got the whole story). I really don't care about your real world identity and find you delightful as an imaginary friend, except when you cross the line.

Not malicious? Seriously?

ooh, cat fight.

Ok, so obviously been busy today. multicityresident, you understand because you actually have something to do with yourself and it is September. Bhurg, well,

So anyway multicityresident, I have been busy and can't yet respond to your post, but I did run your post by legal who had a number of edits and clarifications of your post, if I may:

No you alleged nitwit. NYCNovice's reporting abuse was just giving SE one data point. I cannot speak for SE, but I believe that one way for an online company to run its discussion forum is to keep ultimate control through its user agreement and privacy policies so that it potentially retains the right to delete a user account if it deems such to be in its best interest, in its sole determination. It might deem such to be in its best interest, in its sole determination, if it receives a critical mass (in its own determination) of complaints or other comments deemed in its sole determination to be adverse about posts by any given user. I did not ask Streeteasy to take any specific action based on my complaint, and indeed, when they contacted me about my reporting abuse, I thanked them for taking the time to respond and told them that I believe I had dealt with it directly with the user in the context of the discussion. I believe that it in no way is it Streeteasy's problem if one user defames another; I believe that the only way Streeteasy would come into play is if legal action were to ensue and the objecting user were to subpoena the subject (the allegedly offending) user's identity from Streeteasy. Streeteasy would then have to decide, with the advice of counsel, whether it was in Streeteasy's best interest, inclusive of the best interests of its full group of stakeholders, to disclose the subject (the allegedly offending) user's identity or fight, via appropriate legal venues and procedures, disclosure. Again, I cannot speak for Streeteasy, but I by myself (not by coopting or assimilating or otherwise borrowing from or assuming as communal property any other individually-qualified lawyer’s belief or knowledge based on actual experience representing in the capacity of an attorney for an online or media company) believe that many companies believe it is in their best interest to disclose user identities in that context. I believe that Tthere are many reasons why a company might decide or otherwise determine it is, in their belief, in their best interest to disclose user identities in that context, I believe one reason being that they want their forums to be places of serious, quasi-serious, entertaining, safe, or other (in their discretion) discussion where users do not, in their determination, carelessly post what they might deem as nonsense or otherwise less than preferred content that might have real world repercussions, or the appearance thereof. You, in my opinion, are an interesting case study, to me, indeed. I do not think you are malicious, just potentially mischievous, but I suppose time will may tell or otherwise reveal. Am I ever going to sue "The Troll Knowns as HB/GD/GB/FC/FB/etc." and subpoena your identity from SE? Likelihood (almost) zero although I reserve my rights and have asserted my rights as an individual in other instances in other circumstances that are, in my belief, independent of the current circumstances. Moreover, in this day (regardless of time zone) and age, who knows if SE even knows your alleged real world identity (though remember how Petraeus got caught - look it up if you never got the whole story). Although I fully reserve my rights, I really don't care about your real world identity and, in under my current circumstances, find you delightful as an imaginary friend (rather, as a friend who I have never met and therefore only imagined), except when you allegedly cross the line in my opinion.

@FC - I noticed new SE replaced the whiskey source of power with coffee, but I am guessing you have kept that power source going for yourself.
@BBurg - I don't find him malicious, though I do find his comments about individuals who do not work outside the home offensive. I cannot figure out why he appears to resent such individuals - is it because he resents someone in his own life for not working outside the home? Or maybe it is just the opposite - maybe he never had somebody in his own life who prioritized him over commercial success. Either way, not that it matters, but I find his taking it out on you to be poor form.

Offensive? Poor form?
My, aren't you a crusader.

You know FC, I think you were right to add some disclaimers to my earlier post. While the beliefs expressed in my earlier posts were based on my own legal experience representing a publicly traded media company, they should not be construed as legal opinions by a qualified attorney and were not intended as legal advice. Re being a crusader, not so much; just very defensive of my own mother's choices and appreciative of the benefits that I derived from those choices.

multi-were you here during his earlier incarnations? HSF or HFS, the comm identities? He's as nasty as they come. And not for fun. I think I met him at one of the SE gatherings, I'm pretty sure I know what he looks like, he certainly seems to know what at least one SE poster looks like.

No, all the HSF or HFS and/or comm identities were deleted by the time I started paying attention. Because I did not see those comments and do not associate them with him, I cannot judge him based on them. I will note that I have dealt with some awful individuals in a professional capacity and am always a sucker (if that was not already clear from all of my postings) for giving people second chances/the benefit of the doubt that they at first did not understand what they were doing wrong, and then learning through socialization in whatever form to be more productive members of the community. I am sure I am more tolerant than most in this respect, and the only person whom I have ever met who is more tolerant than I is my husband. You were spot on about the poster formerly known as T__th, but I just felt bad for her, and who really cares at the end of the day if they are doing no harm in the real world? I felt the same way for cOcO. I think he really felt like he was wearing the white hat, but any of us who thinks we are wearing a hat of any color need to be reminded that we are just wearing the hat that fit us.

fits us.

Actually I know Columbia county. He and his wife are fantastic, humane and generous individuals. A good friend of mine unfortunately became involved with tr__th, who was a manipulative, vituperative bitch. As I've stated before, SE actually called me and asked me to file a police complaint against HSF/Comm because so many posters were expressing concern for my safety. Believe what you will, those were dark days here, not just crazy for fun, but personality-disordered for real.

Your safety? Weren't you institutionalized after the birth of your daughter for her protection?

Exhibit A in your asshole portfolio.

What is Brickunderground's target audience?

Look at the site.

Brick Underground has an article on the Dakota, I don't think that was A. Ready's target audience.

http://www.brickunderground.com/blog/2015/10/devils_advocate_apartments