To clarify: I say that way of arguing is stupid because people can have myriad of reasons to put something like that in an online profile, almost all of them having *nothing* to do with any aggression problems they may or may not have IRL.

I consider it an attempt to make a funny remark, and would not consider even remotely to take it seriously.

I understand where you're coming from, I just don't get *why* people (not only you) approach remarks in a profile from the serious side. A comment like the one mentioned in a "tell something about yourself" section of a FB profile sounds pretty harmless to me. I take it as an attempt to make a funny statement. Maybe at most an overstatement to be interpret as "don;t mess with me, or I'll block/de-friend/ignore you." But certainly not as a threat to physically beat me up. I see it as nothing more than that $150k everybody seems to be making ;).

*insert "you only make 150k a year, hey, I make XXXXX"-jokes*

When somebody would start yelling stuff like that in a discussion, I'd take it he's a bad debater, and has to resort to an attempt at bullying in order to make a point. Still, I'd not see that as a physical threat.

What I'd like to know is when people started to take all that stuff so damn seriously. People lie, and try to impress others. It's human nature, live with it. Either it's driving a bigger car than you can reasonably afford, lying about your income in the singles-bar or putting statements like "I'll beat your ass into submission" in a facebook profile.

Personally, I think it's one of the charms of the internet. Strong statements bring a bit of panache, without bringing any real harm whatsoever. (Other than a bruised ego) Besides that, the problem with assuming people will interpret your comments for the worse, and adjusting them accordingly, is that you'll end up with a big goo of blanket-statements, because everybody is just too afraid to say anything that might even remotely offend somebody else. I prefer to assume strong remarks are harmless, unless I have a very good reason to believe otherwise.

I'm not taking it too seriously, but I think that if this kind of nonsense is finding its way into courtrooms it is far from trivial too.

(And I'm still glad I'm on the other side of the pond :P)

*yawn*

Not everybody you disagree with is a troll, you know.

Oh, please. This is getting tiresome

"And that amounts to..." quite obviously refers to the conclusions *IN THAT ARTICLE*, and should be interpreted as such. The 'WTF' infers a WTF to the statements in that article.

In short: The WTF is the fact that a lawyer apparently thinks it's normal to use that kind of 'evidence'

Now please stop with nitpicking syntaxes, and interpret comments in the right context.

Over the years I've had plenty of quotes like that in my profile. Either because they struck me as funny, or just to see how many idiots take it seriously. Asserting any hard, real life 'truths' from online profiles like that is IM(not so)HO just plain stupid.

Apparently you missed the "IF TRUE, THEN..." statement in my second paragraph. A very much needed statement that I could not find in the report that asserts the usage of FB profile data in court.

HTH, HAND.

Sorry, but no. It doesn't even do that. It's the same false reasoning as assuming that playing war-games supports a theory that somebody is a violent person. It's even far worse than that, and comes IMHO more to the level of confusing the character an actor plays with the actual person. Online profiles are *riddled* with 'funny', witty and over-exaggerated remarks. Using those as even the remotest idea of 'evidence' proves only one thing: The one using them as such doesn't have even a beginning of a clue.

If even half of what's mentioned in the article is really true, and the 'evidence' taken at the face value the article leads you to believe, then the legal system in the USA is in a far worse shape than I could possibly imagine.

"-- Husband goes on Match.com and declares his single, childless status while seeking primary custody of said nonexistent children."

And THAT amounts to some degree of 'evidence' in court? Really, WTF? Since he's eeking custody, the being 'single' part is assumably correct. As for the childless status. Debatable, since he obviously does not have custody (yet). Besides that, I'm not going to buy drinks for every 'childless' single in a random bar who turns out to have at least one.

And then:
"-- Husband denies anger management issues but posts on Facebook in his "write something about yourself" section: "If you have the balls to get in my face, I'll kick your ass into submission." "
If that, in court, is evidence of 'anger management issues' then I'm VERY glad I live on the other side of the pond. Taking remarks in a profile THAT serious is simply retarded.