Thread Closed.
08-20-2004, 10:27 PM
#22
Charter Member #37 /Moderator/Platinum Member
Charter Member
Re: Thread Closed.
Originally Posted by Wasabe
Now thats funny
__________________
Champagne taste on a beer Budget
C. P. B. A. Carolina Power Boat Assoc
Champagne taste on a beer Budget
C. P. B. A. Carolina Power Boat Assoc
08-20-2004, 10:47 PM
#24
OffshoreOnly Antagonizer
VIP Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bethesda, Maryland
Posts: 865
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Thread Closed.
Originally Posted by d-hlaw
Lets be intellectually honest here... Steve has little or no liability for slanderous statements by members on his forum, that is just the excuse for poofing some threads that create inherent conflicts of interest. Fact is that although we as the forum members represent a portion of his income the advertisers do also but with the added benefit of being able to give percs that we dont have. Nothing wrong with that! The fine line that has be walked is that of avoiding the unjustfied bashing of advertisers while ensuring that scumbags arent taking advantage of his forum members. I submit that he seems to do a pretty good job although he errs on the conservative side when it comes to allegations about advertisers. This past week has been tough because alot of GOOD people with credibility on this forum have found out that they are in for a rough road. Unforunately at the same time OSO seemed to be trying to quiet the situation. Maybe next week will bring better news!!!
You and I are going to have our first battle over this one. I do not believe that Steve has ever used liability for libel as a pretext for poofing a thread. On the contrary, he usually warns the people making speculative, adverse posts that THEY may be held accountable for their statements by the party to whom their posts are directed. He knows most advertisers on this site personally and, therefore, errs on the side of protecting their business interests due to the speed at which gossip and innuendo fly around these forums, often without factual support. As you well know, harmful, untrue statements about a person's business practices are de facto libelous. OSO does a very good job at balancing the business interests of its advertisers with the personal interests on its members. I disagree with you that OSO tried to "quiet the situation" with NM. The thread was left alone for some time, until unfounded rumors about federal investigations and arrests were posted. At some point, OSO has to step in to restore the equilibrium. It is very easy for us to chime in from the sidelines. It is a far more difficult task to be the one doing the balancing act.
__________________
"Kevin, prepare for the summer."
-Mr. Sorkin, 10th Grade Geometry teacher
"Kevin, prepare for the summer."
-Mr. Sorkin, 10th Grade Geometry teacher
Platinum Member
08-20-2004, 11:07 PM
#26
Registered
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New Smyrna Beach, Florida
Posts: 2,697
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Re: Thread Closed.
Originally Posted by Phknlwyr
Brett,
You and I are going to have our first battle over this one. I do not believe that Steve has ever used liability for libel as a pretext for poofing a thread. On the contrary, he usually warns the people making speculative, adverse posts that THEY may be held accountable for their statements by the party to whom their posts are directed. He knows most advertisers on this site personally and, therefore, errs on the side of protecting their business interests due to the speed at which gossip and innuendo fly around these forums, often without factual support. As you well know, harmful, untrue statements about a person's business practices are de facto libelous. OSO does a very good job at balancing the business interests of its advertisers with the personal interests on its members. I disagree with you that OSO tried to "quiet the situation" with NM. The thread was left alone for some time, until unfounded rumors about federal investigations and arrests were posted. At some point, OSO has to step in to restore the equilibrium. It is very easy for us to chime in from the sidelines. It is a far more difficult task to be the one doing the balancing act.
You and I are going to have our first battle over this one. I do not believe that Steve has ever used liability for libel as a pretext for poofing a thread. On the contrary, he usually warns the people making speculative, adverse posts that THEY may be held accountable for their statements by the party to whom their posts are directed. He knows most advertisers on this site personally and, therefore, errs on the side of protecting their business interests due to the speed at which gossip and innuendo fly around these forums, often without factual support. As you well know, harmful, untrue statements about a person's business practices are de facto libelous. OSO does a very good job at balancing the business interests of its advertisers with the personal interests on its members. I disagree with you that OSO tried to "quiet the situation" with NM. The thread was left alone for some time, until unfounded rumors about federal investigations and arrests were posted. At some point, OSO has to step in to restore the equilibrium. It is very easy for us to chime in from the sidelines. It is a far more difficult task to be the one doing the balancing act.
08-21-2004, 06:28 AM
#30
Registered
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Niskayuna, NY
Posts: 5,548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Thread Closed.
Originally Posted by Airpacker
This is too cool, lawyers arguing for free
Who'd a ever thunk ? WOW
Who'd a ever thunk ? WOW
