Dins...

[Tom In VA]

Know your role in this here production Goob.

[Goober McTuber]

Know your role in this here production Goob.

[lk_pick1]

Gotta admit, this is some seriously funny shit.

[Dinsdale]

["The Dinsinator's" missing jellybeans

You....didn't just type that?


I MUST be in one of those alternate realities the quantam physicists talk about.

Because I know that the IP Romeo didn't just type that.

Buc, if you take a trip in the wayback machine, to a few days ago, you'll remember that this whole ball got rolling because you decided to raise the bar on being an internet pussy.


And you've done nothing to fix the problem. Matter of fact, you're now exacerbating it.


But no, really -- your timing of trying to save face and prove you're not a whiney little bitch is good...no, really. Don't listen to anybody who tells you that BEFORE having an estrogen-fuelled cryfest is a better time to defend yourself...really, they're lying to you. It's always better to cery like a six year old who just got picked for kickball in the same round as Rack Fu, than to stand up like a man from the onset...really.

Don't you have a wedding to plan? Better get to painting the bridesmaids faces green, and stamping a "™" on everything in the chapel.


But in all seriousness, I wish Ike and Tina Genie nothing but the best.

[indyfrisco]

l-r: Ken, RadioFan

I call bullshit. That's Rayduh James on the right.

[Spinach Genie]

Thanks so much for the well wishes, big woof. Trust me, no attempts to save face here. Your spousal abuse smack is absolutely watertight. I just had to take a moment to recognize.

[Tom In VA]

you'll remember that this whole ball got rolling because you decided to raise the bar on being an internet pussy.




....than to stand up like a man from the onset...

[lk_pick1]

Genie, you're the two facer here. I stated that I thought you were a decent dude and wouldn't do that and that Katy didn't deserve to have that happen again.

If you were me reading the two of you going back and forth, you'd giggle also.

Meanwhile, back at the farm, if I did find out you were abusive toward her (which I definitely sincerely doubt), I would have to go redneck, fly south and crowbar your dome.


Nuff said.


Oh, Mel Cruise is ugly.

[Van]

TVO, you quoted Dins, who was agreeing with me.

Brilliant.

You didn't refute a word I said.

Brilliant.

Man, you're just awful at this.

He was not agreeing with your hacking of the definition of slander. He was agreeing with me that one might want to know what the fuck they are talking about when they use legal terms. Not sure how you spin that as me KMOA.

Oh that's right you are a complete moron.

Are you really this fucking out of it? So out of it, that you start tossing legal terms around like "slander"(might want to check with a dictionary before you start tossing around them thar fancy-schmancy words next time), hinting at some sort of legal action, then you have the nerve to try and make an InkyDave comparison?

HELLO?

TVO, are you really this much of an idiot??

Clear as day, he said one needs to know the definition of slander before one starts talking about charging somebody with it, and he said this directly to Buc, the guy who threw out the term!

Meaning, no, that's not an example of slander, so don't attempt to label it as such and don't even begin to threaten me with a slander charge.

He's clearly agreeing with me, you fucking moron.

Meanwhile, you've yet to offer up even one shred of a refutation as to how this could ever be a winnable slander case. I said this isn't slander, and you said I don't know the definition. So, you were asked to show me where I'm wrong, and to show me how this is a winnable slander case.

Of course you haven't done so, because you can't. As always, you're not in it to be right, you're in it to be your usual cunty, ankle biting contrarian self who simply can't help your pavlovian response whenever I post something.

TVO, again, I can call you a child molesting wannabe catholic priest who routinely assfucks bound and gagged alter boys while you bone up on your legal expertise...in the form of watching "Judge Judy" on tv.

In fact...

TVO, you're a child molesting wannabe catholic priest who routinely assfucks bound and gagged alter boys while you bone up on your legal expertise...in the form of watching "Judge Judy" on tv...

There I posted it. (Posted it, mind you, on an anonymous internet message board. I didn't say it, I wrote it, and posted it. I hope to gain nothing from it and you stand nothing to lose because of it. It's just an insult hurled at "you" on an anonymous message board...of the very kind you post everyday here, nearly without fail.)

So, I'll soon see you in court for committing slander against you, right?

Right?? You have a slander case now, right?

For a bright guy you're so often startlingly stupid.

[Bizzarofelice]

Katy

what does she look like?

[Dinsdale]

Katy

what does she look like?

She looks a lot like Rose Darling.

[Bizzarofelice]

Step off. This isn't the Dins show. Not everything in this world warrants your response.


What does Katy look like?

[Tom In VA]

What does Katy look like?

[Moving Sale]

Clear as day, he said one needs to know the definition of slander before one starts talking about charging somebody with it, and he said this directly to Buc, the guy who threw out the term!

...or knowing the definition before one tries to define it which is what I was calling you out for doing.

Meanwhile, you've yet to offer up even one shred of a refutation as to how this could ever be a winnable slander case.

If you could read you would know that never said it was a salnder case only that you have no idea what IS a slander case. Got it you fucking dumbass?

For a bright guy you're so often startlingly stupid.

Twisting what I said and then calling that stupid is the lowest form of strawman that there is. Props for being too stupid to be able to construct an argument that is even remotely logically sound.

[Van]

Clear as day, he said one needs to know the definition of slander before one starts talking about charging somebody with it, and he said this directly to Buc, the guy who threw out the term!

...or knowing the definition before one tries to define it which is what I was calling you out for doing.

One problem there. He quoted Buc, not me. Therefore, he was refuting Buc, not me.

In fact, he was simply restating my point to Buc that what he posted does not rise to the definition of slander.

Like I said, he agreed with me, without a doubt. Meanwhile, you've yet to counter with any sort of example or defintion that would make any of this worth your while.

I asked you to tell me how my definition of slander is inaccurate enough for you to quote it and then go after me about it.

You still haven't done so. You can't, because I'm right. Slander involves the spoken word, not the written word, which is libel. Merely writing anonymous insults on message boards to other anonymous people is not slander. Far more needs to be involved in terms of intent before it could even be construed as libelous, much less pursuable slander.

Slander Definition

slander definition – Slander is a defamatory statement expressed in a transitory medium such as verbal speech.

What is the Difference Between Slander and Libel?

The difference between slander and libel is that libel is the written or otherwise published, public defamation of a person or entity such as an organization or company, while slander is the spoken false defamation of a person or entity. Slander can also include bodily gestures while libel can include published photographs. Defamation is any wrongful injury to the reputation of a person or entity.

While the right to fairly criticize people or entities and publicly share information is one of the hallmarks of personal freedom, it is illegal to malign the reputation of another through slander or libel.

As an example assume Mr. Brooks is assistant editor at the fictitious XYZ Magazine. He has a few too many libations at the company party, is nursing a personal grudge about not being able to control his stories, and begins badmouthing XYZ Magazine to the wives of a few co-workers. He tells the women that XYZ has no integrity, is always stealing competitor's material, and is set to go bankrupt because of its horrific management... none of which is true and all of which has been conjured up by his hurt pride. This is slander.

Let's further hypothesize that Mr. Brooks leaves XYZ to work for ABC Magazine where he publishes a story about XYZ with the same falsehoods. Now Mr. Brooks has engaged in libel.

The examples above would remain accurate if Mr. Brooks had been badmouthing a specific person, rather than a company. However, if Mr. Brooks had targeted a general group of people without naming anyone specifically, U.S. law does not allow the plaintiff to be "a group of people," and therefore no recourse would likely be available through these laws for those who felt they were the intended victims.

Recently the difference between slander and libel has become less distinct since speaking on public television or radio amounts to libel because of the public dissemination of the spoken words. For this reason defamation through television or radio is considered libel in countries like Canada, and may be handled as libel in the United States where laws differ from state to state.

Posting false and defamatory information online also amounts to libel, not just on a website but also in the context of a discussion in a USENET newsgroup, listserv or IRC chat room. Several libel lawsuits in various countries have been brought against parties for Internet libel, somtimes referred to as cyberlibel

United States law dictates that for something to be considered libel it must be proven that the one making the libelous charges did so with malicious intent and with full knowledge that the statements were false. Furthermore personal opinion is protected as a First Amendment right.

Do we know that Dins knew he was levying false charges at Buc? Do we know that he fully intended to defame Buc, by injuring either his reputation or his interests, with false charges?

No we don't.

Do we know that he posted his written words on an internet message board?

Yes, we do.

So, yes, TVO, I was correct in saying what Dins did does not in any way rise to the definition of slander, and there's nothing wrong with my definition of slander.

When all is said and done once again you've simply been pissing up a rope.

[Screw_Michigan]

van, do you ever get tired of swattting TV-BLOW off your nuts every day? jesus christ, it's gotta be like having crabs...

[lk_pick1]

See, still no, WE'RE SORRY for acting like assclowns.

That's a real word. I saw Bad Santa.

[Van]

Screw Michigan, yeah, my relation here with TVO is similar to having crabs, but less charming in the obtaining...

Harder to kill, also. TVO never stays dead.

For whatever reason sometime ago he decided to make me his Personal Crusade. He's been dutifully ankle biting me ever since, usually to his own detriment.

Doesn't matter though. When all the message board bullshit is cast aside I've always liked TVO, the Real Person...at least what little I know of the real person.

In the end it's all just message board b.s., so who cares?

[Bizzarofelice]

Is Katy pretty?

[indyfrisco]

Screw Michigan, yeah, my relation here with TVO is similar to having crabs, but less charming in the obtaining...

Harder to kill, also. TVO never stays dead.

So cockroach is a better term, yes?

[Terry in Crapchester]

Van, since you asked (sort of) . . .

I went back and looked it up, just so I wouldn't be wrong. A cause of action for defamation (which encompasses both libel and slander) exists where the plaintiff proves the following: (1) publication by the defendant; (2) of a statement; (3) which is false; (4) of or concerning the plaintiff; (5) resulting in damages to the plaintiff. So when you said,

Slander involves specific motivations, profit to be gained and somebody who's in the public eye.

Technically, you were wrong, although I think you were right in your conclusion that Dins' statements about Buc were not defamatory. That, imho, is what TVO was riding you about.

I should point out that the legal definition I gave you above is a general definition only, and that there are some exceptions to this rule. Most notably,

• If the communication is defamatory per se, the plaintiff need not prove damages. There are four categories which are defamatory per se: allegation of commission of a crime; allegations of a loathsome disease; allegations that the plaintiff is incompetent in his business, trade or profession; or allegations that the plaintiff is unchaste (but in this last case, only if the plaintiff is a woman).
• If the defamation plaintiff is a "public figure," the plaintiff can recover only if the allegedly defamatory communication was published by the defendant with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Exactly what is a "public figure" for defamation purposes can be something of a moving target, although some people rather clearly are "public figures" for all purposes.
• There are some technical differences between an action for libel and one for slander.

Anyway, hope this helps, and can get to the heart of the issue without mindlessly flaming.

[Tom In VA]

..... without mindlessly flaming.

How long you been on these boards ?

[Terry in Crapchester]

..... without mindlessly flaming.

How long you been on these boards ?

Touche.

Having said that, that particular example of "mindless flaming" was more or less played out, so I decided to step in and at least try to put an end to it.

[lk_pick1]

You know those TEAM ANISTON and TEAM JOLIE t-shirts? Also, the TEAM NICOLE and TEAM PARIS t-shirts?

We need team shirts.

[Van]

Terry, by "specific motivations, profit to be gained and being in the public eye" I'm referring to the ability and intent to damage someone's interests.

Two goofballs slogging it out back and forth with insults on an anonymous internet smack board doesn't meet the definition of damages and defamation required to meet the definition of libel, much less slander.

Buc can't demonstrate any damages to his interests, reputation, business or whatever that occured due to being insulted on a message board. A board, mind you, which he willingly participates in, knowing full well that its main purpose is to provide a forum in which people smack each other with "rude, crude, obnoxious behavior"...or whatever the warning signs said above the door.

Also, Buc can't prove that Dins made his verbal assertions (which weren't verbal anyway) with the full knowledge that they were lies.

No way in hell it's slander. It's not even libel but it sure couldn't be slander, by definition.

[lk_pick1]

Terry, by "specific motivations, profit to be gained and being in the public eye" I'm referring to the ability and intent to damage someone's interests.

Two pepole slogging it out back and forth with insults on an anonymous internet smack board don't meet the definition of damages and defamation required to meet the definition of libel, much less slander.

Buc can't demonstrate any damages to his interests, reputation, business or whatever that occured to him due to being insulted on a message board. A board, mind you, which he willingly participates in, knowing full well that its main purpose is to provide a forum in which people smack each other with "rude, crude, obnoxious behavior"...or whatever the warning signs said above the door.

Also, Buc can't prove that Dins made his verbal assertions (which weren't verbal anyway) with the full knowledge that they were lies.

No way in hell it's slander. It's not even libel but it sure couldn't be slander, by definitioin.

He is correct.

I understand when people's feelings get hurt, but this is silly, as Buc can bring it back.

Slander and defamation of character are not being shown here.

1. Has his livelihood been endangered? No.

2. The situation with the future Mrs. Buc. Well, if they take it that personally - then again, in the words of the almighty Python...

[indyfrisco]

You know those TEAM ANISTON and TEAM JOLIE t-shirts? Also, the TEAM NICOLE and TEAM PARIS t-shirts?

We need team shirts.

Put me down for a Team STFU lk_hick tshirt.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Van,

I'm pretty sure I said I agreed with you that Dins' statements could not be construed as defamatory.

Where I said you were incorrect was in your statement that defamation involves "specific motivations, profit to be gained and being in the public eye." The first two, if you're viewing them from the defendant's point of view, are irrelevant to defamation. The third has some relevance to defamation, but if true, it actually makes the plaintiff's case more difficult, not less difficult, to prove.

I think that's the nit TVO chose to pick with you, although he did not do so with those words. Anyway, 's'all I was sayin'.

[lk_pick1]

You know those TEAM ANISTON and TEAM JOLIE t-shirts? Also, the TEAM NICOLE and TEAM PARIS t-shirts?

We need team shirts.

Put me down for a Team STFU lk_hick tshirt.

That is actually cute.

They banned me over there because of this, you know. Because I laughed at something funny.

Bad me. Bad me.

I like my job. YAY!

[Felix]

^^^^^^ this bitch is fucking loony.......

[indyfrisco]

^^^ MAPOTY ^^^

[Van]

Terry, slander requires the knowledge that you're intentionally trying to damage someone's interests by telling what you know to be lies.

That would be the "specific intent" and "profit to be gained" aspects to which I referred.

"Being in the public eye" was simply a reference alluding to the fact that there has to be something that can be damaged in the first place before slander may exist, which isn't the case when it's just two goofballs hurling insults back and forth at each other on an anonymous message board.

Also, you correctly used the term "nitpick" to describe TVO's posts here. Yeah, like I said in my first response post to him, I await any response he can give that will be different enough in the definition of "slander" to've made it worth his while to ankle bite me again.

The definitions have been laid and the explanations have been given, as well as the actual example itself from Buc and Dins.

I'm still waiting. It's going to be a long wait. There's no way he'll be able to do anything worthwhile with this; something that isn't sheer nitpicking.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Terry, slander requires the knowledge that you're intentionally trying to damage someone's interests by telling what you know to be lies.

No it doesn't. Go back to my first post on this subject.

Interestingly, while truth is a defense to a defamation action, the burden of proof on the issue of truth, unless you're talking about a case involving a public figure, rests on the defendant. Thus, the statement initially will be assumed to be false for the purpose of determining whether the plaintiff has a cause of action.

[lk_pick1]

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?

[Van]

Terry...

A cause of action for defamation (which encompasses both libel and slander) exists where the plaintiff proves the following: (1) publication by the defendant;

Dunno if this place counts as being "published", but even if it does it falls under the definition of libel, not slander.

(2) of a statement;

Written, or spoken? This place cannot create slander, not unless somebody posts a soundfile of themselves speaking slander.

(3) which is false;

I don't even know the accusations Dins made. :-) I'll assume though by Buc's reaction that they must be false, even if Dins doesn't know them to be false.

(4) of or concerning the plaintiff;

Well, yeah.

(5) resulting in damages to the plaintiff.

Nope. None.

So when you said,

Van wrote:
Slander involves specific motivations, profit to be gained and somebody who's in the public eye.


Technically, you were wrong, although I think you were right in your conclusion that Dins' statements about Buc were not defamatory. That, imho, is what TVO was riding you about.

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 should point out that the legal definition I gave you above is a general definition only, and that there are some exceptions to this rule. Most notably,

If the communication is defamatory per se, the plaintiff need not prove damages. There are four categories which are defamatory per se: allegation of commission of a crime; allegations of a loathsome disease; allegations that the plaintiff is incompetent in his business, trade or profession; or allegations that the plaintiff is unchaste (but in this last case, only if the plaintiff is a woman).

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.

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

If the defamation plaintiff is a "public figure," the plaintiff can recover only if the allegedly defamatory communication was published by the defendant with knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth. Exactly what is a "public figure" for defamation purposes can be something of a moving target, although some people rather clearly are "public figures" for all purposes.

Doesn't apply here.

There are some technical differences between an action for libel and one for slander.

Mainly centering around written vs verbal.

[Moving Sale]

Slander involves specific motivations, profit to be gained and somebody who's in the public eye.

Where I said you were incorrect was in your statement that defamation involves "specific motivations, profit to be gained and being in the public eye." The first two, if you're viewing them from the defendant's point of view, are irrelevant to defamation. The third has some relevance to defamation, but if true, it actually makes the plaintiff's case more difficult, not less difficult, to prove.

I think that's the nit TVO chose to pick with you, although he did not do so with those words. Anyway, 's'all I was sayin'.

You following along yet Van?

And I pick on you because you are one of the few people on this board who has shown the ability to learn from their mistakes when said mistakes are pointed out to them. If you were a lost cause I would not bother.

Got it?

[KC Scott]

5 Pages later and we have the entire UBB internet experience laid bare for all to see.......

Internet idiot falls for Board Skank ('Sup Perk and Cinder) - Slaps Skank around ('Sup Nocall and Fubu) tells world about it ('Sup T1B) and then gets smacked like bubble yum tweenst the Jowels of the Jess the Wookie.

Fuckin' Brilliant.

[Van]

TVO..

:big ass chuckle:

Terry and I are having a discussion about the finer points of the definition.

You never offered even a rebuttal. You only offered name calling, even after I invited you to provide a definition that would substantively differ from what I said.

Terry and I discuss things. It always stays on an even, civilized keel. Always has, always will.

You? You instantly go to the gratuitous insults card and when asked to support your statements you just pile on more insults and then you go all inscrutable on us...

See the difference?

Yeah, I know you're bright enough. Problem is, your head is nearly always in the wrong place here. You come here to ankle bite and nitpick when, yeah, I'll gladly admit it, you're capable of so much more.

[Moving Sale]

Yeah, like I said in my first response post to him, I await any response he can give that will be different enough in the definition of "slander" to've made it worth his while to ankle bite me again.

So if someone posts that thing "A" is red when it is blue, and you so no it is not red it is green, I'm not allowed to point out to you that it is not green without proving to you that it is blue?

And you think I'M a dumbass? Geez.

[Van]

TVO, you never proved me wrong, not in the least.

Terry stated that you were nitpicking at best, and that I was correct in my assessment that there was no slander in that instance. That was my entire point, and the impetus for your entry into this thread...

So, yeah, it was incumbent on you to step up and say something in refutation.

You never did. You let Terry attempt to flesh out your points for you, and Terry and I aren't even finished with the very discussion you never chose to enter.

"Dumbass" might be a bit harsh, and probably incorrect as well.

"Bitter as hell, severly afflicted with Ankle Bite Syndrome and unable (or at least unwilling) to debate anything at all, much less at even a civilized level" would be more correct.