Author: David Dahlem
Date: 21:13:08 11/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 28, 2003 at 00:11:13, Arturo Ochoa wrote: >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. Doesn't the article at the chessbase site say this case was about circumstantial evidence? Regards Dave
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.