Manosphere Marijan Šiklić (ThatIncelBlogger) 2: The Revenge

[ON 190]

nope. it's a bunch of text written by a madman. if you wanna put just quotes by me that's fine.

You know that extrapolation based on quotes isn't illegal, right? Do you know what "illegal" means? I can explain it to you, if you want.

 

[Marjan Šiklić]

It wouldn't.

the sole fact that you put any names would make it so. i provided no full names (name and a surname), no pics along with my name, no addresses, no birth dates

You walked into that one.

i didn't write that article. a mad man from germany did.

 

[Adamska]

You know that extrapolation based on quotes isn't illegal, right? Do you know what "illegal" means? I can explain it to you, if you want.

You probably should, so we can add it to the list of things Fuckbot ignored/forgot because he was high.

 

[Conrix]

Two things. First, it's all quotes by you.

nope. it's a bunch of text written by a madman. if you wanna put just quotes by me that's fine.

You're the madman in this case Holden.

 

[ON 190]

the sole fact that you put any names would make it so. i provided no full names (name and a surname), no pics along with my name, no addresses, no birth dates

Every article by every investigative magazine, every newspaper, and every entry in Wikipedia is illegal, then. It's as I asked... do you know what "illegal" means?

 

[Adamska]

i didn't write that stuff. a mad man from Croatia did. The German just compiled it.

Fix'd.

Also the quotes are valid and being properly used. They were not mined, or altered in anyway, being all amazingly terrible things that you have said in the past.

 

[Marjan Šiklić]

You're

i didn't write it. i didn't post inaccurate personal info made to defame. i didn't post the dumb timeline that doesn't fit events. i didn't post a bunch of hateful text that isn't even cited or is cited by things that aren't confirmed by it.

Every article by every investigative magazine, every newspaper, and every entry in Wikipedia is illegal, then.

how? if these don't know somebody's name they don't put it.

 

[ON 190]

i didn't post a bunch of hateful text

Really. Please show us examples of non-hateful text you have written.

 

[Conrix]

Every article by every investigative magazine, every newspaper, and every entry in Wikipedia is illegal, then. It's as I asked... do you know what "illegal" means?

Fuckbot 5000's dictionary is clearly faulty - "illegal" seems to be synonymous with "anything that can possibly fuel my victim complex" there.

 

[Marjan Šiklić]

Fix'd.

let's imagine that be the case. where are the words entitled in any of my posts? they are there. debunked.

Please show us examples of non-hateful text you have written.

irrelevant. i am not trying to write a wiki that claims to be truthful.

 

[Chuggernaut]

You're not going to spend your meth cash on a lawyer anyway, so what does it matter?

 

[Marjan Šiklić]

"illegal"

it is illegal.

 

[Ruin]

i didn't write it. i didn't post inaccurate personal info made to defame. i didn't post the dumb timeline that doesn't fit events. i didn't post a bunch of hateful text that isn't even cited or is cited by things that aren't confirmed by it.

You do see the irony here right? We have over 1000 pages of you spouting incredible hatred towards women but the second someone writes an article you denounce "hateful text."

 

[4Macie]

That wiki is illegal in any country with anti-slander/defamation laws.

Nope. Try again.
Slander only applies to the spoken word.
"Defamation" is a catch-all term for any statement that hurts someone's reputation. It's extremely loose with its application. For example, it mainly applies for instances where a person writes something nasty about someone in a campaign commercial.
The law of defamation varies from state to state, but there are some generally accepted rules. The statement must be:

• published
• false
• injurious
• unprivileged

A defamatory statement must be knowingly false (you won't give us the correct answers, so it's not any dates that are wrong, etc, aren't knowingly false) -- otherwise it's not considered damaging. Even terribly mean or disparaging things are not defamatory if the shoe fits. Most opinions don't count as defamation because they can't be proved to be objectively false. For instance, when a reviewer says, "That was the worst book I've read all year," she's not defaming the author, because the statement can't be proven to be false. In this particular instance, saying Holden is a horrible person who believes women are worse than dogs isn't even false. Because you've admitted women are worse than dogs. Saying "Holden wants to sleep with his mother" is also not false, because you asked her three times for sex... and by the 'standard person test', if a person asks for something three times, odds are they want whatever they're asking for. I will admit, the statement "holden's on meth" is probably not true, but it's not defamatory because this site is in no way 'injurious'. Which leads me to:

The statement must be "injurious." Since the whole point of defamation law is to take care of injuries to reputation, those suing for defamation must show how their reputations were hurt by the false statement -- for example, the person lost work; was shunned by neighbors, friends, or family members; or was harassed by the press. Someone who already had a terrible reputation most likely won't collect much in a defamation suit. You were known in reddit circles and other forum circles WELL before you were known here. You already had a terrible reputation before you came here. And as you've said, anyone who read what we've written wouldn't know it was you anyway. We have facts wrong, we have your name wrong, and apparently we have a lot of shit just wrong. So, no harm, no foul.

Better go get some ice for those burns.

 

[Marjan Šiklić]

on a lawyer

to do what? nothing one could do.

 

[ON 190]

i didn't post a bunch of hateful text that isn't even cited or is cited by things that aren't confirmed by it.

irrelevant. i am not trying to write a wiki that claims to be truthful.

Really then. How about you show us the truth by showing us some non-hateful quotes, then, eh chap?

 

[Marjan Šiklić]

"Defamation"

you post some surnames, addresses, phone numbers and other things i never gave. that's defamation and is a crime here. game over.

Really then.

yes, really irrelevant to my points

 

[Conrix]

Nope. Try again.
Slander only applies to the spoken word.
"Defamation" is a catch-all term for any statement that hurts someone's reputation. It's extremely loose with its application. For example, it mainly applies for instances where a person writes something nasty about someone in a campaign commercial.
The law of defamation varies from state to state, but there are some generally accepted rules. The statement must be:

• published
• false
• injurious
• unprivileged

A defamatory statement must be false -- otherwise it's not considered damaging. Even terribly mean or disparaging things are not defamatory if the shoe fits. Most opinions don't count as defamation because they can't be proved to be objectively false. For instance, when a reviewer says, "That was the worst book I've read all year," she's not defaming the author, because the statement can't be proven to be false. In this particular instance, saying Holden is a horrible person who believes women are worse than dogs isn't even false. Because you've admitted women are worse than dogs. Saying "Holden wants to sleep with his mother" is also not false, because you asked her three times for sex... and by the 'standard person test', if a person asks for something three times, odds are they want whatever they're asking for. I will admit, the statement "holden's on meth" is probably not true, but it's not defamatory because this site is in no way 'injurious'. Which leads me to:

The statement must be "injurious." Since the whole point of defamation law is to take care of injuries to reputation, those suing for defamation must show how their reputations were hurt by the false statement -- for example, the person lost work; was shunned by neighbors, friends, or family members; or was harassed by the press. Someone who already had a terrible reputation most likely won't collect much in a defamation suit. You were known in reddit circles and other forum circles WELL before you were known here. You already had a terrible reputation before you came here. And as you've said, anyone who read what we've written wouldn't know it was you anyway. We have facts wrong, we have your name wrong, and apparently we have a lot of shit just wrong. So, no harm, no foul.

Better go get some ice for those burns.

Not to mention the law would just laugh you out if you tried to get us in trouble for slander, it's like cutting yourself open and blaming the guy standing next to you for it to try and get him in trouble.

you post some surnames, addresses, phone numbers and other things i never gave. that's defamation and is a crime here. game over.

You posted it yourself and said there's nothing we can do about it, afaik.

 

[4Macie]

you post some surnames, addresses, phone numbers and other things i never gave. that's defamation and is a crime here. game over.

Where's the harm Holden? When has your reputation been damaged? Have you lost a job? A wife? A girlfriend?
Has anyone come up to you in public and said "Oh hey, you're the Holden guy?!!"
No? Then there hasn't been an actual harm. If you read what I posted.... but of course you didn't.

Edit: and ACTUALLY what you just said is "doxing" someone.
And since you said all this was false information anyway; it's not illegal.

 

[Cuck Norris]

Wait is Marijan threatening to sue the Farms? Dude did you think the Analchest Cookbook was legitimately good advice or something? I can promise you, we aren't going to get