Blue2
Premium
join:2004-04-14
France
| reply to Steve
Re: Nicholas Papadopoulos and updated.com
Absolutely Steve, if you want to provoke litigation and have the mental age of a five year old.
One would think that at the very least the events of the past week would make you think twice before needlessly provoking a confrontation that would easily be avoided by using a modicum of tact and diplomacy, somewhat more befitting a consultant I would think than throwing insults around.
NetFixer's response seemed far more mature and a lot less smart-assed. But you're always welcome to try jabbing Papadopooulos a few times in the eye and report back how it turns out for you. |
|
Steve
I'm a PC, so shut up
Consultant
join:2001-03-10
Yorba Linda, CA
| said by Blue2  :Absolutely Steve, if you want to provoke litigation and have the mental age of a five year old. Anybody asking somebody to edit a 2-year-old post is just being ridiculous (especially since they can start their own thread), but I suppose I could tone it down and suggest "get lost".
Suggesting that this might lead to litigation is way more than silly.
Steve
--
Stephen J. Friedl • Unix Wizard • Microsoft Security MVP • Tustin, California USA • my web site |
|
Blue2
Premium
join:2004-04-14
France
| said by Steve : Anybody asking somebody to edit a 2-year-old post is just being ridiculous (especially since they can start their own thread), but I suppose I could tone it down and suggest "get lost". Suggesting that this might lead to litigation is way more than silly. Steve
He did not ask to have the post "edited". He asked for it to be removed. There's a difference. One could imagine that he thought (rightly or wrongly) that the post could be considered libelous, slanderous, or calumnious.
slander n. oral defamation, in which someone tells one or more persons an untruth about another which untruth will harm the reputation of the person defamed. Slander is a civil wrong (tort) and can be the basis for a lawsuit... (See: defamation, fair comment)
»legal-dictionary.thefreedictiona···/slander
That is why NetFixer's response was a far more intelligent reply that he was merely quoting what he had read and considered "public knowlege".
It doesn't matter two cents what you think, unless you are going to be the judge or pay the legal expenses. I imagine that the statute of limitations for the printed word is longer than two years.
But like I said, don't take my word for this. By all means, if so inclined, go ahead and make a few disparaging comments yourself (Disclaimer: Not to be construed as legal counsel.) and report how it turns out. I for one, would refrain from ever giving legal advice that others might pay dearly for if I were wrong. |
|
m0d
join:2005-03-02
ireland
| Good job Netfixer for at least giving him a chance to defend himself in public. Everybody deserves that.
"GFY" really is probably the correct answer for such an old post.
I find it sad how people think that litigation threats can prevent the truth/the opinion of a majority.
Remember that the public judges you and litigation threats just make you seem more dubious to us the majority.
Netfixer even apologized *if* you were actually treated unfairly? Would you care to elaborate on your case? |
|
