Weeb Wars / AnimeGate / #KickVic / #IStandWithVic / #vickicksback - General Discussion Thread

Got to love the brain-dead responses he gets to everything.
"Law is about innocence first"
"Then why did he lose?"
"Because he was suing and that made them innocent first?"
"Then why did he lose?"
"Because the defendants, whom were Monica and her dog, Funimation, and the lady who always plays the sluts in anime, were presumed to be innocent first,, and they never got to a place where they could even try to prove otherwise"
"But, why did he lose then if he was innocent?"
"Because this trial was not over whether he did it or not, its hard to prove libel"
"Then why did he lose?"

Kill me.
 
  • Winner
  • Feels
  • DRINK!
Reactions: ThatDumbPhilosopher, The Demon Pimp of Razgriz, Drowningman and 9 others
Son of Sparda 84 said:
"When is it I'll join"

Ron please. You're obsessed
Click to expand...
OneHandClapping said:
Who does he think he's kidding? Ron doesn't have the balls to confront the man he's been slandering for two years.
Click to expand...
Given how ron is, he'll either shrivel up in front of Vic and stay quiet or let his manlet rage fly and try to strike Vic. So I have a question for my more law savvy kiwis. If ron were to strike Vic, would this affect the lawsuit/appeals any or just open up a whole new one instead?
 
SupahAuspregatist said:
Given how ron is, he'll either shrivel up in front of Vic and stay quiet or let his manlet rage fly and try to strike Vic. So I have a question for my more law savvy kiwis. If ron were to strike Vic, would this affect the lawsuit/appeals any or just open up a whole new one instead?
Click to expand...
It would open up an assault charge.

Don't know that that would affect the lawsuit, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ThatDumbPhilosopher, ZombiU&Me, What The Heck Is Going On and 5 others
SupahAuspregatist said:
Given how ron is, he'll either shrivel up in front of Vic and stay quiet or let his manlet rage fly and try to strike Vic.
Click to expand...
Ron fighting Vic?
That little manlet would get thrown into a table and then if he tried to get up and hit Vic again he'd probably get tossed out on his ass by the manager of the restaurant. You know that the Plant man would stand by looking like a bloated corpse while Ron gets bodied.

But in all seriousness, Ron looks like those kids who talk a lot of shit about someone behind their backs and then shrink and slink away when he's in front of the person. He'd probably smile in Vic's face and try to be "friendly" and then, later on, go home and whine about how Vic tried to dine and dash on the bill or something like that.
And you know Ron cannot go anywhere without Monica so he'll probably have her go with him.
 
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: Coach Kreeton Of All That, ThatDumbPhilosopher, P5Fever and 8 others
  • Winner
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Coach Kreeton Of All That, P5Fever, HighwayStar and 13 others
1619751246041.png

1619751319662.png

1619751348244.png
1619751385803.png

1619751421255.png

 
  • Lunacy
Reactions: The Demon Pimp of Razgriz, What The Heck Is Going On, Xenomorphs Are Cute and 3 others
PorkeyDuck said:
View attachment 2130212
Click to expand...
Actual business oriented con owners would have already made that decision beforehand and stuck to their guns. And also enforce their contracts with their official guests. Not SacAnime with their Roseville event. They made a verbal agreement with Vic which is legal in CA, spent actual money producing advertising to promote his appearance, release an official announcement via their website, flyers/advertising and social media postings to confirm his attendance then uninvited him and deleted all postings when they received pressure from "managers/VAs/agents" and then let everyone know this is the reason you are a cuck. This is what folks are most upset about with these weak knee owners. If you decide to not invite him more power to you. Don't make it public. If you do invite Vic and then did what SacAnime's Anime Roseville did you deserve all the negative press and the backlash from the fans. Suggestion to Vic, not that I believe he reads this post or visits here, send SacAnime a cancellation fee for breach of contract. The owners did say they had a good relationship with him for nearly 20 years with no problems. Make them prove it.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
  • Winner
  • Semper Fidelis
Reactions: P5Fever, Hotfartz :), Oats12345 and 11 others
PorkeyDuck said:
View attachment 2130203
View attachment 2130208
View attachment 2130211View attachment 2130212
View attachment 2130214
Click to expand...
"Capitalism" is not tortious interference and breach of contract, you ignoramus.

Toyman99x said:
Actual business oriented con owners would have already made that decision beforehand and stuck to their guns. And also enforce their contracts with their official guests. Not SacAnime with their Roseville event. They made a verbal agreement with Vic which is legal in CA, spent actual money producing advertising to promote his appearance, release an official announcement via their website, flyers/advertising and social media postings to confirm his attendance then uninvited him and deleted all postings when they received pressure from "managers/VAs/agents and then let everyone know this is the reason you are a cuck. This is what folks are most upset about with these weak knee owners. If you decide to not invite him more power to you. Don't make it public. If you do invite Vic and then did what SacAnime's Anime Roseville did you deserve all the negative press and the backlash from the fans. Suggestion to Vic, not that I believe he reads this post or visit the here, send SacAnime a cancellation fee for breach of contract. The owners did say they had a good relationship with him for nearly 20 years with no problems. Make them prove it.
Click to expand...
It's not going to happen, but I would welcome a timeline where they re-announce Vic a week before the con.

The salt would season an entire con's worth of popcorn.

Not A Bug said:
Added in Edit: I can't figure out how to add a quoted message in edit mode.
Click to expand...
Here's how I do it. May or may not be more retarded than other users

1. Reply to something (which puts it into the reply box in the bottom)
2. Toggle BB code ("[ ]")
1619755239242.png

3. Copy
4. Paste
(optional: toggle BB code)
5. Shitpost
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: P5Fever, Not A Bug, What The Heck Is Going On and 3 others
  • Like
  • Agree
Reactions: The Decimator, AnOminous, OHenri41412 and 5 others
PorkeyDuck said:
View attachment 2130706
Click to expand...

Emmitt: I saw him grab a woman without her consent (...). Even testified about it.

And that's what makes you a perjurer, regardless of what you may have or may not have made up in you affidavit.
You can't testify about someone else's consent. Unless you're trying to imply you can read other people's mind, you can't tell under oath that you know for a fact that someone else is or isn't consenting. Testifying about what someone else thinks is automatically perjury, Emmitt.
And that's why we can tell that you're all lying assholes: You all write your stories like fiction, oblivious to the fact that a genuine testimony can't sound like that. Real life isn't fiction, Emmitt, there is no narrator to tell you what other people are thinking, what happens outside you field of view, what is said outside of your hearing range. And yet, you all made allegations of those kinds in your affidavits. That's why everybody can instinctively tell they're made up stories, they all sound like fiction, because they are.

You can't possibly know if a woman was consenting or not, Emmitt, that's perjury. You could have simply said that she told you that she didn't consent, but then that would have been hearsay, and it would have required her to testify too, because she might then have been lying to you.
But deep down, we all know she never told you anything, because it's quite obvious that you were nothing to her but a little beta orbiting nobody loser, creeping on her... Why didn't she write an affidavit for the defendants, Emmitt? Is it because you made it all up? Is it because what actually happened back then is that Vic and her were simply flirting while the sorry excuse of a man you are was seething from afar?
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
  • Semper Fidelis
  • Like
Reactions: Crinoids, Confused Doggo, axfaxf and 20 others
OneHandClapping said:
I think I know why Emmett's making such a big deal about being some big Trekkie or whatever. He has Vulcan mind powers!
Click to expand...
Given how a mind meld works, that would have required the fat creep to have been touching her when it happened, instead of touching himself in the corner while he watched.
 
  • Winner
  • Like
  • DRINK!
Reactions: Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL, theworstkindofeurofag, TexOffender and 3 others
PorkeyDuck said:
View attachment 2130706

View attachment 2130712

View attachment 2130766

View attachment 2130771

View attachment 2130776
Click to expand...
Hope someone is screenshotting Emma's tweets and sending them to Vic's lawyers because even if he loses appeals he has grounds for a restraining order. Plum is clearly admitting publically he intends to harass Vic until Vic does what he wants which is classic stalking.
 
  • Agree
  • Winner
  • Like
Reactions: The Demon Pimp of Razgriz, ThatDumbPhilosopher, Hotfartz :) and 9 others
giraffes on coffee said:
Hope someone is screenshotting Emma's tweets and sending them to Vic's lawyers because even if he loses appeals he has grounds for a restraining order. Plum is clearly admitting publically he intends to harass Vic until Vic does what he wants which is classic stalking.
Click to expand...
Everyone in KV could get a restraining order or a C and D or whatever the fuck because they’re not going to stop until Vic kicks the bucket. And that’s a best case scenario.


Mister Y2 said:
Emmitt: I saw him grab a woman without her consent (...). Even testified about it.

And that's what makes you a perjurer, regardless of what you may have or may not have made up in you affidavit.
You can't testify about someone else's consent. Unless you're trying to imply you can read other people's mind, you can't tell under oath that you know for a fact that someone else is or isn't consenting. Testifying about what someone else thinks is automatically perjury, Emmitt.
And that's why we can tell that you're all lying assholes: You all write your stories like fiction, oblivious to the fact that a genuine testimony can't sound like that. Real life isn't fiction, Emmitt, there is no narrator to tell you what other people are thinking, what happens outside you field of view, what is said outside of your hearing range. And yet, you all made allegations of those kinds in your affidavits. That's why everybody can instinctively tell they're made up stories, they all sound like fiction, because they are.

You can't possibly know if a woman was consenting or not, Emmitt, that's perjury. You could have simply said that she told you that she didn't consent, but then that would have been hearsay, and it would have required her to testify too, because she might then have been lying to you.
But deep down, we all know she never told you anything, because it's quite obvious that you were nothing to her but a little beta orbiting nobody loser, creeping on her... Why didn't she write an affidavit for the defendants, Emmitt? Is it because you made it all up? Is it because what actually happened back then is that Vic and her were simply flirting while the sorry excuse of a man you are was seething from afar?
Click to expand...
I learned something about affidavits today. Let’s see how long it takes for KV and company to respond to this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: What The Heck Is Going On, ZombiU&Me, Seraphic_Vishnal and 4 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back