tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post97505382370815444..comments2024-03-12T21:13:06.850-05:00Comments on Legal Schnauzer: Ashley Madison customers revealed: Alabama attorney Thomas Plouff, who has a practice in Chicago and a physician wife in Birmingham, appears at cheaters sitelegalschnauzerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comBlogger81125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-22312870025238167342016-11-08T10:16:42.777-06:002016-11-08T10:16:42.777-06:00There will be serious emotional consequences to fi...There will be serious emotional consequences to finding out your partner paid money to explore having an affair. The first of which is not knowing whether they followed through with that interest. Chances are your partner did not have an affair. It's actually much more likely they were curious, they were looking for an escape or they intended on having an affair but it never ended up happening.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-64131608162520691732016-03-22T16:16:49.328-05:002016-03-22T16:16:49.328-05:00Some of these empty skulls suggest your reporting ...Some of these empty skulls suggest your reporting is inaccurate, but then they hint that someone might be mad enough about your posts to do you harm.<br /><br />That makes absolutely no sense. People only get that mad about reporting that is true. Does anyone seriously think Rob Riley and Bill Pryor had you thrown in jail because you reported erroneously that RR had an affair with Liberty Duke and Bill Pryor showed off his ying yang for a gay-porn Web site?<br /><br />Come on. These turtle heads know your reporting on AM is accurate, and that is why they are hysterical. How stupid do they think we are?<br /><br />News flash: Just because you are an idiot doesn't mean the rest of us are.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-92086375962983852432016-03-22T15:51:26.181-05:002016-03-22T15:51:26.181-05:00P.S.--sorry for all the fecal references, but I ca...P.S.--sorry for all the fecal references, but I can't help going there when reading the comments from these screwballs.<br /><br />To hear people actually try to defend adulterers, adultery, and attempted adultery--not to mention one of the most low-life digital outfits in the history of the Web--blows the mind. <br /><br />But mainly it just makes me laugh. No wonder these people never ID themselves. I wouldn't either if I was that stupid.<br /><br />And guess what--I bet they call themselves "pro family conservatives." What a hoot!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-29877108750593908452016-03-22T15:48:04.687-05:002016-03-22T15:48:04.687-05:00These commenters, most of them, are so full of s--...These commenters, most of them, are so full of s--t. You've got them defecating in their pants , LS, and they can't even express themselves in a coherent way. It's pathetic to see these dim bulbs leave one nonsensical comment after another. <br /><br />Your AM reporting is great, awesome, and I look forward to the next installment. Rock on!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-65688298424811357342016-03-22T15:39:51.223-05:002016-03-22T15:39:51.223-05:00Hah, very clever, @3:20. But your analogy doesn...Hah, very clever, @3:20. But your analogy doesn't fit. There is no water and there is no one doing any leading. I asked a few questions to see if there was a leader or any water. And there was nothing there--an empty suit, maybe.legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-23059000898000673702016-03-22T15:20:09.028-05:002016-03-22T15:20:09.028-05:00Re 2:49
You can lead a horse to water... Re 2:49 <br /><br />You can lead a horse to water... Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-42666959379317534782016-03-22T15:00:08.047-05:002016-03-22T15:00:08.047-05:00Pathetic effort, @2:19. Here's why:
(1) You h...Pathetic effort, @2:19. Here's why:<br /><br />(1) You haven't presented one example of inaccurate reporting on my part. Not one.<br /><br />(2) Can you ID a tort where someone can be sued because "the public interest isn't served"? Are you serious with this BS? Where have I accused anyone of adultery and where have I "shamed" anyone. (Note: You seem to throw around words without having any idea what they mean, legally or otherwise.)<br /><br />(3) My reporting is 100 percent supported by facts, and that is not even close to "attacking people." (Again, your use of the language would have to improve to be loose.) There is zero wrong with linking to someone's LinkedIn page, and you have zero knowledge of what journalists would see as unethical. The LinkedIn page is right on the Web, for all to see. Your assertions, to borrow one of Maj. Charles Emerson Winchester's favorite words, are "abzurd."<br /><br />(4) Defamation, on reporting that is accurate? Again, you must be joking. There are no torts for harassment or stalking. They can be crimes, but I haven't come close to engaging in either.<br /><br />I would suggest you stay out of this dicussion, unless you just enjoy looking like a fool. You are hilariously out of your depths.legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-8064885114406736822016-03-22T14:49:30.975-05:002016-03-22T14:49:30.975-05:00Why should I follow advice of someone who is too l...Why should I follow advice of someone who is too lazy to answer a few simple questions? Plus, you are lying. Your reason for not answering the questions is bogus. You had a serious case of loose lips in your original comment, but when challenged, your lips get tight. I can only conclude you are a con man, and I don't take advice from con men. If you want to prove that you are something other than a con man, the invitation remains to answer very simple questions. Otherwise, your words mean zip because you can't back up what you claim--and you are too lazy to even try.legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-39599056803590400682016-03-22T14:22:27.527-05:002016-03-22T14:22:27.527-05:00@2:04 + @1:32 same person? Yes.
Didn't answer...@2:04 + @1:32 same person? Yes.<br /><br />Didn't answer the questions because doing so won't solve anything with you.<br />Seek counsel from psychologist or psychiatrist. Have an open mind. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-8475707677898732062016-03-22T14:19:59.942-05:002016-03-22T14:19:59.942-05:00I'll take a shot. Seems pretty obvious to the ...I'll take a shot. Seems pretty obvious to the casual observer but...<br /><br />1) LS's reporting isn't always accurate. The main thing I see is drawing conclusions clearly not supported by facts, with logical leaps and confirmation bias. Not seeing courts as ideal "citadels of honor" does not mean they are totally corrupt. There are substantial shades of grey within the legal community. Also: someone not being your friend does not automatically make them your enemy.<br /><br />2) History repeats with LS being sued over something that didn't serve the public interest in the first place: accusing non-public figure lawyers of adultery and publicly shaming their families who have nothing to do with it. Like Garrison case, no idea how public interest is served.<br /><br />3) Destructive stuff: personal attacks on people and their families not supported by facts. Again, most recently, linking to Linkedin profiles of children of men you are implying are adulterers. Vast majority of journalists would see this as unethical and destructive. <br /><br />4) Grounds for lawsuit: defamation, harassment, stalking. Something worse would be someone with a grudge doing something illegal.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-33547303018557366952016-03-22T14:16:38.122-05:002016-03-22T14:16:38.122-05:00@2:04--Are you and @1:32 the same person?
Why did...@2:04--Are you and @1:32 the same person?<br /><br />Why didn't you answer my questions?legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-87507843204910987932016-03-22T14:04:37.440-05:002016-03-22T14:04:37.440-05:00With great respect, at the end of the day Schnauze...With great respect, at the end of the day Schnauzer you have to do your own work on this. I'm no mental health professional. I strongly and with great care urge you to see a psychologist or psychiatrist. Talk to them about what is happening to you and get their help in dealing with your challenges. Stick with it. That's all I can say.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-12129841780747440852016-03-22T13:47:11.155-05:002016-03-22T13:47:11.155-05:00Here's a challenge for you, @1:32:
(1) You sa...Here's a challenge for you, @1:32:<br /><br />(1) You say my worldview isn't rational. Please provide some specifics. What isn't rational about it? Are you saying that my reporting isn't accurate? If so, please point to examples. I'd like to know. Do you believe our courts are "citadels of honor," filled with noble judges and lawyers? If so, what makes you think this?<br /><br />(2) What do you mean by seeing "history repeat"? What are you talking about?<br /><br />(3) What is the "destructive stuff" to which you refer, and what is destructive about it?<br /><br />(4) You refer to a lawsuit that is "coming" or "something worse." What grounds would someone have to sue me? What does "something worse" mean, and who do you think might bring this about?<br /><br />Look forward to your answers.legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-63226576190473242252016-03-22T13:32:39.079-05:002016-03-22T13:32:39.079-05:00@10:57
I have to assume that what is "comin...@10:57 <br /><br />I have to assume that what is "coming" is another lawsuit or something worse, I don't know what. I take no pleasure in seeing history repeat. I don't think any of this is funny and my heart goes out to Schnauzer and his wife. I prey he gets some help and good legal advice. He's a very smart guy and I hate to say it but his worldview just isn't rational. I saw an article suggesting that he has suffered from PTSD in the past. Clearly there is now more going on. He's hurt many people but himself and his wife most of all. Too many of you read his stuff like you're rubbernecking an accident on the I‑65. Schnauzer needs support, so stop encouraging the destructive stuff.<br /><br /><br />(Obviously DO NOT give Schnauzer your personal information. Sadly he will weave you into his ideas about how people are out to get him. Schnauzer I am not out to get you!)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-32982766648284307132016-03-22T11:30:11.020-05:002016-03-22T11:30:11.020-05:00Your arrogance is impressive, @10:57. You claim to...Your arrogance is impressive, @10:57. You claim to know the workings of my mind when, in fact, you know nothing about me. You say "many of us see it coming" when you have no idea what other people think--and you don't explain what "it" is.<br /><br />If you want me or my readers to take you seriously, tell us who you are, give us your contact information, a brief bio, etc. Otherwise, you are just dust blowing in the wind.legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-32914942899262499522016-03-22T10:57:47.609-05:002016-03-22T10:57:47.609-05:00Roger, you remind me of those kids who perform dan...Roger, you remind me of those kids who perform dangerous stunts on YouTube in order to get attention. They make poor choices that can potentially harm them in the end. Like you, these kids just don't get it.<br /><br />At this point I just sit and shake my head while reading your justifications because it's mind boggling. It's like listening to these YouTube kids explain why they do what they do. <br /><br />As you're reading this I want you to take a moment and think about why people don't understand you. I want you to imagine your own thoughts and how you would feel if you sat and listened to these kids who didn't know any better explain why they do what they do. You'd sit there shaking your head in disbelief because there is nothing you can say to get them to see what they're doing could potentially harm them. This is what many of us are doing now with you. Because you don't realize it, you continue to argue the same point over and over and over and over thinking it's going to matter.<br /><br />In your case you're an adult, and the people supporting your choices don't care about you. They're like the frat guys cheering you on as you stand on a table and suck down a beer bong. You're the useful idiot as someone else pointed out.<br /><br />As of now I'm asking everyone who is bothered by this AM coverage to just ignore Roger because no matter what you say he's just not going to get it. I believe eventually he's going to either screw up somewhere, or piss off the wrong person (again) which will result in further hardship in his own life.<br /><br />Many of us see it coming and there is nothing we can do about it. You just have to let it happen, like watching those kids on YouTube.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-77760180626884681932016-03-21T19:09:03.510-05:002016-03-21T19:09:03.510-05:00"M" (or "Kate" or whatever you..."M" (or "Kate" or whatever your name is; you can't seem to decide), I thought you promised not to communicate with me again, but here you are--and you still can't keep anything straight.<br /><br />My records show you contacted me 11 days ago, not weeks ago. You gave me what appears to be a false name, one that I've yet to find on the Web. You refused to ID your contact information, social-media sites, clients (past and current), who you work for now, etc. You claimed you are from Toronto, that's the only identifier I have. You claim to be an expert on Ashley Madison data, but you've presented no evidence that you are an expert in anything. You have no idea what data I have, and you've offered zero evidence that I've reported anything erroneously.<br /><br />I haven't insulted or attacked you--although you deserve both--because I don't even know who you are. I suspect you work for AM and are trying to discredit me in an effort to soften your company's legal exposure. But I really don't know, and I definitely don't care.<br /><br />So now, please abide by your promise and leave me alone. I'm not interested in you, your "data," or your "expertise"--of which I suspect you have little, if any.legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-37114102765578933882016-03-21T19:00:30.340-05:002016-03-21T19:00:30.340-05:00P.S.--I don't know what happened to your comme...P.S.--I don't know what happened to your comment, @6:52. Pretty sure I didn't delete it. I know I didn't intend to.legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-84514990163763459872016-03-21T18:57:09.875-05:002016-03-21T18:57:09.875-05:00Unknown:
The "children" you seem to be ...Unknown:<br /><br />The "children" you seem to be talking about are roughly 22 and 20 years old. I didn't "talk about them," I mentioned that their parents are Mr. Plouff and his physician wife. Why are you so hysterical on this subject? Very strange.legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-90913018431672289882016-03-21T18:52:38.587-05:002016-03-21T18:52:38.587-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17068632846054209412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-91432187559153368662016-03-21T12:36:41.875-05:002016-03-21T12:36:41.875-05:00Re 11:09
To be clear on context, I contacted Mr....Re 11:09 <br /><br />To be clear on context, I contacted Mr. Shuler weeks ago when I came across very serious errors in his analysis of what he believes to be the Ashley Madison data. His response was to insult me and then, as you have seen, was to attack me publicly. <br /><br /><b>Make no mistake: Mr. Shuler does not have access to a complete or accurate AM data-set. His reporting has been erroneous in several cases.</b><br /><br />I expect a cursory search for AM data expertise will reveal my identity. Mr. Shuler knows I provided enough information for him to verify it.Mnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-35872532928399208462016-03-21T11:20:34.457-05:002016-03-21T11:20:34.457-05:00Court cases aren't designed to be "warnin...Court cases aren't designed to be "warning shots," @6:41. They are supposed to present justice, based on proper application of the facts and law. I'm not an expert on details of the Hogan case, but I suspect it will be overturned completely. Hogan was not defamed because the tape was of him, and I don't see how Gawker invaded his privacy. They didn't set up the camera, and they didn't shoot the "action." As I understand it, someone sent them the tape, unsolicited. Am I correct about that?<br /><br />Hulk's problem is that he chose his friends poorly and having sex with a woman who is married to a loon . . . well, that's not a good idea. Hulk's problem is that he trusted people, and engaged in dubious behavior with, people who aren't trustworthy.<br /><br />I could see where the couple, or whoever, arranged for the "action" to be taped, invaded Hogan's privacy. But I don't see where Gawker did. Gawker just has the deep pockets.legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-12675122265222782412016-03-21T11:09:28.316-05:002016-03-21T11:09:28.316-05:00You are finished e-mailing me, @6:44? Do you promi...You are finished e-mailing me, @6:44? Do you promise? That's the best news I've received in a while. I asked for your home address because, if you recall, you asked for mine.<br /><br />I also asked for other identifying characteristics--your real name, your work address, clients you have worked for (now and in past), etc. You didn't supply any of that information, other than to say you are in Toronto. Isn't Ashley Madison based in Canada, by the way?<br /><br />Based on what I've seen, you are a con artist. BTW, CBC referred to AM as a "site for cheaters." I guess you are going to get all wound up about that.<br /><br />Just because you claim to be a data analyst and an "expert" on AM, etc. I have no reason to believe that you are an expert in anything. <br /><br />So please keep your promise and stop e-mailing me or commenting here because you have zero credibility.legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-59059927810053788032016-03-21T11:01:05.816-05:002016-03-21T11:01:05.816-05:00No, I don't, @9:56. My reporting is legal and ...No, I don't, @9:56. My reporting is legal and morally right, and my reputation is fine among those who understand the principles of journalism. My blog is ranked No. 37 among all the legal blogs in North America, so among people who actually understand Web-based reporting, my reputation hardly could be better.legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3669412675139526125.post-84934207557309712822016-03-21T10:58:17.528-05:002016-03-21T10:58:17.528-05:00Coward: You wanted to know where I work, so I aske...Coward: You wanted to know where I work, so I asked the same question of you. You know, the old "what's fair for the goose is fair for the gander thing." I don't owe transparency to someone who is too big a coward to present transparency himself.legalschnauzerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09619089628125964154noreply@blogger.com