Author: David Dahlem
Date: 21:21:07 11/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 28, 2003 at 00:15:55, Arturo Ochoa wrote: >On November 28, 2003 at 00:13:08, David Dahlem wrote: > >>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? >> > >I am not who to establish that. The ICGA has their rules and you ask them >directly for this. I wont mixture topics. My point has been very clear about >Vincent Diepeveen. > >Regards, Arturo. I understand, i realize it's two different topics. I was just trying to make a point, in my own convoluted way. :-) 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.