|
#31
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
You wrote a lot of shit, it just doesn't mean anything. Whether or not I would associate with a dick is irrelevant. you would need to prove the injury, not merely speculate it woul occur. |
|
#33
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
#34
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
You call Assman a dick, someone reads "Assman is a dick" (such a dick he has to have a whole thread about him calling him a dick!) and what do you think they are going to assume, based on that? You think that any undecided person on this forum is going to read that and ignore it? Evidently not, otherwise you'd not've just posted for a circle jerk, and that would undermine your point in the thread anyway. So you wrote this to influence people. Now you were not complimenting him, so you were writing this to influence people *negatively* So, very simply, if you make someone think more negatively of Assman, they will NOT want to associate themselves with him (either by being aligned to him, or even merely socialising with him). Because you did this using *false* (or unsubstantiated) comments, this makes it *libelous* Quote:
Don't worry though, lots of mentaly subnormal people have literacy problems. |
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
|
Then maybe you hav literacy problems.
the definition you use says 'that damages a person's reputation'. It doesn't say that it may damage a person's reputation. There is a difference. One is saying that the person did, in fact, damage the other's reputation. Can you read that Ace? Not that it might- that it did. It doesn't say- an unreasonable person making asinine assumptions might conclude there is a small chance that one's reputation was damaged. Second- What I wrote was not, in fact a misrepresentation of fact, but rather an opinion. You wrong all star. So get the dick. |
|
#36
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
I now do not want to associate with him, and thus I have made it libel. Can you read that bdavid? Can you see why your hair-splitting is BS? "damages" is a transitive verb. It suggests an "ongoing process" - not "a process that resulted in damage" You don't know who is going to read this thread, you can't control it, you have no effect on what people who read it will think, beyond their interpretation of your words, which are designed to create a negative image of Assman. Are you really trying to say that in the US, if someone printed a news article saying "such and such is a child-molesting pig-fucker, here are the pictures!" it would only become libel if someone came forward and said "well, that has caused me to hold such and such in a negative light" and until that point it's perfectly acceptable? Bullshit. Quit running, bitch, you got nowhere to run to. Quote:
False Audio pronunciation of "false" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fôls) adj. fals·er, fals·est 1. Contrary to fact or truth: false tales of bravery. 2. Deliberately untrue: delivered false testimony under oath. 3. Arising from mistaken ideas 4. Intentionally deceptive: a suitcase with a false bottom; false promises. 5. Not keeping faith; treacherous: a false friend. See Synonyms at faithless. 6. Not genuine or real: false teeth; false documents. check #3 "arising from mistaken ideas" Look, no matter how many words you try to redefine, you'll still be wrong. |
|
#37
|
||||
|
||||
|
I never wanted,
I never wanted, To hold a man, like I want to hold you bdavid
|
|
#38
|
||||
|
||||
|
Jesus, shut the fuck up.
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|