Shadehater wrote on Aug 17^th, 2020 at 12:54pm:


I'm working on getting the right council.

Yet I've not stated anything libel and have tried to help you guys make the ethical decision in deleting your libel comments and removing these lies about me.


No one, not even the terrible Admin, has decided to do so.

I'm trying to demonstrate in your Wild Wild West forum there is the regular trolling here and then there's whatever you are trying to do with my reputation and constant trolling ie Harassment.

I don't constantly do anything to any of you, except change my picture so the sock has to keep up, which I have to admit is pretty funny.

Shadehater wrote on Aug 17^th, 2020 at 1:26pm:


A fly-covered dog turd would be smarter. But in the addled brain of kisty, simply by looking at this forum you owe him infinity thousand dollars. Because you damaged his reputation and hurt his a career or whatever by being on a message board 10 years after someone said something mean to him.


Shadehater wrote on Aug 17^th, 2020 at 1:26pm:


A false public accusation of libel is considered libelous itself, which he's already done to literally everyone here. Basically, no legal professional will touch this mess because in the highly unlikely event it gets to court, Mr. Dark will be counter-sued into oblivion.


Let's run briefly through the chain of events that will have to happen:

First, kisty has to sue Strake to get the real names of everyone who said mean things to him. Strake doesn't have that, this is an anonymous forum, so all he can give up are throw-away emails and public IPs. This is all assuming he can somehow convince a court that "people said mean things about me on the internet 10 years ago" somehow caused him financial damage.

So, in the fantasy world where that happens, he now has IP addresses.

He's then going to have to sue the ISP to get the real names behind those IP addresses. Here is where he runs into problem number 2: a public IP from Stainer that's 10 years old is a complete and utter dead-end. So he can try and go after those of us making fun of him now, except making fun of someone on the internet isn't an actionable offense, but that's neither here nor there, we're exploring an imaginary world, so let's go with it.

ISP do not give up subscriber information easily. Aside from privacy laws, its a pain in the ass. Its actually cheaper for them to assign one of the 50 paralegals they're already paying anyway to say "no" repeatedly than to actually dig out the information(assuming said information is even relevent - between dynamic IPs and VPN/proxy services). They are probably not going to give that information up for anything short of an actual criminal case, and if they do kisty will probably need to shell out over $100k in legal fees.

That's all to get our real names. Only the names of the people that were mean to him in these past few weeks.

Now, if you'll stretch your willing suspension of disbelief a little further and say that, in this imaginary world, a judge actually decides to bring this to trial. Ignoring the fact that a couple internet randos yelling insults today cannot be held liable for some bullshit that happened 10 years ago because of a different internet rando, we come to:

The maximum possible judgement kisty can remotely expect to receive: maybe 1 year's salary at whatever crap job he thinks he lost because of people being mean to him on the internet. And no, he can't sue to recoup the massive legal bills.

So $300,000 in legal fees to get ~$28,000 after taxes. Plus several years and thousands of hours of effort.

Yep. That's sound smart.

Shadehater wrote on Aug 17^th, 2020 at 1:26pm:



You is a response to the audience that appears to have taken interest in me.  Let's get two things straight.

1.  If you are not harassing me in regards to any of the libel claims and you didn't prop up those libel claims, I could not possibly find you at fault nor would I expect a judge to do so.

2.  Good luck attributing "you" to "yourself"   I'm writing in the second plurality and if you are in the Venn Diagram, then assess it the appropriate way.   

Let's just make it very clear how libel works.   You have to out a private person and defame their character.    I've not defame your character because I don't even know your name, let alone have linked to any personal information that is an outright lie that objectively would injure your character, career, finances, etc.

Since I apparently know NO ONE'S NAME here at this time, and I have not started a forum in honor of any of you nor have I continued to perpetuate any kind of myth that is a serious falsehood, I don't think any of you have any libel concerns with regards to what I have said on this forum to any of you or about any of you.

noamineo wrote on Aug 17^th, 2020 at 2:03pm:



Also this is all incorrect.

noamineo wrote on Aug 17^th, 2020 at 11:14pm:


Unless stainer is one of these current socks, it's of no use.  If he hasn't tolled the statute, then we can't do anything for it regarding his part in the first libel claim kickstart.   And if stainer's address is a cemetery, sorry I can't sue a corpse.

I'll take your address and name if you'd like to PM me it.

Kistilan wrote on Aug 17^th, 2020 at 11:25pm:


I'm Stainer.

Going to go ahead and admit it now. No use hiding anymore. I know Kistilan is smart enough to figure it out eventually.

I'm Stian and so is my wife.

Ever notice how so many of these seemingly unrelated vault threads eventually devolve into the same theme of Kistilan being a whiny douchebag? 

I mean, after all this time, how fucking low does one’s IQ have to be to have not gotten the hint yet?

Hmm, That banner... I get some memories of it being used... long long long ago...

Now you see what it takes to get banned around here.

Aww shucks. I wanted to see him banned.

I liken it to the curious case of Jean-Marie Loret; who spent most of his life trying to prove he was Adolf Hitler's son. I don't think we'll ever understand what's broken in some people's heads.