Author: odell hall
Date: 17:26:06 03/25/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 24, 1999 at 18:33:19, Micheal Cummings wrote: > >>According to Skarks Law Dictionary here is the definition of slander >> >> >>slander A type of defamation. Slander is an untruthful oral (spoken) >>statement about a person that harms the person's reputation or standing >>in the community. Because slander is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured >>person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false >>statement. If the statement is made via broadcast media--for example, >>over the radio or on TV--it is considered libel, rather than slander, >>because the statement has the potential to reach a very wide audience. >>See Topic: Criminal >> >> >> >>I have not even remotely came close to any of the above. I challenge anyone to >>prove that 1. I made an untruthful statement >>2. Had intent to harm that person's (who i don't even know) reputation > >Point 1, there is just as many people who could find fault with your statement >then people that support you. > >Point 2, You did state that you knew the persons real name, even though you have >never met him, most slander cases are caused when people write or say about >people they never met. So point 2 has been proved > >You have used the internet which has a potential worldwide audience, Thus you >have changed this from a possible slander case, to now a more serious possible >criminal act, do you want to dig yourself in deeper, by proving what you are >doing. I would not want you to look up the criminal section as it asked. You >might be facing a possible death penalty, and we do not want that :-) I will not dignify the idioticy of your statements with a response. I see no further reason to continue this discussion with you, for it is obvious from your responses, that you are simply not interested in the truth, I think you just like to read your own nonsense. Even a child could see that what your saying is moronic. But if it makes you feel good to continue rambling , have at it, for I am out of this discussion. At the beginning I thought I was having a discussion with a half-way reasonable person, but after this last tirade you have convinced me that you are no less than a fool! These Judgments do not extend to karlsdad however, who is atleast reasonable, although misguided. Atleast karlsdad really believes in what he is saying. I do not think that even you believe the nonsense you just posted. Evidence that your simply longing for an argument, not an intelligent discourse. Have the last word Fool!
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.