Author: Peter Kasinski
Date: 18:05:47 03/25/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 25, 1999 at 20:26:06, odell hall wrote: > >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! Before too long the kid who used a computer to cheat you out of the game on ICC is going to look like the least of our problems. PK
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.