Reply to Bad Art Friend

Forum Index » Entertainment and Pop Culture

Reply to "Bad Art Friend"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Explain to me what money Dorland will achieve in the lawsuit (as opposed to "in the court of public opinion") from a failed defamation claim by Sonya Larson.  (Hint:  zero dollars.)[/quote]

Why do you think this is about money?  Larson filed suit against Dorland, and Dorland filed counterclaims.  She's the [u]defendant[/u].  The case is not some big money grab on DD's part.

I feel like the initial misinformation about this whole story pops up, zombified, every 10 pages on this thread.[/quote]

This is not about money. Now, Dorland doesn't have endless money, but I think she is probably just wanting to clear her name. She doesn't want cash. She wants her reputation back. [/quote]

Dorland said in the story I think (or somewhere) that they spent their last $2500 to retain a lawyer to protect her letter, and would not settle the case for less than her attorneys fees, so I am pretty sure that she would at least like to recover the amount of money that she has spent on the case in attorneys so far, which is in the thousands and probably in the tens of thousands of dollars by now.  I too want her to win the infringement claim because of what is "right" in this case and it's nice to think of that happening.  Note, though, that the first party to talk about suing for tens of thousands of dollars in this case was Dorland's attorney threatening to sue -- I think? -- 1C1S for [b]$150,000[/b] or more if they published the story (which is a very high price tag, I hope you agree), so I'm not sure if you're strictly correct that Dorland was the first to make this about money.  Larson's attorney sued first, but Dorland's attorney [i]threatened to sue[/i] -- and with a very high price tag on it -- well before Larson actually did.

I am on Dorland's side!  [B]But I think some folks have drank so much Kool Aid at this point that they cannot see the other side, which is exactly how Dorland got ostracized from the Chunky Monkeys to begin with. [/B] While I certainly don't like or sympathize with Ng and will certainly never buy one of her books, I am uncomfortable with some of the comments being made about her in this thread.[/quote]

Disagreeing on a legal analysis of the case is not remotely similar to what the CMs did to Dorland. You are saying here that if someone doesn't agree on your legal take, they are "drinking Kool Aid" and "cannot see the other side" and engaging in ostracization similar to what the CMs did. That is a flatly absurd statement, so much so that it makes me seriously question the logic behind your legal analysis.

People can rationally disagree on the merits of the case. If you look around, you'll see different takes. My take is that Larson doesn't appear to have very good counsel. Furthermore, I think the legal posture of the case has changed significantly based on the events of the past two weeks, so any analysis predicated on prior filings is likely to be off base.

It is irrational to assume that someone who doesn't agree with your specific legal analysis is simply too biased to understand the truth. It is entirely possible for somebody to just think you are wrong.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics