Author: odell hall
Date: 16:37:30 03/26/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 26, 1999 at 14:02:00, Hristo 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! > >"argument" is in room 12a. This is "abuse". .... :))))))))))) > >cheers. >Hristo I Agree I went to far, because I was angry, My apologies to Michael with all sincerity!
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.