superjawes wrote:...my point of keeping his personal contact info out of it was all about taking the high road.
What rubbed me the wrong way was that you took it upon yourself to tell a complete stranger what to do, and are now insinuating that I've done something wrong. If that weren't enough, your advice is completely wrongheaded. Not only is the contact information all over the place, but what he's doing is of public record, made more public by the interviews with Forbes and MSNBC, and his trademarked personal name.
The site I linked to is his
, and if he had any desire to shield his contact information, the onus is on him. It just seems kind of ridiculous that you felt it necessary to tell someone to remove a link to someone's webpage.
This kind of uninformed knee-jerk criticism isn't taking the high road
Back on topic, I've read some great commentary on the situation at Popehat
and Lowering the Bar
, and the latter page is full of satirical takes on actual incidents by an actual attorney.
A few gems from the popehat.com commentary:
Regarding funnyjunk.com and his legal team: ...they're going to get curb-stomped in court, whether in initial motion practice or in a proctological discovery
OK, our legal department is insisting that I make clear that I am not claiming that Charles Carreon is in Ewok.
Yes. Charles Carreon, butthurt that someone had leveraged his douchebaggery into almost two hundred thousand dollars of donations to two worthy charities, sued the charities.