70 replies to this topic

[Defiance]

Salli, on 04 December 2011 - 11:11 PM, said:

Writing or typing on a computer results in the same thing which is an image of words on a website, blog, message board etc.

Writing results in written words on a piece of paper. Writing does not result in words on a website. How does the writing get transfered to said website if not through typing? One can not write with a pen on their keyboard... they must input letters through the act of typing.

Bottom line, writing and typing are different actions with different results.

The whole thing is moot since I made no false statements. Mr. Marsden is not an accomplished musician and he is not the child of a Rock star.... and 'Maggie McGill' is not about Cliff!

Quote

1. Defamation: An unprivileged false statement of fact which tends to harm the reputation of a person or company. This is a catch-all term for both libel and slander.
2. Libel: Defamation which is written such as on a web site. Most on-line defamation occurs through libel by posting a web page, comment, bulletin board post, review, rating or blog post.
3. Slander: Defamation that is spoken such as through an transcribed video, podcast or audio file.

I assume this argument is no longer about Cliff and is simply regarding Politics.

I notice that the definition of libel, which you posted, does not include a Doors message board amoung its parameters. This site is not a blog, and it is not a bulletin board.

That however brings us back to the fact that this electronic Doors message board is not in public as a physical bulletin board at a university would be.

I am not saying that websites don't have writing on them, as I am sure plenty of them do. What I am saying is that posts here on this board are not considered to be 'writings'. Rather, the posts here are 'spoken', but without the fake vocal affect that Cliff puts on when he does his 'interviews'. A false post here would be slander, not libel (since it is not in print).

In closing, I would argue that typing does not necessarily create 'an image of words' as you allude to above. It is the encoded message which the words convey which actually creates the image.

You are not looking at a picture right now, you are listening to me (or at least I hope you are).

Edited by Defiance, 05 December 2011 - 06:36 AM.

[crazyhorse80]

Defiance, on 05 December 2011 - 06:32 AM, said:

Bottom line, writing and typing are different actions with different results.

Huh. So all this time I've been calling Hemingway, Hunter S. Thompson and the like "writers" when I should have been calling them "typists?" You know, because they used typewriters to type their manuscripts and didn't actually write with pens. You can call them authors, but author is a vague term that is defined as "the person who originates or gives existence to anything and that authorship determines responsibility for what is created," so I guess that wouldn't be accurate to call them either because it is not specific. Thank you Defiance for informing me on the proper way to refer to "typists" from now on. Damn, learn something new everyday...

Oh yeah, there's this too:

California Court Rules Internet Message Board a Public Forum

[Dawn Visitation]

Laws differ from state to state, country to country. When will though these laws matter for ordinary people? For most it likely never will.

I have learned something of value too: Salli being only off topic so far and not once presenting anything about Cliff (on topic).

[Defiance]

crazyhorse80, on 05 December 2011 - 05:27 PM, said:

Huh. So all this time I've been calling Hemingway, Hunter S. Thompson and the like "writers" when I should have been calling them "typists?" You know, because they used typewriters to type their manuscripts and didn't actually write with pens. You can call them authors, but author is a vague term that is defined as "the person who originates or gives existence to anything and that authorship determines responsibility for what is created," so I guess that wouldn't be accurate to call them either because it is not specific. Thank you Defiance for informing me on the proper way to refer to "typists" from now on. Damn, learn something new everyday...

Oh yeah, there's this too:

California Court Rules Internet Message Board a Public Forum

If the act of typing is done with the intention of creating a publishable manuscript, treatment, screenplay, book, pamplet, etc..., then said typing can be considered to be 'writing'.

However, if the act of typing is done strictly for the purpose of filling in form information (like one would do in the military), then the act of typing does not result in writing, but rather results in typed information.

So, no, Hunter S. Thompson was not a typist, he was a writer. A typist is someone who types without the purpose of writing.

Of course you have to use your brain and realize that 'writing' can refer on one hand to someone creating a book while using a keyboard, and on the other hand to someone physically drawing words with a pen on a piece of paper.

As for the California courts, you must keep in mind that they also said it was o.k. for two people of the same sex to marry each other.

This ruling was made by a gay judge who went against the will of the people and thus struck down Prop. 8 which is commonly known as the Protection of Marriage Act and was passed by the people as a way of officially defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.

The text in the article you cited is curious though and seems to actually support my argument.

Quote

There had been some 20,685 postings regarding NTS’s share values and the qualifications of its officers on the message board, which satisfied the traditional definition of a public forum. The Court also found that the postings were made “in connection with an issue of public interest,” because the management practices of a publicly traded company and its president are a matter of public interest to existing and potential shareholders, affecting the markets as a whole. The fact that respondent Lin is not a public figure has no bearing on the scope of anti-SLAPP suit, it notes, since the section 425.16 applies to any person or entity that brings a lawsuit to chill the exercise of First Amendment rights. Furthermore, the Court concluded that the respondents cannot prevail upon the merits of their lawsuit, as they failed to plead the defamation case with the required particularity. They merely alleged that some postings were libelous, without quoting a single defamatory statement in their complaint, and failed to demonstrate why the appellant’s statements are not protected opinion. The trial court was directed to enter a new order granting the special motion to strike.

My pointing out that Cliff is not related to Jim is not done in the interest of the public. Rather, it is done for private interest, namely the memory of Jim Morrion which Cliff and others are trying to tarnish by implying that Morrison had a child who turned into a failure and was unable to create music of a high order, which obviously one of Jim's real children would be able to easily do.

Next, like the complaintant in the referrenced lawsuit, Salli and Miz have not cited even one alleged 'slanderous' statement.... they are just merely hinting with a vaugeness about something I said.

As your article states though, in order for me to make a 'slanderous' statement, I must first be recognized as a qualified expert of music.

You can't have it both ways. Either I am an expert and made a slanderous statement, or I did not make a slanderous statement at all. Of course I prefer to go with 'the expert who made no slanderous statement'.

Edited by Defiance, 05 December 2011 - 09:47 PM.

[mizscarlett43]

Slander is spoken, Libel is written, and in future it would be wise to remember that one can't be sued for one's opinion as long as it is clearly stated as such.

OTOH flat declarations of "fact" which are provably false are quite actionable.

Edited by mizscarlett43, 06 December 2011 - 11:24 PM.

[Defiance]

mizscarlett43, on 06 December 2011 - 10:42 PM, said:

Slander is spoken, Libel is written, and in future it would be wise to remember that one can't be sued for one's opinion as long as it is clearly stated as such.

OTOH flat declarations of "fact" which are provably false are quite actionable.

Yes, you are correct. Slander is spoken, Libel is written. However, what is done here on this Doors message board is not 'written', it is spoken.
I am speaking to you; I am not writing to you. Regardless, I am speaking the truth and therefore not subject to action.

These aren't opinions. Music is music. When failure happens, then failure happens. Cliff failed in his attempt to make Morrison-esque music. A person who was actually the offspring of Morrison would make this 'Morrison-esque' type of music with relative ease and it would be obvious on first listen, not to mention it would be critically aclaimed. It may be a stretch to say, but he or she would be singing with The Doors today if such a person existed. The fact that The Doors have not invited Cliff to sing with them says a whole heck of a lot.

Fact: Jim Morrison had no children.

Whether it was from a naturally low sperm count or achieved by other methods, that is debatable.

Fact: Jim Morrison was not married.

You can't prove anything false...otherwise you would do so. There was no matching DNA test. Cliff is not the son of Jim.

The ball is in your court. 1992 nothing.

Edited by Defiance, 07 December 2011 - 12:47 AM.

[mizscarlett43]

Defiance, on 07 December 2011 - 12:44 AM, said:

Fact: Jim Morrison had no children..

You can't prove anything false...o

Fact: Jim fathered several children he knew about and told friends about, as has been discussed in several previous threads. Whether Cliff was one of the children Jim knew about has never been established.
Fact: I don't have to prove a damned thing. It's your sorry azz that's going to be on the line if Cliff--or more likely his mother, whom you've also libeled--gets wind of your BS and decides to take action.
That's not very likely of course, since you're simply a sad little troll on a message board, but should she decide to file suit--
Fact: The Doors Organization itself would be named as co-defendant since they've provided the forum for you to spew your endless--and in this case clearly libelous--lunacy.

Have a nice day.

[Dawn Visitation]

I think the whole subject Cliff does not even belong on The Doors board and especially in a forum related to The Doors. It's only his claim that connects him to this site (The Doors) just like it connects him to Jim Morrison. Whole thing is absurd and on purpose too, to play with people's minds and create this charade based on claims. Doubt that the public or any Doors fan owns them anything for it.

[Hamlet]

mizscarlett43, on 07 December 2011 - 01:38 AM, said:

Fact: Jim fathered several children he knew about and told friends about, as has been discussed in several previous threads. Whether Cliff was one of the children Jim knew about has never been established.
Fact: I don't have to prove a damned thing. It's your sorry azz that's going to be on the line if Cliff--or more likely his mother, whom you've also libeled--gets wind of your BS and decides to take action.
That's not very likely of course, since you're simply a sad little troll on a message board, but should she decide to file suit--
Fact: The Doors Organization itself would be named as co-defendant since they've provided the forum for you to spew your endless--and in this case clearly libelous--lunacy.

Have a nice day.

Libel and slander has nothing to do if it is written on a message board, written in a stone, written in a newspaper, written in smoke in the sky, etcc. Nor has it to do if it is done oral in any way, drawn, or in pictures.

It has to do if the injured party feels he or she has been slandered. Then it can be taken to court. And indeed if the court feels there is sufficient evidence to convict, a conviction will be made.

Message boards are old school in this regard, which is also why The Doors altered the rules of the message boards, years ago.

[Defiance]

mizscarlett43, on 07 December 2011 - 01:38 AM, said:

Fact: Jim fathered several children he knew about and told friends about, as has been discussed in several previous threads. Whether Cliff was one of the children Jim knew about has never been established.
Fact: I don't have to prove a damned thing. It's your sorry azz that's going to be on the line if Cliff--or more likely his mother, whom you've also libeled--gets wind of your BS and decides to take action.
That's not very likely of course, since you're simply a sad little troll on a message board, but should she decide to file suit--
Fact: The Doors Organization itself would be named as co-defendant since they've provided the forum for you to spew your endless--and in this case clearly libelous--lunacy.

Have a nice day.

In nature, biology (controlled by God) causes an offspring of a male to 'look like' its father so that the father will know for sure that the kid is his and not have any doubt as to his new 'fatherhood' status. The reason this is done is because after the man first has sex with the woman, he leaves and does not stay to watch over the woman. During the time that the man is away, the woman {groupie} can/does have sex with a dozen other men.

When the man returns and sees that a baby has been born, he has to know the child is his so that he can feel right in giving his protection to it and to the mother. If the child does not 'look like' the father (i.e. inherit his features), then he can sure that the child belongs to another man who may have visited when he [in this case, Jim] was gone.

Actually, you do have to prove a damned thing since you just made a strong accusation in the sentence, "you to spew your endless--and in this case clearly libelous--lunacy."

The fact is that you have just slandered me.... without proof, I must add.

I don't know anything about Cliff's mother except what you and his producer have said, that she fed Cliff this lie about Jim Morrison being his dad. He needs to just get over it and accept that he will never know his real father. Whether it is because his mother doesn't want to tell him the truth, or because she indeed 'lost track', it doesn't really matter to us.

In closing, Cliff is not Jim's son based on his non-matching looks. Furthermore, the voice does not match Jim's.

All a court has to do is play Doors music, then play Cliff's stuff, and they will all have a laugh and throw out any motion to proceed. That is literally as far as it will get.

[crazyhorse80]

Defiance, on 05 December 2011 - 06:32 AM, said:

That however brings us back to the fact that this electronic Doors message board is not in public as a physical bulletin board at a university would be.

Really? The article titled "California Court Rules Internet Message Board a Public Forum" supports your argument that this isn't a public forum? Interesting. And yes, that was a brilliant observation in stating that filling out military forms is "typing," as I would agree that filling out job applications, tax forms and the like also typing. But anytime a person forms words into constructive sentences in the written form no matter the medium--ink, typewriter, laptop, etc.--it is writing, and anytime you hit "add reply" on this forum, you are publishing your writing to this forum. All of this unintelligible babble baffles and entertains at the same time to the point you wonder if this person actually believes anything he is writing.

And the biggest kick I get is how this person thinks he knows everything and that all of his opinions are "facts." It's his opinion that Cliff's musical career was a failure and his music is not to his liking, and that he doesn't look like Jim or is as talented as Jim so there's no way he's Jim son. Personally, I could really care less if Cliff is Jim's son or not, but I find it interesting how this Jeremy character states everyone who says they think or know or have heard that Cliff is Jim's son is lying because they have no proof, yet he also has no definitive proof that Cliff is not Jim's son, yet adamantly claims he knows he is right. I mean obviously, Cliff's music isn't in the same league as The Doors and the court will laugh at Cliff when they compare their music apparently. So by Jeremy's logic, Jakob Dylan can't be Bob Dylan's son and Julian Lennon can't be John Lennon's son--you know, because their music isn't as good as their father's.

Also, I've seen several posts where Jeremy states he knows what Jim was thinking when he was creating music and knows that Jim would think this or that about a particular situation or circumstance, which implies that Jeremy thinks he is somehow the kindred spirit of Jim, which is funny, because that's the same thing he's been criticizing Cliff about for quite awhile now.

Let hilarity ensue...

[Dawn Visitation]

Where's (an objective) lawyer when we need one. I'll add my two cents.

Miz brought up how The Doors board could be held accountable or something. I found this though:

Quote

Question: Can an ISP or the host of the message board or chat room be held liable for
defamatory of libelous statements made by others on the message board?

Answer: Not in the United States. Under 47 U.S.C. sec. 230©(1) (CDA Sec. 230): "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." This provision has been uniformly interpreted by the Courts to provide complete protection against defamation or libel claims made against an ISP, message board or chat room where the statements are made by third parties. Note that this immunity does not extend to claims made under intellectual property laws.


Question: Must an ISP or message board host delete postings that someone tells him/her are defamatory? Can the ISP or message board delete postings in response to a request from a third party?

Answer: No, they are not required to delete. 47 U.S.C. sec. 230 gives most ISPs and message board hosts the discretion to keep postings or delete them, whichever they prefer, in response to claims by others that a posting is defamatory or libelous. Most ISPs and message board hosts also post terms of service that give them the right to delete or not delete messages as they see fit and such terms have generally been held to be enforceable under law.

There's also this 2nd one. Makes me think how no one at this point has knowledge of Cliff's DNA (the results) so how is someone to have knowledge of falsity? No one is disregarding the truth because to begin "regarding the truth" does it not require to be able to do one's research? In this case because it all has to do with DNA there's zero possibility for an outsider and it's only really up to Cliff to offer proof, knowledge etc.

Quote

Question: Is there a difference between reporting on public and private figures?

A public figure must show "actual malice" ? that you published with either knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth. This is a difficult standard for a plaintiff to meet.

Source: http://www.chillinge...amation/faq.cgi

Edited by Dawn Visitation, 07 December 2011 - 04:33 PM.

[Defiance]

crazyhorse80, on 07 December 2011 - 04:18 PM, said:

Really? The article titled "California Court Rules Internet Message Board a Public Forum" supports your argument that this isn't a public forum? Interesting. And yes, that was a brilliant observation in stating that filling out military forms is "typing," as I would agree that filling out job applications, tax forms and the like also typing. But anytime a person forms words into constructive sentences in the written form no matter the medium--ink, typewriter, laptop, etc.--it is writing, and anytime you hit "add reply" on this forum, you are publishing your writing to this forum. All of this unintelligible babble baffles and entertains at the same time to the point you wonder if this person actually believes anything he is writing.

And the biggest kick I get is how this person thinks he knows everything and that all of his opinions are "facts." It's his opinion that Cliff's musical career was a failure and his music is not to his liking, and that he doesn't look like Jim or is as talented as Jim so there's no way he's Jim son. Personally, I could really care less if Cliff is Jim's son or not, but I find it interesting how this Jeremy character states everyone who says they think or know or have heard that Cliff is Jim's son is lying because they have no proof, yet he also has no definitive proof that Cliff is not Jim's son, yet adamantly claims he knows he is right. I mean obviously, Cliff's music isn't in the same league as The Doors and the court will laugh at Cliff when they compare their music apparently. So by Jeremy's logic, Jakob Dylan can't be Bob Dylan's son and Julian Lennon can't be John Lennon's son--you know, because their music isn't as good as their father's.

Also, I've seen several posts where Jeremy states he knows what Jim was thinking when he was creating music and knows that Jim would think this or that about a particular situation or circumstance, which implies that Jeremy thinks he is somehow the kindred spirit of Jim, which is funny, because that's the same thing he's been criticizing Cliff about for quite awhile now.

Let hilarity ensue...

As we know, you twist all my words.

1. I never said that your article supports my argument that this isn't a public forum. Miz said that this wasn't a private forum and I responded that one does need to navigate to it. A hidden forum perhaps.

Also, I never said this wasn't a public forum. Dude. What I said, and please pay attention, was that this isn't 'in public' as a freeway billboard is.

I said that the line from your article, "The Court also found that the postings were made “in connection with an issue of public interest,” supports my argument that Cliff pretending to be Jim's son is not an issue of public interest, but rather, finding a way to stop him is a private interest in the name of Jim Morrison's memory. To allow this person to remain as 'Cliff Morrison' is to insinuate that there was something wrong with Jim's sperm (i.e. that it produced something below standard).

I wasn't really pointing out that filling in forms was typing. We were talking about 'typists' in particular. I pointed out how there is a position in the military called a 'typist'. His or her job is to fill in forms. I was merely showing how Hunter S. Thompson was not a 'typist', but rather that he was indeed a writer regardless of whether he used a pen or a type-writer. I wasn't referring to someone filling out forms in order to join the military. I can totally see how you are confused though.

I never said that Cliff wasn't in the 'same league' as The Doors. Way to follow along. What I was pointing out was that Cliff did not share any vocal characteristics with Jim Morrison and therefore is not his son. A real son of Jim would actually sound like Jim.

Jakob Dylan and Jullian Lennon sound like Bob Dylan and John Lennon, respectively.

Of course their music is not as good as that music of their fathers, but that isn't the point. The point is that we know they are related to the two men based on their voices.

What I know about Jim is that his music came from God. All one needs to know is God. Seek Jesus and you too will know Jim.

I never said I did not like Cliff's 'music'. I don't care one way or the other. It is what it is. It isn't Morrison-esque though. That is a solid determination with no opinion involved.

Regardless of the person observing, Cliff doesn't look like Jim. Period. There is no perspective. If someone thinks that he looks like Jim, then said person is delusional.

I never said anyone who believed Cliff was somehow lying. They are simply gullible.

You like to put a lot of words into my mouth.

On a final note, it would be a lot less absurd if Cliff was claiming that he was the so-called 'kindred spirit' instead of the son of Jim Morrison.

Edited by Defiance, 07 December 2011 - 07:00 PM.

[mizscarlett43]

Defiance, on 07 December 2011 - 05:13 PM, said:

My apologies to the Doors' board in general and to Cliff Morrison in particular for my ill-advised posts on the subject of Jim's son (and everything else). My doctors have changed my medications and I'm feeling much better already. Hope you'll all allow me to make amends!


      Jeremy the (now reformed) Troll

Apologies happily accepted, Jeremy. Hope you're feeling better.

[crazyhorse80]

Defiance, on 07 December 2011 - 05:13 PM, said:

As we know, you twist all my words.

1. I never said that your article supports my argument that this isn't a public forum. Miz said that this wasn't a private forum and I responded that one does need to navigate to it. A hidden forum perhaps.

Also, I never said this wasn't a public forum. Dude. What I said, and please pay attention, was that this isn't 'in public' as a freeway billboard is.

I said that the line from your article, "The Court also found that the postings were made “in connection with an issue of public interest,” supports my argument that Cliff pretending to be Jim's son is not an issue of public interest, but rather, finding a way to stop him is a private interest in the name of Jim Morrison's memory. To allow this person to remain as 'Cliff Morrison' is to insinuate that there was something wrong with Jim's sperm (i.e. that it produced something below standard).

I wasn't really pointing out that filling in forms was typing. We were talking about 'typists' in particular. I pointed out how there is a position in the military called a 'typist'. His or her job is to fill in forms. I was merely showing how Hunter S. Thompson was not a 'typist', but rather that he was indeed a writer regardless of whether he used a pen or a type-writer. I wasn't referring to someone filling out forms in order to join the military. I can totally see how you are confused though.

I never said that Cliff wasn't in the 'same league' as The Doors. Way to follow along. What I was pointing out was that Cliff did not share any vocal characteristics with Jim Morrison and therefore is not his son. A real son of Jim would actually sound like Jim.

Jakob Dylan and Jullian Lennon sound like Bob Dylan and John Lennon, respectively.

Of course their music is not as good as that music of their fathers, but that isn't the point. The point is that we know they are related to the two men based on their voices.

What I know about Jim is that his music came from God. All one needs to know is God. Seek Jesus and you too will know Jim.

I never said I did not like Cliff's 'music'. I don't care one way or the other. It is what it is. It isn't Morrison-esque though. That is a solid determination with no opinion involved.

Regardless of the person observing, Cliff doesn't look like Jim. Period. There is no perspective. If someone thinks that he looks like Jim, then said person is delusional.

I never said anyone who believed Cliff was somehow lying. They are simply gullible.

You like to put a lot of words into my mouth.

On a final note, it would be a lot less absurd if Cliff was claiming that he was the so-called 'kindred spirit' instead of the son of Jim Morrison.

I think the only one twisting your words is yourself, as in contradicting everything you write to try to retract yourself whenever anyone proves you wrong, which is quite often. You claimed this is a private forum, which would obviously mean that you believe this is not a public forum. But now all of a sudden it's a "hidden" forum? And this is just as much "in public" as is a freeway billboard, as if you have no car or do not know anyone who has a car, you will not see the billboard, just as if you don't have Internet access, you will not be able to see this forum. And because of the fact that the entire world can read this forum, as opposed to the residential population that will see a given freeway billboard, or the handful of a students that attend a University to see a bulletin board at a college, this forum has far more visibility and thus, is far more outreaching in the interest of "public."

And from what it seems, you're the only one here not confused by what you write. You claimed that we are not writing because we are using a keypad to write what we say on here, and that we're not writing because we are not using pens to perform the act of writing. I merely stated by your logic, that you must think Hunter S. Thompson is a "typist" and not a "writer" because he used a typewriter to complete his manuscripts. Yes, to a person with normal logic, typists are considered typists, just as authors are considered writers. But your logic suggested otherwise.

And I never said you said that Cliff's music is in the same league as The Doors. I said by your logic, once again, that Cliff could not be Jim's son because his music isn't in the same league as The Doors. These are your words:

Defiance, on 07 December 2011 - 12:44 AM, said:

These aren't opinions. Music is music. When failure happens, then failure happens. Cliff failed in his attempt to make Morrison-esque music. A person who was actually the offspring of Morrison would make this 'Morrison-esque' type of music with relative ease and it would be obvious on first listen, not to mention it would be critically aclaimed. It may be a stretch to say, but he or she would be singing with The Doors today if such a person existed. The fact that The Doors have not invited Cliff to sing with them says a whole heck of a lot.

That's why I said that Jakob or Julian must not be the sons of Bob and John, respectively, because you would know upon first listen that they must not be their offspring because their music is not critically acclaimed like their father's, and so on and so forth, and they must be their offspring because their voices sound alike. That Asian guy that's singing for Journey now must potentially be Steve Perry's son because he sounds a lot like him, right? Because, you know, you have to sound just like you're parents in order to be one's offspring--which makes me wonder, Jim's father, The Admiral, must have been one hell of a singer and passed his voice onto Jim. I would love to hear a bootleg copy of him singing "Five to One." And I'm not putting words into your mouth, you said Cliff is not Jim's son on numerous occasions. Here's one:

Defiance, on 07 December 2011 - 12:44 AM, said:

Fact: Jim Morrison had no children.

If you believe that, without presenting any evidence or knowing for a fact, you're just as gullible as them. But with you stating that Jim's music came from God, it's fairly obviously to assume that all of your statements come from  belief, and not any factual evidence.

And why would we need to seek Jesus to know Jim when Jim didn't need to seek Jesus to find himself? I think you're confusing Morrison with Mel Gibson.

And I think I'm done entertaining myself on this topic, starting to get bored debating cretin-like observations...

[Dawn Visitation]

Always liked to see C.G. Jung express in an interview "I don't need to believe, I know" and with a smile.

Edited by Dawn Visitation, 07 December 2011 - 11:38 PM.

[Defiance]

crazyhorse80, on 07 December 2011 - 10:30 PM, said:

I think the only one twisting your words is yourself, as in contradicting everything you write to try to retract yourself whenever anyone proves you wrong, which is quite often. You claimed this is a private forum, which would obviously mean that you believe this is not a public forum. But now all of a sudden it's a "hidden" forum? And this is just as much "in public" as is a freeway billboard, as if you have no car or do not know anyone who has a car, you will not see the billboard, just as if you don't have Internet access, you will not be able to see this forum. And because of the fact that the entire world can read this forum, as opposed to the residential population that will see a given freeway billboard, or the handful of a students that attend a University to see a bulletin board at a college, this forum has far more visibility and thus, is far more outreaching in the interest of "public."

And from what it seems, you're the only one here not confused by what you write. You claimed that we are not writing because we are using a keypad to write what we say on here, and that we're not writing because we are not using pens to perform the act of writing. I merely stated by your logic, that you must think Hunter S. Thompson is a "typist" and not a "writer" because he used a typewriter to complete his manuscripts. Yes, to a person with normal logic, typists are considered typists, just as authors are considered writers. But your logic suggested otherwise.

And I never said you said that Cliff's music is in the same league as The Doors. I said by your logic, once again, that Cliff could not be Jim's son because his music isn't in the same league as The Doors. These are your words:

That's why I said that Jakob or Julian must not be the sons of Bob and John, respectively, because you would know upon first listen that they must not be their offspring because their music is not critically acclaimed like their father's, and so on and so forth, and they must be their offspring because their voices sound alike. That Asian guy that's singing for Journey now must potentially be Steve Perry's son because he sounds a lot like him, right? Because, you know, you have to sound just like you're parents in order to be one's offspring--which makes me wonder, Jim's father, The Admiral, must have been one hell of a singer and passed his voice onto Jim. I would love to hear a bootleg copy of him singing "Five to One." And I'm not putting words into your mouth, you said Cliff is not Jim's son on numerous occasions. Here's one:

If you believe that, without presenting any evidence or knowing for a fact, you're just as gullible as them. But with you stating that Jim's music came from God, it's fairly obviously to assume that all of your statements come from  belief, and not any factual evidence.

And why would we need to seek Jesus to know Jim when Jim didn't need to seek Jesus to find himself? I think you're confusing Morrison with Mel Gibson.

And I think I'm done entertaining myself on this topic, starting to get bored debating cretin-like observations...

No one proved me wrong on anything.

I never mentioned the term 'private forum' nor did I ever say that this was one. You are making things up. For the second time, Miz was the one who mentioned a supposed 'private forum'. I had never heard that term until she said it. There is a difference between 'in public' and a public internet forum. It is accesible to the public in the sense that if one chooses to seek it out, then they are free to do so. In the other sense, it is not 'in public' since it is online and one must choose to view it.

What I claimed was that we are not writing because this stuff is not being published in a book. The reply button is not a self-publish button except maybe in the poetry forum.

My logic stated that Hunter S. Thompson was indeed a writer because he was creating books/scripts when he formed sentences and paragraphs, regardless of how he made the words appear on the page. People on a Doors board are just talking though, but using a typewriter to speak.

Not everyone who types is a typist since a 'typist' is a position in the military, as I pointed out.

Jim created his own voice with the help of God and by taking it from Black people. His father was not a singer, so obviously he wouldn't sound like the admiral.

Btw, Jakob Dylan is critically aclaimed. He had the album and song of the year in 1998. The Wallflowers were the biggest band that year.

I wouldn't know anything about Journey, but I can assume that this new singer is doing an immitation of the original singer. Lots of people immitate Jim Morrison.... that's nothing new. However, if you don't sound anything like Morrison, then you can not call yourself his child.

Let's be clear, I only said that by listening to The Doors and then to Cliff, one would be able to tell that the singers present were not related. The point wasn't to recognize that Cliff could not be critically acclaimed through some type of comparison to The Doors. The Doors don't have anything to do with this. I merely stated that it is surprising that The Doors would not want to get Cliff to sing for them if he really is Jim's kid.

Of course Cliff is not Jim's son. There is no proof he is... there is no DNA comparison. It is not up to me to disprove his claims. What about all the other thousands of fatherless children in the world? Should you have to offer proof that they are not your children? The answer is no. By the same measure, I don't have to offer proof that Cliff is not Jim's son.

One can not be gullible to what one's own self has said. I know for a fact what is true and it comes from within. I don't need anyone to tell me that Cliff is not Jim's son since it is sort of implied through the lack of vocal-similarity and lack of physical resemblance. Remember the biological rule that offspring must look like the father?

I can see the freeway from my backyard. People can see the freeway while walking on the sidewalk.

Jim sought Jesus; how else would he have gotten all those songs in his head?

Edited by Defiance, 08 December 2011 - 06:01 AM.

[*~adrienne~*]

Why is it so hard to believe Jim had a son? If you HEARD Cliff play you'd know he was Jim's son. Anyway it's unfortunate he's spending all that time in jail.

On a different note...just another dark witness...I remember fighting w/you about a nude pic  you bought of jim & pam saying it was unethical...so sorry about that...anyway do you still have it? If so...how did you acquire it? And what is your claim to fame again? You're in a band? Right? I forgot.

[GG Morrison]

*~adrienne~*, on 18 April 2012 - 11:09 AM, said:

Why is it so hard to believe Jim had a son? If you HEARD Cliff play you'd know he was Jim's son. Anyway it's unfortunate he's spending all that time in jail.

On a different note...just another dark witness...I remember fighting w/you about a nude pic  you bought of jim & pam saying it was unethical...so sorry about that...anyway do you still have it? If so...how did you acquire it? And what is your claim to fame again? You're in a band? Right? I forgot.

Yes, and he's pretty good, too. (Still jonesing for a peek, lol!)  

[Just Another Dark Witness]

Defiance, on 07 December 2011 - 03:03 PM, said:

In nature, biology (controlled by God) causes an offspring of a male to 'look like' its father so that the father will know for sure that the kid is his and not have any doubt as to his new 'fatherhood' status. The reason this is done is because after the man first has sex with the woman, he leaves and does not stay to watch over the woman. During the time that the man is away, the woman {groupie} can/does have sex with a dozen other men.

When the man returns and sees that a baby has been born, he has to know the child is his so that he can feel right in giving his protection to it and to the mother. If the child does not 'look like' the father (i.e. inherit his features), then he can sure that the child belongs to another man who may have visited when he [in this case, Jim] was gone.

Actually, you do have to prove a damned thing since you just made a strong accusation in the sentence, "you to spew your endless--and in this case clearly libelous--lunacy."

The fact is that you have just slandered me.... without proof, I must add.

I don't know anything about Cliff's mother except what you and his producer have said, that she fed Cliff this lie about Jim Morrison being his dad. He needs to just get over it and accept that he will never know his real father. Whether it is because his mother doesn't want to tell him the truth, or because she indeed 'lost track', it doesn't really matter to us.

In closing, Cliff is not Jim's son based on his non-matching looks. Furthermore, the voice does not match Jim's.

All a court has to do is play Doors music, then play Cliff's stuff, and they will all have a laugh and throw out any motion to proceed. That is literally as far as it will get.

How do you know there is a God controlling biology? How come I don't know that? I'm smart and have common sense, but I don't know what you know. Why is that? Maybe I'm an idiot. I just can't decide....

Edited by Just Another Dark Witness, 18 April 2012 - 09:16 PM.