Originally posted by RatXIIRC, under libel law, it is the responsibility of the person making the allegations to prove them.
Until these allegations can be proved in a court of law, please restrain yourself and leave my double out of this... (solemn cough)
Too bad no1 isn't around. <- one of the few times you'll hear me say that! 😀
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou are rhp's resident lawyer now?
IIRC, under libel law, it is the responsibility of the person making the allegations to prove them.
Too bad no1 isn't around. <- one of the few times you'll hear me say that! 😀
What little knowlege I have of libel cases , the plaintiff needs to meet some criteria beyond asserting its untrue before the defendant needs to "prove" anything.
Nothing is as black and white as you seem to think it is.
Originally posted by NemesioYes. Ivanhoe, could you please state for the record that you have in fact alerted this thread, in accordance with your recent appeal to the community to eradicate this sort of misbehavior.
I am sure Ivanhoe has done his RHP duty and alerted this ad hominem attack on
another RHP user.
Nemesio
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesThe source of all this bickering is David C, his insults and his accusing me and RatX of having multiple accounts.
Yes. Ivanhoe, could you please state for the record that you have in fact alerted this thread, in accordance with your recent appeal to the community to eradicate this sort of misbehavior.
I asked the mods/admins to inform David C that his accusations have no basis and are not true.
In fact these baseless accusations are part of the continuous harrassment I have to endure, because I am an orthodox Roman-Catholic.
If you or anybody else feel alerting a post because it is against the ToS, please go ahead. It is your right as an RHP member. I will not inform you whether I have alerted this thread or not, because, in both cases, it would undoubtedly be another reason to continue your "investigation". See ya and have fun.
Originally posted by frogstompDefamation consists of the following:
You are rhp's resident lawyer now?
What little knowlege I have of libel cases , the plaintiff needs to meet some criteria beyond asserting its untrue before the defendant needs to "prove" anything.
Nothing is as black and white as you seem to think it is.
(1) a defamatory statement;
(2) published to third parties; and
(3) which the speaker or publisher knew or should have known was false.†
---
† http://www.abbottlaw.com/defamation.html#I.
Originally posted by frogstomphet·er·o·dox ( P ) Pronunciation Key (htr--dks)
which is just as meaningless an adjective to apply to Roman Catholicism.
adj.
1. Not in agreement with accepted beliefs, especially in church doctrine or dogma.
2. Holding unorthodox opinions. †
---
† http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=heterodox
Originally posted by lucifershammerIn that case the Greek Orthodox Catholic Church has it right and orthodoxy in the RCC is rightly heterodoxy since the capitalize the O word.
het·er·o·dox ( P ) Pronunciation Key (htr--dks)
adj.
1. Not in agreement with accepted beliefs, especially in church doctrine or dogma.
2. Holding unorthodox opinions. †
---
† http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=heterodox
Originally posted by ivanhoeThe source of all this bickering is David C
The source of all this bickering is David C, his insults and his accusing me and RatX of having multiple accounts.
I asked the mods/admins to inform David C that his accusations have no basis and are not true.
In fact these baseless accusations are part of the continuous harrassment I have to endure, because I am an orthodox Roman-Catholic.
If you ...[text shortened]... it would undoubtedly be another reason to continue your "investigation". See ya and have fun.
I am? Wow.
his insults and his accusing me and RatX of having multiple accounts.
I did? Where? Please cite an example of these insults, I'll decide whether or not an apology is appropriate. Also, please cite an example of me having 'accused' you of having another account named 'RatX'. I'll be waiting...
Originally posted by lucifershammerthe 3) is far different than your original assertion
Defamation consists of the following:
(1) a defamatory statement;
(2) published to third parties; and
(3) which the speaker or publisher knew or should have known was false.†
---
† http://www.abbottlaw.com/defamation.html#I.
and that's even if it was shown to be a false statement, which it has not been as of yet.