Can we get a geomaw legal determination on whether (in the context of a BBS) a first party (within the technological "earshot" of a third party) saying to a second party that, upon visual confirmation of a third party that may occur within the parameters of a widely attended and voluntary public event intentionally designed to congregate members of a broader circle (within which all parties are member), that they (the first party) would target said third party via means of "kicking" aimed at the lower abdominal region potentially seeking to dislodge or inflame the coiled segments of spermatic ducts , thereby does qualify as "cyberbulling," bearing in mind also the potential litigious impact of additionally offering praise from the first party for a structural landscaping improvement by the third party about which the first party had not been sufficiently placed (from a subjective but commonly accepted norm) socially to provide comment, albeit positive (as in this specific case) or otherwise?
Precedent here could change the face of kstate bbsing forever.
