Fashion Board 11-2-03 - 12-09-03 - Page 30

ltl/fb · 11-11-2003, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Defamation by imputation. Realtively hard to prove. I know. I got my ass handed to me on motion for directed verdict trying to bring such a claim.

S(or maybe its just that I'm not a very good lawyer?)D

If you are trying to get someone for libel based on an inference they made, if they never in any way communicated that inference to anyone, you deserve to lose and are not just a crappy lawyer but a fucking moron.

Tyrone Slothrop · 11-11-2003, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
If you are trying to get someone for libel based on an inference they made, if they never in any way communicated that inference to anyone, you deserve to lose and are not just a crappy lawyer but a fucking moron.

I thought you deserve to lose only if it's a reasonable inference. But an unreasonable inference is actionable. The idea being that it can't be libel to say something reasonable.

Fugee · 11-11-2003, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Has anyone who has written any short stories or novels ever put in a Jesus figure or other symbolism intentionally?

Ever heard of The Chronicles of Narnia?

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
If given the choice between watching English productions of her novels, particularly the criminally boring epic Pride and Prejudice, for the rest of my life or lethal injection, there is no question - pass the needle please.

Thems fighting words! You can bash the Austen books all you want but stay away from the BBC production of P&P with Colin Firth (forever on my laminated list) as Mr. Darcy. One of my favorite TV productions ever. I bought the DVD.

Fu(P&P on A&E is the ultimate in chick TV)gee

baltassoc · 11-11-2003, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Edited to add, to all those Austen haters, where else would we get from a feminazi Austen seminar to Nancy Reagan giving head on TV in the space of about a day?

By way of Rush and the Wiggles, no less.

ltl/fb · 11-11-2003, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I thought you deserve to lose only if it's a reasonable inference. But an unreasonable inference is actionable. The idea being that it can't be libel to say something reasonable.

Jesus god almighty.

Inference. Implication. Look them up. The joke is not funny if no one gets it. Maybe you mean, someone does something intending for other people to make an inference? Edited to add that doing that is making an implication. Or implying.

Or I'm delirious.

sebastian_dangerfield · 11-11-2003, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
If you are trying to get someone for libel based on an inference they made, if they never in any way communicated that inference to anyone, you deserve to lose and are not just a crappy lawyer but a fucking moron.

Of course you need communication/publication. How in the hell else would you have defamation? I got banged out because the judge said no reasonable person would infer libelous substance to the comments made, and there was an issue of privilege as to some of the people who made the alleged libelous comments.

This is a wierd post. You appear to have taken a page from my book and added facts to allow you to offer otherwise non-responsive commentary.

S(I'm infectious like that... now only if you saw how cute I was you'd be utterly smitten)D

AngryMulletMan · 11-11-2003, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Jesus god almighty.

Inference. Implication. Look them up. The joke is not funny if no one gets it. Maybe you mean, someone does something intending for other people to make an inference? Edited to add that doing that is making an implication. Or implying.

Or I'm delirious.

Per se v. per quod. So, for instance, somebody says that Mary is pregnant. Whether Mary is a nun or not makes a difference.

ThurgreedMarshall · 11-11-2003, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bold_n_brazen
Agreed that Joyce is torture. Disagree that it is the worst torture.

The absolute worst torture is William Faulkner.

In high school, I was forced to read Absolom Absolom. I tried. Really, I did. Valiantly. After 14 pages with no punctuation, I gave up.

I disagree. The whole last chapter of Ulysses has no punctuation. I skimmed ahead and I believe it's much longer than 14 pages. If I can't make sense of it with punctuation, I don't stand a chance without.

TM

ltl/fb · 11-11-2003, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Of course you need communication/publication. How in the hell else would you have defamation? I got banged out because the judge said no reasonable person would infer libelous substance to the comments made, and there was an issue of privilege as to some of the people who made the alleged libelous comments.

This is a wierd post. You appear to have taken a page from my book and added facts to allow you to offer otherwise non-responsive commentary.

S(I'm infectious like that... now only if you saw how cute I was you'd be utterly smitten)D

No, you dipshit. When I am inferring something I am by definition not communicating anything to anyone. Well, it looks like I might have been back when Shakespeare was around, but not today. Now, if I imply something that is a different matter.

Looks like Conrad was not the only class you BSed your way thru.

Edited to change "dork" to "dipshit" because I'm feeling retro.

sebastian_dangerfield · 11-11-2003, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Jesus god almighty.

Inference. Implication. Look them up. The joke is not funny if no one gets it. Maybe you mean, someone does something intending for other people to make an inference? Edited to add that doing that is making an implication. Or implying.

Or I'm delirious.

Allright... now I get it.

S(touche... I am caught writing without thinking for the 666th time)D

ltl/fb · 11-11-2003, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AngryMulletMan
Per se v. per quod. So, for instance, somebody says that Mary is pregnant. Whether Mary is a nun or not makes a difference.

I fear for the country, that these conversations are even happening in a forum where everyone has at least 19 years of formal education (or its equivalent, for people who skipped grades or graduated early).

Edited to say I wash my hands, WASH MY HANDS I tell you. There's blood on them anyway. Won't come off. Weird.

sebastian_dangerfield · 11-11-2003, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Fugee
Ever heard of The Chronicles of Narnia?

Thems fighting words! You can bash the Austen books all you want but stay away from the BBC production of P&P with Colin Firth (forever on my laminated list) as Mr. Darcy. One of my favorite TV productions ever. I bought the DVD.

Fu(P&P on A&E is the ultimate in chick TV)gee

I liked the Bridget Jones thing... but P&P is just plain painful. I've tried to watch it with the Mrs. many times... each time a horrible failure.

AngryMulletMan · 11-11-2003, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
I fear for the country, that these conversations are even happening in a forum where everyone has at least 19 years of formal education (or its equivalent, for people who skipped grades or graduated early).

Edited to say I wash my hands, WASH MY HANDS I tell you. There's blood on them anyway. Won't come off. Weird.

"The common law also differentiated between defamation that is apparent (per se) from defamation that requires extrinsic evidence to show damages (per quod). Slander or libel per se is defamatory statements that are readily apparent. Since the defamation is readily apparent, plaintiff does not need to show harm: the defendant was strictly liable. Defendant's only defense in a defamation per se action was truth, which burden the defendant bore. In addition, since the harm was apparent, punitive damages were also available. Typically, defamation per se was restricted to defamation relating to business dealings, loathsome diseases, chastity and the like.

Defamation per quod, is defamation that requires extrinsic evidence to show how the statement is injurious. For example, it is not generally "injurious" to say that Fred eats pork. If Fred is Jewish, however, such a statement may be injurious. The plaintiff, in a per quod action would be required to show the harm. Since the harm was not apparent, punitive damages were not available to a prevailing plaintiff."

http://www.uoregon.edu/~rweekes/

OK, wash away. I thought you were talking about this issue, which is classic first year torts.

ThurgreedMarshall · 11-11-2003, 05:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Oliver_Wendell_Ramone
real or fake?

(spree: duh.)

Sadly, no answer key. So the first person to get them all right needs to post the answers. I was a disappointing 7 for 12.

Your score: 10

Your score is 10 out of 12. Nice job!

Thurgreed(what's the point without an answer key? I'm not learnin' anything here)Marshall

ltl/fb · 11-11-2003, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AngryMulletMan
"The common law also differentiated between defamation that is apparent (per se) from defamation that requires extrinsic evidence to show damages (per quod). Slander or libel per se is . . . blahdeblahdeblah . . .

OK, wash away. I thought you were talking about this issue, which is classic first year torts.

I think the "per" you are looking for is "per snickety." I don't have a copy of Black's in here though so you might want to double check.

Of course I was not talking about the issue, I was making a joke at SD's expense. Which everyone should have assumed.

I would have left this dropped but for the quote from some legal crap that is practically as long as the Rush lyrics quotes. That is just wrong.