Man accidentally falls for his own mother

CelticCat · Post by **CelticCat** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 4:21 pm

http://entertainment.tv.yahoo.com/news/ ... 40002.html

GOKATS · Post by **GOKATS** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 4:37 pm

Really funny- but damn they must feel like idiots. At least his Mom showed up and not his Dad.

catsrback76 · Post by **catsrback76** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 4:38 pm

CelticCat wrote:http://entertainment.tv.yahoo.com/news/ ... 40002.html

sad -- illustrates why "Relationships" on the internet are pure fantasy.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 5:09 pm

who knows it may have worked out had it not been his MOTHER!

and if he offered her a home in Royal Palm Beach, a yacht, and a ranch back in Montana

right BAC?

Post by **SonomaCat** » Sat Dec 17, 2005 6:58 pm

catsrback76 wrote:
CelticCat wrote:http://entertainment.tv.yahoo.com/news/ ... 40002.html
sad -- illustrates why "Relationships" on the internet are pure fantasy.

I'm not sure what you mean by that ... I happen to know a lot of people who met via internet and are now very close friends ... and even married.

It does reinforce the notion that one has to be pretty skeptical about the people you meeting until you meet them, however.

Grizlaw · Post by **Grizlaw** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 1:24 pm

I've never tried the online dating thing myself, but I have to admit that I know quite a few people who have tried it, and it's worked out well for a lot of them. One of my best friends is getting married to a woman this May that he met at an online dating site. He's a corporate lawyer and she's finishing up a medical residency, and with the hours that both of them work, neither of them really has a lot of time to go out to bars and clubs to try to meet people...

That said, this story is still pretty funny.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 2:34 pm

have had several friends do well with it. same as with GL's friends, they work too much, or are busy and don't bar hop. have a neighbor that tried it because she says it's like Burger king -you get it your way. grocery shopping for men

you can pass without even picking the package up. saves on time and stress, those are both good .

Hey, good way to weed out the ones that aren't in that "family" way too. as she has a 4 year old.

CelticCat · Post by **CelticCat** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 4:11 pm

I did it twice. One hated me, the other one liked me too much.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 4:23 pm

I did it twice. One hated me, the other one liked me too much.

there are so many co-eds at MSU, curious why you tried it. Just for kicks I looked at Bozeman's pickings for men on MSN. There was only one if single i would have emailed. much easier to get hooked up in the sub than online I think.

CelticCat · Post by **CelticCat** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 4:26 pm

briannell wrote:
I did it twice. One hated me, the other one liked me too much.

there are so many co-eds at MSU, curious why you tried it. Just for kicks I looked at Bozeman's pickings for men on MSN. There was only one if single i would have emailed. much easier to get hooked up in the sub than online I think.

Eh, they were both during my two seperate semesters off from MSU, living at home where I knew no one.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Sun Dec 18, 2005 4:46 pm

just curious because there wasn't much selection online for the Bozeman area, have a friend that is from Fife, but currently lives in Denver, he checks all the time, because he wants to move back to Bozeman area if he can. Looked in Missoula - found my friend a good one - but too far to travel.

as for me I think it's convienant, easy to weed out people if they are honest. it's sort of a blind date thing, you hope you really get what you're being told you are going to get when you actually meet them.

I didn't need the internet at MSU I had pushy member of the FB coaching staff and a few friends/teammates that set Brian and I up. that seems to work best these days as your friends know you well enough to pass on the duds before you meet them. for those in new areas i guess the internet works the same way, you just pass on duds and never have to make much effort doing it.

briannell · Post by **briannell** » Mon Dec 19, 2005 5:59 pm

could have been worse

Police blotter: Nude 'profile' yields Yahoo suit
Last modified: December 9, 2005, 9:12 AM PST
By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com

What: Cecilia Barnes sued Yahoo after ex-boyfriend allegedly posted a personal profile with nude photos of Barnes and her work contact information.

When: U.S. District Judge Ann Aiken in Oregon ruled on Nov. 8.

Outcome: Case dismissed.

What happened: To hear Barnes tell the story, her former boyfriend tried to harass her by creating a series of online profiles with nude photographs of her and her correct contact information at work.

The boyfriend, identified in local news reports as Randolph Russell, allegedly also entered chat rooms posing as Barnes and solicited other men to look at "her" profile. Barnes said those actions led to unwelcome suitors showing up at her workplace.

Barnes says she complained to Yahoo starting in January 2005--and obtained a verbal commitment from a Yahoo employee to help out--but the profiles were not deleted until the lawsuit was filed. Her lawsuit asked for $3 million in damages.

Yahoo argued that a federal law, part of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, means that it's not liable for what other people post on its Web site.

Also called Sec. 230, that law says, "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."

Aiken agreed. The judge ruled that a string of precedents, including the 1997 Zeran v. America Online decision, immunized Yahoo from such lawsuits.

Barnes still has other options. Even though she lost out on a $3 million jackpot, she could still sue her ex-boyfriend for damages in state court.

Excerpt from court opinion: "Plaintiff's allegations similarly fall under the broad immunity provided Internet servers by Sec. 230. Plaintiff alleges she was harmed by third-party content and that the service provider (Yahoo) allegedly breached a common law or statutory duty to block, screen, remove, or otherwise edit that content. Any such claim by plaintiff necessarily treats the service provider as 'publisher' of the content and is therefore barred by Sec. 230.

"Plaintiff's argument that she seeks to hold defendant liable only for its alleged 'failure to fulfill its promise to remove the unauthorized profiles' does not remove this case from the immunity provided by Sec. 230. Plaintiff's claim remains an effort to hold the service provider liable for failing to perform the duties of a publisher, such as screening or removing third-party content."

Man accidentally falls for his own mother

Man accidentally falls for his own mother

Re: Man accidentally falls for his own mother

Re: Man accidentally falls for his own mother