Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 05:24:30 03/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 17, 2004 at 21:23:02, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On March 17, 2004 at 20:56:08, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On March 17, 2004 at 20:36:09, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >> >>>On March 17, 2004 at 20:24:53, Dann Corbit wrote: >>> >>>>On March 17, 2004 at 20:12:34, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >>>> >>>>>On March 17, 2004 at 19:57:49, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>>> >>>>>So you basically say now that nothing you write in CCC by you should be taken >>>>>serious. >>>>> >>>>>That ends of course all discussions. >>>>> >>>>>By the way, statements at electronic paper are having the same meaning in court >>>>>like statements at real paper. The advantage of a forum is that it is easier to >>>>>proof someone said those words and that not someone else posted them. >>>> >>>>I suspect that it is the opposite. With handwriting, it can be analyzed. >>>>Anyone can post from this workstation, and I log in with my password >>>>automatically, so anyone can do that too. >>> >>>So if you go to court you first deny everything you ever said because it could >>>be someone else? >>> >>>Judges and jury's do not like that. >> >>That is not what I said. I said that it would be harder to prove a usenet post >>than a written document had a certain origination. > >In contradiction, when a third party can proof that you posted this on usenet, >and the message number and id number at usenet can proof this, then you have >very hard proof from a third party, which is legal proof that you wrote it. that is garbage. I could post using _any_ message id, poster id and originating host id you choose. This is why such is not accepted in court as "factual",,, > >When you write a letter in paper and you want to go so far that you deny you >wrote the letter, then i must proof that the ink is the ink from your printer >instead of that of your neighbour? you certainly do, in fact. > >So if just 1 such denial from you gets refuted you lose the entire courtcase >basically. > you need to talk to an attorney rather than making this up as you go. I have been called as an expert witness in such cases. I _know_ how this works... >It is the American courtcase series i guess which show a wrong image from the >truth. > >The truth is that there is a lack of judges everywhere on the planet except for >some cases in China i guess (as the courtcase is a matter of what the party >wants). So if you do effort to waste their time, you will feel it for sure. > >Denying that here cannot be taken serious. > >>>>>But I will take your wise words than and follow them regarding your future >>>>>postings. >>>> >>>>Good advice about my postings period. If you expect something of great value or >>>>of weighty importance, you should definitely look elsewhere. And I can >>>>definitely be a whinging twit from time to time. >>>> >>>>>Note that i did find some postings back, which refute the words you just said >>>>>here, but i am not here to make a hot fire. My point is clear enough i hope. >>>> >>>>If I have ever said something to hurt you, I sincerely apologize for it. >>> >>>Well the damage was financially, cheap words cannot make up for it. >>> >>>>>Certain people like to post about me. If you post without reasons i might do in >>>>>future the same chessbase, schroeder, weiner and all chess companies have been >>>>>doing so much in the past which means full scale war. >>>> >>>>I am not sure that I follow you here, but I think confrontation is better to >>>>avoid than to cause. >>> >>>Right i just need 1 reason for a confrontation and i'll take it. that's what i >>>said. >> >>People who look for trouble often end up finding it. A terrible pity, too. >>I think taking a softer attitude would cause many people to warm to you who do >>not feel that way now.
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.