Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Investment Chat Board Lawsuits -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (4813)	6/25/2003 11:16:42 AM
From: Win-Lose-Draw	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 12465

how you silence someone considered to be mentally ill you don't. much of the great art produced by our species is the result of imbalanced individuals. if it is common knowledge the guy is loopy it will be hard for his whacky painting to be taken as anything more serious than...whacky paintings. and the tiger thing...Degas painted a ballerina in a style that positively dripped with lust, if the Woods painting is a violation so is half of the western civ cannon. now the story about the college kid, that seems a bit different: do the police not have the power to deal with someone providing false "evidence"?

To: Jeffrey S. Mitchell who wrote (4813)	6/25/2003 11:52:53 AM
From: David Lawrence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 12465

>>Once again, I ask with all sincerity how you silence someone considered to be mentally ill. Jeff, I don't know the answer. There are many injustices that can't be cured until a line has been crossed, and sometimes not even then. I think you know that I have the utmost respect for both you and Janice. Everything I've seen regarding Dobry casts him in a negative light to say the least, and I wish and expect that you would prevail in any contentious matter with him. However, none of those "influences" really matter with regard to the issue of the paintings to which Elgindy has taken issue. I haven't seen anything that even ties these paintings to Elgindy, other than opinions of Dobry's motives and intended depiction. Even if it becomes evident that Elgindy is indeed the object, the courts will boil it down to freedom of expression, irrespective of how anyone feels about him as an artist, author, investor, or litigant, and irrespective of extraneous events that influence your opinions of him. Since this is a civil complaint and the rules of evidence are different, there could be some potential to influence a trial court by exposing Dobry's other idiotic activities. However, an appeals court would not be swayed by those factors, and would not support Elgindy's position. If someone is going to deliver a KO punch to Dobry, it's going to take a stronger case than Elgindy's, in my opinion.