"Game journalists" like Jason Schreier gleefully reported on the drama because they smelled a big story. Throwing Chris under the bus while at the same time leeching off of his fame for twitter clout:
I think Dena's the one in Australia, which might make her different (although I think defamation is easier to prove in Australia?).
Oh, they've been heard. Enough to ruin his career, getting him sacked from all the projects he was on, and I doubt he's gotten new offers.
GAF moment
That's pretty much Ace Attorney, with the difference that somehow the judge buying the story that a little blind kid could fire a gun twice to kill, with a high caliber gun is less idiotic than most modern Twitter cancelation accusations.
This still cracks me up:
"RESIST!"
That makes sense then
I am not trying to create any scenario. Let them go to court. Or not. It's his choice (mostly) -- since I doubt his accusers plan to go with due process.
She says 2013 but it was sent in 2014. Wtf?
No need to tell me what you're allowed to do, you aren't a victim here(lol) and it's not that deep brother. We both have valid statements and valid points, and my comments/questions in the thread were just my speaking out loud about things that made absolutely no sense to me.
He is going after every single one of them.
That really doesn't explain why he wouldn't debunk Dena's claims, especially considering he himself said it would've been the easiest to debunk.
He is going after every single one of them.
What jurisdiction were her claims made in and which court would it be filed in?
Someone may have already said this, but that's actually NOT how defamation works - when someone lies about you, it's not on the person lying to prove they are telling the truth... it's actually on the person wronged to prove it's defamation. Cool, huh?
No doubt, and I have no idea what jurisdiction either. You think it's a reasonable stance to say that someone who lost his career and had to travel to multiple countries to hire lawyers and gather information about accusations with no evidence should have done more in one year's time?
Imagine expending all that time and energy to protect yourself and take legal action just because some nobody wrote something on their twitter.No doubt, and I have no idea what jurisdiction either. You think it's a reasonable stance to say that someone who lost his career and had to travel to multiple countries to hire lawyers and gather information about accusations with no evidence should have done more in one year's time?
That's the part of this that is most confusing to me. Once again he owes her no favors and in the moment she's trying to take everything from him it almost looks like he's doing her a favor. In this corporate world some of us have chosen to maneuver your name is your key to the door. His year long silence because of how nice he says he is and his wanting them to be heard makes him out to be one of the nicest people I've ever seen in the corporate world, because these people will sue the shit out of you for way less.
You are bringing up extraneous diverting questions to distract from his defense so far. Your agenda is clear and I'm not interested in digging through the minutiae mud with you, but I will answer this one question because I could have been wrong. He was fired from a Polish company, because of claims someone in California made that involved someone in Australia. You'll pardon me if he didn't physical travel to three countries because of this.
He's not suing the company - this has nothing to do with Poland. He's the one in California. It's the Australian who made claims. He can sue the Australian in the USA or Australia as he wishes. No need to travel to any country either way.
