<OT> Response to Herschel Rubin - <OT>
Again, distortions are the primary feature of your post.
<<----Personal Attacks: I may dispute your opinions with debate --which is NOT a personal attack. I may call attention to your style of delivery that I think (IMO) is inappropriate, reckless, and defamatory - which is NOT a personal attack.>>
I don't object to you disputing my opinions with debate. Plenty of people dispute my opinions.
The problem with you is that you DO engage in personal attacks. Since you ignored those examples, I'll quote your remarks again then:
<<BTW, Did you cover your short position, Morgan?>>
<<Sometimes he hangs his token disclaimer out there: "BTW, I'm short now." And sometimes he doesn't. BUT! When he doesn't (and who can believe a message board "disclaimer" anyways), and I sense he's got motive in his posts, I'll call him on it simply because I'd rather have a balance here.>>
<<Despite claims that "you don't think you can influence the markets through message boards can you...", his posts probably suit his short-term position (long or short) at the time>>
What do you call that?
Now, lets look at the following:
<<I may call attention to your style of delivery that I think (IMO) is inappropriate, reckless, and defamatory - which is NOT a personal attack>>
And that is not what I objected to. Nice distortion again - so typical of you. You are now saying that 'you think (IMO)' blah blah blah. That's a critical difference. You now included a disclaimer that it is your opinion. Funny, how careful you got all of a sudden. And you are right to be so. I have nothing to say about your opinions - frankly they don't interest me. What I objected to, was a libelous statement you made with NO qualifying statement like "IMO":
<<Morgan, there is something called libel and defamation and your quotes are a fine example. As you know, companies can subpoena a poster's ID from their ISP.>>
Notice how after I pounded you with the disclaimer issue, you cleaned up your act mighty fast. But it is a distortion to imply as you did, that your original statement contained the "IMO" disclaimer - it did not, and it makes all the difference in the world.
Retraction? I have nothing to retract. I express personal opinions, and mark them as such, I have no need, nor legal obligation to retract any opinion. YOU DO have reason to retract a libelous statement you made about me, which is a matter of public record. Check with a lawyer.
As to the definitions of libel and defamation: yes, all of us can quote the dictionary. That is the common use of those words. But do those apply to my remarks in a LEGAL sense? Nope.
You are hopelessly wrong about this. Go look up the law, or check with a lawyer. A clear disclaimer - or an implied one which makes it clear that the writer/speaker is expressing a personal opinion is entirely protected as free speech. Your assertions about courts "throwing out" claims, is as usual, and so typical for you, full of hot air and misinformed.
Ask any lawyer who deals with libel law and he will tell you that of these two statements only the second is actionable under the law:
1) I speculate that [or: "in my opinion", "I suspect", "it is my belief" etc] management of XYZ lined their pockets at the expense of the shareholders.
2) I know for a fact that management of XYZ lined their pockets at the expense of the shareholders.
I am very well aware of the Yahoo poster cases. You clearly are not, or you would not attempt to cite them as allegedly supporting your contention.
Those cases involved: people falsely claiming to be employees of the company in question; false claims that the CEO had a criminal record (child molestation in one particular case); false claims that an audit by a known accounting firm uncovered wrongdoing by management (theft of funds), etc.
As is obvious - my remarks come nowhere close anything actionable. At no point have I claimed illegal action by management. At no point did I claim special knowledge of facts which turn out to be false. I expressed opinions, and I clearly labeled them as such.
Again, you are wrong on all counts - how expected.
I have no reason to retract anything. I did not defame anyone. You do have reason to retract defamatory statements you made about me. Again, since you find it difficult to understand legal distinctions, you may wish to consult a lawyer who can explain it to you.
In general, this is the pattern with you: you attack me personally, questioning my motives etc. Then you urge that we get back to discussing "the market". Strange, I never initiate these exchanges. If you want to discuss the markets do that. Try to leave out your opinions and assertions about my possible motives, my posting style, my alleged need to be "a threadleader" etc., etc., etc. While you are at it, you are welcome to drop sarcastic and pointless remarks in the style of "our fearless threadleader". It contributes nothing. Concentrate *exclusively* on substantive issues. Forget about personality, ad hominem attacks, and trying to do amateur psychoanalysis of the poster. Focus on content, argument, fact, and substantive issues.
Morgan |
