🐮 Lolcow Russell Greer / Mr. Green / Russell Greee / Russle / Brothel Prince / @ just_some_dude_named_russell29 / A Safer Nevada PAC - Swift-Obsessed Sex Pest, Convicted of E-Stalking, "Eggshell Skull Plaintiff" Pro Se Litigant, Homeless, aspiring brothel owner

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
20180429_005535.png
 
Rustys disclaimer shit doesn't make any sense. He himself can't really bring a good argument why it would. In what strange comic book abomination of a world are celebrities hold to "higher standards"? They're just people and can do whatever they want and a lot of them are as shitty and flawed as everyone else to the surprise of nobody. They are not another class of people, especially not in the eye of the law. (even though this is more of a "should", arguably there are times they're treated differently, even though they really shouldn't, this is mostly though because money talks in this world tho - entirely different problem - just as most celebs happen to be rich and well-connected)

He's just ass-mad that the 1:30 song didn't make Taylor Swift suck him his penis, because he thinks whenever he wants something he should get it because he deserves it. He was probably brought up that way because of his disability. He won't ever be a celeb himself, so he somehow wants to shit it up for the lot of them but especially her, through his skill as genius paralegal. After reading through the entire lawsuit of his through that video, all he really does is self-own by basically admitting he's got only himself to blame for all the "stress, PTSD and seizures". I also like how he couldn't even keep the names straight through the entire document and referred to Taylor Swift as "Taylor" not as "Swift" sometimes. I was half expecting to have him call her "Taytay" in some sentences.

Rusty can be happy he looks so retarded. Most people connect looking like him with being mentally not all there (even if that's not the case, that's the first connection most people make without knowing about specific disabilities, it's natural) so he always got away with a lot of shit he really should have not gotten away with. That's why he's such a terrible and delusional person today. The first step of betterment for him would be to admit that most of the "plight" in his life is self-inflicted and that he's not special and doesn't live in the same World as the likes of Taylor Swift and never will. That won't ever happen though because it's too painful and he's weak. He'll just go crazier to our amusement. His disability really screwed him up psychologically in a roundabout way and he probably wouldn't be nearly as bad if he didn't look like he does, as he would've probably encountered more character-building limits in his life. Now he's just a 28 year old ugly, bitter asshole nobody cares about. He thinks he's in an actual "legal conflict" with Taylor Swift because he thinks he's just as big and important as her. In reality he's an idiot that doesn't know what he's talking about and she's not even aware of him.
 
Someone in this thread earlier made the most crushing argument against his case, one that breaks it in half before he even starts any of his bullshit: that if the song was a gift, why does/did he expect anything in return for it, whether or not she accepted it? Just because he thought that she would write him a thank you note or something, or give him something in return, because when he went to parties as a little kid they always had like thank-you bags or something and he thinks that any time you do something you deserve a reward and are entitled to praise and love and favors in return? Maybe it's not polite but people dont even have to accept your gifts, especially if there are strings attached.

He's trying to paint himself as this innocent martyr who is selfless and "never wanted this to happen or for it to go this far but the injustice is too grave" but he trips over his own two dumbass feet before he can even get out of the gate--before he even tries moving. Only Rusty can do that.
 
blah said:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=B_DqbAlaKd0I'm sorry if it has already been posted, but the youtube lawyer that is going through the Maddox suit have also done a video talking about the Greer lawsuit.
Posted above if anyone is interested.
I'm also considering creating a thread in Lolcow LLP as soon as I have gotten the PDF and some more information about the actual lawsuit.
That subforum needs some love, but maybe it is better to keep Russ in this thread?
Click to expand...

It's interesting seeing someone with very little awareness of Russell lore go through his itemized crazy. It also made me realize how jaded I am by Russell's behavior. The stuff that this guy was losing it over were things that didn't initially faze me.
 
Slick Bridges said:
I've thought before that in a certain hyper-autistic light I can kind of see where Russ is coming from. There are some warning signs and disclaimers out there for some of the most painfully obvious shit, i.e. warning you the hot coffee you just ordered is hot or the bag of peanuts you just bought contains peanuts. Having a warning that the pretty lady on TV is not obliged to fuck you if you send her a present is roughly on par with the most obvious of those signs.

The problem he has is they are aimed at some of the stupidest people who can still breathe unassisted and if you admit you are that exceptional that you need a sign or disclaimer of that level you are neccessarily saying you are too stupid for people to bother with in the first place. He's trying to be the brilliant legal scholar you should respect and the helmet wearing simpleton you should pity in the same breath and the only possible outcome is hilarity.
Click to expand...

Difference is there's a (completely inane but) valid reason for the coffee thing. McDonald's used to keep its coffee insanely hot, hence the lawsuit. If you're buying peanuts worth the expectation there aren't any peanuts in there, you're an idiot. If you expect Taylor Swift to suck you your penis because she went to a 17 year old's prom, you're a delusional sexpest.
 
XxxwernxxX said:
Difference is there's a (completely inane but) valid reason for the coffee thing. McDonald's used to keep its coffee insanely hot, hence the lawsuit. If you're buying peanuts worth the expectation there aren't any peanuts in there, you're an idiot. If you expect Taylor Swift to suck you your penis because she went to a 17 year old's prom, you're a delusional sexpest.
Click to expand...

This whole thing reminds me of an incident that occured with Applebees over their sizzling hot fajitas. A man orders the dish, it is served to him, and he decides to bow his head over it and say a prayer. While he's doing that, the grease splashes him in the face causing him to jump up and fling the dish. The dish then lands on his lap causing him some slight burns. He attempts to take Applebees to court, but the judge ruled against him. He tries to have it repealed, but again, it's tossed out. He is basically told that certain things are common sense, and that if he doesn't have it, it's his own damn fault.

As far as Rusty is concerned, it really isn't about that disclaimer nonsense, but more about the concept of what is good for the goose is good for the gander. The only difference is that he twists it so that only the positive actions should also apply to him.
 
DonaldChump said:
Someone in this thread earlier made the most crushing argument against his case, one that breaks it in half before he even starts any of his bullshit: that if the song was a gift, why does/did he expect anything in return for it, whether or not she accepted it? Just because he thought that she would write him a thank you note or something, or give him something in return, because when he went to parties as a little kid they always had like thank-you bags or something and he thinks that any time you do something you deserve a reward and are entitled to praise and love and favors in return? Maybe it's not polite but people dont even have to accept your gifts, especially if there are strings attached.

He's trying to paint himself as this innocent martyr who is selfless and "never wanted this to happen or for it to go this far but the injustice is too grave" but he trips over his own two dumbass feet before he can even get out of the gate--before he even tries moving. Only Rusty can do that.
Click to expand...
To be fair, there are an awful lot of people in this world who don't understand the concept of a "gift" as something freely given as a token of love or admiration, with no strings attached, and no expectation of getting anything in return. Russell's not unusual in proclaiming pure, unselfish motives while attempting to manipulate the recipient into giving him the desired response.

What makes Russell unusual is that he openly admits to the self-serving agenda behind his gift.

I think Russell's telling the truth when he says his song is one he "wanted her to have, not to do"--the song is from his point of view, addressed to her, and meant to flatter her, so yeah, for her to do that one song would be a little weird. But by Taylor Swift accepting his tribute song, and having it, he fully expected to be given something in return: specifically, public recognition from her, and for her to use her connections to launch him into a career in the music industry. And maybe she'd even record future songs of his, as part of launching his songwriting career. He's been completely open and forthright about these desires all along.

But those are desires that most people would have the basic social awareness and competence to keep under their hats. They'd also be rational enough to understand that acceptance of the gift was no guarantee that they'd get their ulterior motives met. People who use gifts to manipulate others rarely reveal their true intentions so nakedly, because they understand that they are supposed to appear generous and unselfish when giving gifts--that's how they create feelings of gratitude and obligation in the unsuspecting recipient.

But Russell doesn't understand that; his social incompetence is that profound. So he just laid his ulterior motives right out there, as if they were perfectly reasonable--because to his fucked-up way of thinking, they are. And he sees no disconnect between his insistence that his song was a labor of love, a "gift from the heart," that should be exempt from the "no unsolicited works" rule because it's not meant to be recorded by Swift, and his expectation that it would lead Taylor Swift to go to dinner and play footsie with him before launching him on a glorious songwriting career. He just doesn't get it.

And he still thinks that if Taylor Swift had just accepted his damned song, everything would have worked out as he wanted it to. Had she accepted it, he probably still would not have met her, and she still wouldn't have launched him into a songwriting career (or any other career in the music business). In fact, had she posted his song to social media for other fans to hear, he would still have been ridiculed, because the song is shit--and thus he'd probably still be suing her for ruining his life by making him the target of mockery, as well as not posting disclaimers that her acceptance of gifts would not lead to meeting Swift in person, or positive publicity for the giver.
 
Once again, Russell posts a motivational meme/poster which means a massive chimp out is on the horizon once again. This guy's behavior has become so predictable just like his failure at subtly(i.e. Saying he was in Colorado but was actually in Reno and posting the picture of the music studio he was allegedly in). My guess? He saw the video Riketa and is trying to calm down but will inevitably fail. Or I'm wrong and some Instagram hottie outright told him to take his dollar and shove it up his ass.
 
Last edited:
Russ may not settle for less than $10 million, but he will get dismissed for free.
 
Last edited:
Angry New Ager said:
To be fair, there are an awful lot of people in this world who don't understand the concept of a "gift" as something freely given as a token of love or admiration, with no strings attached, and no expectation of getting anything in return. Russell's not unusual in proclaiming pure, unselfish motives while attempting to manipulate the recipient into giving him the desired response.

What makes Russell unusual is that he openly admits to the self-serving agenda behind his gift.

I think Russell's telling the truth when he says his song is one he "wanted her to have, not to do"--the song is from his point of view, addressed to her, and meant to flatter her, so yeah, for her to do that one song would be a little weird. But by Taylor Swift accepting his tribute song, and having it, he fully expected to be given something in return: specifically, public recognition from her, and for her to use her connections to launch him into a career in the music industry. And maybe she'd even record future songs of his, as part of launching his songwriting career. He's been completely open and forthright about these desires all along.

But those are desires that most people would have the basic social awareness and competence to keep under their hats. They'd also be rational enough to understand that acceptance of the gift was no guarantee that they'd get their ulterior motives met. People who use gifts to manipulate others rarely reveal their true intentions so nakedly, because they understand that they are supposed to appear generous and unselfish when giving gifts--that's how they create feelings of gratitude and obligation in the unsuspecting recipient.

But Russell doesn't understand that; his social incompetence is that profound. So he just laid his ulterior motives right out there, as if they were perfectly reasonable--because to his fucked-up way of thinking, they are. And he sees no disconnect between his insistence that his song was a labor of love, a "gift from the heart," that should be exempt from the "no unsolicited works" rule because it's not meant to be recorded by Swift, and his expectation that it would lead Taylor Swift to go to dinner and play footsie with him before launching him on a glorious songwriting career. He just doesn't get it.

And he still thinks that if Taylor Swift had just accepted his damned song, everything would have worked out as he wanted it to. Had she accepted it, he probably still would not have met her, and she still wouldn't have launched him into a songwriting career (or any other career in the music business). In fact, had she posted his song to social media for other fans to hear, he would still have been ridiculed, because the song is shit--and thus he'd probably still be suing her for ruining his life by making him the target of mockery, as well as not posting disclaimers that her acceptance of gifts would not lead to meeting Swift in person, or positive publicity for the giver.
Click to expand...

This so much. He thinks its perfectly reasonable to demand something back for a gift and the other person is bad for not reciprocating. He writes this stuff expecting people to side with him. He's really that delusional.

Another thing that puzzles me is how he expects to assign blame to Taylor Swift for sending him "subtle invitations" to write a song when he's done this for many others before Taylor like Farrah and Heidi Klum with NO success. That failure was the disclaimer he should have taken notice of. He should have been on alert that celebrities are not going to jump on his dick because he wrote a song for them. He really needs to be committed.
 
TitusVoid said:
This so much. He thinks its perfectly reasonable to demand something back for a gift and the other person is bad for not reciprocating. He writes this stuff expecting people to side with him. He's really that delusional.

Another thing that puzzles me is how he expects to assign blame to Taylor Swift for sending him "subtle invitations" to write a song when he's done this for many others before Taylor like Farrah and Heidi Klum with NO success. That failure was the disclaimer he should have taken notice of. He should have been on alert that celebrities are not going to jump on his dick because he wrote a song for them. He really needs to be committed.
Click to expand...

It's just typical stalker logic. Their targets are always subtly talking to them. Russ is just adding his narcissism to the mix.
 
SwiftlyRuiningRussell said:
I’m sure “Taylor Swift’s people” will understand and fork over the 10 million dollars no questions asked.

View attachment 438023
Click to expand...
So let me get this straight. Days after he files seeking $100 million his opening salvo in the negotiation is to immediately, without even giving her people a chance to say anything, lower his demand to a tenth of the initial offer. The Litigator strikes again!
 
Coin Ops said:
So let me get this straight. Days after he files seeking $100 million his opening salvo in the negotiation is to immediately, without even giving her people a chance to say anything, lower his demand to a tenth of the initial offer. The Litigator strikes again!
Click to expand...

Maybe he thought better of it, he took it down already. The 100mil demand is still up though.
 
Screenshot_20180429-180705.jpg

This was one of my favourite parts. "Having to determine which clef the note belonged to" on a piano is beyond exceptional. And as for the duration of each note- they're all 8ths. He tries to make it sound like he worked so hard on it when it literally takes a minute to do this. Also, 4/8 for the time signature?
Screenshot_20180429-192129.jpg
Also, when listing the parties- he says Swift is a year and a half older than Greer. It sounds like a highschool kid lusting over some girl a grade above him.

And this- "some gifts were impressively knitted quilts, while others were cheap subway gift cards"
 
Cilleystring said:
New
screenshot_20180429-180705-jpg.438166

This was one of my favourite parts. "Having to determine which clef the note belonged to" on a piano is beyond exceptional. And as for the duration of each note- they're all 8ths. He tries to make it sound like he worked so hard on it when it literally takes a minute to do this. Also, 4/8 for the time signature?
Click to expand...
:story: I wouldn't be shocked if he believes he is the first person to ever use a computer to write music tbh
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom