So KKJT can't be mentioned at all? — Page 2

Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.

#26

So KKJF can't be mentioned at all?

Posted: 11/30/14 at 1:41pm

All of the information that was posted can be found on-line in news articles already published. Court papers are public record. No one was saying anything that a simple google search would bring up.

I am sure JFKK has loads of fans. (eye roll)

Those Blocked: SueStorm. N2N Nate. Good riddence to stupid! Rad-Z, shill begone!

Updated On: 12/1/14 at 01:41 PM

#27

So KKJF can't be mentioned at all?

Posted: 11/30/14 at 2:08pm

It sticks in my craw that such a depraved and abhorrent person got their wish. (Taking this whole episode on face value...)

Beyoncé is not an ally. Actions speak louder than words, Mrs. Carter. #Dubai #$$$

#28

So KKJF can't be mentioned at all?

Posted: 11/30/14 at 2:25pm

Yours and mine as well.

Those Blocked: SueStorm. N2N Nate. Good riddence to stupid! Rad-Z, shill begone!

#29

So KKJF can't be mentioned at all?

Posted: 11/30/14 at 2:37pm

I am disappointed with BWW as well for removing the thread. Nothing was libelous since the person admitted to the EVIL deeds, among other offenses and we were not making things up. There were links to legal forums saying that stating the facts of the events is not libel. What's next? Deleting threads next time Patti LuPone screams at someone over a mobile call? The wrong color of cat gets posted? If we stopped posting links in the forums, how will BWW get the news they post as breaking news? Despicable!!!

#30

So KKJF can't be mentioned at all?

Posted: 11/30/14 at 3:04pm

Yeah, calling someone who pleads guilty to killing cats a cat killer hardly seems to be libelous.

#31

So KKJF can't be mentioned at all?

Posted: 11/30/14 at 4:17pm

Something we would have never commented on had he not bumped the years-old-and-forgotten thread

#32

So KKJF can't be mentioned at all?

Posted: 11/30/14 at 6:13pm

JTKK plead guilty to said KK. It's not like he was found innocent. It's all there on other posts.

I would think all post thereafter would be considered true, and without libel. You can't tarnish a reputation that has already been tarnished.

#33

So KKJF can't be mentioned at all?

Posted: 11/30/14 at 7:36pm

"Something we would have never commented on had he not bumped the years-old-and-forgotten thread"

Do any of you seriously believe that the person in question actually came to this board, little-known outside of our community, and used our clunky search engine for his name and (re)started all of this? Isn't it far more likely that one of our bored regulars is responsible?

""There were links to legal forums saying that stating the facts of the events is not libel. "

Names, addresses and telephone numbers were published in that thread. Given that years have passed since the crime, odds are good that the information was no longer valid and some innocent people were caught up in this. You cross a line when you start publishing telephone numbers and addresses. Innocent people get hurt. What if he moved? What if one of those addresses were his dear sweet grandma's?

We're not 4chan.

#34

So KKJF can't be mentioned at all?

Posted: 11/30/14 at 8:55pm

Names, addresses and telephone numbers were published in that thread.

And by the sockpuppet perpetrator. The sockpuppet was bored, created a bunch of drama by demanding a thread get deleted and then posted crap he knew would get the thread deleted. The mods only deleted the thread when there was actual reason to delete, not because of the whim of sh*t-stirrer (most likely a long-term BWW sh*t-stirrer, of which there are at least handful from which to choose). There is no reason to be angry at the mods other than not deleting the and banning the sockpuppet more quickly. Other than that, there was not much to see. Just a sock getting his rocks off and everyone else helping him out, doing exactly what he wanted.

We've seen it before. We'll see it again.

"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian

#35

So KKJF can't be mentioned at all?

Posted: 11/30/14 at 8:59pm

He still lives at that address. This is public record.

He physically beat up a 55 year old woman and served no jail time.

He stomped a kitten to death after it refused to be eaten by a snake he was trying to feed it to. Remember, his resume (which lists his address) shows he also worked at a reptile store.

He video taped it because he's a sicko.

He served no jail time for the women-beating or for the kitten-stomping.

He changed his name to "Jake" online so he could trick women from the UK into dating him. Someone here unearthed posts his mother-in-law found where she was deeply disturbed her daughter was marrying him.

He has no remorse and tried claiming "Jake Tuffly" was his brother. He served zero jailtime and is currently making fun of cat owners on his Facebook profile right now.

Search: 4805594883 on Facebook's search field and his profile comes up. Check out his latest comment. Grade-A scum.

So KKJT can't be mentioned at all?
http://oi60.tinypic.com/sb4s2t.jpg

#36

So KKJF can't be mentioned at all?

Posted: 11/30/14 at 9:15pm

That was also almost exactly what he was posting here; proof that it was in fact him posting here demanding the thread be deleted. Which he obviously succeeded at as well.

#37

So KKJF can't be mentioned at all?

Posted: 11/30/14 at 9:38pm

That was also almost exactly what he was posting here; proof that it was in fact him posting here

Except it's not proof. Whether it was actually him or not is irrelevant. The guy is a sicko and the sockpuppet was a sicko. Either for the same reason or different reasons. It's doesn't really matter. Time to move on.

"What can you expect from a bunch of seitan worshippers?" - Reginald Tresilian

#38

So KKJF can't be mentioned at all?

Posted: 11/30/14 at 10:48pm

Also note thatSusan Fleckenstein joined today To add info that will get this thread deleted. BWW, instead of deleting threads, why not check IP addresses and ban them?

Those Blocked: SueStorm. N2N Nate. Good riddence to stupid! Rad-Z, shill begone!

#39

So KKJF can't be mentioned at all?

Posted: 11/30/14 at 10:50pm

I second SNAFU's suggestion!

#40

So KKJF can't be mentioned at all?

Posted: 11/30/14 at 10:52pm

If BWW could check IP addresses like they claim to be so good at doing, we wouldn't have these sock puppets constantly bothering us here.

#41

So KKJF can't be mentioned at all?

Posted: 11/30/14 at 11:20pm

"BWW, instead of deleting threads, why not check IP addresses and ban them? "

BWW doesn't ban or even suspend posters who break rules on a daily basis. Why would they start now?

#42

So KKJF can't be mentioned at all?

Posted: 12/1/14 at 1:13am

Wait... there are rules?!

#43

So KKJF can't be mentioned at all?

Posted: 12/1/14 at 1:18am

Absolutely. No name-calling, no personal attacks, no spam, no prufanity (with or without asterisks), etc.

#44

So KKJF can't be mentioned at all?

Posted: 12/1/14 at 1:18am

#45

So KKJF can't be mentioned at all?

Posted: 12/1/14 at 1:21am

"no prufanity"

I'm totally using that word from now on.

Twitter @NamoInExile Instagram none

#46

So KKJF can't be mentioned at all?

Posted: 12/1/14 at 1:40am

Good catch, Namo! I'm having some eyesight issues, I'm afraid, but I'll Leave it because it is funny.

From the BWW rules:

Please post with courtesy (and common sense) - no use of profanity, obscenities, or name calling.

No personal attacks - we all have different opinions - disagree with the view, not with the person.

For your own protection, please - no bootleg appeals!

Those joining the site for the sole purpose of spamming, baiting or trolling will be removed.

Indecent and over-exposed Avatar images will be removed.

BroadwayWorld.com reserves the right to remove any posts that we deem inappropriate as per these guidelines and at our discretion.

In other words, they can delete whatever they want, whenever they want. No use complaining.

BWW rules

#47

So KKJF can't be mentioned at all?

Posted: 12/1/14 at 2:06am

I just finished a Google search based on posts in this thread and, oddly enough, this was the fourth image that came up:

So KKJT can't be mentioned at all?

#48

So KKJF can't be mentioned at all?

Posted: 12/1/14 at 2:17am

Sorry about your vision issues, GL.

Twitter @NamoInExile Instagram none

#49

So KKJF can't be mentioned at all?

Posted: 12/1/14 at 9:50am

Thank-you horse tears but the posters name has changed or rather has been deleted.

Those Blocked: SueStorm. N2N Nate. Good riddence to stupid! Rad-Z, shill begone!

#50

So KKJF can't be mentioned at all?

Posted: 12/1/14 at 1:19pm

Do any of you seriously believe that the person in question actually came to this board, little-known outside of our community, and used our clunky search engine for his name and (re)started all of this?

It's not inconceivable that the moron just googled himself and accidentally stumbled across this site. That would seem more likely than some outlandish charade by some wacked out headcase.
If it quacks like a duck, maybe it's just a duck.

That said, I've been here long enough to know you're probably right. :)

Beyoncé is not an ally. Actions speak louder than words, Mrs. Carter. #Dubai #$$$

← Back to Message Board

View all Videos

Tickets From $59

Tickets From $58

Tickets From $106

Tickets From $71