atwood wrote: This thread is about this forum, not the system of justice as a whole, I think that's a conversation for another time and place.

This thread was/is about what the members of the forum wanted to do regarding the forum. As it was identified that there are more productive ways to make accusations that protect the accuser, the accused and the forum they opted for protecting the accuser out of fear of them harming their own case, protecting the accused out of fear of the forum being misconstrued as having any jurisdiction over anything when we have no way of ascertaining their guilt and to protect the forum out of fear of losing the forum.

So yes, it was all fear based decisions we made.

You didn't join in the conversation until after the conclusion had been reached, was it fear that kept you from participating until after the fact?

atwood wrote:
Well since you evidently enjoy being pedantic, I'll adopt the same attitude, and point out that when I said you were being pedantic initially, there had been no discussion of employing the word 'alleged" at all.

Feel free to go back and check for your own peace of mind, as you may have forgotten by now, like you forgot about your self-contradiction regarding unfairness.

So my point was that whomever omitted the word 'potentially' from their sentence to Dawn, when telling her that her posts were libelous,
did not risk prosecution by that omission, so you defence for being pedantic was null & void.

Of course, you then waffled about using those 2 words in other circumstances, but that doesn't deflect from your having been wrong, in the particular circumstance we were discussing at the point when you made that pedantic comment.

So, put simply, nobody challenged the use of the words 'alleged' / 'potentially'.

Yet your implication that someone should have told Dawn her posts were potentially libellous, instead of telling her they were libellous,
so as ro avoid breaking the law was jusr bollocks.

Do you see now how fucking tedious it is when people insist on being as pedantic. as your self?

oioioi wrote:
Fear of what? I cant say I was fearful of joining the conversation and I have made it pretty clear, lots of times, why I decided to join it. Although nobody seems to want to join a debate about that.

I can honestly say that I have never been abused as much as I have on this thread and I wouldn't have thought my stance was that controversial, especially as my chief abuser actually agreed with the main points I was making

Gilly wrote:
I am not searching through posts but the conversation went something like this:

Me: it would be better to say potentially libellous.

You: I was being pedantic.

Me: it's words like potentially and allegedly that stop litigation.

I stand by my point, no pedantry implied.

If somebody makes a true statement, in no way can they be libellous.

atwood wrote:

I think you'll find I'm your only abuser...

atwood wrote:

Cry me a river...

How do you determine just who committed a crime?
Is it enough simply to be accused?

atwood wrote:
Why did you wait until a decision had been reached to wade in then with your oh so pertinent point, fear or trolling?

Try posting on other threads, spread the abuse around.

And just for clarities sake...

If atwood turns out to indeed just be atwood, I'll be the first to apologize to him and anyone else that wants an apology for my 'abuse' in this thread.

feather wrote:
Like it has been pointed out on numerous occasions.

We don't.

Do you agree that defamation laws are being used to protect people who commit crimes.

oioioi wrote:
No ulterior motive, just a bit of spare time on my hands whilst trying to arrange my marriage and it has spiralled a bit out of control.

I haven't time to spend more time on the forum right now so this is the thread I am on.

atwood wrote: Wait, back up ....

You side with the victims in all cases.
How do you determine who is the victim?

psketti wrote:
No need, you are entitled to your opinion.

feather wrote:
I don't, the implication I meant for that statement was about not offending the families, If I recall correctly somebody said it wouldn't be fair on the families of the guilty if the details were put on the web.

So I implied the victim should get priority.

atwood wrote: But how do you know who the victim actually is in order for you to bestow your munificent blessings and support upon?

feather wrote:
I am not talking about supporting them, I am talking about letting them speak without fear of prosecution of defamation.

Which is what most mediums have, a fear of prosecution. So the mediums for them to speak are minimal.

Some victims don't want to go to the police through fear of embarrassment or cant through threats of violence, I just think the threat of defamation is overstated.

Just to repeat this is not a dig at anybody here or this forum, we all suffer from the same thing to some degree or another.

atwood wrote:




You also said this...

atwood wrote:

And this...


atwood wrote:

Yet for some reason you have still persistently expressed that dawn should have been able to say what she wants even though you said yourself it was 'kinda vulgar'... and also that she was likely 'playing out' her own issues to begin with.

So how does that work then?

atwood wrote:

That being?

atwood wrote: Not once in your replies have you given the slightest consideration that the 'victim' may be the person being pointed at.
You assume that the 'victim' must be the person doing the pointing.