Bob wrote on columbuzz:
"Linda, the list is great. Thanks. Keep using the same drop off spot, okay?"
Now Bob thinks he's a spy? What a joke.
"Sue, some of my sources remain anonymous and I have no way to reach them other than this. This source has info on one person that would be good to announce on here when I announce similar news about another person."
More libel on the way from Bob?
"It's sad that getting the truth out makes one worry about something being done to their family."
I guess hypocritical Bob has forgotten this statement from him: "I know where some of you live. You want to cross the line, then lets cross the f***ing line. It would be worth some time in jail to destroy your homes. And the lives of some of your family."
"I have proof of everything I posted before."
Where's your proof that Fred Barkes broke the law?
"Families are about to be torn apart and I don't mean mine......"
More proof that Bob is a despicable person.
"Because some people think they can do whatever they wish and not too many people even seem to notice"
Like you, Bob.
"So they accuse people of making stuff up and reporting lies."
And you haven't done this?
"After all, we are Columbuzz.net and we were started for the very purpose of exposing what is normally kept a secret by those who usually don't wantpeople to know what they're doing."
Like trying to sell odometer tampering devices over the Internet?
32 comments:
There needs to be a restraining order seriously and Bob needs to by psychologically evaluated. He is OFF OF HIS ROCKER!
Can you prove that? Isn't that what Bob is in trouble for now? Making false statements like that.
I am betting his IQ at 132 is higher than yours, as is his sanity level.
"I am betting his IQ at 132 is higher than yours"
Yeah, right. Is this what he claims or have you given him an IQ test?
"I am betting his IQ at 132 is higher than yours"
Let me get this straight. You are claiming that Bob, a concrete tester, is close to the genius IQ level of 140? That has to be one of the funniest things I have ever heard. He has trouble with simple math, yet he's a genius. Right.
Bob is good with math. He was right about the wage increases. You were wrong.
A wage of $100,000 raised to $150,000 over one or 100 years is a 50% increase. No two ways about it.
And $31,000 to $42,000 is a 38.7% no matter how you twist it.
"Can you prove that? Isn't that what Bob is in trouble for now? Making false statements like that."
Are you admitting that Bob makes false statements?
"And $31,000 to $42,000 is a 38.7% no matter how you twist it."
Are you sure about that? You might want to check your math.
Nope. Being in trouble for it doesn't mean he's guilty. Because he isn't.
35.8% Point is, his wife got a 52% increase in pay since he has been in office.
What is the % increase from 8000 to 40000? Bob claims it's 500%. Do you agree?
"Point is, his wife got a 52% increase in pay since he has been in office."
Yawn. I covered this issue ages ago. Maybe Bob with his "132" IQ can explain my mathematical analysis to you, but I doubt it.
"Nope. Being in trouble for it doesn't mean he's guilty. Because he isn't."
Where's his proof of Fred Barkes breaking the law?
"A wage of $100,000 raised to $150,000 over one or 100 years is a 50% increase. No two ways about it."
You can't stand others alleged deception yet you ignore your own.
$40,000 is 500% of $8000 but 400% higher than $8000.
That's not what Bob wrote, but I'm sure it was just a simple mistake. Bob doesn't deceive, he just "makes mistakes". I'm surprised that someone with a "132" IQ even makes simple mistakes.
His point at the time was that she got the 51% increase. Reasons didn't matter. The fact is she got a 51% increase, which is true.
She shouldn't have.
"His point at the time was that she got the 51% increase. Reasons didn't matter. The fact is she got a 51% increase, which is true. She shouldn't have."
I guess the voters agreed with Bob. Oh wait, never mind.
I see Bob is posting comments here again.
Hi Bob.
I.Q. 132?
Call me conceited, but 132 isn't to the level of being something to brag about.
Mine is higher by 10+ and I'm not a genius by any means.
Also, there is no way that Bob's I.Q. is above 125.
Yeah, just put part of the story out there so that it looks worse than it is (raises). That is a typical liberal rewriting history to deceive and make yourself look better tactic.
Let me ask you this. If for the sake of argument you worked 20 hours a week and made $200 and then started working 40 hours a week and made $400. would you have received a 100% raise?
"Let me ask you this. If for the sake of argument you worked 20 hours a week and made $200 and then started working 40 hours a week and made $400. would you have received a 100% raise?"
If you're a Republican, then yes, you received an outrageously high 100% raise! If you're a Democrat, then no, it was a 0% raise and it was a travesty that you got no raise while the fat cat executives got huge stock options!
"His point at the time was that she got the 51% increase. Reasons didn't matter. The fact is she got a 51% increase, which is true. She shouldn't have."
But Bob wrote "It would be outrageous for people to get this much of an increase in pay if they WERE doing their job correctly."
This is incorrect. A 24% raise, 3.1% a year, is not outrageous. It might be for you and Bob, but not for the rest of us.
"That is a typical liberal rewriting history to deceive and make yourself look better tactic."
Now hold on there! He said he hated deception, so there's no way that could be deception.
Bobby is evidently looking in the mirror while typing !!
Columbuzz Indiana - How About Some Truth, Mr. Paranoia?
Bob posted a section about bloggers and 3rd parties. Who knows if its true since it was on columbuzz but an analysis quoted (and stolen I'm sure) states:
"So if you (Bob) are actively going out and gathering data on your own, then republishing it on your blog, we cannot guarantee that Section 230 would shield you from liability"
Thanks for indemnifying Dude, Bob! Read that article closely. Dude's safe. Bob's screwed.
"Bob posted a section about bloggers and 3rd parties. Who knows if its true since it was on columbuzz"
Columbuzz "found" that link on my blog in the comment section of "Bob Should Read This Article". It was in response to Bob's friend who wrote: "I am encouraging Bob to mount his own lawsuit against you and those who comment here."
I'm not a lawyer, but in my opinion, Bob is probably not responsible for any libelous statements from his commenters on columbuzz, unless it can be proven that he actually made the comments. But I believe he is responsible for any libelous statements made by him on columbuzz and on my blog. It may also depend on how the judge classifies columbuzz. Is it a blog or is it a "news service"?
"It may also depend on how the judge classifies columbuzz. Is it a blog or is it a "news service"?"
I think that will be the deciding factor of most of the lawsuit right there. Personally, I don't see the judge will see it as a news service, but a discussion forum for local topics.
The site doesn't revolve around its few stories. It's focus is discussion. At least discussion by the few idiots that are allowed to post.
Bob doesn't even know where he should fall. He is posting articles about news sites followed by blog sites. He is hoping that he can throw enough stuff out there to make it look like he is safe, praying that this lawsuit will go away.
"He is hoping that he can throw enough stuff out there to make it look like he is safe"
I don't think he is safe either way with his direct comments. I think it's just a question of whether or not he can be held responsible for the comments of his users or for publishing untrue statements from his anonymous sources.
Don't be swayed by Bob's attempts to divert attention to himself. This lawsuit is NOT against Columbuzz. Columbuzz is NOT the defendant, Bob Freeman is the target of the lawsuit. This is NOT about Columbuzz, it's not even about OTHER commentators. This lawsuit is about comments made by BOB FREEMAN that libel the plaintiffs.
**meant to say divert attention FROM himself...
Columbuzz's Investigative Reporter and Man-About-Town, Bob Freeman reports:
"Does Baby Back Blues Cause a Danger to the Public?"
Did anybody notice that car in one of the photos?
What if a baby crawled in front of the car and took a nap in front of the tire while the driver got in the car and began to drive forward?! OMG! (no pun intended regarding Baby Back Ribs)
Who wants to make picket signs and stage a demonstration for The Ages?
Also FALSE ADVERTISING!
Baby Back Ribs? They don't come from a 'baby', and if they do.....well that should be looked into by Bob too.
Oh...and GLOBAL WARMING!!
That cooker is probably an EPA violation.
WHERE'S THE BAT-PHONE???
Post a Comment