Re: CORE - Altering Behaviour of "each do" (default param "item")

On Sunday, June 05, 2011 09:00:31 AM Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
> > http://www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Ilias-Lazaridis
> 
> Have you checked the validity of this information? It was copied from
> a wikipedia "article" (the original article was  deleted, due to
> violation of the wikipedia policies).

Probably this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ilias_Lazaridis

It doesn't seem that "violation" was the primary concern, so much as that 
there wasn't enough reliable information to back it up. If that wasn't the 
case, I have to imagine that "notability" would've kicked in.

> The most important thing to learn is:
> 
> when is it "expressing negative feelings" and when is it "defamation
> of character":

Legal threats again? Is this the only way you can get anyone to take you 
seriously?

Alright, I'll use your source this time:

> http://www.lawinfo.com/fuseaction/Client.lawarea/categoryid/1162

"Defamation is false and unprivileged spoken words or written publication, 
which exposes any living person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or which causes 
him/her to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him/her in 
his/her trade or occupation."

So, for you to show that this has occurred, you need to demonstrate that not 
only are these things false, but that they actually cause you to be shunned, 
avoided, hated, ridiculed, etc. I don't think anything anyone else has said 
about you so far has done more damage to your reputation than you have, 
yourself, in very nearly every exchange.

In particular:

"a false statement of fact;
that is understood as
being of and concerning the plaintiff; and
tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff."

Is anyone here making any false statements of _fact_ about you?

Now, let's look at possible defenses, if you actually sued one of us:

"What defenses may be available to someone who is sued for defamation?
There are ordinarily 6 possible defenses available to a defendant who is sued 
for libel (published defamatory communication.)
 1. Truth. This is a complete defense, but may be difficult to prove."

While it may be difficult to show that you're a troll, many of the other 
statements about you should be relatively easy to prove, especially when 
everything you say has been archived.

" 2. Fair comment on a matter of public interest. This defense applies to 
"opinion" only, as compared to a statement of fact. The defendant usually 
needs to prove that the opinion is honestly held and the comments were not 
motivated by actual "malice." (Malice means knowledge of falsity or reckless 
disregard for the truth of falsity of the defamatory statement.)"

Most of the statements which seem to bother you so much are also statements of 
opinion -- for instance, "It's not worth our time to respond to Ilias 
anymore."

" 6. Plaintiff's poor reputation. Defendant can mitigate (lessen) damages for 
a defamatory statement by proving that the plaintiff did not have a good 
reputation to begin with. Defendant ordinarily can prove plaintiff's poor 
reputation by calling witnesses with knowledge of the plaintiff's prior 
reputation relating to the defamatory content."

And there are all kinds of witnesses here.



> If you (people) continue to attack me on a *professional* level, I'll
> have to react at some point.

Please do.

If you do end up suing for defamation, while it's going to suck for whoever 
ends up defending, it's also likely to make your reputation that much worse, 
and more widespread. It would be incredibly self-defeating, and all kinds of 
fun to watch.

If you instead react by trying to learn why it is that you're getting these 
comments -- you could start by actually reading them, instead of writing them 
off as "off-topic" or "personal" -- then your reputation would likely improve 
dramatically, as would your productivity and your contributions to the 
community. People would _want_ to help you, instead of wanting you to go away.

> So, please, set a filter, don't read or go get a dog.

It's clear that you've already either filtered me or chosen to ignore 
everything I have to say. Ah, well. Hopefully this exchange is useful to 
someone else, and it will satisfy my curiosity as to whether there's anyone 
who actually agrees you here.

> Or stay calm and focus on the technical stuff.

Gladly, on the condition that you will do the same. That means being willing 
to discuss some context, what problem you're actually trying to solve, and 
where your "requirements" are coming from.