Visitor's Negative Comments about the Library
Below are all the negative comments we received between going on line
in 5/95 up to 9/96. We've got more since... including some real beauties.
We'll try to add them when we have the time.
You piece of shit person. I am tired of reading this stupid shit!
What a bunch of blood thirsty trolls. You people bring new meaning to the words #$%&%# lawyers, shame on you.
- To which we replied:
As I am not an atty I have turned your letter over to our Chief Counsel, Ralf R. Rinkle, J.D., Esq., who's reply follows:
Dear Mr. ...,
I am writing to thank you for your exceptionally kind comments. As a real, famous attorney (NOT an imposter!) I am proud to be connected with the subject of your glowing review and, with your kind permission, will be including it in my c.v.
Furthermore, I will advise my client to include your remarks in any future promotional material directed to my fellow attorneys as it is sure to greatly increase their opinion of the Library.
Your web site appears to be a great service to the public, but it is a little difficult to take seriously, or depend on the authenticity of the information, due to the foul language and insulting remarks therein.
It would nice if one with so little intellect could relate to conservative Veiws without first telling all how narrow minded one is...
is this place real? Im not even gonna bother looking. I got through a few pages of ridiculous comments. I suggest you clean up your page. if someone is desperate enough to search for law info, they dont want to hear cheesy comments.
Hello... I'm a new visitor to your web site. It's not clear to me what image of your site you wish to promote. On one hand, a legal reference facility seems to be a good thing, and I have already found some interesting material to read. On the other hand, I was somewhat "put off" by two things that seem to me to be inappropriate. Why blast a visitor's interest in art with sarcasm and contempt? And your characterization of the ACLU as "The nation's leading pinko bleeding heart...," etc. suggests that the site's focus is something other than rational.
Howdy, I logged into your 'lectric Law Library looking for something in the Federal Register, but didn't find the Federal Register. Bummer.
You wrote <
Make jokes about capital murder trials if you like, but if you are providing facts to the public, try to make those facts comport with reality.
I guess I was expecting a little too much of the Law Library motif - I thought that along with law, you would have valid info - and you do, in terms of the downloadable brifs filed by both sides. But for someone who knows little about the trial (or for potential jurors, some of whom, I'm sure, have 'Net access) it can be very confusing to see "they confessed to murder" when (a) they aren't pleading guilty to it, (b) they haven't confessed to murder, and (c) you're putting yourself out as a "law" site - and you seem confused about the difference between homicide & murder.
- In response to this message we changed the Menendez page's "confessions to the murders" to "confessions to the killings" and "all the female jurors took pity" to "most of the female jurors (and a few males) took pity".
I don't know if this is what you intended for the Virtual Law Library, but I thought that it would have more text directly connected (or available by hypertext). For example, you might have the federal and state laws and regulations in the Library, directly or by link. Several commercial services (LEXIS, Westlaw) have found a huge need for these and other legal materials.
Subject: humor. You probably haven't considered that disabled people use the Web, too, and your use of the word "imbecile" on your art/humor page is not really funny. You could just have easily used the word "dork" or "dweeb" or something without the developmentally disabled connotation. Maybe be a little more sensitive without losing your sense of humor. It can be done. Thanks for reading this far.