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 : Piffer Thread on Political Rantings and Ravings -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rainy_Day_Woman who wrote (12376)	1/26/2004 8:03:06 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 14610

CALIFORNIA CODES CIVIL CODE SECTION 43-53 (In other states, your mileage may vary.) 43. Besides the personal rights mentioned or recognized in the Government Code, every person has, subject to the qualifications and restrictions provided by law, the right of protection from bodily restraint or harm, from personal insult, from defamation, and from injury to his personal relations. 44. Defamation is effected by either of the following: (a) Libel. (b) Slander. 45. Libel is a false and unprivileged publication by writing, printing, picture, effigy, or other fixed representation to the eye, which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him in his occupation. 45a. A libel which is defamatory of the plaintiff without the necessity of explanatory matter, such as an inducement, innuendo or other extrinsic fact, is said to be a libel on its face. Defamatory language not libelous on its face is not actionable unless the plaintiff alleges and proves that he has suffered special damage as a proximate result thereof. Special damage is defined in Section 48a of this code. 46. Slander is a false and unprivileged publication, orally uttered, and also communications by radio or any mechanical or other means which: 1. Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted, convicted, or punished for crime; 2. Imputes in him the present existence of an infectious, contagious, or loathsome disease; 3. Tends directly to injure him in respect to his office, profession, trade or business, either by imputing to him general disqualification in those respects which the office or other occupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with reference to his office, profession, trade, or business that has a natural tendency to lessen its profits; 4. Imputes to him impotence or a want of chastity; or 5. Which, by natural consequence, causes actual damage. ============================================================ That's the legal standard. Tough to meet, I think.

To: Rainy_Day_Woman who wrote (12376)	1/28/2004 11:38:13 AM
From: zonder	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 14610

>>>You present such a target-rich environment that I don't know where to start :-)<<< - dishonest, yes you did Do you find that a relevant reply to that statement? Or are you going to spew the same petty insult as an answer to whatever I say, like a broken record? - and even you said it wouldn't have much affect to your reputation That is the expected effect of your words, yes :-) Not sure why you agree with me on that, though. Possibly because you failed to understand the implications? you can't defame an 'alias' or non-named person If I were you, I wouldn't be so sure to depend so much on the words of sympathetic internet acquaintances who thus lead you on. I have more interesting things to plan for than dragging a rabid little foxy to court and force her to see the limits of her precious freedom to badmouth people. But push me a bit more, and I just might give my lawyer a field day, and you might find out that a lawyer you actually pay is much more motivated to defend you than one who whispers to you on PMs. I think you have a thing for cheerleaders, you use it often Your attempts at analysis are quite fascinating to watch, LOL. It is a small wonder that you have survived in this world for so long. Have you forgotten that it is YOU who takes pride on being a "good cheerleader"? And I agree. You are a good cheerleader. So, stick to your pompoms and mini-skirt. Aspiring to be one of the players is a good dream, but you need to muscle-up a bit, AND learn about the rules. Oops. Was that another allegory that you will never understand on your own? :-) never try and one-up a bitch I was "trying" nor doing no such thing. And are you calling yourself "a bitch"? I would have described you by slightly kinder words, but, hey, suit yourself. -------------------------------------------------- If you don't terribly mind, I would rather end this little exchange here. Debating with you is as gratifying as playing tennis against a crooked wall - not only is there no challenge, but responses are irrational. Your lack of understanding of even the simplest issues like the difference between opinion and policy makes talking about anything more serious than your cheerleading capacity or lunch plans impossible. Your lack of discipline in sticking to the issue, avoiding ad hominem (look it up, it will do you good), and keeping a civil tongue in your mouth does not help, either. Last, but not least, debating with you one-on-one is about as dignified as kicking a puppy. Or ridiculing a cheerleader by taking her into the game and tackling her like one of the guys. So, I'd rather end this correspondence, especially since you don't seem to have anything of relevance to say and are just fixated on petty personal attacks. Alternatively, we can continue your education at your leisure.