6.24.2007

At least I probably offend everyone equally

I've been doing some research on the Yaman Salahi/Lee Kaplan thing, because, apparently, glossing over it simply wasn't enough.

An anonymous commenter posted on "First Amendment, blah blah" with two links to show me just how awful Yaman Salahi really is. Unfortunately, presenting me with Lee Kaplan's websites defending himself doesn't gain Kaplan or his anonymous defender any sympathy from me, especially since many points conflict with what I've already read. Not that I'm picking sides, but there are clearly gray areas which cannot be resolved by either Kaplan's or Salahi's websites.

So I spent half an hour downloading at least a hundred images of documents from the Alameda County Courthouse. Skimming the terrible images (thanks, Alameda County!) doesn't entirely explain to me why judgment favored Lee Kaplan twice-- once in default, which I understand, and once during the appeal, which is the source of the hundreds of poorly-scanned documents I am planning to edit for legibility sometime this week.

Look for updates, but for now, the commentary by each party on these documents is at least on par with Student Action's magic chalk. Though Kaplan's commentary is equally unprofessional, Salahi's sarcasm has made my day:

From Yaman Salahi's Attachment B, page 1 of 2, refuting claims from stoptheism.com:

-In response to "Salahi has not condemed the so-called Iraqi resistance for mutilating and beheading US soldiers in Iraq":
"Neither have I denied the existence of leprechauns," and

-In response to "[using the Internet for personal attacks] is a less violent form of terrorism to silence exposure of the ISM":
"Mr. Kaplan would consider it terrorism if I farted in his presence."


Update:
Missed one, one page after the aforementioned quotes:

"Mr. Kaplan engages in so many logical fallacies, not to mention his distortion of the truth, that I cannot mark every detail here without developing migraine headaches."

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Salahi is qutie the comedian, eh? He also refuses to call Al Qaeda a terrorist movement and supports the terrorists and murderers of Hamas and Hizballah by claiming they are not terrorists. You have a peculiar sense of humor....I read the court docs and it's clear Salahi is a fraud.

Take a look here:
http://www.leekaplandeconstructsleekaplanwatch.blogspot.com and
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=28816

kfed said...

I'm sure that Salahi, a Rhetoric major like myself, would agree with me that your biased links do not help your case.

However, after skimming a considerable number of these 183 documents (I didn't download the blank pages), I am more inclined to believe that BOTH Salahi and Kaplan have their own fraudulent tendencies.

I hardly see how his refusal "to call Al Qaeda a terrorist movement" and alleged support of terrorists and murderers is relevant to a small claims lawsuit he lost-- even if it was a defamation suit.

yaman Salahi said...

Hah, I forgot about those submissions. I'm not sure who you are, but I don't really appreciate being placed on the same footing as Kaplan. I've made some legal mistakes, but I don't think I've done anything wrong with what I've written about Kaplan's articles. It may have been a mistake to write about an egomaniac in the first place, but that's his problem. Not mine. I do appreciate that you actually read through the documents though. Feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss it further. I don't really have any illusions about the stupidity of this entire matter, but Kaplan and myself aside, I still think the implications of what happened are pretty serious.

yaman said...

stupid form auto-complete... if you have the ability, do you mind changing my handle to just my first name? thanks.

kfed said...

I am technologically incompetent. But if I can figure out (or if you tell me how) I'd be more than happy to change your handle.

Whether or not you are always on the same footing as Kaplan is not at issue. I believe Kaplan is, well, everything you have said he is. I'm also happy to hear that you acknowledge your legal mistakes, because it shows that you rather are quite different from him.

Nevertheless, in this instance, as a matter of public record encapsulated out of its context on the Alameda County Courthouse website, both yours and Kaplan's actions appear to have been equally base. I'm sorry if my opinion's offense to you appears to be a judgment on your character- which it most certainly is not.

kfed said...

I also agree that there are issues much, much greater at hand than the simple facts contained within those court documents, on which I will elaborate once I have sufficient time to read through everything.