Patrick Sean Tomlinson / @stealthygeek / "Torque Wheeler" / @RealAutomanic / Kempesh / Padawan v2.5 - "Conservative" sci-fi author with TDS, armed "drunk with anger management issues" and terminated parental rights, actual tough guy, obese, paid Quasi, paid thousands to be repeatedly unbanned from Twitter

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
"I did not just ignore it and let myself be embarrassed. No child. I know exactly who did it child. I've handed the CCTV footage to the police already, sweet little nothing."
What speaks loudest of all is the woman who was supposed to be at the same table as him literally nervously moving away to another table without saying a word. I'd love to hear his excuse for why that happened. Actions speak louder than words, especially words from a fat faggot whose every other word is "child."
not a lawyer but the owner of payquasi.com prob won't have the same 1st amendment protections that allowed quasi to win his settlement and prevent his dox. maybe depends if pat can still afford to sue anyone.
I'm pretty sure that telling the absolute truth is a pretty good defense. But yeah, obviously not the 230 defense. He'd still possibly only be on the hook for his own text, and could try to claim 230 for text he only links to. And yes, 230 has been interpreted that broadly.
 
72af5807-fbb8-4773-b16c-e56a3d4319f0-jpeg.16172


Taken from onaforums.

Looks like a lot of oblivious SFWA members will be taking the Patpill this weekend.
 
Why wouldn't they?
iirc he relied on section 230, which distinguishes a website owner from what 3rd parties post to it. quasi wasn't responsible because pat couldn't show any evidence quasi was one of the shitposters calling him a pedo. he only ran the site.
I'm pretty sure that telling the absolute truth is a pretty good defense. But yeah, obviously not the 230 defense. He'd still possibly only be on the hook for his own text, and could try to claim 230 for text he only links to. And yes, 230 has been interpreted that broadly.
sure but the eating babies meme is obvious bullshit. imo it could accomplish the same thing while being worded neutral enough to stay on the safe side.
 
lol real talk though I hope site owner gets the difference. rick has been trying to get the dox and he only needs a prima facie showing to do that, not prove he isn't eating black babies.
All of it is just more entertainment, though. At least Jersh isn't getting sued for this one.
 
The best part (of all the best parts, holy shit) is that there's a decent chance someone will post in a way that triggers Fat's tard sensibilities and he might accuse them of leaving the card themselves

Bonus points if they're a super woke liberal woman

Extra bonus points if they actually did leave the card
 
I doubt anyone will agree with me, but I suspect this is not a very effective approach if the goal is to alienate Patrick from the sympathies of the SFWA. They could legitimately have called it to the members' attention that their money has been wasted on a frivolous lawsuit, but creeping around in the women's bathrooms and generally making this about pranking everyone there is going to cause them to circle the wagons, in my opinion.
 
I doubt anyone will agree with me, but I suspect this is not a very effective approach if the goal is to alienate Patrick from the sympathies of the SFWA. They could legitimately have called it to the members' attention that their money has been wasted on a frivolous lawsuit, but creeping around in the women's bathrooms and generally making this about pranking everyone there is going to cause them to circle the wagons, in my opinion.
I think the goal is to provoke Rick into sperging about stalkers.
 
I think the goal is to provoke Rick into sperging about stalkers.
And that seems kind of pathetic to me. It's not hard to get Patrick to spaz. If you actually convinced a significant number of SFWA members that this guy had taken them for a ride, I think he would blow a gasket.

I understand that the OnA Forums don't have our rules against interfering with cows, but I don't love seeing us cheer for someone else doing the same.
 
Back