# What happened to Tom Griffin?



## gnome (Jan 27, 2004)

Does anybody here remember an aquarium hobbyist site called something like TomGriffin.com? Way-back-when (about 1998 ) when I started keeping tanks, his was one of the more popular sites for fishkeeping. I never became a member, though. I stuck with Aquaria Central for a couple of years, until I became a plant-head. Seems like AC might be pulling the plug, now. 

Anybody have any idea what happened to Tom and his site? Just curious... 

Thanks!

-Naomi


----------



## plantbrain (Jan 23, 2004)

Well, Tom had a nice run in with Novak, as well as myself, but Tom was just an innocent party.

I have not heard much since.

Regards, 
Tom Barr


----------



## jerseyjay (Jan 25, 2004)

I also did some reading / posting back in 90s on Tom's forum. It was another nice place to hang out !


----------



## RTR (Oct 28, 2005)

The site is currently operating at:

http://boards.tomsfish.net/index.php?

But after two total hack jobs and loss of the original domains, it is a pale shadow of its former self.


----------



## JanS (Apr 14, 2004)

Wow, there's a blast from the past. I forgot all about him until you mentioned it.


----------



## gnome (Jan 27, 2004)

Thanks, All. And thanks, RTR, for the link! So Tom lost his domain in the lawsuit, then? Seems like a number of people either did, or were threatened with it if they didn't remove the link to the defense fund site. 

BN really terrorized a lot of hobbyists, then. Boy - if there was ever a spoiled (and possibly psychotic) child who needed a time-out...  . Still can't believe he tried to sue Google ::cackle-cackle:: . 

-Naomi


----------



## Gumby (Aug 1, 2005)

What is this lawsuit all about? I wasn't into planted tanks back then and I'd like to know the story. Who/what is Novak?


----------



## gnome (Jan 27, 2004)

Well, it now looks as though you need a password to get onto the defense fund site, but if you want some of the gory details, go back to about May of 2001 in the APD (aquatic-plant digest) archives. Follow the dang thing for the rest of the year, and well into 2002 (possibly even into '03), and you'll see part of the story. Many innocent people fell victim to this creep. But I don't want to stir the pot, after a fairly long period of "dormancy." He still has his on-line business, AFAIK. Benn (the defense lawyer) managed to win this guy's domain in a counter-suit, but all BN did was to add a hyphen to his old name, and he was back in business. 

The judicial system is not yet caught up to deal with a lot of "modern" legal issues... I think the gray area in this case was in distinguishing between libel and free speech. Unfortunately, the incident has scared many hobbyists into silence, or at least into "candy-coating" facts (as you can see me doing here). 

I was really hoping that his suing Google would be the beginning of the end. I thought Google would crush the little so-and-so, but they didn't. Maybe they wanted to play the part of the gentle giant. Or maybe it was just not worth their time and money to bother with a bothersome gnat. Anyway, since I don't want to be named "Jane Doe #xyz" I'll shut up, now.


----------



## jerseyjay (Jan 25, 2004)

Gumby said:


> What is this lawsuit all about? I wasn't into planted tanks back then and I'd like to know the story. Who/what is Novak?


Check out this link

http://www.petsforum.com/psw/


----------



## gnome (Jan 27, 2004)

Ah... Thanks, Jay! Seems I had an old link.


----------



## Gumby (Aug 1, 2005)

So were these guys talking trash about him personally or the way he conducted business or the business it's self?


----------



## gnome (Jan 27, 2004)

Well, it started off as nothing more than one dissatisfied customer posting his experience. NORMALLY, when it gets this far, the owner of a half-decent business will privately e-mail the complaining party, apologize, and do whatever s/he can to rectify the situation. In this case, the owner of the business got rabid, demanded a public apology and retraction, and when they didn't comply, he decided to take out anyone and everyone who had anything negative to say about his service. And then he decided to also attack anybody who was showing any support for them. For the life of me, I don't understand how he could have filed suit against people for having links to the defense fund site on their personal websites... BTW, is that why Jared Weinberger is no longer an active participant at these sorts of forums? He was quite the young guru, but I haven't seen him post anywhere in a number of years.

I'm still waiting for reimbursement for a backordered item that I told them to cancel. After almost five years, I think I better stop holding my breath :lol: .


----------



## RTR (Oct 28, 2005)

No, Tom's loss of the old domains was independent of the massive lawsuit issue.


----------



## Gumby (Aug 1, 2005)

Wow... I read a lot about this case. Out of fear of being sued, I won't say much more than I think the whole situation is incredibly rediculous. What happened to that law that was passed that outlaws frivilous lawsuits?


----------



## Laith (Sep 4, 2004)

And imagine, it's you, the US taxpayers, that are paying the costs of the court's time and resources in order for this type of stupidity to continue!  

The first judge to have heard this case should have thrown it out and kept it out.

But trying to reign in this type of thing can be dangerous as well as it can lead to the opposite extreme of not being able to have recourse to the courts to try to right a wrong. It's like censorship: once you start censoring things, where do you stop? and who decides?


----------

