- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Posted on 1/26/18 at 8:33 pm to Ed Osteen
quote:
People don’t actually think that lawyers wanted content in a thread deleted right?
I don't see how this thread really helps or hurts anything in reality, but its not unheard of that a lawyer might send out a cease and desist letter to certain websites to remove content related to their clients.
Posted on 1/26/18 at 8:34 pm to Ed Osteen
Is that really so far-fetched?
I don't think it is.
I don't think it is.
Posted on 1/26/18 at 8:34 pm to tiggerthetooth
I agree with that but the website wouldn’t comb through a thread and delete specific posts just to have the topic stay open.
It would make more sense to just delete the thread to stop the same problem from happening, because it 100% will
It would make more sense to just delete the thread to stop the same problem from happening, because it 100% will
This post was edited on 1/26/18 at 8:36 pm
Posted on 1/26/18 at 8:36 pm to Ed Osteen
The mods wouldn't, but his lawyer would. Simply link the exact posts you want deleted. Send it to the mods. The mods pull the thread and delete the posts.
Who knows.
Who knows.
Posted on 1/26/18 at 8:36 pm to beerJeep
I meant content inside of a thread, of course it makes sense to have a thread deleted
Posted on 1/26/18 at 8:37 pm to beerJeep
Maybe so, just doesn’t seem worth the hassle compared to deleted the thread and letting it start over when new info comes out.
The same people will be in here arguing about the same shite tomorrow
The same people will be in here arguing about the same shite tomorrow
Posted on 1/26/18 at 8:42 pm to beerJeep
quote:
How many post/pages are missing? Wonder what ole baws lawyer wanted deleted
There are indeed some things missing but it isn't much and some of it is weirdly innocuous.
Posted on 1/26/18 at 8:43 pm to Large Farva
I tried going back to catch up....117 is whacked.
Posted on 1/26/18 at 8:44 pm to Obtuse1
Just ask tigerbait or whatever his name is, he is basically every 5th post in the thread so he should know what’s gone
Posted on 1/26/18 at 8:48 pm to Ed Osteen
quote:
Just ask tigerbait or whatever his name is, he is basically every 5th post in the thread so he should know what’s gone
I can see whats gone since I viewed every page as the thread went on I have it all cached offline.
Posted on 1/26/18 at 8:49 pm to Lynyrd
Its back, they actually seem to be working on it now, 77 was offline a few minutes ago. I figured it was my meme but it is still there.
Posted on 1/26/18 at 8:50 pm to jefforize
So when is he due back in court?
Posted on 1/26/18 at 8:51 pm to jefforize
quote:
Give us a hint
If I am going out it will be an epic porn bomb not something like this!
Like I said what is missing seems rather innocuous and it started on the first page.
Posted on 1/26/18 at 8:52 pm to ShreveportHog94
quote:
So when is he due back in court?
WARD, GARRETT J
1 RS 14 30.1 BOND: 250,000.00
2ND DEGREE MURDER
==============================================================================
DATE PROCEEDINGS
==============================================================================
01/24/2018 TAMBORELL*
FIRST APPEARANCE HEARING IN MAGISTRATE COURT SECTION M4
BOND SET FOR $250,000.00
RESULT-RULE TO SHOW CAUSE FOR 2/21/2018 AT 3:00 PM
SCHEDULED -PROGRESS REPORT ON 2/21/2018 AT 3:00 PM, SECT M4
SCHEDULED -RULE TO SHOW CAUSE ON 3/25/2018 AT 3:00 PM, SECT M5
SCHEDULED -PRELIMINARY HEARING ON 1/31/2018 AT 3:00 PM, SECT M4
THE DEFENDANT WAS SERVED IN OPEN COURT FOR THEIR PRGRP HEARING.
THE FIRST FOUR PAGES OF THE CIS REPORT WERE ENTERED INTO
THE RECORD
THE DEFENDANT IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR AN ROR BOND.
THE DEFENDANT'S CHARGE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR AN ROR BOND.
DFENESE ATTY: LINDSEY WILLIAMS.
THE STATE WAS GIVE NOTICE OF THE PRLIM.
==============================================================================
END OF DOCKET MASTER
====================================================
Posted on 1/26/18 at 8:53 pm to Obtuse1
Fair enough.
Thanks for all your insight throughout the thread
Thanks for all your insight throughout the thread
Popular
Back to top



2





