BF2S Forums EE Chats 2142

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Do you often have fluff conversations about the impending climate apocalypse? I was chatting with a lady teacher the other day and brought up the trial and she instantly started talking about her thoughts and how she followed the events etc. Do you think it would have been better to talk to her about how we are all going to die from the climate apocalypses?

I have zero desire to talk to anyone about amber heard or Johnny Depp. It would have been better to talk about virtually anything else, yes.

We (as in us, the people on the forum) are unlikely to die from anthropogenic global warming. It's the next few generations that will bear the consequences. Don't be so grim!

Managed to no absorb any information whatever about the Depp-Heard case, honestly don't care if people call each other names.

Protip - Don't say something in public you can't prove.

Erm didn't Amber Heard defame Depp in an op-ed?

I think thats what I picked up.

The key point I think is the jury decided Amber Heard couldn't prove what she said.

Dilbert_X wrote:

The key point I think is the jury decided Amber Heard couldn't prove what she said.

no, the key point is that they found she had made statements with malicious intent to defame and harm him. that’s what a defamation trial is, dilbert.

i don't know the specifics of who did what to whom, but it sounds altogether like they were a toxic couple and were both shitty and abusive to one another. the court case wasn't about deciding guilt in spousal/partner abuse. it was about the intentions and insinuations of her potentially libellous statements. when she decided to air their dirty laundry in a very public, if slightly vague and anonymised, way, then she strayed into defamatory behaviour.

at the start of the case she was claiming she didn't write the op-ed, or didn't write it meaning to implicate depp or to accuse him of domestic abuse, etc. by the end of the trial it was patently obvious that she did write the article and she was very much meaning to imply depp was the subject – to the point where she technically perjured herself based on previous statements (albeit in other courts/jurisdictions). result: guilty of defamation.

seeing so many men think this is some trial on male–female relations, cheering on their awesome favourite rockstar pirate badass 'hell yea, dude!' icon or whatever, is pretty gross.

Last edited by uziq (2022-06-02 07:15:18)

From what I can see Depp is an idiot and a piece of shit, I know literally nothing about Amber Heard, beyond that I don't care.

When are courts going to say "find somewhere else to air this"

it was a civil lawsuit. that applies to almost every aspect of civil law. divorce courts? who actually gives a shit?

libel and defamation laws are very archaic, agree. depp chose virginia purposefully for their open court/televised aspect. another weird archaism of the american court system.

Watched the Netflix Comedy special where Bill Burr introduced a bunch of comics. The show was a disaster.

It was a bomb. Everyone but Jimmy Carr did bad. 


The lady comics were especially bad.

I think Netflix's comedy library is the only thing it has going for it now.  Bill Burr and Dave Chappelle could probably indeed be put on the back burner for awhile. HBO did a good job of having great comedy specials without overproducing them.

Did you see the Norm MacDonald last special they released a week ago?

SuperJail Warden wrote:

I think Netflix's comedy library is the only thing it has going for it now.  Bill Burr and Dave Chappelle could probably indeed be put on the back burner for awhile. HBO did a good job of having great comedy specials without overproducing them.

Did you see the Norm MacDonald last special they released a week ago?

i did not, as i’ve been so busy. but thanks for reminding me.

Thinks he's Tony Stark, is actually turning into Mr. Burns.

Point on the doll to where the nerd touched you.