Friday, January 12, 2007

Timeline of the Tucker

I have been asked to write a timeline of all the interactions and incidents surrounding the Tucker situation. I am worried that too much more on this is going to turn my ego space into a one trick pony, but I do take requests on occasion. The real problem with ponies is that I don't know how to ride ponies and they are enemies of the state.

Between 8 and 9:30 pm on Friday, December 22, 2006: Tucker comes to store, opens account and rents unspecified movie.

Approximately 12:15 am Saturday, December 23, 2006: Chuckles publishes blog about encounter.

Between 6:30 and 8 pm on Friday, January 5, 2007: Tucker enters store, threatens Chuckles, leaves. Chuckles resumes working and tries not to let shit get to him.

Approximately 11:15 pm on Friday, January 5, 2007: Chuckles takes post down from site in order to be a basically nice guy, even though he doesn't like being threatened in his place of business.

Between 12:30 and 1:30 pm on Monday, January 8, 2007: Chuckles receives call that his employment at the unnamed video store has been terminated due to threats of legal action against the store.

Approximately 2:31 pm Monday, January 8, 2007: Chuckles reposts the original offending post, updates it, updates the explanation post, then posts his statement of the entire affair.

Between 7:00 pm and 8:15 pm Monday, January 8, 2007: A man identifying himself as a lawyer for Tucker Carlson enters the video store and asks questions of employee (whom we shall call EmpAlpha) about Chuckles such as Chuckles' full name, blog address, home address, current employer, whether the post was removed, whether the blog was deleted, etc. Chuckles arrives at video store shortly after this person has left.

10:40 pm Monday, January 8, 2007: Chuckles updates the post about the whole thing.

Sometime after 5 pm Wednesday, January 10, 2007: A person enters the store asking an employee (now called EmpBeta) questions about EmpAlpha. It is currently not known whether the questing person on Wednesday was the same as the person on Monday. The questing person on Wednesday did not identify himself as a lawyer for Tucker Carlson so far as Chuckles knows. Chuckles receives word of this incident from EmpAlpha, not EmpBeta. EmpBeta has not read Chuckles' blog, apparently.

Between 2:00 and 2:30 pm Thursday, January 11, 2007: Chuckles gives interview to Washington Post Reliable Source column.

3:14 pm, Thursday, January 11, 2007: Chuckles receives word that Tucker Carlson is denying having a lawyer and Tucker also states that he is not pursuing any action against The Genius.

You all may make your own conclusions from the facts of the situation. Personally, I doubt the person that had been asking questions about me will ever show up again. The simplest answer is that Tucker called the lawyer off as soon as he received a phone call from the Post. It is almost too bad that moron of a lawyer couldn't figure out how to either find me or contact me, even after I posted an email address on this blog. I doubt that guy is worth the money, but what do I know? I am just a member of the peasant class.


Anonymous said...

If the mystery individual in question asked those things, they couldn't have learned the TC situation from your blog because they hadn't read it.

Conclusion: Tucker must be lying, it is the most logical conclusion.

Any mystery individual would have had to actually read your blog to put pieces together to even get to the point of pretending to be associated with TC.

TC lies, QED, Carrot heads!

NotCarrie said...

I think he thought ahead and said, "Tucker vs The Genius" and was like, "oh shit. I'll never win that battle!"

Butchie said...

First, the First Amendment protects satire and parody as a form of free speech.

Second, you wrote nothing libelous.

He is blowing smoke. Fuck him. I would consult a lawyer about filing suit against him (there are be plenty who would be willing to take your case, pro bono, for a chance at a piece of Tucker Carlson.)

Next, go to you former boss and tell him that you will come back to work for him on the condition that he gives you a raise. The amount of this raise will directly affect the amount of damage control that you are willing to do for him, when you are addressing the media, over the next few weeks. Does he want to be on the side of the working man, or paired with a fucking douche bag like Carlson.

Hey, remember this?


Butchie said...

There are be

Anonymous said...

I don't think Butchie has ever posted so much in a comment. He must really like the Genius.

mdhatter said...

I think he heard about what you can do to the, er..., W.C.

think the Post would be willing to encourage T.C. to donate some bills on your behalf? That was a great idea.

mdhatter said...

donate bills to Katrina relief, i mean.

Chuckles said...

I am still working on some leads in this story, but it is mostly likely over.

AnnieAngel said...

Surveillance cameras, Chucks. Most places have them these days. Get the tapes and give them to your lawyer, I hope you have one.

Where are the New York Lawyers when you need them?????

zombie rotten mcdonald said...

Annie picks a slice off The Good Doctor's shelf!!!

Nice one.

Tucker lies. What a surprise!

True story.

Chuckles said...

Yeah, given that I have been banned from the store as of this afternoon, I don't think I will be getting those tapes without a really good lawyer.

plover said...

What is up with this store owner? Has he/she/it/jellyfish even listened to your side?

Also, I'm not sure W.C. means the same thing in this context that it usually does...

E :) said...

I don't know Tucker Carlson from a bag of shit. I'm Australian so I just don't care about whoever he thinks he is. But people like us need to keep standing up to tools like him. What a paranoid freak!

Anonymous said...

is the video store in fact owned by one of tucker carlson's mob buddies?

inquiring minds wish to know!!

and e:) blessed are you for not knowing who this cobagemu is

Anonymous said...

Chuckster, I can't believe I've missed all the fun! I step away for a few days, and I come back to find that you've been tangoing with Tuck! You're famous!

I can't wait for the lifetime movie to come out. It will have a shower scene where you totally break down and slide down the shower wall, crying hysterically. That's the denouement; the next day, you start learning karate. You will never be a victim again. You will be played by Meredith Baxter Birney.

AnnieAngel said...

Get a really good lawyer.

This is insane, Chucks. Don't let this slide, first this cobag gets you fired, now banned from the store??

You did NOTHING wrong. I don't get it at all, but it's WRONG. Just wrong.

You are an AMERICAN. Same as everyone else in this country, with the same rights.

This makes me soooooo mad. Just soooooooooooooooooo mad.

teh l4m3 said...

Ooh, Res! And I can be the plucky, vaguely dykish reporter, played by Martha Plimpton!

Jenny said...

And did the Post ask the bastard why he went to lengths to get you fired? Did they make him admit to being the petty piece of shit that he is?

Anonymous said...

Hey, I'm just a random girl. My buddy Phil is being "auctioned off" with you on the not V-day thing and I was checking out some links to you guys, and I couldn't believe what I found. This particular blog provided me with endless amusement and joy. TC's a d-bag. Keep fighting the good fight. Somebody has to...

Phil's buddy,

Chuckles said...

The word is that I was banned from teh store because a reporter called there and the manager was pretty pissed.

I've got NetFlix, but damn, what did he expect? That no one would call to confirm aspects of the story?

Anonymous said...

I just read about this in the Post. Tucker's a grade-a dick, but I'm also really disappointed in Potomac Video firing you over an obviously frivolous legal threat.

I'd be happy to write an e-mail to the Potomac Video owner (I've been going to their Chevy Chase store for years and love it, it's sad to see them do this) and tell him to hire you back or I'm switching to Netflix.

Also, I'm frankly too lazy to organize this, but if someone (and it probably shouldn't be you) organized a Potomac Video Customer Group to get a petition going and threaten to boycott Potomac Video until they hire you back, I'd be happy to sign it; it might actually get you back there, if you still even want to (they are terrific stores).

Anonymous said...

Sounds lilke someone committed a tort to me.

David said...

I'm here because I read about this on Raw Story. I see that the hits have been declining, but even so, you might consider contact Blogads about putting ads on this blog.

The twit Tucker cost you income. The extra hits you're getting because of him might as well be used to replace some of that income.

Anonymous said...

Screw Tucker Carlson. You did nothing wrong. If he chooses to shop at Safeway and I am a clerk I have every right to talk about it or post it on the Internet. Don't let this pretty boy scare you even if he has an attorney. It is the oldest trick around. Pretend you have an attorney and people will be scared. Screw him.

Stash said...

Tucker Carlson is such a pile of whale dung. His cranial appendage is so far up his anal orifice, he masticates with his belly button.

Paddy said...


A Clerk's Blog Spells Trouble

Anonymous said...

i picked up your story from The Huffington Post. get some ads; make some money; sue old tucker

pop renaissance said...

"He's trying to make it sound like I'm this big, bad guy trying to hurt the video store clerk," he said. "I don't understand why he's hassling me. I just wanted to rent a Woody Allen movie."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! yer HASSLING HIM!!!!! oh the fucking irony!!! all he wanted was a pepsi!!!

the poor celebrity whose fame has just made life so HARD...can bite me.

Anonymous said...

"He implied he was going to come and do something to my house," Carlson said. "I've got four kids at home and I've had serious problems with stalkers twice. . . . This guy is threatening to come to my house and I'm on the road all the time. What would you do? This guy is threatening my family."

Um...and he waved a gun around! Yeah, that's it! He also elbowed me in the nose! Then he grabbed me in the junk and swung me around while screaming "I'm Thor! I'm Thor!" And he threatened to blow up my old elementary school!


Anonymous said...

I wish reporters ould be tougher sometimes, in a totally pro-chuckles article, they leave a Tucker lie right there on the table, as well as not asking the follow-up "nowhere on the blog did it say chuckles was coming to your house. Can you tell us where you got this idea? Can you explain why the video store manager claims he was contacted by your representatives regarding this matter? Did you or anyone you know have any contact with other employees or management of the video store?"

AnnieAngel said...

Tucker libelled Chuckles in the Post.


mdhatter said...

Tucker is - almost literally - fighting with Randall from "Clerks" at this point.

Chuckles. This is hillarious. Do whatever is neccesary to keep this entertaining.

Anonymous said...

I love the non-denial denial- it couldn't have been his lawyer, because he doesn't have one!

Well, Tucker, was it someone else?

And could you please explicitly state for the record, self-righteous chunderwagon, where your family was threatened, and where your home was invaded?

You can't. Just admit you overreacted and it is over, Tucker. Either Chuckles is threatening or his blog is- you initially attacked the blog when you confronted Chuck, then you went after Chuck. Neither of these things indicates how you could possibly be protecting your family or that you have a coherent view of why you were even mad in the first place.

If you felt threatened by Chuck, then his post should be of no consequence, and would not matter if he took it down or not. This says you were bothered by the blog, and the blog is not gonna harm your family, unless you view the blog as conduit for others harming your family. But then this would be a nebulous future threat, on that would not have to do with Chuckles, not require you to specific deal with Chuckles beyond his blog.

And the post is still up, so either you admit Chuckles is NOT a threat, or you should be actively campaigning for it to be taken down. You don't have a logical postage stamp to stand on, Tucker, so take your ball and go home.

mdhatter said...

Front page at the Huffington Post too. I guess bad news travels fast.

BlueKat said...

Chuckes! You haven't gotten an attorney yet? WHY NOT?? This has national attention now. Don't worry about the money. Any attorney worth spit is salivating at the thought of representing you. Call your state bar association and ask for a referral first thing Monday morning. Do I have to come up there?

BlueKat said...

You have been libeled in the national media by a famous media personality. He has claimed that you have threatened him and his family and are harrassing him which are baseless accusations and admitted that he agressively confronted you in your place of business resulting in your loss of income. I'm no lawyer, but if you don't have a case against him, I'm moving to Sweden.

Plus, I don't think the video store can legally ban you from a place of business opened to the public unless you've made threats against them. Smacks of discrimination to me. Screw the blogads, you could end up wealthy the American way, by lawsuit.

Mr. 618 said...

Had a nice comment all written, telling you to hang in there.

Then this rassafrassin' Blogger ate it.

Anyway, the First Amendment may be dead and gone, along with all the other things that made America great, but know that there are lots who support you.

Anonymous said...


You have a case on a potential libel suit since Tucker did say that you threatened his family, which you never did. You did, however, silly as it may be since it was sending boos, threaten his home.

Now, everyone is saying "first amendment!". And, I must tell everyone "WRONG". Here is why: you were fired from a private business. First amendment really applies to government and not private business.

You cannot argue wrongful termination because I am sure many individuals including lawyers and judges will find what you did was unprofessional. You violated a customer's privacy. Granted this is a video store, but if you did this in say the medical industry you would be hanging in the village square by now.

Now that you have brought this to the media and the name of the video store is out. I would say that your chances of "media pressure" getting your job back are not as good as people here keep saying. You now have exposed them as a company in which their employees post the names of customers that visit. If you had said, "a bow-tie wearing pundit" you might have gotten off, but you didn't.

So, in conclusion. You made a stupid mistake. Tucker is a lying prick. You are screwed. Many of your commentiers are a little over zealous about your case.

Anonymous said...

It will have a shower scene where you totally break down and slide down the shower wall, crying hysterically.


I'm sorry about all of this for you, Mr. Chuckles. If it's any consolation at all, Teh Tucker is NOT invited into Blue Family's home via tee-vee anymore! Ever! Evah!

He is banned.

Chuckles said...

I'll be honest with everybody. I don't want to sue him. I don't want his money. After Tucker got me fired, I just wanted to make this as public as possible and embarass him. Now, friends of mine have been harassed and are paranoid. I have lost my job, my place to get obscure foreign videos and am generally annoyed with the situation. I would take the original post away if it would remove what had happened to my friends, but it won't.

People blog about running into famous (or psuedo-famous) people all the time or talk to magazines about it. There is a whole genre of magazines devoted to this topic. Until the Post article, I never said waht neighborhood and store I worked in. Tucker was comepletely protected. The video store would likely never have fired me for blogging because they can barely manage to fire people that don't show up for work. It took them two months to fire one kid who would skip at least one shift a week. Then Tucker came along and cried and lied about how he was NOT threatened in my post.

Tucker is another fake libertarian assbag.

pop renaissance said...

"I don't know Tucker Carlson from a bag of shit."

that, my dear, is because they are one and the same.

mdhatter said...

oh rubin, you're just so clever, signing with your real name like that.

One thing I will say for sure. I've read this blog for about 18months, and the WaPo article is where I learned where Chuckles' had worked.

take a moment rubin. read, and learn how wronged this man has been. See what an abuse of power is.

maybe you too will wish to speak truth to it afterwards.

Anonymous said...

In a word - you are a moron.

Secondly, how do we know this even happened? Seems a cheap way to get hits.

In anycase you violated the rules of your employment, thus, on the street you go.

You need a hug or a hobby or something.

Midniter said...

I love the drive by comments from anonymous people.

Anonymous said...

I see by the comment thread that some people don't understand a) what blogs are; b) what irony is, c) what overreaction and abuse of power are, and d) what reading are.

But then again, some people are stupid. Like rubin. And Tucker Carlson.

Anonymous said...

In anycase you violated the rules of your employment, thus, on the street you go.

Chuckles, didn't you read the "no-blogging-about-celebrities-in-your-off-hours" clause in your employment contract?

Anonymous said...

Chuckles- Holy crap! I think you're going to end up with an ambassadorship out of all of this... I'll be begging you to take my cookies! I'll be be saying I knew you when you offered to sleep on my couch!!!

I'd be happy to make you a Tucker Carlson cookie... we can discuss the particulars.

Anonymous said...


I learned of the Carlson debacle this morning in the Style section. I can say without reservation you were one of the more motivated and knowledgeable employees at PV. I would not hesitate to attest to your character or recommend you for any type of work except politics, news media, or any job serving hypersensitive children.

As for PV, they were characteristically cold and short-sighted.
A documented disciplinary warning should have been sufficient to quell their legal terror with minimal damage. Instead I imagine B.F. did what he normally does: he picked up the phone, tried to remember
who he was calling and why, stopped to yell at some kid for bleeding on his lawn, called D.S. and said "He's fired", then returned to
repairing his room-sized stray kitten incinerator.

Anonymous said...

Ummmm...apparently this place is populated by morons.

"I could tell you what he and his ridiculously wasped-out female companion (wife?) rented if you really want to know"

Anyone who has received a GED can see this as a threat...a threat to reveal his renting habits. If Carlson had or wanted to rent anything off-color, he was under threat of public embarrassment/revelation by some low-life douchebag.

"more awesome than frozen urine treats for his home."

Further, the statement above could reasonably be taken as a veiled threat, particularly by someone who has been stalked several times as Carlson claims.

Your employer had every right to terminate your stupid ass. You insinuated you could reveal a customer's address, renting habits, and made a poor joke about delivering frozen urine to his home. If that isn't grounds for termination, I have no idea what is.

Allen said...

Veiled threats? You mean, when Chuckles actively denies that he is going to anything of the sort because it would be wrong of him to do so? I mean come on, I could hack into Tucker Carlson's home computer, implant a trojan horse virus and completely destroy the entire thing, after I have safely taken any revelatory information that I can later use to blackmail his sorry ass. Of course I would never do that, because it would be stupid and wrong, but now Tucker Carlson has to get me fired from my job for saying that, right?

Chuckles, I understand that you don't want to sue, but sometimes things have to be done. If Tucker is allowed to get away with this, he will do it again. You have rights just as much as Tucker Carlson does, and those rights deserve to be respected. If you aren't interested in the money, you can donate it to a good cause, whatever cause you choose. If you don't stand up now, he is just going to do it again and again and again.

Anonymous said...

The "frozen urine" comment could indeed be reasonably interpreted as a veiled threat. You may disagree, but Chuckles himself apparently does not.

Straight from Chuckles:
"I will also admit that the comment about frozen urine treats may have crossed the oh-so-individual line and may have seemed directly threatening"

Secondly, his comments about revealing the rental of habits was NOT a veiled threat. It was a direct threat. It was a threat to reveal federally protected information (google The Video Privacy Protection Act of 1988 if you don't believe me).

If you don't think he was serious about revealing Carlson's rental information, just look at the context.

"I could tell you what he and his ridiculously wasped-out female companion (wife?) rented if you really want to know. I won’t tell you where he lives, though."

He immediately contrasts the rental information with Carlson's address (namely, he states he would be happy to provide the rental information, but won't provide the address).

Chuckles clearly made a direct threat to reveal federally protected information. He SELF-ADMITTEDLY made what could reasonably be interpreted as a veiled threat regarding the frozen urine.

In order for a statement to be libelous, it must be untrue. Carlson correctly has claimed that Chuckles threatened him.

Further, the employer was well within his or her rights to fire this douche. If I owned (or ran) a video store and one of my employees threatened to reveal the rental habits of a customer (federally protected information, no less) I would fire that person without hesitation. The fact that you sue-happy dummies fail to recognize this is a testament to the stupidity that plagues this country.

Allen said...

Chuckles did not threaten to go to Tuckbags home.

However, "keep this shit up or I'll fucking destroy you" is a DIRECT threat, from Tuckbag which he most certainly began to carry out when he got him FIRED, despite the fact that Chuckles removed the post (which he had no reason to do except he was afraid of what Tuckbag might do, since he threatened to "fucking destroy" him and because Chuckles is a decent person).

Frozen urine treats is a JOKE. I didn't see anywhere on this blog anything that would be considered a real threat to Tucker, however I did see that Tucker got Chuckles FIRED because he gets tiny little hard-ons from doing stuff like that.

I bet you are his mother.

Anonymous said...

Wow, you are dumb.

First, please clearly define for me under what grounds Chuckles should be suing Carlson for. Vague talk about how Chuckle's "rights" were violated, don't count BTW.

There seem to be three claims being made here:

1. Carlson libeled Chuckles by claiming there was a threat when there was none.

However, Chuckles clearly threatened to reveal Carlson's rental habits (something that, quite tellingly, you failed to address in your last post). This is federally protected information, as outlined above.

Further, a reasonable inference from the "frozen urine" comment was that this was a veiled threat. Chuckles HIMSELF acknowledges this fact.

The claim of libel is therefore absurd.

2. Because Chuckles was fired, he should be able to sue.

This also is absurd. Chuckle's EMPLOYER made a decision to terminate him (with good cause, in my opinion).

Carlson probably did complain to the management, as he was WELL within his rights to do, given Chuckle's actions. He may have even said "I will destroy you." That is irrelevant, since the EMPLOYER was the one who fired him.

3. Chuckle's first amendment rights are being violated.

The final absurdity. As any reasonably intelligent seventh grader will tell you, the first amendment constrains the governemnt, not private individuals or rental stores.

The sheer stupidity within this comment section blows the mind.

Anonymous said...

Save the Tucker children!

Libertarians until the kiddies come into the picture, you know. Then, freedom of speech goes to... SAVE THE CHILDREN ! Heh, indeed.

Anonymous said...

To Anonymous 535p:

You are as dumb as they come. See point #3 above for an explanation of your stupidity. I'm going to bet it will go over your head.

Anonymous said...

First, please clearly define for me under what grounds Chuckles should be suing Carlson for.

Best sentence ever from someone who is claiming intellectual superiority.

AnnieAngel said...

I wrote nasty stuff about Tucker on my blog. So what? He's a total jerk. Chuckles said his companion was wasped out. So what? There is no grounds to fire him for that, and I mean he had taken it down anyway. I'm glad he put it back up just so you all can see he said NOTHING worng at all, yet you still claim he did? Then you best write to Tucker and tell him to stop the shit he blabs about on his show.

You people really are dumb.

Did he violate any laws??? No. He didn't give ANY information at all.

But Tuckbag libelled Chuckels in the Post when he said that CHuckles threatened to come to his home.

Total lie. And seriously, telling Chuckles he will "fucking desrtoy" him is a MAJOR threat.

Get a clue, get off the glue.

Anonymous said...

OK, let's look at what the law says based on

* A general ban on the disclosure of personally identifiable rental information unless the consumer consents specifically and in writing.
* Disclosure to police officers only with a valid warrant or court order.
* Disclosure of "genre preferences" along with names and addresses for marketing, but allowing customers to opt out.
* Exclusion of evidence acquired in violation of the Act
* Civil remedies, including possible punitive damages and attorneys fees, not less than $2500.
* A requirement that video stores destroy rental records no longer than one year after an account is terminated.
* The VPPA does not preempt state law. That is, states are free to enact broader protections for individuals' records.

Issues remain about the applicability of the Act to other rental records, including DVDs and video games, which are commonly rented by the same stores that rent video cassettes. The plain language of the Act would indicate that it applies broadly to all such records, but no cases have, at this point, interpreted the language.

This is related to a video store. Not a specific employee. However, we'll discuss both matters. At no point did either the video store or Chuckles release Carlson's renting habits. In fact, Carlson outed himself by stating he wanted to rent a Woody Allen Flick. To date, Chuckles has neither confirmed or denied this statement.

With regards to Chuckle's comments on the blog about the woman who he saw with Carlson, it is protected under free speech. What claim does she have other than what? She's a JAP and not a WASP? If the information is correct, Carlson should state so on this blog and Chuckles can amend the statement. After all, it's only slander if it's not true.

Verbal harassment, which is what Carlson did when he told Chuckles to knock the fucking shit off, is an act that can be reported to the police. Does that mean he can sue him? Not specifically. It is however reportable because there was an implicit threat by Carlson to "fucking destroy him." He then proceed to stalk him by sending an agent, who refused to identify himself, to try to obtain Chuckles' personal information. A claim that Carlson does not deny in the Post article.

You people who are on Carlson's side shouldn't quit your day job because you are neither lawyers, nor are you able to read and comprehend Chuckles' posts or the Washington Post articles. If you actually took the time to read and understood what you were reading, you'd note that the issue is that Chuckles admits it was a joke and just an exercise in free speech. Carlson on the other hand states he need to protect his family and does not deny threatening Chuckles or sending someone to try to obtain Chuckles' personal data.

Lastly, Chuckles has stated that he neither plans to sue Carlson or his former employer. So, unless you have something useful to add to this post it adds nothing to this post to address why Chuckles' shouldn't or cannot sue either or both parties.

Good grief!

Anonymous said...

Here's another point I find interesting about Chuckles' story. He likes to portray himself as the victim, going so far as to paint himself as a "nice guy" who was so nice he decided to take the original offending post down.

Ask yourself: which of the following two scenarios is more likely?

1. Chuckles makes his post. Carlson comes in to the store and acts like a dick, telling Chuckles he will "destroy" him. Chuckles is pretty pissed about it (as evidenced by his description of the confrontation).

However, despite how angry Chuckles is, he decides to "kill him with kindness." He decides to take down the post....because he is really that swell.


2. Chuckles realized he could get into deep shit over his post. This very public altercation could even lead him to lose his job. He takes the post down in the hopes that this will prevent that from happening.

Chuckles then gets fired anyway. The second that happens and he has nothing else to lose, he puts the post back up.

Here is a quote from Chuckles after he removed the first post:

"Like I have said before, other than AG baiting with borderline jokes, I am basically a nice guy. I removed the post to show that I am better than the person in question. Should my legal advisors state that I am in no trouble and have no cause for alarm, I will repost it and hopefully all the previous comments will be reinstated."

WOW. Chuckles can't even keep his story straight within a single paragraph. Let's see...I removed the post because I'm so nice, but the second I find out I can't get in any legal trouble, I'm going to put it back up.

Just pathetic.

Anonymous said...


I'm not going to say much to you, seeing as how you didn't really respond to any of the substantive points I made.

1. Chuckles began this whole thing by being a dick and threatening to reveal federally protected information.
2. Chuckles made a lame attempt at a joke which could reasonably be interpreted as a veiled threat to come over to Carlson's house, particularly when Carlson has had stalkers before. Chuckles HIMSELF, while denying that it was an actual threat, admits that this is a reasonable interpretation.

Threatening to reveal information which would lead to the store being civilly liable under federal law certainly is grounds for termination.

To Adorable Girlfriend:

"This is related to a video store. Not a specific employee."

The employee in question (Chuckles) did not violate the law. However, he certainly publicly threatened to do so, which, if he followed through on his threat, would leave his employer liable. The employer was well within his or her rights to terminate Chuckles. He even made an asshole-ish remark about the dude's wife! Although this in and of itself obviously isn't illegal, it is hardly the behavior one wants to see in one's employees. His firing was well justified.

"A claim that Carlson does not deny in the Post article."

From WaPo:
"Carlson said he took no further action and said he couldn't have called his lawyer because he doesn't have one."

Just what the fuck do you call that, moron?

"when he told Chuckles to knock the fucking shit off, is an act that can be reported to the police"

Jesus Christ. Are you fucking kidding me? Chuckles is lucky he didn't get punched in the face, given his dickish behavior. That's certainly what I would have done. Carlson is apparently smarter than that, however, seeing as how as punch would have definitely led to a lawsuit...especially given the pathetic sue-happy crowd that Chuckles apparently runs with.

You are right that Chuckles has stated he won't sue. You see, dearie, that's because he has no case. Everyone else seems to think he should sue though, and those are the mouth breathers to whom I am responding.

Smartypants said...

Soriner. Wow. You seem to have a lot of time on your hands.

Anonymous said...


And I quote:

"I'm in Colorado at a world-famous ski resort.

I don't ski. I'm here on business.

Early on, I was fairly concerned about this trip because of all the recent bad weather in Colorado.

I had good reason to be worried.


I'm here by myself while all my customers are here with their families and friends. Don't feel sorry for me. I made my bed and now I'm lying in it.

My day started yesterday with the alarm going off at 3am so I could make my 6:30am flight. I carefully packed two bags including all the ski clothes/stuff I bought the day before under my brother's guidance. (As in him throwing stuff at me and saying, "you'll need this, this, this, this and this.")

I printed out my boarding pass at home, dropped my bags off with the skycap and went to my gate. I haven't seen those bags in nearly 36 hours. With the exception of my birth control pills, 29 Ambien tablets (yes, I took the first sleeping pill of my life the other night and the doctor gave me 5 !! refills), hand sanitizer, lotion and lip balm, I packed all my other toiletries per the new and improved security rules.

I'm sorry. Did you get that? I PACKED ALL MY OTHER TOILETRIES.

I was warned about the turbulence flying into this little ski town airport but I was still shocked by how much the little regional jet bounced around on the approach. My palms were wet but I pretended to read my book. During our descent, we encountered clouds, clouds, clouds and I'm thinking, "we must be close to the runway." Then, we were circling and bouncing and bumping and circling and, all of a sudden, we shot upward through the clouds and the pilot came back on. "I'm sorry, folks. There's some breaking weather and we're taking you back to Denver."


The earliest they could get me out of Denver was 24 hours later.


I found a bus shuttle through the mountains and booked my reservation for the afternoon. It would take hours but I figured it would be the safe bet. I still had a wait of "no more than two hours" for my bags and I hadn't eaten anything. Nearly 4 hours later and a number of conversations with the airline, my bags and the bags of my fellow flight passengers were no closer to being on the carousel in Denver. I spent nearly 3 hours sitting on the floor of the baggage area in Denver watching a baggage carousel go around and around and around.

Three boys on my flight for a ski trip rented a 4-wheel drive SUV and offered me a ride. The airline baggage rep assured us our bags were already at the ski town airport or would be sent there shortly.

I jumped into an SUV with three strange men and we prayed the passes were still open. The last we heard was "packed snow" in places but we figured we would be ok. One of the guys didn't have a coat. It was packed in his lost baggage. I asked him what he would do if we got stranded and he replied, "I'll slit you open like a tauntaun and wrap myself in your warm corpse."

Now, you have to believe me when I say I know it's crazy to get in a car with three strange men, drive hundreds of miles through the mountains with them in snowy weather and not have proper emergency gear or clothing with us. But. I was desperate. I was supposed to land before 9am and I ended up checking into my hotel well after dark. It was 3 degrees F outside. This was a temperature change of 70 degrees from when I left Texas. I had sort of dressed for this but my shoes were, um, inadequate as were my thin socks. When the boys dropped me off, I misjudged where the entrance to the hotel was and asked them to let me off about 150 meters from the front doors of the hotel. It was a cold, miserable walk.

I'd gotten little sleep all week, work had been more stressful than it'd been in over a year and I had a nice pounding headache when I got to my hotel room. And no luggage.

I did something I don't normally do. I barely opened the door to my room before I started sobbing. I laid down on the bed and cried and felt more lonely than I'd felt in a long, long time. I'm used to going on work trips by myself but everyone in this place is with friends and family. Ack. Enough whining. Anyway.

I ordered room service. (It included dutch chocolate ice cream which seemed to make things better.) I tried to set up my internet connection. It didn't work. They sent the hotel engineer who fixed it in a jiffy and I went to Cold, cold, cold.

I couldn't keep my eyes open for long. I wore a Houston Texans t-shirt to bed and fell asleep before the Saints/Eagles game ended.

My luggage. Yeah. I woke up at 6am and spent a long time on the phone with the airline trying to locate my luggage. I learned it was on a morning flight from a very helpful Indian fellow. Yay. Now what? I had to set up my work stuff at another hotel close by and I had no suit to wear and no make up and no deodorant and no toothbrush or toothpaste. No mousse. No hairspray. No nothing.

I did have one thing. Actually, two things. I have a clean pair of socks I always travel with in case my feet get cold on the flight. I will double-sock myself when my feet get cold. (I get cold a lot.) I decided to shower, ignore how scary my hair is without product (it's very scary with all that natural curl and nothing to tame it), go without underwear in my jeans (a first in my life), wear the clean pair of socks and set up my work stuff. I'd buy a hat and gloves and that would be enough to tide me over until my baggage arrived.

OK. I used the (bad) hotel shampoo and conditioner and stepped out of the shower. I dried off my feet and reached for the clean socks.

One fell right into the toilet. I looked down at it and said, "oh no."

My thin, dirty socks. I put them back on and imagined myself a pioneer in Colorado. They probably wore socks 150 years ago over and over and over. I was complaining about wearing them two days in a row. I'm tougher than this. (That's what I told myself, at least.)

I didn't have a lot to do to get ready but the hotel had a hairdryer so, at least, I wouldn't have to walk over to the other hotel in single digit temperatures.

The hairdryer didn't work.

I combed my hair with my fingers and tied it back as best I could. With no hat, no gloves and no scarf, I made my way out amongst the ski crowd hugging my decidedly not ski jacket around me.

I know nothing of skiing. I've never been to a ski town in the winter. I don't understand the culture, the etiquette or why they find being out in the freezing damned cold so much fun. Or why they pay $80 a day for a lift ticket. I promised myself I'd take a ski lesson but the cold is over the top kind of cold and I'm losing enthusiasm. I know how to skateboard. (Yes. It's true.) Maybe it'd be easier for me to learn to snowboard.

Anyway. I hurried over to the hotel across the way and with a bit of running back and forth between their conference services person and the meeting, I got things squared away. (My company forgot to send one of the boxes I requested. ::groan::)

I went to a shop and bought a hat and gloves and told the person of my lost luggage plight. She ran down to the hotel front desk and brought me some toiletries the hotel had on hand. I thanked her profusely and put on my new gloves and hat. I've found that Colorado people are very wonderful (despite me being a Texan.)

I walked over to a small shopping area and bought 2 pieces of pizza, a bottle of water, a snickers bar and a rice krispy treat.

The pizza guy was young. Maybe only 19. I asked him what someone did for fun in this town if they didn't ski. His mouth dropped open and he didn't answer at first. Finally, he told me about some live music venues and mentioned the hotel spa.

When I got back to my room, I spent 20 minutes on hold waiting to find if the flight had made it in this morning with my luggage. It had! I'm using a courier service to bring my bags to me and, understandably with all the flight cancellations, they're very busy. I *might* have my bags by dinner but probably not.

That's where I am now. I'm writing this post and watching the Bears/Seahawks game.

I don't think I'll come to a Colorado ski town in the winter for a long time.

At least, not by myself."

You were saying?

Anonymous said...


Chuck said "I could tell you what he rented if you really wanted to know"

This statement is factually correct, as Chuckles could do this- it is possible, yet Chuck did not reveal anything on his blog.

Tucker claimed that Chuckles was threatening to come to his house and threatening his family, and said nothing about Chuckles' possession of his rental info. So the rental info was not an issue for Chuckles.

Continuing with the "threats", the frozen urine were specifically mentioned in comparison to a prank (delivering America: The Book) THAT WOULD NOT HAPPEN thus the "urine" citation was completely irrelevant to any real event as it was mentioned as being less "awesome" as something contrary to fact, another prank.

I cannot believe how fundamentally stupid you are. Anyone can cherry pick words and rearrange intentions, however these were not the obvious intent of the words in the order they were originally typed.

You have nothing to go on here. You are deeply misguided in your logic.

Anonymous said...

soriner, seriously, you have no case here.

We can grant all sorts of points about chuckles possibly breaching the ethics of his job, but none of Tucker's points related to that, they related to specific "threats" that did not exist and cannot be ginned up from a logical reading of the actual text. And then you take a pot shot at smartypants. You are a Gigantic Cobagz.

Anonymous said...

"I will also admit that the comment about frozen urine treats may have crossed the oh-so-individual line and may have seemed directly threatening"

Again, the above are Chuckles' words...not mine. No matter what you say or what the ACTUAL INTENT was, it would appear that the author of the original post (Chuckles) has conceded that a reasonable interpretation of his words was that they were a "direct threat."

"This statement is factually correct, as Chuckles could do this- it is possible, yet Chuck did not reveal anything on his blog."

Do you know how to read, fucktard? Obviously, Chuckles didn't actually reveal the information. THAT IS WHY IT WAS A THREAT. I have already stated (repeatedly) that Chuckles didn't break any laws. He merely threatened to do so.

And as I have stated, in my opinion, this alone is ample grounds for termination as an employee from a rental store. That doesn't even factor in the insults directed at a paying customer's wife.

Plus, it's just a dickish thing to do. Chuckles threw the first volley of assholish behavior, and I'm not going to fault Carlson for being an asshole back.

Anonymous said...

"We can grant all sorts of points about chuckles possibly breaching the ethics of his job"

One more thing....I love how you just blow past the above statement, as if it were a minor point not to be bothered with.

olvlzl said...

Soriner said...

"We can grant all sorts of points about chuckles possibly breaching the ethics of his job"

Spread harmless gossip about cabloid whore, unethical. Lie nationwide in support of the worst administration and most criminally incompetent war in history, model of rectitude.

This is like a haiku version of the Rise and Fall of the American Empire.

Anonymous said...

Hey, where do you live? I need to fill out this police report. Seems that you were threatening a blogger. You posted this for everyone to see:

"Chuckles is lucky he didn't get punched in the face, given his dickish behavior. That's certainly what I would have done."

Also, were you on a business trip? If so then I'll need your supervisor's number as well. I have to call your employer and ask to have you fired. We can't have you threatening people while on business trips.

Oh. Wait. I see. This is what you "would have done" but didn't and won't. So, how is this different than what Chuckles posted?

Anonymous said...

Samples of the tactics employed against soriner by the untrustworthy Charles Williamson's water carrier "friends":

...4. Try to answer as few direct questions as possible. Always obfuscate and try to sound learned. Mimic Richard Hoagland's style and you'll go far.

5. Use "what if" scenarios to change the subject whenever possible. If you linger on one topic too long you may be asked to provide annoying things like "proof." Don't let that happen! Consult a creationist if you need practice with subject-changing.

6. If you're cornered and asked for proof of something, always tell the person that they "can't disprove" your claims. Many of them will just walk away shaking their heads, which of course means they agree with you. A side-to-side head shake could be the same as a vertical nod. Anything is possible, after all.

7. Memorize all the sci-babble terms used in the Star Trek series. They are very useful if you get cornered by a skeptic, and you need to come up with some sort of "scientific" explanation. e.g., Inertial Dampeners. (Thanks to for the Star Trek terminology correction!)

8. When all else fails, start asking hypothetical questions that have nothing to do with the actual debate. If your opponent chooses to ignore your pointless questions and remains on topic, repeat your meaningless question(s) over and over. This will make any Believers in the audience think that your opponent is evading the issue.

9. Accuse your opponent of being a liar, or try some other tactic that will (hopefully) make him angry. If he responds in kind to your endless taunts, change the subject to his anger, and accuse him of name calling. If he accuses you of provoking him, then you have changed the subject of the debate. If he stays on topic, keep the heat up. The Believers in the audience will forgive the worst verbal attacks you use, but they will think even the mildest replies he makes to you are personal attacks that undermine his argument. (from, "The Woo Woo Credo: How to be an Internet Woo Woo")

mdhatter said...

soriner is latin for "extremely long winded"?

mdhatter said...

I'm also quite sure chuckles mentioned something about revealing -anything personal- as dumb, wrong, and not something to be expected on his blog.

ergo - the 'perception' of any threat by TC was truly whining on the part of TC, for which he should be derided.

That's the picture I got... but I was paying attention at the time, and not just stopping by to pontificate numerically and masterbatorily about my superior loquation.


have a nice night

mdhatter said...

does anyone else smell burning cheeto's?

mdhatter said...

I better dump some of that water I've been carrying on rubin.

this is one of those moments I wish I had access to the IP addresses of the vistors here tonight. I fear it tells a tale sadder than that of TC freaking out and throwing a hissy fit at a part-time video store clerk.

You can learn a lot by how someone treats a waiter.

even a rude waiter.

Anonymous said...

mdhatter??? said...
soriner is latin for "extremely long winded"?

mdhatter said...
i'm also quite sure chuckles mentioned something about revealing -anything personal- as dumb, wrong, and not something to be expected on his blog.
ergo - the 'perception' of any threat by TC was truly whining on the part of TC, for which he should be derided.
That's the picture I got... but I was paying attention at the time, and not just stopping by to pontificate numerically and masterbatorily about my superior loquation.


have a nice night

[9. Accuse your opponent of being a liar, or try some other tactic that will (hopefully) make him angry. If he responds in kind to your endless taunts, change the subject to his anger, and accuse him of name calling. If he accuses you of provoking him, then you have changed the subject of the debate. If he stays on topic, keep the heat up. The Believers in the audience will forgive the worst verbal attacks you use, but they will think even the mildest replies he makes to you are personal attacks that undermine his argument.]*

[22. Refer to anyone who does not immediately agree with you as being uneducated on the matter, lacking in important information, or just plain too stupid to understand your magnificent statements.]*

mdhatter said...
does anyone else smell burning cheeto's?

[13. Drink heavily while posting.]*

mdhatter said...
I better dump some of that water I've been carrying on rubin.
this is one of those moments I wish I had access to the IP addresses of the vistors here tonight. I fear it tells a tale sadder than that of TC freaking out and throwing a hissy fit at a part-time video store clerk.
You can learn a lot by how someone treats a waiter.
even a rude waiter.

[25. Claim that there is no evidence that you are a fraud, kook, net-abuser, spammer, or liar. Refer to any actual proof of this as "spinning" or "disinformation." Post messages that the system administrators of every system your opponents post from are on the verge of killing their accounts for net-abuse, and that you're going to set things right, and get rid of all these cynical lying fact-spinners by sending one final massive complaint against them all.]*

*(from, "The Woo Woo Credo: How to be an Internet Woo Woo")

Anonymous said...


Guess what, assclown. I agree with you. Bush is a moron, and I never supported this war.

However, that is completely irrelevant to Chuckles' behavior. Chuckles was a dick and got himself fired through his own actions. End of story.


Since you are a member of Chuckles' asshat brigade (and as such can't read), I'll just repost what I've already said.

Chuckles was a dick because he made a credible threat to reveal TC's rental info.

If you don't think he was serious about revealing Carlson's rental information (that this was just a "what if"), just look at the context, moron.

"I could tell you what he and his ridiculously wasped-out female companion (wife?) rented if you really want to know. I won’t tell you where he lives, though."

To spell out the obvious: he immediately contrasts the rental information with Carlson's address (namely, he states he would be happy to provide the rental information, but won't provide the address).


You made no substantive arguments, so you get none in return.


Anonymous said...

Good morning, children. I have a new word for the day. Can we all say, DOOCE?!?

Yes, we can! Thank you, thank you, children.

Kiddies, look over to your left. There's "Queen of Sky & le Petite Anglaise. Give them a round of applause.

But right now, I want to bring out on stage Jessica Cutler, the "Washingtonienne". Everyone give her a big hand!

Boys & girls, Jessica is going to teach Chuckles...I mean Charles to make worse lemonade from bad lemons. She has agreed to become his agent. With her guidance, our co-host, the lying obsessive Williamson is going to peddle cheap sex toys at volume & be a big Tucker Carlson fetish & gay porn star. His already in post-production upcoming blockbuster is: "Chuckles eats Swanson Meat".

Roger Ebert rates it "three fists" and one "frozen urine treat" .

Anonymous said...

What is your problem? Leave this man alone, and get a life. You had no call or rhyme or reason to write anything about someone's video rentals, his appearance in the store, his family, his house, or anything else. No reason. Nothing. You've simply used an appearance at the store by someone famous as a means to garner attention and publicity for yourself. That is sad. P.R. advice: Apologize, grow up, issue a statement apologizing, make a donation to a charity, and get the hell away from this man and this issue. Move on to matters that really mean something.

fulsome said...

Soriner + critical thinking: I'll try to take a stab at this. I will not try and argue whether Chuckles was within his rights to post that information. However, if you run a small blog -- aka, a blog read by 10-15 readers -- and you make a joke of the type that is often made among friends and then it gets BLOWN UP by Mr. Carlson I think you can argue that the most extreme of responses was used.

I just don't see how this is the most "reasonable response." If -- as I think is the case -- you are in vastly uneven playing fields and you respond to an insult by costing someone $200/mo in income it just seems like an overreaction.

It's not that it went to Wonkette or any gossip site. It was a discussion amongst friends/fellow travellers until it happened to show up in a google search and suddenly became a mountain. If you think the initial volley and response are equivalent then I think we are in one of those places where pure rational thought is unable to bridge the divide and emotional connections have sundered us and made further discourse unnecessary.

Anonymous said...


Thanks for the response.

Although you frame this as just a joke between a handful of friends, those very friends seem to have realized (at the time of the original posting) that this wasn't something to joke about. Go back to the comment section of the original post. No less than 3 or 4 people are imploring him to take the post down or to not reveal any of his private information.

And I do feel that Carlson (as a customer of the store) was well within his rights to complain given Chuckle's insults towards Carlson's wife, his threat to reveal Carlson's rental habits, and his frozen urine at Carlson's home comments (even if said in jest).

I think saying that Carlson cost Chuckles his job is a little silly. Chuckles himself, against the advice of some of his own blog friends, kept the post up. He chose to post what he did. He bears responsibility for his own firing.

What's more, Chuckles has hardly ever been contrite about this whole affair. Even when he took down the original posting, he was all about "HEY LOOK HOW NICE I AM" and "I AM BEING THE BETTER PERSON AND I WILL TAKE DOWN THIS POST BECAUSE I AM SO GREAT." If he had just apologized for the misunderstanding, the whole thing might have very well blown over.

Given the above, I don't think Carlson's response was disproportionate at all. As I have stated, if someone disrespected my girlfriend in a similar tone that Chuckles used, threatened to reveal my private video rental habits, and made an off color joke about delivering frozen urine to my home, I would have punched him in the face. I think Carlson showed remarkable restraint seeing as what a dick Chuckles was being.

Anonymous said...

Tucker Carlson is a public figure, a punkdit, (no offense Pinko Punko), and now a terrorist and. I have always wanted to smash his face in, strangle him with his own bow tie and rip out his carotid artery with my teeth. Sadly, he expired while I was still torturing with shadow puppets.

Public figure is a legal term applied in the context of defamation actions (libel and slander) as well as invasion of privacy. A public figure (such as a politician, celebrity, or business leader) cannot base a lawsuit on incorrect harmful statements unless there is proof that the writer or publisher acted with malice (knowledge or reckless disregard for the truth). The burden of proof is higher in the case of a public figure.

Anonymous said...


Thank you for your contribution.

It has nothing to do with anything.


Anonymous said...

Eat shit and die, sorassiner. When I track you down and get my hands on you (within 24 hours condensed to one), shadow puppets will be the last thing you see, you useless, cobag fuckwit. How does a nice, fluffy bunny rabbit sound?

The Video Privacy Protection Act

The Video Privacy Protection Act (18 U.S.C. 2710) was passed by Congress in the wake of the controversy that arose when Judge Robert Bork's video rental records were released during hearings into his Supreme Court nomination.

The Act forbids a video rental or sales outlet from disclosing information concerning what tapes a person borrows and buys, or releasing other personally identifiable information without the informed, written consent of the customer. The Act also requires such outlets to provide consumers with the opportunity to opt out from any sale of mailing lists. The Video Privacy Act allows consumers to sue for damages if they are harmed by violations of the Act.

Release of video tape rental records of the type Judge Bork suffered probably comprises an invasion of privacy that a common law court would recognize as a tort if it happened to an ordinary consumer. Because Judge Bork was a public figure whose suitability for the Supreme Court was a hotly debated issue, release of his video rental records may have been protected by the First Amendment. Because tort law already protected ordinary consumers, the Video Privacy Act created a new way to sue video rental outfits without improving the privacy of video rental information. When Congress voted on the law, they undoubtedly saw themselves in Judge Bork; they did little for consumers.

Anonymous said...

More here:

The Video Privacy Protection Act

Good luck, Chuckles. Remember, you are a public figure now yourself.

Take advantage of it. Carlson is a hypocritical cobag. You could parlay this into something positive.

mdhatter said...

Wow, discredit the arguer, ignore the argument. Change the topic... and what? have yet another cup of coffee??

soriner (and puppets) - you couldn't argue your way out of a wet paper bag

your accomplice (or your sockpuppet) has gone from here and visited other commenters blogs ONLY to spread the rude and leave nasty messages there too.

Whatever your point WAS has been lost, and that is your doing. Do not blame me if i can't find the 30 words of sense you may have spoken in there somewhere. I'm barely trying and you're making it harder by hiding that small bit of potential sense amongst dozens of nasty statements.

So, whatever. I spent 5 minutes here. You spent all night. Congratulations. You win the prize. I had to go keep my girlfriend company.

Chuckles said...

Soriner is focusing on half of a sentence and neglecting to quote the rest:

"I will also admit that the comment about frozen urine treats may have crossed the oh-so-individual line and may have seemed directly threatening" when really it was a reference to a prank performed back in college by friends of mine.

Soriner, that pretty much shoots your whole argument down the tubes.

Also, please stop hassling people like Smartypants. I wouldn't want anyone to call you a plagiarist. We already know you are a disingenuous hack.

Anonymous said...

How's that money situation going for you, Chuckles? Feeling light in the wallet?

Good! Keep listening to your ass kissing toadies,

Maybe you can breach another trust and lose your day job!

laura linger said...

You know, I am linking to this blog over on my blog. My readers need further evidence of what a nimrod numbnuts Tucker the little Fucker is.

Maybe if he spent a little less time tying that ugly-ass bow tie so goddamned tight that it has cut off circulation to his pea-sized brain, and a little more time getting decent haircut, maybe he wouldn't have so much time to harrass and threaten you.

You have, of course, contacted John Stewart about this story, right? Because remember, John Stewart just LOVES him some Tucker.

Oh, and Tucker? Sweetheart? If you are reading this (and my money would be on Yes, You Are, And Religiously) ,I don't have a kind word in my mouth for you. Don't think for ONE HOT SECOND that you can shut ME up. I don't kowtow to braindead Shrubsuckers and parasitic neocons sucking at the underbelly of the Bush/Cheney slug. Don't even think about threatening me. Not all of us back down so easily. This is the United States of America. You are, unfortunately and inexplicably, a public figure. I know my First Amendment rights, Asshole.

Anonymous said...

Hey Soriner, been banned from any Babylon 5 forums lately for being a threatening ass?

Anonymous said...

make a donation to a charity

That may be the funniest thing I've read so far.

Anonymous said...

The King Fucktard Himself (Chuckles):

"Again, the above are Chuckles' words...not mine. No matter what you say or what the ACTUAL INTENT was, it would appear that the author of the original post (Chuckles) has conceded that a reasonable interpretation of his words was that they were a "direct threat."

You fucking moron. Focus on the "ACTUAL INTENT" part of the above paragraph. I was addressing someone who was saying that your intent was not to threaten Carlson. I'll even take you at your word that that is true But as I have already said, THAT ISN'T THE POINT.

People are saying that you should sue Carlson for libel because he said you threatened him when you did not. You have (quite stupidly) conceded that a reasonable interpretation of your words by someone who isn't familiar with all of your lame college exploits would be that those words were "directly threatening." Therefore, he did not utter a falsehood as he reasonably interpreted your words as meaning something you didn't intend. You have no libel case.

But speaking of cherry-picking your quotes, I found your defense of your actions telling. You quoted yourself as thus:

"I won't tell you where he lives, though. That would be wrong and stupid. I will also not be running around ordering 10,000 copies of America: The Book and having it sent to his place even if that would be more awesome than frozen urine treats for his home."

Hmmmmm...what's missing there? Oh yeah....the sentence immediately before where you THREATEN to reveal his personal rental habits. Huh...why would you neglect to include that sentence? It wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that it would directly contradict you claims of tripping all over yourself to PROTECT Carlson's privacy, would it?


Hahahahahahaha. I know you are oblivious, but you are a complete dumbfuck who hasn't the slightest clue what you're talking about.

Apparently, you know how to cut and paste. Unfortunately, you haven't the slightest idea how to interpret what you read.

The Video Privacy Protection Act is an additional STATUTORY protection that protects all consumers and does not discriminate between public and private citizens. A plain reading of the text (to someone with a third grade education) would see this is true. This was passed with a public figure in mind, you dipshit.

Here's a question for you, mouth breather. What is the difference between statutory and tort law? Given your cut and paste job, I'm guessing you haven't the slightest clue.


I'm not a doctor, but I'm going to advise you to double down on your dose of Lithium.


"I'm barely trying"

Jesus Christ, I would hope so....seeing as how you've yet to contribute anything of substance to the discussion.

laura linger said...


I'm not a doctor, but I'm going to advise you to double down on your dose of Lithium.

I'm not a doctor either, but I am bipolar, and I do take lithium for it. What's more, I take "jokes" and flippant, asinine comments about my illness and its treatment *very* seriously. I am not a public figure, your *actual intent* was malicious and designed to make fun of a class of people with serious illnesses. I'd be careful about being so flippant about a never know what they might have going on in their lives, and it only makes you seem vicious and foolish.

Thanks for exposing your extreme prejudice against the mentally ill, though. I'll be sure to profile it over at my blog, giving you full credit, of course.

Anonymous said...

"My readers need further evidence of what a nimrod numbnuts Tucker the little Fucker is."


In addition to (apparently) poorly controlled bipolar disorder, it would also appear you are delusional. Readers? READERS? With rare exceptions, all I see over at your blog is "0 comments," "0 Comments," and "0 comments." I'd bring it up to your shrink. Again, just some friendly advise.

Anonymous said...

Soriner, unless you have an M.D. you need to back-off because you are practicing medicine without a license.

Anonymous said...


Chuckles, your lovable gaggle of retards cracks me up.

AG: What if I don't stop? Will you sue me? Report me to the cops?

Anonymous said...

laura linger said...


I'll be sure to heed your "advise."

*snicker* I may be bipolar, but at least I can spell.

And, genius, if you had any web savvy at all, you would know that Blogger is notoriously bad at collecting and counting comments. Mine have never worked entirely correctly. You get what you pay for. Only a mongoloid who is prejudiced against the mentally ill and practices medicine without a license (illegal in all 50 states) would judge the readership of a blog by its number of readers.

In other words, you are an idiot, a Freeper, and an enabler of *snort* Tucker Carlson. I'll consider the source. Loser.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

"would judge the readership of a blog by its number of readers."


And skank, as painful as it may be for you to hear, I'm as Democratic as they come. I've voted straight Democrat since I was old enough to vote.

Well, I'm through with you, attention whore (FYI, people who "attempt" suicide but fail are by definition attention whores).


Chuckles said...

Soriner, I present a challenge to you:
1) Find out where I divluged Tucker's rental and broke the VPPA.

Here's a hint: You can't. I never told anyone what he rented. I never broke the VPPA.

2) Try to leave a comment here that doesn't insult anybody. Try it, I have my doubts about your ability to write a comment without abusing someone.

Here is a small bit of friendly advice, get some counseling about your anger issues. You have already cliamed that you would punch someone that insulted you on the internet and I wonder what your response would be if someone insulted you in person. Given the vehemence contained within your comments, I think you need to see someone about your anger problem.

Butchie said...

This is art.

This too.

Anonymous said...

Here's a challenge for you:

1. Find where I ever claimed you actually did break the VPPA.

Here's a hint: You can't. I've repeatedly stated that you did not violate the law, but threatened to do so. You didn't do it.....that's why it was a THREAT..a threat that rightfully got you canned.

P.S. I've already accomplished challenge #2. See my response to fulsome, the one poster here who has managed to say something intelligent. The rest of you are demonstrable retards.

Chuckles said...

Soriner, unlike your Babylon 5 forum people, I will never ban you. I believe in free speech for all in all situations.

You like harping on about reading comprehension, but you ignored my point about your anger. Get some counseling, calm down and maybe we'll eat some coookies together some day. Until that time, remember that I was fired because I blogged about a public figure. Think about that. Worry about that. With your record of angry posts, should your boss fire you because you act like a jerk and harass people on the internet? I don't. I honestly and completely believe in the power and value of our freedoms. You seem to side with those who would give up that for which so many have struggled.

mdhatter said...

somebody obviously has a point to prove.

Sure wish he/she/they'd get to it.

All i'm getting here is "all your comments are belong to soriner".

which is funny, in both a "ha-ha" and "sad" way.

Anonymous said...

I think you need to get a grip on reality.

You did NOT merely blog about a public figure.

1. You insulted a customer's wife.
2. You threatened to reveal a customer's rental information.
3. You made a lame joke about delivering frozen urine to a customer's home which you have admitted could be misinterpreted.

Those are the points you fail to address.

AnnieAngel said...


Get a life. You are obviously drunk and you obviously can't read, or comprehend what you read.

I mean, you're funny in a pathetic way, but now you're just repeating yourself as if it makes what you say less ridiculous.

Get your own blog and ramble away on it, no one will read it, but hey, that's a good thing.

Chuckles said...

1. So what? People have said worse about him and not been hassled.

2. So what? Tucker Carlson doesn't care about that. He did not mention to the Washington Post or they did not choose to print it if he did.

3. Actually, I made a funny joke about NOT sending 10,000 copies of America (The Book) and NOT pranking his house. Read it again and get back to me.

laura linger said...

"And skank, as painful as it may be for you to hear, I'm as Democratic as they come. I've voted straight Democrat since I was old enough to vote.

Well, I'm through with you, attention whore (FYI, people who "attempt" suicide but fail are by definition attention whores)."

You have now violated the terms of your ISP and I have reported you to it.

Also, why have you made FIFTY SIX SEPARATE VISITS to my blog since 7:00pm MST? Do you keep hitting "refresh" over and over and over? Because I will be you ANYTHING that you have. Stalker. Loser.

If I see your IP address in my stats again, I will report you to your ISP again and will continue to do so until you are stopped.

Good luck, Chuckles. So sorry that you have to deal with idiots like this person. Birds of a feather flock with Tucker, I guess, right?

Anonymous said...

1. You insulted the appearance of a customer's wife who appeared in the place where you were employed. Why shouldn't your employer fire you? Most customers don't appreciate being mocked, and I doubt Carlson is an exception.

2. You threatened to reveal information that would lead your place of business to be civilly liable. Why shouldn't they fire you?

3. If it is so obvious, why have you conceded that your words could easily be interpreted as "directly threatening?" I have already stated that I'll take you at your word that they were not.

If you had said, "I saw Tucker Carlson in my video store today," then I would be happy to grant your point. You would have been fired for merely mentioning a public figure. But you didn't do that.

Instead, you were a dick about the guys wife. You were a dick to threaten to reveal a customer's rental information. You got fired for good reason.

Anonymous said...


So sorry. I didn't realize that insulting crazy people was a violation of my ISP's Terms of Service. I'll look more closely at the fine print next time.

Again, please accept my apologies.

laura linger said...

THIRTEEN more visits to my blog since I told you that you were not to show up in my stats again.

You wanna call me a bitch? You have no idea just how big a bitch I can be.

Anonymous said...

I already apologized. I promise never to insult crazy people over the internet again. What more do you want from me?

Pardon me for saying this, but you seem a tad unhinged. I definitely think you need your meds.

Don't ever become a Scientologist. Please.

Chuckles said...

OK, Soriner, since you refuse to read entire sentences and since you refuse to stop acting like a dick on the internet, it looks like I will have to contact yuor employer and get you fired. According to your own statements, insulting people on the internet deserves termination.

Anonymous said...

But....but.....what about "freedom of speech?"

At the end of the day, despite all of your protestations to the contrary, both you and Laura only believe in your vision of "freedom of speech" when someone agrees with you. You believe YOU have the right to act like a jerk, but when others (such as myself and Carlson) respond in kind, you get all huffy.

And you are the one who doesn't know how to read, dummy. You insulted a CUSTOMER at your place of business, and were threatening to reveal private information regarding that CUSTOMER that you as an employee could only know. Are you a customer of mine?

This isn't an exactly complicated point.

Chuckles said...

The difference between my behavior and Carlson's is quite clear. I caused no harm with my post in which I insulted him. Carlson has caused me to lose an economic asset.

Despite your rampant speculation and threats to punch anyone in the face who insults you on the internet (of which there are no shortage), these are the facts.

Anonymous said...

FWIW: Soriner was unjustly banned from the B-5 Community. The Grey Council Constitution is unjust and Earthforce Cadet Soriner should be allowed to cohabitate with the amphibians.

The below edicts should be stricken from the Rock of Gibraltar!

Post subject: Regarding Soriner
Soriner was banned from the old forum.

Here are examples of what Soriner posted, that got him banned:


TO: The Grey Council

SUBJECT; Soriner 2006

BASIS: Violation of the B-5 Constitution.

CONTENTION: That Soriner has demonstrated an organized
effort to intimidate, insult, and personally attack
members of the community.

SPECIFICALLY: Invoking Article 1: section 5;

Users may issue formal complaints with regards to the
actions of any other person(s), whether they be a
normal user or member of the Gray Council, and have
that complaint to be addressed by the owner according
to the rules as stipulated in this document.

AND CHARGING; violations of Article 5; Section 1;
subsections 7 and 8;

No flaming, spamming or overt threats against any
individual person are allowed. Anyone engaging in the
behavior on this site, or harassing individuals via
E-Mail or any other medium will be banned and not
allowed to post here.
No flaming, spamming or overt threats against this
forum are allowed. Anyone engaging in the behavior on
this site, or harassing the Owner of members of the
Gray Council will be banned and not allowed to post

Examples Under Section 7

Example 1;
Techmaster-personal attack

EarthForce Cadet
Posts: 2
(4/24/06 12:32 am)
Reply | Edit | Del New Post Re: Why you hate Gino
Soriner2006 (3/15/06):
"When the series started to gain momentum and became a
critical darling, you realized your pipe dream of
getting a revival just the way you wanted it wasn't
going to happen."

Quote: TechMaster
"My big problem with GINO is that it is NOT what I and
other BSG fans campaigned for, when we moved heaven
and earth to get Galactica a second chance."

So it took TechMaster nearly 3 weeks to concede my
point. It just goes to show that even the densest of
individuals are capable of a modicum of reason.

Seriously, the vitriolic misanthropes on this board
are truly pathetic.

Example 2; Admiral Beckham;

Lance Corporal
Posts: 12
(5/5/06 8:25 pm)
Reply New Post Re: Re: Petition to remove thinker as
a moderator Admiral Beckham-

In case YOU fail to understand, a plain reading of the
text reveals no obligation on my part to either email
or use the Post Office to present the complaint to the
site owner. The site owner can read the complaint on
his OWN SITE just as anyone else can. There is NOTHING
in the constitution that forbids this. Therefore, your
spurious accusation against me that I am in "violation
of the constitution" is demonstrably false.

Tech Master can read this complaint, reject it out of
hand or decide to sanction thinker. If he decides to
reject my complaint out of hand, I have recourse to
request from some members of the Gray Council to take
up my cause.

Reading comprehension really isn't that tough. I got a
36 out of 36 on the ACT in reading comprehension, by
the way.

Example 3; Jackknife attacked; in reply to;

Posts: 2177
(5/6/06 3:53 pm)
New Post Re: Petition to remove thinker as a

Quote: Once again, you have chosen to ignore the

Quote:But you refuse to address the issue, and,
instead, choose to make the issue about me, instead of
debating whether or not thinker is an appropriate

Anonymous said...

Chuckles offering a hypothesis as to why on earth tucker could possibly be so pissed is not a concession that he was threatening. We only need to refer to the original words to confirm this.

Also, if calling the impossibly rich wife of an Episcopalian, Rhode Island native, loafer wearing, bowtie wearing, conservative hosehead "WASPed out" is anything other than a crude but apt description, I'm afraid I won't be able to agree. I would not myself have used those words, I would have just said "wife of Tucker Carlson"- this would have sufficed to paint the identical picture.

Every single word I have typed here has been substantive. I'm a little sad that soriner's cause du jour is so trivial, at least I have a friend involved. I love the term "water carrier"- this comment thread is the Tech Central Station to Chuckles's Exxon. When's my check arriving, Chuckwagon?

Also, it is clear who's working with the Shadows.

Soriner, I just talked with JMS, he thinks you are a cobag.

Chuckles said...

Soriner isn't cool enough to work with the Shadows, he works for the Drakh.

From now on, all Soriner will hear from me is:

Soriner, YOU SO CRAZY!

cotton razai online said...

Between 8 and 9:30 pm on Friday, December 22, 2006: Tucker comes to store, opens account and rents unspecified movie.
black and white salwar ,
salwar suit black and white ,

Anonymous said...

golden goose outlet
bape hoodie
air jordan
off white outlet
golden goose
bape hoodie
hermes handbags outlet
birkin bag outlet
off white