Get shitted, bitch-face.

atwood wrote:
So you're ignoring the remarks about concern for the protection of 3rd parties then.

Gilly wrote:
No not ignoring, I just feel that that isn't the primary reason.

It is clear that the majority of influential people on this forum would be calmer and more relaxed if the subject was left alone, and like I said that is fine.

It is clear that the majority of influential people on this forum would be calmer and more relaxed if the subject was left alone, and like I said that is fine.

atwood wrote: It's not an imagined 'fear' though is it? (a term I would not have used tbf)
The owner of the site is a publisher under law.
If they allow defamation to be published on their site they enable the dissemination of that defamation and are culpable in the act.

The number of previous court findings against individuals is completely immaterial.
As is whether the defined route to said defamation is slander or libel, it's still defamation.

There is another aspect though which is not being addressed openly.
Whether we as a group, (regardless of legal constraints), believe it correct and defensible to ourselves, that individuals or groups may be named and/or accused in relation to illegal or socially unacceptable acts without corroborated evidence.

My reading of the discussions so far is that the group do not believe that course is correct or defensible and have therefore rejected it as a standard here.

atwood wrote:
LOL no baiting generalisations in that statement then.

atwood wrote:

The bolded part...

This has already been covered numerous times and absolutely no where does it say we've 'stopped it' or otherwise. Therefore as you repeatedly keep glossing over parts whilst poking away at other bits to suit yourself, I'm sticking with my assumption that you're going out of your way to stir shit.

And I'm bored of you now.

Well imagine my levels of boredom being repeatedly told that o am a shit stir er by your good self

atwood wrote:

Well hold on as it's about to get a whole lot more boring.

This started because dawn wanted to speak out about her abuse and that of her family, to my personal feelings it seemed unfair to shut her down. Probably not a popular opinion here but that is how I feel.

This started because dawn wanted to speak out about her abuse and that of her family, to my personal feelings it seemed unfair to shut her down. Probably not a popular opinion here but that is how I feel.

atwood wrote:
No. The thread was already discussing how we'd deal with such things, we'd already decided, Dawn went against that decision.

I assume you PM'd her considering the strength of your feelings on the matter.

All decisions are ultimately based on fear or love, not sure why people are getting bent out of shape about pointing out that this depiction is based on fear. The rest of your post goes on to highlight those fears.

Also I think it is highly relevant Ho many people have been prosecuted for if no body has then it almost proves that the law is wrong or at least not enforceable.

This started because dawn wanted to speak out about her abuse and that of her family, to my personal feelings it seemed unfair to shut her down. Probably not a popular opinion here but that is how I feel.

Although I will stop now, nothing more to say from me

atwood wrote:

She was 'shut down' as you put it because she was making libelous claims, to say the least, as well as ignoring the fact that her words were also doing damage alot closer to home.

That isn't censoring the whole subject, as you've mentioned many times... nor is it fear or paranoia. You really are scraping the barrel from where I'm sitting.

And tedious has replaced boring.

This is a forum, not a police station.

This is a forum, not a courtroom.

oioioi wrote:
Indeed.

But it seems some people have been judged as if it is a courtroom.