Skip to main content

View Diary: Target Says, "We Won't Serve You" (265 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't know who you think you are, tvb, (none)
    but here are the ratings rules, which you may want to read.

    As I explain below, I have yet to see mail from Target that supports what the diarist wrote about their position on this issue.  I know damn well what slander is; do you?

    You are cordially invited to visit my blog!

    by Lawyer to Capitalists on Wed Oct 26, 2005 at 09:16:56 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  So (none)
      Sue me in the name of the capitalists you represent.

      Be careful pointing your finger in judgement of others because your other three will be pointing back at you.

      by tvb on Wed Oct 26, 2005 at 09:47:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Maybe I will, (1.50)
        now that you can't shirk your financial obligations again.

        You are cordially invited to visit my blog!

        by Lawyer to Capitalists on Wed Oct 26, 2005 at 09:54:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No. (none)
          Since I have no assets and am friends with many good non-capitalist attorneys who take their career seriously in regards to representing those fighting bullshit, I would welcome your capitalist hogwash in my mailbox.

          In case you want it:

          PO Box 362
          Glen Gardner, NJ 08826

          By the way, what will you sue for?

          Be careful pointing your finger in judgement of others because your other three will be pointing back at you.

          by tvb on Wed Oct 26, 2005 at 10:04:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What I want is to put a stop to this exchange. (2.00)
            This is ridiculous and childish.  

            You have no idea what I really do or aspire to do for a living, or how I have made a difference with my legal work or otherwise.  I hope it made you feel better to give me crap ratings, though--way to make a difference in the world!

            Have a nice night!

            You are cordially invited to visit my blog!

            by Lawyer to Capitalists on Wed Oct 26, 2005 at 10:11:03 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  LTC... (4.00)
              Is it okay to call you that?  Your full handle is quite a bit to type.

              I simply pointed out that it appeared you didn't read the comments from posters who wrote about the responses to emails they sent to Target.  It was in that spirit that I gave you a low rating for what you posted.  Shit, I could've done a troll rating but didn't because that is real abuse in regards to what you posted.

              But then you went through my diaries and and discovered my bankruptcy one, and that was a bit low. I troll-rated that comment btw.  But I understand, that is what some lawyers do because it makes them feel like winners.

              Best regards,

              TVB
              (who thinks quite highly of herself)

              Be careful pointing your finger in judgement of others because your other three will be pointing back at you.

              by tvb on Wed Oct 26, 2005 at 10:30:30 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Uprated (2.33)
          The guy's responding to an over-the-top rating. Lay off him already.

          Anyone who voted against the patriot act is too good for the Senate

          Feingold for President

          by Goldfish on Wed Oct 26, 2005 at 11:47:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  dear arbiter of truth (none)
            Goldfisher,

            Why not defend someone other than a bully and a ratings abuser?  

            The guy is being rude, and over-reacting.  The comment is itself down-rate worthy--by definition--which is what it got from me.  Unlike the initial comment...although I will say this:  what kind of lawyer confuses slander with libel?  And then is arrogant when challenged about this?

            Besides, he gave me a 1 retaliation rating--clear cut abusive bullshit.  

            I had my own blog for a while, but I decided to go back to just pointless, incessant barking. --Cartoon Dog, The New Yorker

            by markymarx on Thu Oct 27, 2005 at 04:11:19 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  slander? (2.50)
      Please tell us the definition of slander and how you think it applies in this case...Mr. Lawyer to....?

      snark

      I had my own blog for a while, but I decided to go back to just pointless, incessant barking. --Cartoon Dog, The New Yorker

      by markymarx on Wed Oct 26, 2005 at 11:28:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site