Author: Arturo Ochoa
Date: 21:11:13 11/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 28, 2003 at 00:06:19, David Dahlem wrote: >On November 27, 2003 at 23:53:50, Arturo Ochoa wrote: > >> >>>Unless you can show the false statements that people are saying, there is no >>>slander or libel here. If I say, "I think it is likely that Vincent did it," >>>that is not slander or libel. If I say, "I have first hand knowledge that >>>Vincent intentionally fabricated evidence to mislead the ICGA to get List >>>disqualified," AND you can prove that I am lying, AND you can prove that my >>>intent in saying that was to cause damage to the reputation of Vincent, then it >>>is possible that there is slander or libel. >> >>If you accuse somebody about something that is false is slander and libel. >>Diepeveen is being acussed of being the responsible of the List Case. If you >>cannot understand that this is slander or libel, I point out you the >>definitions: >> >>Slander: to say untrue things about someone in order to damage other people´s >>good opinion of them. >> >>Libel: an act of writing or printing untrue statements about someone so that >>other people are likely to have a bad opinion. >> >> >>When you establish or say untrue things about Vincent Diepeveen such as the List >>Case, you are creating a bad belief of this person. How can you call it? >> >>Accusing him about the List Case is slander. > >And what is it called when someone falsely accusses a programmer of plagarism? > The same. I dont agree with any case if your proofs are circunstancial. >Regards >Dave Regards, Arturo.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.