Dins...

[KC Scott]

Shit...... I forgot this thread also had a midget in it.

I told you this thread has everything.

Someone call Moorese.

[Moving Sale]

Terry stated that you were nitpicking at best...

So I was only a little bit right and that makes you want? Only a little bit wrong? I'll take that.

Nice doing bizness with you.

[Terry in Crapchester]

According to other published definitions I've read intent to damage/defame must be involved. Merely stating incorrect assertions with no ill intent and which don't damage the plaintiff in any way isn't slanderous, it's being ill informed and/or incorrect.

Intent is key, according to the definitions I've read.

I'm not doubting that you read this somewhere, but either what you read is wrong or you didn't fully understand it.

A plaintiff who is not a public figure can recover even if the defendant was merely negligent in publishing (either speaking or writing -- to answer your previous question, from a defamation standpoint, "publishing" means that the communication has been made to someone other than the plaintiff) the defamatory communication. A public figure plaintiff, however, must show a bit more.

Here's an example (I'm not considering the damages here, btw . . .)

Let's say that LK pick tells Dins that Buc beats his fiancee. The statement is false, but Dins thinks it's true. Dins repeats it. Guess what -- the statement is defamatory (of course, Buc still has to prove damages to recover for defamation).

OTOH, let's say that I post a link to the NY Times that says that Bush doctored the pre-Iraq War intelligence to make it look like Iraq had WMD's, but he knew for a fact that they did not. And let's say the story turns out to be false, even though I thought it was true at the time. Can Bush sue me for defamation, assuming he can prove damages? No way, and for that matter, he'd have a tough road to hoe if he wanted to sue the NY Times.

Wasn't Dins' comment something to the effect that Buc is a wife beater, or a child molester, or something like that?

If so, okay, I guess "commission of a crime" would cover such charges.

Wife beater, although commission of a crime is somewhat questionable. Example: in New York in order to be convicted of assault you have to inflict "physical injury" (defined in the Penal Law) on the person you attack. "Physical injury" is not a de minimis standard, so a single slap of your spouse, while perhaps sufficient to get one branded a "wife beater," is not necessarily enough to entail commission of a crime.

Btw, why is it only bad to call a woman unchaste? What kind of bullshit gender double standard do we have going on here??

Point taken.

On a more serious note, our system is derived from the English common law system, and this exception goes back several hundred years. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment apparently wasn't enough to change it.

[Van]

Terry stated that you were nitpicking at best...

So I was only a little bit right and that makes you want? Only a little bit wrong? I'll take that.

Nice doing bizness with you.

I said right up front that whatever you'd come back with had better be a substantive enough difference in definition to make it worth our while, and you never did.

I had no doubt you'd come up with some lame nitpicky difference that would entirely skirt the substance of the comment.

I knew I didn't provide a strict legal definition. That wasn't my intent. I later fleshed out what I meant for Terry, which I also would've done for you had you simply asked.

Later, I did provide a couple of definitions, both of which jibed with what I said.

Meanwhile, you did...what?

My ankle is getting sore, fucker.

[Tom In VA]

My life fades. The vision of Dins.



All that remains are memories. I remember a time of chaos. Ruined dreams. This wasted land. But most of all, I remember The Spinach Genie.




The man we called "Buc". To understand who he was, you have to go back to another time. When BBS's were powered by Wildcat. And the desert sprouted great cities of pipe and steel. Gone now, swept away. For reasons long forgotten, two mighty warrior tribes went to war and touched off a blaze which engulfed them all. Without each other, they were nothing. They built a house of straw. The thundering homosmack sputtered and stopped. Their leaders talked and talked and talked. But nothing could stem the avalanche. Their world crumbled. The boards exploded. A whirlwind of gravy training, a firestorm of nutsack swinging and troll self-propping.




Men began to feed on men. On the boards it was an English professor's nightmare. Only those mobile enough to proxy, brutal enough to gossip would survive. The gangs took over the information highway, ready to wage war for a RACK and PROPS. And in this maelstrom of decay, ordinary men were battered and smashed. Men like Buc. The warrior Buc. In the roar of an dual proc Dell 1650, he lost everything. And became a shell of a man, a burnt out, desolate man, a man haunted by the demons of his past, a man who wandered out into the wasteland. And it was here, in this blighted place, that he learned to live again...



Welcome back Spinach Genie.

[Van]

Terry, okay, if you're dead nuts certain that intent isn't an element of defamation then I stand corrected on that point.

All I can go by are the definitions I've read, and understanding them wasn't difficult. They were very clear that intent was necessary.

It's the difference between accidentally knocking over a pot from your third story terrace and having it fall and crack someone's skull vs lining the fucker up and dropping it on him intentionally.

The intent defines the action.

If you're saying that's not true in this case, well, okay. I can't refute it.

Question:

Could the definition change, from jurisdiction to jurisdiction? Meaning, is it possible that where you are your version doesn't require intent while intent is required in other locales?

I know I'm not crazy and I've read definitions requiring intent, so maybe that could be the explanation?

[Terry in Crapchester]

Question:

Could the definition change, from jurisdiction to jurisdiction? Meaning, is it possible that where you are your version doesn't require intent while intent is required in other locales?

I know I'm not crazy and I've read definitions requiring intent, so maybe that could be the explanation?

I suppose that's possible. But defamation is a creature more of common law than of statute, so a significant variance such as you mentioned by jurisdiction is less likely than would be the case for, say, a probate code.

Also, as I mentioned, intent effectively does become an element of defamation where the plaintiff is a public figure.

[Moving Sale]

Terry, okay, if you're dead nuts certain that intent isn't an element of defamation then I stand corrected on that point.

All I can go by are the definitions I've read, and understanding them wasn't difficult. They were very clear that intent was necessary.

To be fair to you Van I googled 'slander definition' and can see where you could have got this wrong. Even a 'legal' site had 'intent' as an element. They might have been thinking 'knowledge' that 'it' is false which then infers intent. :?

Terry laid it out right. Got all 5 elements. Then there is per se and he nailed that. And then there is Sullivan and Gertz et al and he covered that. Defamation starts easy and get harder with exceptions and additions.

Not sure why it is such a big deal to you that you would hang on till the 6th fucking page. I think I put a in my first post so I'm not sure why you got so pissy from the get go. Not sure why you thought my 'intent' was anything more than a light hearted jab but oh well.

L8

[KC Scott]

For the love of God..... and God

Somebody



Rack



HBJ - Tom in VA

[Van]

Also, as I mentioned, intent effectively does become an element of defamation where the plaintiff is a public figure.

Also, let's face it, in reality most slander/libel cases probably do involve public figures. Can't see too many Average Joes with no public image to protect taking somebody to court over being called a douche or a wife beater or a child molester or whatever...

[PSUFAN]

rack Tom...nice work!

[lk_pick1]

According to other published definitions I've read intent to damage/defame must be involved. Merely stating incorrect assertions with no ill intent and which don't damage the plaintiff in any way isn't slanderous, it's being ill informed and/or incorrect.

Intent is key, according to the definitions I've read.

I'm not doubting that you read this somewhere, but either what you read is wrong or you didn't fully understand it.

A plaintiff who is not a public figure can recover even if the defendant was merely negligent in publishing (either speaking or writing -- to answer your previous question, from a defamation standpoint, "publishing" means that the communication has been made to someone other than the plaintiff) the defamatory communication. A public figure plaintiff, however, must show a bit more.

Here's an example (I'm not considering the damages here, btw . . .)

Let's say that LK pick tells Dins that Buc beats his fiancee. The statement is false, but Dins thinks it's true. Dins repeats it. Guess what -- the statement is defamatory (of course, Buc still has to prove damages to recover for defamation).OTOH, let's say that I post a link to the NY Times that says that Bush doctored the pre-Iraq War intelligence to make it look like Iraq had WMD's, but he knew for a fact that they did not. And let's say the story turns out to be false, even though I thought it was true at the time. Can Bush sue me for defamation, assuming he can prove damages? No way, and for that matter, he'd have a tough road to hoe if he wanted to sue the NY Times.

Wasn't Dins' comment something to the effect that Buc is a wife beater, or a child molester, or something like that?

If so, okay, I guess "commission of a crime" would cover such charges.

Wife beater, although commission of a crime is somewhat questionable. Example: in New York in order to be convicted of assault you have to inflict "physical injury" (defined in the Penal Law) on the person you attack. "Physical injury" is not a de minimis standard, so a single slap of your spouse, while perhaps sufficient to get one branded a "wife beater," is not necessarily enough to entail commission of a crime.

Btw, why is it only bad to call a woman unchaste? What kind of bullshit gender double standard do we have going on here??

Point taken.

On a more serious note, our system is derived from the English common law system, and this exception goes back several hundred years. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment apparently wasn't enough to change it.

Show me where I stated this.

I just laughed at the slams.

[Van]

He didn't say you stated it. He said, "Let's say...", meaning it's just a hypothetical.

[PSUFAN]

LK_Pk, you should ask RtS to pray for your reading comprehension skills...if you can pry him off of OCMike's family.

[Moving Sale]

Can't see too many Average Joes with no public image to protect taking somebody to court over being called a douche or a wife beater or a child molester or whatever...

Shut up you whiny cunt. Defamation happens to AJ's everyday. You got the whole thing assbackwards. AJ's get bad reps and lose $. PF's get bad reps and make a movie out of it not to mention bank. Shut your fucking mouth on this as everytime you open it you look dumber and dumber.

If that is possible.

And it's not public image it's public figure. Do I need to define THAT for you too you fucking douche?

[PSUFAN]

I suggest this avatar for you, TVO

[Moving Sale]

I like the one I have thanx.

[Tom In VA]

Suffice it to say, if I'm in trouble, whether I did it or not and need a lawyer, I'll be paging TVO.


If I need a motorcycle or a guitar, I'll call Van.

[Moving Sale]

No, Van knows more about slander than TiC and I put together. He knows per se front to back. He knows Dunn&Bradstreet. He knows libel is different and why. He knows about damages and defenses. He knows it all bucko. He knows more about it that even Dins (read God)himself. He is a freaking super freaking geni-ous.

No wait. You are right. He is a legal tard.

[Van]

Little rat like toofer marks.

Little rat like toofer marks all over my ankle, making a beeline for my nutsack...

[Moving Sale]

Last refuge of a tard... label the person who just called you out (and the wiped the floor with you) an ankle biter. Tell me Vantard, when IS it ok to reply to someone post?

BTW- That was a rhetorical question you asshat.

[ElvisMonster]

I need a triangle and two sticks with a wavy line on top to be able to fully participate in this discussion.

That, and a clue, right?

Then why, for fuck's sake, do you keep fucking posting in it?!

[PSUFAN]

There's little doubt that she enjoys the abuse she receives here...at least it's a little attention.

[indyfrisco]

A day isn't a day unless the pick gets knocked the fuck out by her man and then he goes ass to mouth on her while unconscious.

[Van]

TVO, you never even entered the fray, except to ankle bite from the sidelines. You came in with...nothing, actually.

Just insults, and nothing else.

Wipe the floor with someone? You??

You're the little cunt who hides behind the bigger kid, in this case Terry, and then talks shit.

I called it right from the beginning: You weren't going to come in with anything substantive that would've made it worth your while to bother correcting me.

I was a little off there, as it turned out. You didn't come in with anything at all.

Handle your own business, and for once actually make an attempt to do it well, then talk. Until then, stay on the porch and drink your Sunny D and try to come up with something worthwhile before you jump back in here...

And for god's sake, get it through your twisted melon...No matter how nicely you keep asking, no, I'm not going to let you blow me. Quit nutsacking me already. That crap went out of style when Valvenis blew outta here.

[Dinsdale]

Two things here --

First, RACK Tom.


Second, to the admins -- how about a two-day banning for Vantard, Terry in Retardland, and TVTard? They've certainly earned it.

[Van]

I'm down with that.

[lk_pick1]

Autism obsession. Weak smack.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Second, to the admins -- how about a two-day banning for Vantard, Terry in Retardland, and TVTard? They've certainly earned it.

Wait a minute. What did I do to earn a banning?

I saw a flame war brewing between Van and TVO over the legal definition of defamation. I attempted to step in and put it out. 'S'all I really did here.

Doesn't deserve a banning, now does it?

[lk_pick1]

Because of all of this silliness with Dinsy and I going back and forth with regard to the patterns of abused and abusers, I have been banned from .net.

What a bunch of pussies.

[Dinsdale]

Doesn't deserve a banning, now does it?

Lately, you're complete dedication to being the polar opposite if "witty and entertaining," should earn you an auto-ban, and your inability to even be remotely interesting cements it.

Van should probably be permanently banned, for his constant tard-like actions -- ie. following me around to try and dispute every last fucking keystroke of mine, yet all the while accusing others of "ankle biting."


Retardation at its finest.


TVO -- well, I won't pick on TVO too much. Unlike Bannar and Fairy in Crapchester, I see TVO working. His mission is to give lamoids enough rope to hang themselves. Unfortunately, he hasn't been very good at it lately. But, I do see him working.

[Dinsdale]

Because of all of this silliness with Dinsy and I going back and forth with regard to the patterns of abused and abusers, I have been banned from .net.

You should consider this a favor.

Which actually, I will someday call upon you to retyrn this favor. Rest assured, you'll be fully clothed while you perform this favor, as will I.

[lk_pick1]

Because of all of this silliness with Dinsy and I going back and forth with regard to the patterns of abused and abusers, I have been banned from .net.

You should consider this a favor.

Which actually, I will someday call upon you to retyrn this favor. Rest assured, you'll be fully clothed while you perform this favor, as will I.

Not a problem.

They said I was reading IP's over there. By the same token, Buc and Katy both have guided me through trying to get spyware off my computer and both know I can't even create a troll, let alone any of the hard stuff.

Sometimes when people read things that might have some truth in a common sense aspect sort of way that aren't necessarily directed toward them, they get their little feelings hurt and have to cry to the big bad admins.

I almost feel like buttsy now, except my getting banned wasn't intentional. :D :D :D

[indyfrisco]

I vote we tell those at .net that we will unban RTS if they will unban pick. Kind of a "swapping of prisoners" deal.

[PSUFAN]

Too bad...if you lived in the Mississippi river valley, she'd show up and offer her services as speed/spunkbag, replete with written Troll recommendations.

[Dinsdale]

UBB Meltdown deleted.

[lk_pick1]

That would be cool.

I did come to realize something though, the smack over here is a lot more hard core and sure as fuck a lot funnier than over there.

Even when its directed at me. :D

[Terry in Crapchester]

Doesn't deserve a banning, now does it?

Lately, you're complete dedication to being the polar opposite if "witty and entertaining," should earn you an auto-ban, and your inability to even be remotely interesting cements it.

Actually, here I wasn't even trying to be witty and entertaining. I merely saw a disagreement between TVO and Van, in an area in which I have at least some level of expertise, and tried to step in to clear it up since I actually like both Van and TVO as posters.

I realize some find the flame wars entertaining, but two people talking past each other usually drives me nuts.

[Dinsdale]

Actually, here I wasn't even trying to be witty and entertaining.

And therein lies the rub -- it wouldn't have mattered whether you tried or not, the end result would be the same.

I merely saw a disagreement between TVO and Van, in an area in which I have at least some level of expertise

Won't disagree with you -- when it comes to being the driest, most unfunny fucker on the internet, "expertise" is EXACTLY what you possess -- in prodigous quantities.

[Moving Sale]

I was a little off there, as it turned out. You didn't come in with anything at all.

Pull the Popsicle stick out of your ass fuckbrain. I made a comment (with included to let you know I was just joshing) about how you might not have slander down pat and you flew of the handle like the whiny little cunt you are. Going into the specifics of why you are wrong would have been boring and pointless (see dins's request we be banned for 2 days.)

I'm the Atty you sell bikes. Everybody and their left nut knew I was right. Why bother putting it on a platter for you? Better to let you pull your same shit about you know what the fuck you are talking about and I'm just a contrarian.

Face it. You got played. Take your lumps and move on. I was even nice to you a post or 2 back and you still chimed in with some cunty remark. Fucking whinyass baby. GEEZ!