What's a name for

**The Stranger:Me** · 10th May 2011, 14:29

Originally Posted by Maha

If you really think you have a Defamation case against me then...I invite you to procceed.
But answer this...
WHO was it that first brought the alleged situation to a public forum?

The only reasons I would proceed is to have the offending material removed and/or there had been a consequence i.e. say it had cost me a client (of which I have several on KB).
The material has been removed and there was no measurable consequence.
To proceed further under such circumstance would in my view be frivolous and a waste of time and money.

Though in all honesty you should be careful with your invites. Last time I sued someone it cost me $45k up front in legal fees, but hey it cost them around $200k as near as I can figure (assuming similar legal fees).
Ironically on looking back I suspect that they saw my repeated attempts to both avoid and settle out of court as a sign of weakness or lack of resolve and probably only strenghtened theirs, silly mistake that one.

The difference between Andrew's comment and yours is the intent. I know that intent used to be a key part of defamation, though if I recall correctly this element (the requirement that intent be ill) has now been removed. Regardless of that I still believe that intent is a key element (in my decision making process at least).
For example, frequently disparaging remarks are made in jest. Sometimes disparaging remarks are made out of frustration and sometimes they are made to be vindictive and or with specific intent to defame.
Clearly Andrews remarks were in the former category and yours were in the latter category.

Furthermore, I somehow doubt that a valid defence would be - hey, it's not my fault, I was only repeating an unsubstantiated rumour. If it were then every newspaper in the country would have a valid defence. News flash - they don't, they get sued too.

**Big Dave** · 10th May 2011, 14:33

I take back all those things I said about Renegade Master....no....wait....

**Maha** · 10th May 2011, 14:50

Originally Posted by The Stranger

The only reasons I would proceed is to have the offending material removed and/or there had been a consequence i.e. say it had cost me a client (of which I have several on KB).
The material has been removed and there was no measurable consequence.
To proceed further under such circumstance would in my view be frivolous and a waste of time and money.

Though in all honesty you should be careful with your invites. Last time I sued someone it cost me $45k up front in legal fees, but hey it cost them around $200k as near as I can figure (assuming similar legal fees).
Ironically on looking back I suspect that they saw my repeated attempts to both avoid and settle out of court as a sign of weakness or lack of resolve and probably only strenghtened theirs, silly mistake that one.

The difference between Andrew's comment and yours is the intent. I know that intent used to be a key part of defamation, though if I recall correctly this element (the requirement that intent be ill) has now been removed. Regardless of that I still believe that intent is a key element (in my decision making process at least).
For example, frequently disparaging remarks are made in jest. Sometimes disparaging remarks are made out of frustration and sometimes they are made to be vindictive and or with specific intent to defame.
Clearly Andrews remarks were in the former category and yours were in the latter category.

Furthermore, I somehow doubt that a valid defence would be - hey, it's not my fault, I was only repeating an unsubstantiated rumour. If it were then every newspaper in the country would have a valid defence. News flash - they don't, they get sued too.

Great so thats the end of it.

**Ronin** · 10th May 2011, 15:14

Originally Posted by The Stranger

So you can't be sued for defamation because it's the internet?

"To bring a successful defamation action you (the "plaintiff") will need to establish the following elements:

The statement must have been defamatory of you.
The statement must have been communicated to one or more people – in other words, there must have been "publication".
You do not have to prove that you suffered any specific damage or loss, as the law assumes that you have suffered loss if a statement is defamatory of you."

A bit of an education for you maha.

See above for example of taking shite way to seriously.

**The Stranger:Me** · 10th May 2011, 15:31

Originally Posted by Maha

Great so thats the end of it.

Well the end of it was a while back actually (as you will note none of this is new to you) - except you have this odd need to keep slipping in the past at every chance you get. You need to learn to let things go and move on maha.