Author: odell hall
Date: 19:12:02 03/25/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 25, 1999 at 21:05:47, Peter Kasinski wrote: >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 First of all We don't know it was a kid, This was something that was suggested, without any evidence at all. Secondly even if it was a kid, It is still wrong to cheat. Are you suggesting, that because it was a kid who committed the cheating then it is ok? Does the rules of ICC say that using a computer is wrong and against the rules only when adults are involved? Thirdly in making this reply, you are acknoledging that I was cheated and thus my evidence was sufficient . All this being true, I was within my rights to post the handle of a suspected cheater after gathering the proper evidence. These actions were taken without the objections of any moderator in this forum, Neither has it been proven, that I violated any CCC rules. This information being true, all attacks on me can only be viewed as a form of harrassment.
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.