User talk:TK/TKarchive1

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search


Archive Page One

My User Talk Page is located here: [[1]]

Reagan Editing....

Check out this link: --TK 03:11, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

TK, Yes I welcome collabortation. As to the working in DC part, please feel free to qualify more of your expertise; that means just give me some idea if "working in DC" means in the gubmint, media, lobbying org, etc.
As to the structure of the article, I understood much had been cut & pasted from WP, which reading certainly gave that impressions. As to Mr. Erik Honeker, for prime example, Erik Honeker does nto amount to a flea on gnats tail in a bio of Reagan, and seeing the point of that entire parargraph is there is little or no conncetion between Honeker & Reagan, which I beleive is true, Honeker name most probably doesn't warrant a refernece in Reagan's bio.
This discussion should be carried on the Reagan talk page, so I move we adjourn to there. Looking forward to it. RobS 09:43, 16 March 2007 (EDT)


Hmm... If you have any questions or problems about the Article Improvement Drive, I'd love to help you. It was just formed today, and we're working on picking the first article to work on. Drop by on my talk page with any questions. Thanks, --Hojimachongtalk 23:34, 16 March 2007 (EDT)


For an ostensibly political wiki you're the first person I've seen actively interested in improving the political articles. I figured the presidential candidates for the 2008 Presidential Election was a good place to start and if you click on that wikilink you'll see how few candidates have any articles at all, let alone quality articles. If you'd like to help, lemme know, but full disclosure, I'm a liberal so I stay very vanilla with the content. Not my place to meddle. Myk 04:31, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Sounds great! So long as the information is correct, and not seeking to injure the person, I don't have a problem with anyone editing....;-) Besides, I have found everyone is usually a Liberal until it's their money involved! :p I will send you my AIM name, via email from here. --TK 10:54, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
For what it's worth, I'm one of those liberals that actually has money and has written extensively on why I don't mind paying taxes. :) Myk 14:40, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
I think aschafly is mad at us for changing the Rudy Giuliani article. As people being mad at me does no good for my stress and angst levels, I'm going to back out of editing politicians articles. But check out and feel free to modify or add toConservapedia:Manual_of_Style/Politicians. Myk 18:51, 17 March 2007 (EDT)
  • "Mad" ? Andrew is a big boy and a member of the Bar. I would like to assume, and do, that if he is displeased, he would make his feelings known. If you are talking about the electability header, I posted about that on his talk page, and perhaps upon reflection he will see he was impulsive and unfair to include such a featured topic on his page, but not the other candidates. If not, I am sure he has the integrity to at least change the rules, stated mission of this Conservapedia, and make it clear what he is wanting. His plate is pretty full right now, so give him a few days to catch up on his reading here. :-) --TK 19:20, 17 March 2007 (EDT)


Hi TK sorry I have not replied sooner by my internet connection has been down. I deleted the Thatcher content due to vandalism by User: Tracy C Copeland. My apologies for deleting your edits as well but I was trying to keep track of several vandals and didn't have time to correct my overzealous actions. Carry on with your edits and please accept my apologies.--AustinM 11:24, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Austin! Thanks! --TK 14:16, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Fox News Channel

The rewritten article is fabulous! You might want to consider breaking it down into sections. Since it is a long article, this would help it to be a little less overwhelming. Other than that, it is really great. ~ SharonS Talk! 08:15, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Thanks! I had just finished completing the page on the Great Depression, which I was amazed to find was totally empty! Anyway, since I had just finished it, I was rather just running on empty at the time, lol. I will see what the others, and the butcher vandals do with it in the next couple of days, and then give some thought to the headers, etc. ;-) --TK 08:19, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
The copied article I was referenceing on Sharon's page was before your edits. Someone had cut and pasted the wikipedia article, just omiting any criticism of Fox News. Myk 23:15, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Sharon, although long delayed, I added in some Headers, per your suggestion, and your thought about making it a bit less overwhelming was spot on. --~ TerryK MyTalk 21:13, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

David Cameron article

(Also posted to User_talk:British_cons) I've deleted some trivia from and expanded the article on David Cameron but it's still very short - as you two appear to be the only others here with an interest in the British party, would you be willing to take a look at it and see if there's anything further you can add, especially given that I no longer live there so may not be up to date with any new developments, and also that my changes seem to keep being reverted for no apparent reason. Tracy C Copeland 08:49, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

There's some stuff for him on his website [2] and the Conservative Party website[3] which is what I based this stub article on, but I realise they're not exactly unbiased sources! A BBC search on his name[4] brings up quite a lot but everything seems very vague (maybe because he's deliberately not committing to policies with three years to go before the election). Saying this will probably get me kicked off here for good but the best thing might be to look at Wikipedia's article and check what they've used for sources. As I said in my email to you I'm reluctant to do it since I seem to have got a reputation as a vandal and anything I write will probably get deleted. (Besides I'm already getting disillusioned at the way parts of this project seem to be making Wikipedia's mistake of veering away from facts into personal opinions.)Tracy C Copeland 19:38, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
  • It's a universal human frailty, love. Don't lose heart. People are as they are. At best, all one can do is fight their more base instincts, eh? I still believe there is more good than bad in this world. --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 20:00, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Terry - can you keep an eye on the DC article - I've just reverted some major vandalism by User:Aleistercrowley (see [5] - he's replaced the DC quote & description of his policies with old communist slogans) - and you're probably more likely than me to spot it as I'm only popping over here every 3-4 days.Tracy C Copeland
Actually looking at his history ALL his edits are vandalism - I haven't time to go through and correct them all, but does "sysop" have the power to get him banned?Tracy C Copeland 20:48, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Yes. I will look at it. --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 20:53, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk Link in Signature

To put that link to the talk page in your signature, go into your preferences and type this in the nickname box, with your own information inserted: (your user name as you want it to appear when you sign it) (what you want the little talk button to say) It's a nice feature because it allows people to go directly to your talk page. ~ SharonS Talk! 09:03, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Groovy! --~ [[user:TK|TK <sup>[[user talk:TK | Talk!]]</sup>]] 10:13, 18 March 2007 (EDT) *Cries! Runs off!*

Be sure to take out the () and to click the RAW box under the nickname thinky. Crackertalk 06:41, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Whoops! Here are better directions: type this into the Nickname box: [[User:|TK]] <sup>[[User talk:TK|Talk]]</sup>. Also, make sure you check the "Raw signatures" box. Sorry about the confusion! ~ SharonS Talk! 07:09, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

THANK YOU!!! Cracker. But the Talk2Me thing isn't working.... :-( --~ Terry Talk2Me! 06:55, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Leave it and soon it will,~!Crackertalk 06:58, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

And some wonder why I often chase my IT people around the office with a stick! :p --~ Terry Talk2Me! 06:59, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

If you got ops might wanna bad GRANKOR... Crackertalk 07:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Did you post on Abuse page? Whats up? IM me if you can. --~ Terry Talk2Me! 07:12, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
If you got ops might wanna ban GRANKOR... CrackerADD AN UNDERSCORE FOR USER_TALK, as User talk wont work... Crackertalk 07:14, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Okay, added the _ You gonna fill me in about GRANKOR or what? I tried to email you, but you're one of "them" who hasn't enabled the board to send you direct emails. :p And adding the underscore, doesn't seem to have helped, and Sharon doesn't have it, and her's is working! --~ Terry Talk2Me! 07:39, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Welcome as a SYSOP/admin

TK, your entry on Fox News is magnificent and I've appreciated your other edits and comments. Welcome as a SYSOP/admin! This means you can and should block immediately, and for infinite duration, anyone who posts obscenity or vandalism or has an offensive user id. Use "Recent changes" to track new edits. We do not block based on ideology. Also, since you are in the Pacific time zone, your vigilance late at night your time would be particularly appreciated. Once again, welcome!--Aschlafly 23:44, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Oh my!... Is there some place where one can get instructions on how to do all that, or does a page need making? Thanks can count on my vigilance. --TK 00:02, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
    • Some of the technical bits can be found here and here, though obviously CP's policy may differ. (sorry for linking to WP...) For the most part, most admin mistakes can be undone, so most things really are no big deal, though history merges can be difficult/impossible to undo, and mistaken blocking may cause animosity even if quickly undone. --Interiot 00:36, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
      • Yeah, page moves are confusing. I have to admit that I still don't quite have the hang of how to completely undo page move vandalism, and it made me accidentally delete some guy's user page today. MountainDew 00:37, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
  • LOL! For vandalism, look at the page history, and select compare that which is the latest, with one from the day before, or a few hours before, and use the rollback button. That seems easiest. Then do the ban/block bit. Saves mistakes. ;-) --TK 00:46, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Congrats. Looking forward to working with you. RobS 00:48, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, Rob! --~ Terry Talk2Me! 07:00, 19 March 2007 (EDT)


The text that you added to the Hitler article already make quite a difference. The initial papragraph is still showing signs of being a paper for college, but at least it is factual. Looking forward to the final version. -- Order 20 March 1:00 (AEST)

LMAO! Please see my comments on the talk page, at the bottom. I suspect it will just have to be one of those very few pages that will have to always be locked. For the abusers, it is too easy a target. For thinking people, there will always be just too much emotion on the topic to ever please everyone. There have been thousands of books about Hitler in the past 60 years, and still there will be more, and endless discussion. His Reich didn't last 1,000 years, but if mankind lasts that long, Hitler himself will last as a topic. --~ Terry Talk2Me! 10:12, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Looks like copyvio. [6] What should we do? RobS 21:37, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for asking, after you reverted the page, or added someone else's work, Rob. The attribution was missing from the final text I put up. One could have just simply done, what I just did, and add the attribution, rather than try and inflame a rather false and transparant charge of plagerism. --~ Terry Talk2Me! 21:44, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Now Terry, don't misunderstand. I didn't know you were working tonite and was in the middle of typing you a message when I got yours. The situation seems in hand now. And this sysop biz really is new to me, so I'm still learning the ropes. RobS 21:55, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
BTW, what's your source the Riechstag Fire was in '37? RobS 21:56, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
  • It was there before I did anything to it, Rob. I added, per the user talk section, the caveat that it was used by Hitler, regardless of who actually started it, to institute draconian laws. I suggest you simply IM me, or anyone else, before getting sucked into peoples games. Isn't that really much easier and simpler? I am assuming that is indeed what you want, communication? --~ Terry Talk2Me! 22:02, 19 March 2007 (EDT)


Umm... the entirely bold comment... was that necessary? Also, many people people consider getting a deferrment and then attempting to be Commander in Chief notable. I don't, but many people do. You might find that giving a little bit of ground is more effective than my way or the high way in a wiki. Myk 00:30, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Oh, and word of advice... remove the fact that it was Giuliani's campaign staff that noted the IAFF endorsed Kerry and remove the political speculation. People reading this site will infer all they need to by seeing they endorsed Kerry and you won't run in to unbiased source problems. Myk 00:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
That's not a revert war, TK... I promise you, this is not a path you want to walk down. Pages should be protected because you disagree with content, they should be protected temporarily due to vandalism. Myk 00:43, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Like many things in life, what some people might think, and what the law is, are entirely different things. Since we already had a President or two, or three, that never served in the Military (most recently Bill Clinton) how is his deferment, granted by the US Government itself, unique? It isn't a matter of giving ground, if the users want to make the same statement(s) on all of the candidate pages. I think (as a Newt supporter) there are plenty of substantial issues Giuliani is on the record about, that could and should be introduced, without getting into bottom feeding, eh? Should I get into the FBI files and see if he was implicated in stealing a candy bar when 9? That surely is a good indicator of his personal morality! :p - --~ Sysop-TK Talk2Me! 00:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
What's up with the tongue thing, dude? What I consider important and what you consider important are not the issues here. There are people, many people, that feel that someone that gets a deferment to get out of the draft should not be commander in chief. I don't, others do. Make sure it's neutrally phrased and let people decide for themselves. You're not going to get a lot of support for protecting this article... Giuliani is not exactly loved amongst the stripes of conservative on this site. Myk 00:53, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Are you impaired? I am a supporter of Newt Gingrich, and worked in Sacramento and Washington for Ronald Reagan, and you are telling me who Conservatives support? There is a right way, a honest way, to show what a person is like. See Andrews facts introduced into the McCain page. Editing full quotes, so they are different from as they were stated, in response to the Union's charges, is just plain wrong. Being morally dishonest and mean-spirited, won't gain much support either. Get this off my talk page, and onto the Rudy Talk page, where it belongs. --~ Sysop-TK Talk2Me! 00:58, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Please cooperate as a Sysop

TK, please cooperate with other Sysops and cease any personal attacks. This site needs everyone working together. Thanks much.--Aschlafly 00:58, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Hmmm. I thought this was due to my list of "accusations", or do you really think that MountainDew and I are the same user? --Hojimachongtalk 01:06, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Ah, I was responding to MountainDew's request, who apparently wasn't in on the gag. TK, I retract my comment above. Thanks.--Aschlafly 01:07, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Sometimes you guys are just too easy, lol. Sorry, Andrew...I supposed he saw the gag on the other page, about the system tracking exactly who makes unsigned comments....but while I was gone, my lady gave me a very nice pineapple upside down cake, so I'm a happy man! --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 01:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
    • I apologize for taking it too seriously. I wasn't sure whether it was a joke after everything that's been going on. MountainDew 04:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Thats okay, Dan. Gave me a chance to vent on the Liberal talk page, lol. What joy. Now more haters after me, lol. --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 04:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)


I think I have a pretty clear understanding of your political and religious views :P, but I'm providing this link to everybody who asks. It helps evolutionists argue creationist claims, and forces creationists to come up with more cruft to dispute the claims (Answers in does this quite well XD). It's here. --Hojimachongtalk 18:18, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

  • Oh lordy! The basic premise asserted there is that Creationism is folklore! Maybe the argument should be one of evolution versus intelligent design. ;-)and the inclusion there of this:

Claim CA001: Evolution is the foundation of an immoral worldview. Source: Moon, Rev. Sun Myung. 1990 (27 Mar.). Parents day and I.

Is beyond reason. --~ TerryK Talk2Me! 19:00, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

RIP, Cathy Seipp. A Cautionary Tale....

The 49-year-old newspaper columnist and conservative blogger, who had come from Manitoba, Canada, to become the sharp-tongued doyenne of the Los Angeles media scene, was only hours away from losing her years-long fight with cancer, leaving behind a 17-year-old daughter, a lifetime of work as a plucky and plain-speaking wordsmith, and the respect of colleagues from both sides of the political spectrum.

But what was supposed to have been a dignified end for a long-suffering single mom instead turned into what friends called a disgustingly public travesty, an example of the current Wild West atmosphere of Internet privacy issues, and a sordid showcase of just how far a beef can go.

Just hours before her death, “Cathy Seipp” suddenly seemed to undo decades of hard work with an oddly written letter posted on the Web site, www. In what came off as more bizarre rant than heartfelt apology, her supposed “very last blog entry” called her years of journalism a “shoddy,” “despicable” and “irresponsible” career as a “fourth-rate hack.” Her political stance? All a mistake.

The fiery, unwavering supporter of George W. Bush supposedly said she'd done a complete 180 in the past year and was now an implied supporter of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. What was even more perplexing was that “Seipp” was taking mean-spirited potshots at her own daughter, Maia Lazar, whom she called an “obnoxious” and “arrogant” wanna-be “skank” who was “mentally ill.” Throughout the letter, the one person whom “Seipp” seemed most sorry for ever having offended was Maia's 10th-grade journalism teacher, who had frequently clashed with mother and daughter. Finally, “Seipp” said she was probably to blame for her own illness — the “venom” she'd spewed for years was responsible for her terminal cancer.

Friends were horrified. They quickly realized that the letter was the work of an infamous character known as “Troll Dolls” who'd positioned himself as the blogger's archenemy and bought the domain name years earlier (Seipp's real Web site is Troll Dolls is really Eliot Stein, a 54-year-old former online talk-show host and stand-up comedian who hadd taught Maia in a journalism class for a brief period in 2004, and who blamed Maia and Seipp for his departure from the school after only five weeks. Seipp's friends marshaled their resources, creating an impromptu Internet chat room to make their plans, fingering Stein as the culprit, enlisting the help of a lawyer to serve him a cease-and-desist letter, and successfully lobbying Stein's Internet host to take the Web site down permanently.

“He's a genuinely weird dude [who wrote] a rambling, odd, mean, totally cruel series of posts ... designed to trick well-wishers, as Cathy lay dying, into reading a torrent of rage and bitterness against her,” Rob Long, an L.A. television writer and longtime friend of Seipp's, wrote in an e-mail. “Just immensely cruel. It was easy to ignore when she was alive, but as she died it became intolerable — thousands and thousands of people wanted to reach out to Cathy and her family in the days surrounding her death, and this guy tricked, perverted and deeply hurt them. And for what? A years-old grudge?”

There was perhaps one silver lining, Seipp's friends said. They first found Stein's letter on March 20. Seipp died in the afternoon of March 21, never having known what Stein was saying in her name.

Legal observers say that the Seipp-Stein spat demonstrates how the Internet-using public still hasn't figured out the boundaries of good taste and what the reasonable expectations of privacy are in a world where seemingly every other person keeps his personal thoughts in online journals that can be accessed by anyone with a computer.

“The expectation of privacy on the Internet is ludicrous from one point of view, but I don't think there's any bright-line rule about what you can and cannot say in a blog,” said Richard Idell, of Idell & Seitel, a San Francisco firm specializing in media and Internet law. “Whatever socially acceptable rules that may exist are still developing. You're going to get some sharp words — that's what's going to happen — but when does it cross the line?”

And we can only expect to hear about more nasty feuds like Seipp's and Stein's being played out on Web browsers around the nation, according to Rebecca Jeschke, spokeswoman for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a non-profit group dedicated to maintaining free-speech and privacy rights in digital media.

“We're definitely hearing more about these kinds of online arguments with public figures,” Jeschke said. “It does seem to be a place where people are using blogs to express themselves. They're a reasonably new mode of communication, and people are feeling where their comfort level is.”

Even Seipp's friends and supporters debate the meaning of Stein's parting shot against Seipp.

“There's no law against being a jerk,” said London-based Internet consultant Jacki Danicki. “But it's the way in which you do it, like taking someone's domain name to do that. And from a human-decency level, it's not right.”

“If he truly felt he was wronged and Cathy had harmed him, then why didn't he stand up and grow a pair and say it, instead of trying to adopt her voice?” said Mediabistro and Fishbowl L.A. blogger Kate Coe. “Most people who disagreed with Cathy had the balls to do it to her face and with their own name.”

But Luke Ford, blogger and onetime columnist on the business, defended Stein's actions — even though Ford has himself been a frequent target of Stein's attacks.

“It's not nice, but since when was the First Amendment nice to people?” he said.

Stein is absolutely unapologetic.

And though both would be loath to admit it, he shares with Seipp at least one trait that may have led him to this point — an unwillingness to back down in the face of perceived injustice. He's also endlessly self-aggrandizing, obviously bitter and easily worked into a frothy fury over issues that seem piddling by mainstream standards (for example, not many L.A. high-school teachers would be shocked into speechlessness by profanity). He gets especially worked up by what he sees as his persecution by Maia Lazar and Cathy Seipp.

How it Began

It started in September 2004.

Stein had just started as a journalism professor at a private school in Los Angeles called the Ribet Academy, where Maia was in 10th grade. Maia, he said, was undeniably bright and an excellent writer, and he made her editor-in-chief of the school newspaper. But things quickly went sour, and Stein ended up leaving the school in October after a dispute with Maia and her mother. According to him, he quit because of a tangential issue — the administration wanted to suspend Stein for a single day for responding to Maia on her blog before the school had formulated its official statement. (Ribet Academy said it would not comment on a former student or a former employee.) On his last day, Stein came to school dressed in a tuxedo and, class by class, told all of his students that his leaving was the fault of one particular 10th-grade girl. By all accounts, Maia became an outcast at school.

Any parent should know what happened next: Cathy Seipp fought back. And as a blogger, she naturally did it online with her trademark acid tongue, writing columns that detailed her daughter's travails and mocked Stein as a “fat sweaty loser ... who used to have ambitions of being some kind of Internet personality.”

“I think he got off kind of lightly,” Coe said.

But Stein said some of Seipp's comments disparaged his fitness to be a teacher and implied that his fixation on her daughter was less than wholesome.

“I am a teacher. I'm very successful as a teacher,” Stein said. “If I had a woman implying I should not be near children, you think that doesn't deserve some sort of response?”

The blogging brawl escalated. In December 2004, Stein found out the domain name hadn't been bought, so he purchased it himself under an obviously assumed name and began to fill it with anti-Seipp parodies — amateurish montages that stuck her head on the Beatles' “Abbey Road” album cover or floating alongside other Republicans in a cartoon hell, for example.

“I've got an incredible sense of humor,” Stein said. “I'm an expert at Photoshop.”

When Seipp found out, she was frustrated by the bureaucratic hoops she'd have to jump to take from Stein under California law, which is considered to have relatively strong protections against cybersquatting. Seipp, who'd been diagnosed with lung cancer in 2002, resigned herself to Stein's ownership of the Web site and blogged via instead.

“[It] means, if I remember well, paying several hundred dollars upfront to start the procedure and have a panel of experts review the claim and rule,” journalist Emmanuelle Richard, a close friend of Seipp's, wrote in an e-mail. “It was very frustrating. She felt powerless and felt that she had to dedicate her energy and resources to her daughter and her health first.”

Seipp wasn't alone: Stein had done it before. In 1997, a business deal with conservative radio preacher Roy Masters involving between $300 and $500 went awry, and Stein bought and turned it into a parody site with more examples of the Stein sense of humor — Masters done up as Dr. Evil from “Austin Powers,” for example. Wanting to avoid a potential long-term legal battle and bad publicity, Masters, now 79, decided to ignore Stein's site.

“I'm not surprised at what he did this time,” Masters said. “It's a hate addiction — once he starts he never stops. That's how long he holds onto a grudge that doesn't exist.”

For his part, Stein said that he made several bona fide efforts to end the feud with Seipp, but that whenever he took his site down, Seipp would begin the conflict again with comments about him in her blog. Seipp's friends said that if anything, the reverse was true, and that Seipp was a deathly ill woman focusing on her cancer and her daughter, and never took Stein very seriously. In 2006, Seipp wrote a column in which she lightheartedly referred to Stein as a cyberstalker and compared him to the Star Wars figure Jabba the Hutt. That, Stein said, was the last straw. He later crafted his fake Seipp letter and posted it on his Web site, knowing full well that she was dying but still alive.

“They thought that because this is the Internet they could say whatever they want whenever they want, but they met someone with an expansive education, a pioneer of the Internet with an incredible sense of humor,” Stein said. “They picked the wrong person to mess with.”

When asked if he himself might be accused of abusing the freedoms and power of the Internet to attack someone, Stein said his actions were justified by Seipp's history of “character assassination.”

In the wake of Seipp's friends' actions to take his site down, however, Stein has gotten no responses to letters or phone calls from his Internet host. He said he's willing to turn the site over to Maia Lazar, on the condition that they both sign an agreement to never write about each other publicly again.

“Hopefully, it's over and done with,” Stein said. “We all go our own ways. The ball's in their court.”

Maia's lawyers noted that Stein's only correspondence with them has been two terse and hostile e-mails, one of which was simply: “Go to Hell.”

“Mr. Stein's actions were unlawful ... there was no First Amendment right for Mr. Stein to use the domain name to post a fraudulent and defamatory letter purporting to be from Cathy Seipp,” Maia's lawyer, Kimberly L. Thigpen of Pfeiffer Thigpen & Fitzgibbon, wrote in an e-mail.

When told of Stein's offer, Thigpen said that she would have to consult with her client, but that Maia's primary goal has been to regain her mother's domain name.

Most legal experts said Stein may have a strong case in defending his actions as a parody, and that a defamation claim on behalf of Seipp would have little effect after her death (Maia still has the potential for a defamation suit, however, they said). Experts were in disagreement about whether Seipp's possible status as a celebrity might affect any legal action. Experts agreed that Stein almost certainly violated state cybersquatting laws.

Both Maia's lawyer and Stein said they had strong cases against the other, but both sides also said they had no foreseeable plans to file legal action against the other. In the wake of an increasingly nasty three-year-old feud that only ended with Seipp's death, there's a exhausted calm on both sides.

“Maia's been through a lot,” Thigpen said. --~ TerryK MyTalk 06:14, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

Personal tools