Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (56145)	8/31/2002 1:58:20 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

it is about what happened No, it isn't, X. It's about denying what happened, for some reason I really can't understand. I can compare what you've done to things I've seen and phenomena I've read about, but really, I can't know for sure why you allied yourself from the beginning with CH as he lyingly threatened or tormented or slandered your friends. Most impenetrable. Another time I'll write about the ways in which The World Of SI is like, and is unlike, The World of 3D. I did that once before, I believe. It's not complex, it's common sense. Only ideology or cant or id-protection could imo generate the position that what people who spend hours and hours every day in this epistolary community are doing in the way of self-expression and feeling isn't "real" because their hundreds or thousands of communications here have been under the name "X" instead of "Alice Jones." Basically I think it's just self-serving cant. It's pedestrian thought. It's boring. Each post is a personal expression of a self. But I can't revisit this right now, really. 3D is increasingly overtaking SI in my life; but both remain real "communities" to me, and I've learned more about myself, and about the world, here than I have in some of the realms, or 3D "threads," in which I operate under a name instead of an initial.

To: epicure who wrote (56145)	8/31/2002 2:06:03 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

An alias can even be slandered Can it? In Washington, one of the elements of slander (or more accurately defamation -- we have dropped the artificial distinction between slander and libel and lumped them together as defamation) is monetary damage. No damage, no defamation. If someone said that X the unknown was a harlot, first of all can an alias be a harlot at all--sounds dubious to me--and second, can you prove monetary damages from that? (Third, of course, we assume it's not true -- falsity is, of course, another element of defamation.) So to sue for defamation, you would have to plead among the mandatory elements that X the Unknown is not a harlot, AND you would have to pleald that X suffered monetary damages. Otherwise, there is no defamation. And it's kind of hard to imagine how an alias can suffer monetary damages. Maybe E or someone else can explain that. The law in other areas may be different, but I believe virtually all jurisdictions require at least nominal damages as an element of libel or slander. Which is one reason cases on them are much rarer than they otherwise would be.