ThatJerkDave Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 2 minutes ago, vegas492 said: Gore was the very surprising one to me. Though I couldn't tell in what context his name was used. I mean, the guy was a politician his entire life then becomes a billionaire after leaving office. I will Jimmy Kimmel him and say that I don't think that he wants all the information to come out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegas492 Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 Just now, ThatJerkDave said: I mean, the guy was a politician his entire life then becomes a billionaire after leaving office. I will Jimmy Kimmel him and say that I don't think that he wants all the information to come out. I know nothing of Al Gore outside of his VP years. Well, I'm lying, I know him as the one looking for ManBearPig. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayt Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 (edited) On 1/3/2024 at 12:27 PM, ThatJerkDave said: Imagine a world with enough half-wits in it that listen to unfounded conspiracy theory BS like what is in the monologue at the beginning of every Jimmy Kimmel show. Rodgers wants the list of pedophiles made public. Jimmy wants that list not to be made public. Why is that? When did Kimmel ever say he didn't want it public? It also isn't a list of pedophiles, but all the smooth brains will take it that way. Edited January 4 by ayt 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 2 minutes ago, ayt said: When did Kimmel ever say he didn't want it public? It also isn't a list of pedophiles, but all the smooth brains will take it that way. Questioning the conspiracy theory only deepens it. why would someone question it?!?! because maybe THEY'RE on the list! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrILL! Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 5 hours ago, vegas492 said: Stephen Hawking Anybody else see Monkey Shines? #IYKYK 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThatJerkDave Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 10 minutes ago, ayt said: When did Kimmel ever say he didn't want it public? It also isn't a list of pedophiles, but all the smooth brains will take it that way. Dude, he literally called Rodgers a conspiracy theorist for wanting the list made public. Ray posted the clip in this thread. But I'm a smooth brain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighCalebR Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 Down with the rich and famous. Give me the money, ill do better. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
incognito_man Posted January 4 Share Posted January 4 49 minutes ago, ThatJerkDave said: Dude, he literally called Rodgers a conspiracy theorist for wanting the list made public. Ray posted the clip in this thread. But I'm a smooth brain. It's an ENORMOUS mental leap to go from: -Kimmel makes a joke about someone (Rodgers) wanting the lost released To -Kimmel doesn't want the list released There are a dozen MUCH higher probability reasons he said that joke than "Kimmel doesn't want the list released" Kimmel very likely DOES want it released because it's a source of material for him to make more jokes about. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uffdaswede Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 13 hours ago, vegas492 said: Bill Clinton. Prince Andrew. Al Gore. Stephen Hawking. If you don't read this and hear Stephen Hawking's computer voice saying, "Oh, baby!" something is wrong with you. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Guy Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 13 hours ago, Uffdaswede said: If you don't read this and hear Stephen Hawking's computer voice saying, "Oh, baby!" something is wrong with you. I don't think I've ever heard Stephen Hawking's voice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vegas492 Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 1 hour ago, Old Guy said: I don't think I've ever heard Stephen Hawking's voice. Not a fan of the Big Bang Theory (tv show)? It's just a computer voice and Hawking was on there a few times. Always fun stories around him in that show and very well done. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Guy Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 1 minute ago, vegas492 said: Not a fan of the Big Bang Theory (tv show)? It's just a computer voice and Hawking was on there a few times. Always fun stories around him in that show and very well done. No! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
packfanfb Posted January 5 Share Posted January 5 (edited) On 1/3/2024 at 9:46 AM, Daniel said: I'll qualify this by saying the Oher stuff happened in Tennessee, which is the only state I'm licensed to practice law in, and this sounds like a defamation issue, which I have no experience litigating, so other lawyers on here may know more, especially those that practice wherever this took place (definitely not Tennessee, lol). Defamation (libel or slander) requires either writing or speech that is damaging to another in some way. Generally, truth is a defense to a defamation suit. Funnily enough, this list came from a defamation suit filed by one of Epstein's victims, and those are the documents getting unsealed. However, IIRC, jokes are a big avenue of exception to defamation, but I don't know the standard. Essentially, you're allowed to make jokes, so long as the joke isn't something that you're actually trying to get people to believe. So in the realm of a defamation suit, I think Kimmel would have a lot of problems. One, it might be true. That would bar him. Two, Rodgers can say it's a joke with the context that Kimmel ran a clip of McAfee's show and did a bit, or whatever. Three, he could say he honestly and reasonably believed that Kimmel would be on the list, which I think is another defense to defamation. So maybe he can sue, but it looks to me like he'd have a really tough time coming out on top, other than the oft used strategy of suing anyway just to make a headache for the person you're suing. All that said, again, defamation is not my field of expertise (I'm a DA, and before that, my practice was about 90 percent criminal law), so if any other lawyers here disagree, they're probably right. As a follow up for those interested, I'm a civil litigation attorney in Ohio who has prosecuted some defamation claims in the past and this is all pretty accurate. The biggest problem for Kimmel, as things currently stand is that Rodgers' statement really did not go far enough to make any "statement of fact," let alone a false statement of fact (the first element of a defamation claim). I didn't watch the McAfee episode in question, but I believe I read that Rodgers' comment was "there's a lot of people, including Jimmy Kimmel, really hoping that [list] doesn't come out." Now, while a lay person with common sense can certainly come to a quick conclusion what Rodgers is "implying" there...as any attorney knows, the law requires a lot more certainty. If that was the only statement to date, any defense attorney for Rodgers would get a defamation suit dismissed because his statement, quite literally could imply several things...one of them not necessarily being that Kimmel should be worried...because "he's on the list." Because Rodgers didn't go as far as stating exactly that (that Kimmel was on the list), I cannot imagine any court finding a "statement of fact" there. From there, the rest of the points you raised would also come into play. Even if Kimmel got past the initial "statement of fact" threshold, then Rodgers could still defend by arguing it was an "opinion" or a "reasonable belief" defense. Ultimately, if Kimmel were to attempt to bring a defamation claim based on the current statement(s), it would likely have to be framed as a defamation per quod claim, versus per se, because per quod allows for defamation on statements that involve "interpretation or innuendo" from the statement, if the statement is otherwise ambiguous or not defamatory on its face. The former is a less desirable claim for a plaintiff because it requires a showing of actual/special damages - meaning Kimmel would have to present evidence that the statement actually harmed him beyond simply stating boilerplate damages like "reputation harm." For example, he'd have to present evidence probably of things like death threats or lower ratings for show, loss of income, etc. Conversely, defamation per se is a more attractive claim because damages are assumed and require no specific evidence - hence, why this claim requires a defamatory statement that is more apparent on its face. Edited January 5 by packfanfb 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brat&Beer Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 Watching MLF scheme guys open last 8 weeks has made me wonder what last few years might have been like if Rodgers had just fully embraced the MLF offense. 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Striker Posted January 8 Share Posted January 8 I somehow managed to not open this thread all this week but I just caught up and lmao On 1/4/2024 at 1:52 PM, ThatJerkDave said: Dude, he literally called Rodgers a conspiracy theorist for wanting the list made public. Ray posted the clip in this thread. But I'm a smooth brain. Considering that's the conclusion you came to from that Kimmel clip... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts