Good the new Loren?

[sh0e]

 

Urrg .....


I don?t care what Webster says in a few lines, if you are talking about using a form of defamation as a cause of legal action, than you use it based on the legal terminology.

Defamation can be split into 2 basic forms:

Slander is spoken defamation, Libel is written defamation.

There are other types like per quad, but this does not have to be a lecture  on a subject that many books have been written.

Whether that statement excided to any form of defamation is debatable.

Trust me that this is right.

You guys want to get back on topic now?


Wolf Bite esq.

i dont know who you are referring to.. but my comment referred to the prior comment related to harm of reputation
both libel and slander are directly related to harming reputation thus his logic is unsound

and restricting slander to only the audible is definitely folly.. especially in the context of internet communication
many things communicated through the internet are very often referred to in the "spoken" sense.. bbs included
ie: "i spoke to joe and the crew on the uber forum yesterday.. they were talking about how i never talk on aim anymore"

[Stan(NM)]

 He never condemned speaking to verbal communication, making slander a correct term of use.
;)

[wolf bite]

 I understand the confusion. You are saying that because in computer terminology we say ?I spoke to him on Aim today? that we are therefore ?speaking.? I see your point, but that still does not make Internet use slander.

The difference in the terms is based on how evidence would be brought to prove the defendant did deformation. Libel is a much more serious cause of action because the actual document can be brought into court. (IE: the judge could view the site or a print out of the site,) On the other hand, Slander is based on the words of others (hearsay) as to whether the defendant did defame the plaintiff.  So the penalties for Slander will be les because even a busload of nuns could have misheard the statement.

What was the original topic anyways?


Wolf Bite

[sh0e]

I understand the confusion. You are saying that because in computer terminology we say ?I spoke to him on Aim today? that we are therefore ?speaking.? I see your point, but that still does not make Internet use slander.

The difference in the terms is based on how evidence would be brought to prove the defendant did deformation. Libel is a much more serious cause of action because the actual document can be brought into court. (IE: the judge could view the site or a print out of the site,) On the other hand, Slander is based on the words of others (hearsay) as to whether the defendant did defame the plaintiff.  So the penalties for Slander will be les because even a busload of nuns could have misheard the statement.

What was the original topic anyways?


Wolf Bite

something about good being the loren clan

[sh0e]

 btw the original topic has already been kind of resolved.. and had already degraded into a flame bait situation

[Veranor]

 

it is not dependent on opinion
you might want to relook the definition of libel

according to the logic that you posted on why slander does not fit.. libel does not fit

Well technically you're right if you don't consider this a writing or publication.


EDIT:

Sorry just read the rest of the thread. I know it's not libel, but if it were damaging his reputation (I still believe that's a matter of opinon) then it would be more correct to say libel as opposed to slander.

Anyways, I only pointed it out because Stan had been hmm.. how shall we put it... about mistakes other people made.

EDIT2:

Will a mod please close this?

[Stan(NM)]

 there you go again. SLANDER, implying you're pointing out a mistake I made when I didn't make a mistake.

Libel MEANS:
1A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.
2The act of presenting such material to the public.
3The written claims presented by a plaintiff in an action at admiralty law or to an ecclesiastical court.

Slander MEANS:
1Law. Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.
2A false and malicious statement or report about someone.

Note the underlined definition.
Note The beginning thread;

Okay, I think that Good is actually Loren because: 1. The Loren Message Boards are still active. 2. I know at least one of them used to be in Loren, and I think there are more. 3. Look how good they are! They took the top in so short a time!

I'm pretty sure they're Loren, but with a different name.

I would like to focus attention on the first line.  He said, "I think that Good is actually Loren..." And continued to "The Loren Message Boards are still active."
The first quote is a false statement, followed by a malicious accusation.
I never claimed of reputation or his attempts at damaging mine. I was examining his inconsistency of truth.

[Wildwood]

 who really cares?

[Veranor]

there you go again. SLANDER, implying you're pointing out a mistake I made when I didn't make a mistake.

Libel MEANS:
1A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.
2The act of presenting such material to the public.
3The written claims presented by a plaintiff in an action at admiralty law or to an ecclesiastical court.

Slander MEANS:
1Law. Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.
2A false and malicious statement or report about someone.

Note the underlined definition.
Note The beginning thread;

Okay, I think that Good is actually Loren because: 1. The Loren Message Boards are still active. 2. I know at least one of them used to be in Loren, and I think there are more. 3. Look how good they are! They took the top in so short a time!

I'm pretty sure they're Loren, but with a different name.

I would like to focus attention on the first line.  He said, "I think that Good is actually Loren..." And continued to "The Loren Message Boards are still active."

Actually he probably did think you were Loren, so it's not a false statement... also did you not read Wolfbite's post about the legal definitions? The following quote is not an accusation, he's simply trying to give some reasoning for his statement.  

[Fun For None]

 "I'm a jerk becuase I pointed out you making a mistake?
How do children learn?
How do you learn?
Think before you open your mouth?"

Stan, for someone who cannot write a coherent sentence you're in no position to tell someone to "think before (opening) your mouth." Perhaps if you thought before opening your mouth, something resembling intelligence would be evident in your posts.

Unfortunately, its not.

Children learn in a variety of ways. Apparently, you don't learn quite as quickly as some.

Libel is in fact the better definition.

 

[Checkerpaw]

 

I would like to focus attention on the first line. He said, "I think that Good is actually Loren..." And continued to "The Loren Message Boards are still active."
The first quote is a false statement, followed by a malicious accusation.

I can see the false statement, but there is absolutely no malicious accusation anywhere in Trogdor's original message.  And I think you know it too, Stan.

[wolf bite]

 The first line was "I think...", an opinion is not defamation.  A person is stating a thought, not a fact. Only the statement of a fact can be defamation.

Could you just imagine what would happen if we outlawed the statements of thoughts? Weather predictions, movie reviews, political commentaries, the JFK conspiracy theories, alien abductions, and so on, would all be defamation.

There is no defamation in the statement, only a thought.


Wolf Bite, esq.

[Stan(NM)]

 Hate you, wolf bite.

As for the others who actually don't know what they're talking about -
looking at one definition and not another for the same word is straight up ignorance.
the word that best describe the situation was slander, it was not a written substance defaming the clan, as wolf bite mentioned.
the context suggests (if you are at ALL comprehensive) that someone is telling(conveying his thoughts) others false statements(that good is loren) which in hand compliments rumors(unverified information in the form of a report(reply posts)) which in turn has a detrimental (false) affect on the clan and it's people (clan to clan communication is stagnant.)

As for others that prefer to break topic, (Fun For None)
A fools heart is as a glutton's tongue.

[Billy]

 Billy thinks that we should get back on topic, or not post at all.  Just to try and set everything straight:  Loren is not in any shape, form, or fashion, the Good/Best clan.  There are, however, a few members from Loren that are in the Good/Best clans.  Billy will post here no more.

[Fun For None]

 "straight up ignorance."

Stan is now officially 4/4. You really need to improve your vocabulary.

(if you are at ALL comprehensive)

If we're comprehensive? When you post using words you don't understand, you appear less intelligent than you are in actuality. (If possible) At the very least look up your words in a dictionary, because right now everyone can see that your ignorant.

No one here knows what you're trying to say. Explain to me how people are comprehensive.

Is it ok that I borrowed your word?

Without your pretty parenthesis, your sentence reads.

"the context suggests that someone is telling others false statements which in hand compliments rumors the form of a report which in turn has a detrimental affect on the clan and it's people."

There are so many things wrong with that, I don't have the time to break it down for you. If anyone on this forum can read it, feel free to explain.

Detrimental does not mean "false." I appreciate the attempt, but once again you really don't understand what you are posting.

A fools heart is as a glutton's tongue.

Once again, a completely moronic quote from Stan. The two are completely unrelated, there's no deep meaning, and quite simply you look like/are a fool.