(12-30-2020 06:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-30-2020 01:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-29-2020 09:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-29-2020 08:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-29-2020 08:01 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  You’re right that it is common knowledge of who supplied the material to the FBI, but it is also common knowledge that the material provided by the computer store owner was anonymously supplied to the computer store owner - that an unidentified person dropped off the laptop for repairs. So logically it could equally apply to the mystery person who dropped off the laptop - the owner could be an unknowing conduit. And it seems even more logical that the person who started the chain of information movement was actually the hacker, not the person who was an intermediary.

I’m more than fine with you explaining why my comments on this being a stretch are legally incorrect, but you don’t actually do that above. Instead you make ad him attacks because I didn’t go through law school.

Im making comments that you are giving really incorrect comments about the law and never seemingly have the background or knowledge to do so.

I would be a rather dumb*** to debate the engineering aspects of drilling programs in your area not having that background, even more so studiously telling *you* what was the correct way to do it.

That doesnt seem to ring true with you here.

For example, you keep popping off how the store laptop dude has to 'prove damages'; in some contexts he might have to. When the issue is what the ibelous term is, no, there isnt a need to prove damages. Yet you keep bleating it like the earth truth.

Second, when confronted with the Twitter says it was obtained by illegal means, you provide a song and three sidestep dances about any number of supposed and fictitional or possible intermediaries. Uhhh..... there were none.

Then you go on some song and dance about the FBI that has zero impact on the actual legal issue. While it highlights your knowledge of the transactions, thrwoing that really stupid and non-germane factoid makes zero sense whatsoever legally --- it kind of highlights your thrashing of being an 'expert' in an area tat your posts kind of reveal a very stark lack understanding in.

And when someone publishes to the world that 'they refuse to publish things that were obtained illegally', and when the vast majority of the world recognizes only one actor as having supplied that --- yes, that is a bread and butter depiction of a prima facie case of defamation. I am deeply sorry that you dont know the common law lsit of elements in the common law tort of defamation, and how they apply here. But, that really hasnt stopped you here.

There are other facets that come into play, that is the audience reached, the status of the defamer and the defamed and how that might affect the level of culpability, and the issue of what exactly the defamatatory issue is and how that affects the approach to damages.

My suggestion that you get all atwitter about how badly you are treated since you 'havent been to law school' is simple --- stop presenting yourself as the know all end all on a legal issue. Funny that.

You want to believe that the shop owner has to prove up damages in this respect --- knock yourself out. You want to think that there is some weird ass third person huffle puffle shuffle that breaks the casual relationship there between the statement of illegal activity and the shop owner --- again, knock yourself out.

But when you categorically stake your point on the issues therein, if I were you I would be prepared to be called somewhat ignorant. Kind of the reason I wouldnt argue tax law or economics with #s --- I dont have the level of background to assert categorically things in oppostion there.

Kind of why I wouldnt argue environmental remediation engineering issues with you.

But I saw the damn armadillo that is ripping up my sod go past the sliding glass door, so I am off to do something a little more gd productive than this

I was having a casual conversation with OO about this - I wasn't trying to debate you.

I guess I should take anything offline that may stray into your area of expertise, or risk you having an aneurysm at the keyboard.

I mean, notice how when I initially engaged you I asked a question?

You seem to think that you and I have had this long back and forth where I tried to present specific legal arguments - that didn't happen anywhere but in your head.

But glad you got your rocks off here. Have a good one.

Well lad, I not the one playing Mt Surabachi and defending a series of false and and somewhat ignorant statements at this point.

Previously you entranced us with your stance that damages would be hard to prove -- but apparently were not aware that punitive damages are very much available in certain types of defamation.

But then you follow it up with the characterization of the issue of the following as an ace in the hole golden rule:

Quote:it’s a bridge too far to say that labeling a news article can translate to defamation about someone involved with the article,

ooh thats a goody, lets look a little further into it. Perhaps you can point us to your source that a 'label [of] a news article cannot translate to defamation about someone involved with article'. Please be specific here. Or if you just pulled it out of your ass you can tell us that.

Honestly, if you want to play Mr know it all in a conversation, you should accept the downside risks with that tactic, especially when dealing with one that just might know a smidge or so on that issue.

Notice how you selectively edit my quote at the end?

Quote:I clearly was not being definitive or know it all. I clearly said “IT SEEMS TO ME” - ******* great know it all over here making it clear that there is doubt in that statement. If I was absolutely, positively, 100% certain I would have been clearer.

Quote:Tanq world always seems to be black or white, and you apply that filter to every single post.

Quote: It gets tiring, real fast.

(12-30-2020 09:12 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Sorry that you get tired of the basics of a legal area are somewhat set. Perhaps you might understand, since we are now on the subject of whining because a subject is black and white, that your presentment of a position as 'la verdad' and continued clinging to that position in the face of continued comments, isnt as fresh as the fing daisies either. Just a thought there.

(12-30-2020 06:16 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-30-2020 02:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-29-2020 10:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  it’s a bridge too far to say that labeling a news article can translate to defamation about someone involved with the article,

I would strongly recommend that you not go offering advice to anyone about whether contemplated behavior constitutes defamation, and I would strongly recommend that anyone to whom you offer such advice should ignore it.

Lol, same here. Christ, thought this was a politics message board on a Rice sports forum, not a place where people came for crack legal advice.

(12-30-2020 09:03 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-29-2020 09:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I was having a casual conversation with OO about this - I wasn't trying to debate you.

Last I checked, this was a free country and you posted on a public forum. If you want to restrict your conversation to OO (or anyone else) we have a private message function for that.

(12-30-2020 09:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Basics of the law are not really 'crack legal advice'.

(12-30-2020 09:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Zero issue with him telling me that my thought process is incorrect and explaining why. Multiple issues with him twisting the situation and trying to change reality and being an absolute dick in how he explains any of those issues. But must be that West Texas bluntness...

(12-30-2020 09:12 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-30-2020 06:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-30-2020 01:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-29-2020 09:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-29-2020 08:26 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Im making comments that you are giving really incorrect comments about the law and never seemingly have the background or knowledge to do so.

I would be a rather dumb*** to debate the engineering aspects of drilling programs in your area not having that background, even more so studiously telling *you* what was the correct way to do it.

That doesnt seem to ring true with you here.

For example, you keep popping off how the store laptop dude has to 'prove damages'; in some contexts he might have to. When the issue is what the ibelous term is, no, there isnt a need to prove damages. Yet you keep bleating it like the earth truth.

Second, when confronted with the Twitter says it was obtained by illegal means, you provide a song and three sidestep dances about any number of supposed and fictitional or possible intermediaries. Uhhh..... there were none.

Then you go on some song and dance about the FBI that has zero impact on the actual legal issue. While it highlights your knowledge of the transactions, thrwoing that really stupid and non-germane factoid makes zero sense whatsoever legally --- it kind of highlights your thrashing of being an 'expert' in an area tat your posts kind of reveal a very stark lack understanding in.

And when someone publishes to the world that 'they refuse to publish things that were obtained illegally', and when the vast majority of the world recognizes only one actor as having supplied that --- yes, that is a bread and butter depiction of a prima facie case of defamation. I am deeply sorry that you dont know the common law lsit of elements in the common law tort of defamation, and how they apply here. But, that really hasnt stopped you here.

There are other facets that come into play, that is the audience reached, the status of the defamer and the defamed and how that might affect the level of culpability, and the issue of what exactly the defamatatory issue is and how that affects the approach to damages.

My suggestion that you get all atwitter about how badly you are treated since you 'havent been to law school' is simple --- stop presenting yourself as the know all end all on a legal issue. Funny that.

You want to believe that the shop owner has to prove up damages in this respect --- knock yourself out. You want to think that there is some weird ass third person huffle puffle shuffle that breaks the casual relationship there between the statement of illegal activity and the shop owner --- again, knock yourself out.

But when you categorically stake your point on the issues therein, if I were you I would be prepared to be called somewhat ignorant. Kind of the reason I wouldnt argue tax law or economics with #s --- I dont have the level of background to assert categorically things in oppostion there.

Kind of why I wouldnt argue environmental remediation engineering issues with you.

But I saw the damn armadillo that is ripping up my sod go past the sliding glass door, so I am off to do something a little more gd productive than this

I was having a casual conversation with OO about this - I wasn't trying to debate you.

I guess I should take anything offline that may stray into your area of expertise, or risk you having an aneurysm at the keyboard.

I mean, notice how when I initially engaged you I asked a question?

You seem to think that you and I have had this long back and forth where I tried to present specific legal arguments - that didn't happen anywhere but in your head.

But glad you got your rocks off here. Have a good one.

Well lad, I not the one playing Mt Surabachi and defending a series of false and and somewhat ignorant statements at this point.

Previously you entranced us with your stance that damages would be hard to prove -- but apparently were not aware that punitive damages are very much available in certain types of defamation.

But then you follow it up with the characterization of the issue of the following as an ace in the hole golden rule:

Quote:it’s a bridge too far to say that labeling a news article can translate to defamation about someone involved with the article,

ooh thats a goody, lets look a little further into it. Perhaps you can point us to your source that a 'label [of] a news article cannot translate to defamation about someone involved with article'. Please be specific here. Or if you just pulled it out of your ass you can tell us that.

Honestly, if you want to play Mr know it all in a conversation, you should accept the downside risks with that tactic, especially when dealing with one that just might know a smidge or so on that issue.

Notice how you selectively edit my quote at the end?

And i notice how you avoided noting the next response dealing with that issue.

Quote:I clearly was not being definitive or know it all. I clearly said “IT SEEMS TO ME” - ******* great know it all over here making it clear that there is doubt in that statement. If I was absolutely, positively, 100% certain I would have been clearer.

And you kept opining that very specious position multiple times, even in the face of being told it was incorrect.

Quote:Tanq world always seems to be black or white, and you apply that filter to every single post.

Getting bitchy with me that the basics of defamation law are 'black and white in tanq world'. Uhh...... the very basics of defamation law *are* black and white. Sorry you are gd butthurt abut that position.

Quote: It gets tiring, real fast.

Sorry that you get tired of the basics of a legal area are somewhat set. Perhaps you might understand, since we are now on the subject of whining because a subject is black and white, that your presentment of a position as 'la verdad' and continued clinging to that position in the face of continued comments, isnt as fresh as the fing daisies either. Just a thought there.

Quote:Going to be really hard to prove that it was Twitter’s actions and not the reporting that led to the attention and subsequent downturn in business. Again, a lot more likely that a loss of revenue is connected to his role in the political story, but that people may have thought he was a hacker due to Twitter’s labeling of the story...

Not only does this guy have to connect those dots, but he also would need to prove that, if those dots connect, that is why he received less business.

Quote:But Isaac said the damage had been done. He said he had to close his business "as a direct result" of what he described as Twitter's "false statements."

Quote:no lad, he doesnt need to show loss of business for damages with defamation per se. makes my first clause in the first edit incorrect, since lad apparently doesnt seem to be aware on that issue as well.

(12-30-2020 01:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The simple fact is that one *can* defame simply be labeling an article.

Assume I provide information to OO, who writes an article on on it. #s, who works at Twitter, deep sixes the article and says 'we dont carry links to articles based on information from necrophiliac child molesters'.

When information arises on whom the source of information is, you bet your boots there is a defamation that occurred.

There has been:

1) a false statement purporting to be fact;
2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person;
3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and
4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.

Cant really tap dance that away.

When twitter falsely labeled the source as a hacker, they absolutely ran into a prima facie case of defamation. No matter the amount of hand waving and tap dancing lad throws at that windmill about 'damages', or 'they didnt know who he was at the time'.

But Suribachi lad I am sure will throw out some more tap dance and hand waving, or about some made up rule about a 'bridge too far', or somefink......

Quote:In line with our hacked materials Policy, as well as our approach to blocking URLs, we are taking action to block any links to or images of the material in question on Twitter.

(12-30-2020 02:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-29-2020 10:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  it’s a bridge too far to say that labeling a news article can translate to defamation about someone involved with the article,

I would strongly recommend that you not go offering advice to anyone about whether contemplated behavior constitutes defamation, and I would strongly recommend that anyone to whom you offer such advice should ignore it.

(12-30-2020 10:46 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(12-30-2020 02:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-29-2020 10:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  it’s a bridge too far to say that labeling a news article can translate to defamation about someone involved with the article,

I would strongly recommend that you not go offering advice to anyone about whether contemplated behavior constitutes defamation, and I would strongly recommend that anyone to whom you offer such advice should ignore it.

Thank you for that strong recommendation and it has made me reconsider my previous plan to have Lad update my family trust and to review an EEOC claim that came up at my company. That was a very close call. I see now that there may be better options out there.

(12-30-2020 10:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-30-2020 10:46 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(12-30-2020 02:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-29-2020 10:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  it’s a bridge too far to say that labeling a news article can translate to defamation about someone involved with the article,

I would strongly recommend that you not go offering advice to anyone about whether contemplated behavior constitutes defamation, and I would strongly recommend that anyone to whom you offer such advice should ignore it.

Thank you for that strong recommendation and it has made me reconsider my previous plan to have Lad update my family trust and to review an EEOC claim that came up at my company. That was a very close call. I see now that there may be better options out there.

Damn. Gotta call VistaPrint and cancel those business cards.

Liberal Legal Advisor to Progressive Parliament Posters had a nice ring to it...

(12-30-2020 10:58 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(12-30-2020 10:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-30-2020 10:46 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(12-30-2020 02:40 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-29-2020 10:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  it’s a bridge too far to say that labeling a news article can translate to defamation about someone involved with the article,

I would strongly recommend that you not go offering advice to anyone about whether contemplated behavior constitutes defamation, and I would strongly recommend that anyone to whom you offer such advice should ignore it.

Thank you for that strong recommendation and it has made me reconsider my previous plan to have Lad update my family trust and to review an EEOC claim that came up at my company. That was a very close call. I see now that there may be better options out there.

Damn. Gotta call VistaPrint and cancel those business cards.

Liberal Legal Advisor to Progressive Parliament Posters had a nice ring to it...

Can you send me back that 100k retainer fee?

(12-30-2020 10:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Honestly, it was a decent back and forth with me asking questions about the issue, until you came in swinging wildly for the fences with your patented West Texas bluntness in post 343.

(12-30-2020 10:31 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-30-2020 01:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The simple fact is that one *can* defame simply be labeling an article.

Assume I provide information to OO, who writes an article on on it. #s, who works at Twitter, deep sixes the article and says 'we dont carry links to articles based on information from necrophiliac child molesters'.

When information arises on whom the source of information is, you bet your boots there is a defamation that occurred.

There has been:

1) a false statement purporting to be fact;
2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person;
3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and
4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.

Cant really tap dance that away.

When twitter falsely labeled the source as a hacker, they absolutely ran into a prima facie case of defamation. No matter the amount of hand waving and tap dancing lad throws at that windmill about 'damages', or 'they didnt know who he was at the time'.

But Suribachi lad I am sure will throw out some more tap dance and hand waving, or about some made up rule about a 'bridge too far', or somefink......

Sorry, not ignoring this response. I unfortunately don't have the superpower of responding to multiple posts at one time. Might need to start farming some work out...

I see how, in your example above, there more clearly appears to be defamation of Tanq based on the labeling of the article. It clearly says the source of the information is a necrophiliac child molester.

But do things not get complicated when the actual source of the information isn't clear? In your example, it's clear that you generated and provided the information, so the label applies to you. But when the actual source of the information isn't clear, is it so cut and dry?

Also, it's not like Twitter explicitly labeled the tweet with text that said the source of the information was a hacker. Twitter said this:

Quote:In line with our hacked materials Policy, as well as our approach to blocking URLs, we are taking action to block any links to or images of the material in question on Twitter.

Would you not need to explain the jump from saying the material was hacked to the laptop technician was a hacker? I see that jump as being very logical and reasonable - but I also see other jumps that are just as logical and reasonable.

Let's say the truth came out that an actual hacker brought a dummy computer into the shop and then everything else happened as it did. Would Twitter be held responsible for factually and truthfully labeling the information as having been hacked?

My guess is you'll dismiss this as handwaving, but maybe I'll get lucky.

(12-30-2020 12:59 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-30-2020 10:31 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-30-2020 01:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The simple fact is that one *can* defame simply be labeling an article.

Assume I provide information to OO, who writes an article on on it. #s, who works at Twitter, deep sixes the article and says 'we dont carry links to articles based on information from necrophiliac child molesters'.

When information arises on whom the source of information is, you bet your boots there is a defamation that occurred.

There has been:

1) a false statement purporting to be fact;
2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person;
3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and
4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.

Cant really tap dance that away.

When twitter falsely labeled the source as a hacker, they absolutely ran into a prima facie case of defamation. No matter the amount of hand waving and tap dancing lad throws at that windmill about 'damages', or 'they didnt know who he was at the time'.

But Suribachi lad I am sure will throw out some more tap dance and hand waving, or about some made up rule about a 'bridge too far', or somefink......

Sorry, not ignoring this response. I unfortunately don't have the superpower of responding to multiple posts at one time. Might need to start farming some work out...

I see how, in your example above, there more clearly appears to be defamation of Tanq based on the labeling of the article. It clearly says the source of the information is a necrophiliac child molester.

But do things not get complicated when the actual source of the information isn't clear? In your example, it's clear that you generated and provided the information, so the label applies to you. But when the actual source of the information isn't clear, is it so cut and dry?

Also, it's not like Twitter explicitly labeled the tweet with text that said the source of the information was a hacker. Twitter said this:

Quote:In line with our hacked materials Policy, as well as our approach to blocking URLs, we are taking action to block any links to or images of the material in question on Twitter.

Would you not need to explain the jump from saying the material was hacked to the laptop technician was a hacker? I see that jump as being very logical and reasonable - but I also see other jumps that are just as logical and reasonable.

Let's say the truth came out that an actual hacker brought a dummy computer into the shop and then everything else happened as it did. Would Twitter be held responsible for factually and truthfully labeling the information as having been hacked?

My guess is you'll dismiss this as handwaving, but maybe I'll get lucky.

When Twitter says it is hacked material, there is no way around saying that the source is not a hacker.

As for your scenario you put forth in the latter part of your post, that simply doesnt describe what the real world is in this case. The answer is perhaps, perhaps not. While the truthful label is correct as to the genesis, the terminology might very well be deemed a falsehood as applied to the technician

Think of this scenario: you sell me a diamond ring, one that was actually stolen by someone else and given to you. I state that lad sold me a stolen diamond ring. As to the ring the statement is truthful, as applied to you the statement could very easily be defamatory as there is an easily ascertainable implied comment that you either stole the ring, or knowingly stole the ring.

I mean, one that ran up the tree with *so many* comments on how everything was implied in a crap ton of orange man comments, or allegations against him, you shouldnt have much trouble seeing those implied issues rather dramatically.

(12-30-2020 11:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-30-2020 10:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Honestly, it was a decent back and forth with me asking questions about the issue, until you came in swinging wildly for the fences with your patented West Texas bluntness in post 343.

I asked for an opinion from one of our lawyers here in post 337.

(12-30-2020 10:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-30-2020 09:12 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-30-2020 06:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-30-2020 01:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-29-2020 09:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I was having a casual conversation with OO about this - I wasn't trying to debate you.

I guess I should take anything offline that may stray into your area of expertise, or risk you having an aneurysm at the keyboard.

I mean, notice how when I initially engaged you I asked a question?

You seem to think that you and I have had this long back and forth where I tried to present specific legal arguments - that didn't happen anywhere but in your head.

But glad you got your rocks off here. Have a good one.

Well lad, I not the one playing Mt Surabachi and defending a series of false and and somewhat ignorant statements at this point.

Previously you entranced us with your stance that damages would be hard to prove -- but apparently were not aware that punitive damages are very much available in certain types of defamation.

But then you follow it up with the characterization of the issue of the following as an ace in the hole golden rule:

Quote:it’s a bridge too far to say that labeling a news article can translate to defamation about someone involved with the article,

ooh thats a goody, lets look a little further into it. Perhaps you can point us to your source that a 'label [of] a news article cannot translate to defamation about someone involved with article'. Please be specific here. Or if you just pulled it out of your ass you can tell us that.

Honestly, if you want to play Mr know it all in a conversation, you should accept the downside risks with that tactic, especially when dealing with one that just might know a smidge or so on that issue.

Notice how you selectively edit my quote at the end?

And i notice how you avoided noting the next response dealing with that issue.

Quote:I clearly was not being definitive or know it all. I clearly said “IT SEEMS TO ME” - ******* great know it all over here making it clear that there is doubt in that statement. If I was absolutely, positively, 100% certain I would have been clearer.

And you kept opining that very specious position multiple times, even in the face of being told it was incorrect.

Quote:Tanq world always seems to be black or white, and you apply that filter to every single post.

Getting bitchy with me that the basics of defamation law are 'black and white in tanq world'. Uhh...... the very basics of defamation law *are* black and white. Sorry you are gd butthurt abut that position.

Quote: It gets tiring, real fast.

Sorry that you get tired of the basics of a legal area are somewhat set. Perhaps you might understand, since we are now on the subject of whining because a subject is black and white, that your presentment of a position as 'la verdad' and continued clinging to that position in the face of continued comments, isnt as fresh as the fing daisies either. Just a thought there.

It's not that I get tired of the basics of a legal area, it's that I get tired of you being condescending and misrepresenting quite a lot of what I say either stretching comments to their extreme or attacking assumptions that you've made about MY posts.

For example, I said this, which is directly in response to the article OO posted:

Quote:Going to be really hard to prove that it was Twitter’s actions and not the reporting that led to the attention and subsequent downturn in business. Again, a lot more likely that a loss of revenue is connected to his role in the political story, but that people may have thought he was a hacker due to Twitter’s labeling of the story...

Not only does this guy have to connect those dots, but he also would need to prove that, if those dots connect, that is why he received less business.

Article:

Quote:But Isaac said the damage had been done. He said he had to close his business "as a direct result" of what he described as Twitter's "false statements."

To that, you said:

Quote:no lad, he doesnt need to show loss of business for damages with defamation per se. makes my first clause in the first edit incorrect, since lad apparently doesnt seem to be aware on that issue as well.

I didn't argue that explicitly - that he had to show loss of business for damages with defamation - yet you come out swinging as if I did. I was replying to the story, which read like the closure of his business was a central part of the lawsuit. If it isn't really a relevant portion of the lawsuit, then OK. Is there no part of the lawsuit related to the loss of business? Is it solely focused on defamation and punitive damages?

Honestly, it was a decent back and forth with me asking questions about the issue, until you came in swinging wildly for the fences with your patented West Texas bluntness in post 343. Things quickly devolved from there.

Quote:Going to be really hard to prove that it was Twitter’s actions and not the reporting that led to the attention and subsequent downturn in business. Again, a lot more likely that a loss of revenue is connected to his role in the political story, but that people may have thought he was a hacker due to Twitter’s labeling of the story...

(12-30-2020 01:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-30-2020 11:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-30-2020 10:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Honestly, it was a decent back and forth with me asking questions about the issue, until you came in swinging wildly for the fences with your patented West Texas bluntness in post 343.

I asked for an opinion from one of our lawyers here in post 337.

Ok? That was part of the decent back and forth (which actually included a response of two from Tanq).

(12-30-2020 01:14 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-30-2020 10:18 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-30-2020 09:12 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-30-2020 06:22 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-30-2020 01:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Well lad, I not the one playing Mt Surabachi and defending a series of false and and somewhat ignorant statements at this point.

Previously you entranced us with your stance that damages would be hard to prove -- but apparently were not aware that punitive damages are very much available in certain types of defamation.

But then you follow it up with the characterization of the issue of the following as an ace in the hole golden rule:


ooh thats a goody, lets look a little further into it. Perhaps you can point us to your source that a 'label [of] a news article cannot translate to defamation about someone involved with article'. Please be specific here. Or if you just pulled it out of your ass you can tell us that.

Honestly, if you want to play Mr know it all in a conversation, you should accept the downside risks with that tactic, especially when dealing with one that just might know a smidge or so on that issue.

Notice how you selectively edit my quote at the end?

And i notice how you avoided noting the next response dealing with that issue.

Quote:I clearly was not being definitive or know it all. I clearly said “IT SEEMS TO ME” - ******* great know it all over here making it clear that there is doubt in that statement. If I was absolutely, positively, 100% certain I would have been clearer.

And you kept opining that very specious position multiple times, even in the face of being told it was incorrect.

Quote:Tanq world always seems to be black or white, and you apply that filter to every single post.

Getting bitchy with me that the basics of defamation law are 'black and white in tanq world'. Uhh...... the very basics of defamation law *are* black and white. Sorry you are gd butthurt abut that position.

Quote: It gets tiring, real fast.

Sorry that you get tired of the basics of a legal area are somewhat set. Perhaps you might understand, since we are now on the subject of whining because a subject is black and white, that your presentment of a position as 'la verdad' and continued clinging to that position in the face of continued comments, isnt as fresh as the fing daisies either. Just a thought there.

It's not that I get tired of the basics of a legal area, it's that I get tired of you being condescending and misrepresenting quite a lot of what I say either stretching comments to their extreme or attacking assumptions that you've made about MY posts.

For example, I said this, which is directly in response to the article OO posted:

Quote:Going to be really hard to prove that it was Twitter’s actions and not the reporting that led to the attention and subsequent downturn in business. Again, a lot more likely that a loss of revenue is connected to his role in the political story, but that people may have thought he was a hacker due to Twitter’s labeling of the story...

Not only does this guy have to connect those dots, but he also would need to prove that, if those dots connect, that is why he received less business.

Article:

Quote:But Isaac said the damage had been done. He said he had to close his business "as a direct result" of what he described as Twitter's "false statements."

To that, you said:

Quote:no lad, he doesnt need to show loss of business for damages with defamation per se. makes my first clause in the first edit incorrect, since lad apparently doesnt seem to be aware on that issue as well.

I didn't argue that explicitly - that he had to show loss of business for damages with defamation - yet you come out swinging as if I did. I was replying to the story, which read like the closure of his business was a central part of the lawsuit. If it isn't really a relevant portion of the lawsuit, then OK. Is there no part of the lawsuit related to the loss of business? Is it solely focused on defamation and punitive damages?

Honestly, it was a decent back and forth with me asking questions about the issue, until you came in swinging wildly for the fences with your patented West Texas bluntness in post 343. Things quickly devolved from there.

Got it -- your entire comment of

Quote:Going to be really hard to prove that it was Twitter’s actions and not the reporting that led to the attention and subsequent downturn in business. Again, a lot more likely that a loss of revenue is connected to his role in the political story, but that people may have thought he was a hacker due to Twitter’s labeling of the story...

is just word salad that should be ignored en toto.

The fact is that the suit alleges defamation per se in the document --- and it i obvious that that will be the issue. The singular fact is that under that type of defamation there is no need to prove the compemsatory damages that you go on and on and on about. But glad to know you dont think that is being argued explicitly there, I mean, there is only one full paragraph about there, and you keep harping about it elsewhere.

lad, sometimes it is easier to say 'I was unaware of some basic background facts' or 'I was unaware of some basic legal theories.' No harm there. If we were discussing environmental engineering issues and you said 'no that isnt the case because x,y,z' Id say well I stand corrected, thank you.

Instead you keep on that tangent, and then revert to a 'well really wasnt explicitly arguing that' in the face of four or five paragraphs over three or four posts. *That* is annoying as ****.