The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

> Help

This subforum is for critical evaluation of Wikipedia articles. However, to reduce topic-bloat, please make note of exceptionally poor stubs, lists, and other less attention-worthy material in the Miscellaneous Grab Bag thread. Also, please be aware that agents of the Wikimedia Foundation might use your evaluations to improve the articles in question.

Useful Links: Featured Article CandidatesFeatured Article ReviewArticles for DeletionDeletion Review

2 Pages V < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Biograph Company, Open slander and harrassment
Kathryn Cramer
post Thu 5th April 2007, 10:42am
Post #21


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 68
Joined: Mon 29th Jan 2007, 11:16am
Member No.: 891

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(biographco @ Thu 5th April 2007, 1:41am) *

QUOTE(Toledo @ Sat 31st March 2007, 5:44pm) *

In the part of the Wikipedia article about your company, what is incorrect or slanderous?

It is in the "Talk" pages of the article. they mention it several times that they added information specifically to make the company look bad.


The general issue here is that the existence and practices of Wikipedia force professional PR people to learn and adopt the quaint customs of the Wikipedians, such as anonymity & pseudonymity, disingenuous sneakiness, etc. People who would never think of using anything other than their real name professionally are and will be forced by the practices of Wikipedia to learn how to be like this.

Whether or not something is legally actionable defamation is in some ways beside the point because corporate CEOs are really the ones whose opinion matters as far as the responsibilities of the publicist and corporate legal department go.

Wikipedia's conflict of interest rules & policies prevent civilized resolution of inaccuracies in corporate listings via real word social practice. This problem is only going to get worse.

This post has been edited by Kathryn Cramer: Thu 5th April 2007, 10:45am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Somey
post Thu 5th April 2007, 3:28pm
Post #22


Can't actually moderate (or even post)
*********

Group: Moderators
Posts: 11,815
Joined: Sat 17th Jun 2006, 7:47pm
From: Dreamland
Member No.: 275



Bingo! Couldn't have said it better muh'self...

Think what you will about the folks who run the American Mutoscope and Biograph Company - even if it does seem apparent that they're not quite living in the Real World™ due to their plans to start filming on the Moon in the not-too-distant future, so what? Lots of companies are run by people with all sorts of crazy and/or weird ideas. And frankly, one of these days, some private company probably is going to make movies on the Moon. (Just not next year...) One man's nutcase is another man's "forward thinker," after all!

The point is that Wikipedia doesn't deal with these entities realistically, fairly, or even honestly. If someone puts up an article about a company on Wikipedia, people start combing the internet for dirt on it, and if they find any at all, it gets put in immediately - almost without fail. And so the company is forced to either "defend" the article or ignore it, and in many cases, that decision is almost a no-brainer - if you depend on the internet for revenue, you have to defend it, because Wikipedia is practically ubiquitous these days, what with Google, the scrapers, and certain less-than-professional journalists who use it as a source.

Admittedly, this is to some extent a positive thing, in that it's yet another reason for companies to avoid doing things that are bad. But if the negative information is inaccurate, or even weighted unfairly, peoples' jobs and livelihoods can be jeopardized.

The other thing we have to remember here is that AMBC hasn't really done anything wrong, though of course one can certainly argue that using their website to espouse a particularly strong position on a controversial issue (euthanasia) is not a proper thing for a company to do. (Any progress on moving that stuff off, btw?)

Ultimately it's just another example of why companies should be very, very careful of how they interact with Wikipedia, if they even attempt to do it at all. WP just doesn't play by Real-World rules, as we've seen time and time again.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
biographco
post Thu 5th April 2007, 8:08pm
Post #23


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu 29th Mar 2007, 9:03pm
From: Los Angeles, CA.
Member No.: 1,201

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 5th April 2007, 8:28am) *

Bingo! Couldn't have said it better muh'self...

Think what you will about the folks who run the American Mutoscope and Biograph Company - even if it does seem apparent that they're not quite living in the Real World™ due to their plans to start filming on the Moon in the not-too-distant future, so what? Lots of companies are run by people with all sorts of crazy and/or weird ideas. And frankly, one of these days, some private company probably is going to make movies on the Moon. (Just not next year...) One man's nutcase is another man's "forward thinker," after all!

The point is that Wikipedia doesn't deal with these entities realistically, fairly, or even honestly. If someone puts up an article about a company on Wikipedia, people start combing the internet for dirt on it, and if they find any at all, it gets put in immediately - almost without fail. And so the company is forced to either "defend" the article or ignore it, and in many cases, that decision is almost a no-brainer - if you depend on the internet for revenue, you have to defend it, because Wikipedia is practically ubiquitous these days, what with Google, the scrapers, and certain less-than-professional journalists who use it as a source.

Admittedly, this is to some extent a positive thing, in that it's yet another reason for companies to avoid doing things that are bad. But if the negative information is inaccurate, or even weighted unfairly, peoples' jobs and livelihoods can be jeopardized.

The other thing we have to remember here is that AMBC hasn't really done anything wrong, though of course one can certainly argue that using their website to espouse a particularly strong position on a controversial issue (euthanasia) is not a proper thing for a company to do. (Any progress on moving that stuff off, btw?)

Ultimately it's just another example of why companies should be very, very careful of how they interact with Wikipedia, if they even attempt to do it at all. WP just doesn't play by Real-World rules, as we've seen time and time again.

I want to thank all for thier input. Great stuff. First, the "Moon" story I had explained before and what the intentions were. Yes, there still is a good possibility of having a camera on the moon by 2008 if funding can be acquired. I would also like to point out that in the real world the space program exists and so does commercial moon ventures. you can validate thjis all over the internet. But the "Moon" subject is truly irrelevant.

Wikipedia is attempting to use this to use this as only to discredit the company. Quote:

"I think it's obviously an attempt at self-promotion. I don't care whether it stays or goes. I've left it in myself because I think it's so silly that it undercuts any suggestion that the new Biograph is to be taken seriously. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)"

This is just ONE example. There are many more statements like this. using information to discredit ones reputation IN WRITING is slander. PLEASE read ll the archives on the Wikipedia article carefully.

On the "Euthanansia" program, we had put that on the backburner and are switching that to the Biograph TV website anyway. But to make a point, if Fox News, CNN or Dateline did a story like this, would it be in the "Real World"? OF COURSE. This is because they are the "Big Boys". We are a small but visible company taking on positions and projects only "Big" company's usually do, and we have a right to. This is the USA the last time I checked and everyone has the opprotunity to speak freely and to do business freely and legally without harrassment, or vindictive recourse from others.

On the last subject, for everyone at Wikipedia review, here are links of just a few of the harrassment cases involving Wikipedia. Thank you all for comments and keep them coming. Enjoy and thanks again!


http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/edito...edia-edit_x.htm

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/17/ji...says_wikipedia/

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2...tent_499446.htm

http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/usatoday.html

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?.../12/06/WIKI.TMP

http://www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipediac...ip48480602.html

http://www.wikipedia-watch.org/wikitort.html

http://www.israelnewsagency.com/wikipedial...ia48330508.html

Thomas Bond II
Biograph Company

This post has been edited by biographco: Thu 5th April 2007, 8:14pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
biographco
post Thu 5th April 2007, 8:22pm
Post #24


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu 29th Mar 2007, 9:03pm
From: Los Angeles, CA.
Member No.: 1,201

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Toledo @ Sun 1st April 2007, 10:04am) *

Most states have a statute of limitations on libel claims, after which point the plaintiff cannot sue over the statement. For example, in California, the one-year statute of limitations starts when the statement is first published to the public. Here in Ohio, it's also one year. Most courts have rejected claims that publishing online amounts to "continuous" publication, and start the statute of limitations ticking when the claimed defamation was first published.

The statute of limitations on libel (published) or slander (spoken) in the state of Florida, where the Wikimedia Foundation is incorporated, is two years.

Which part of the article is libelous?


The article is libelous because it presents inaccurate information as "Facts". Also it is intentional to use certain inclusions as to purposely dicredit the company. Quote from Wikipedia "Talk":

"I think it's obviously an attempt at self-promotion. I don't care whether it stays or goes. I've left it in myself because I think it's so silly that it undercuts any suggestion that the new Biograph is to be taken seriously. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)"

This is just ONE verified statement in writing of the intentions. There are MANY more.

Thanks!

Thomas



QUOTE(Toledo @ Thu 5th April 2007, 2:44am) *

I've read through all the discussion page (includng the archived portion), and did not find anywhere where "they mention it several times that they added information specifically to make the company look bad."


This is just one from Wikipedia "Talk" page...

"I think it's obviously an attempt at self-promotion. I don't care whether it stays or goes. I've left it in myself because I think it's so silly that it undercuts any suggestion that the new Biograph is to be taken seriously. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)"

Thanks for all comments!



User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Toledo
post Fri 6th April 2007, 12:40am
Post #25


Neophyte


Group: Contributors
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat 31st Mar 2007, 5:37pm
Member No.: 1,212



QUOTE(biographco @ Thu 5th April 2007, 4:22pm) *
The article is libelous because it presents inaccurate information as "Facts". Also it is intentional to use certain inclusions as to purposely dicredit the company. Quote from Wikipedia "Talk":

"I think it's obviously an attempt at self-promotion. I don't care whether it stays or goes. I've left it in myself because I think it's so silly that it undercuts any suggestion that the new Biograph is to be taken seriously. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)"

This is just ONE verified statement in writing of the intentions. There are MANY more.
For writing to be libelous, there must be an assertion of fact that is both false and defamatory. An opinion that is not an assertion of fact (e.g., "the new Biograph is not to be taken seriously") is protected speech.

What in the section of the article about your company is factually false and defamatory?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
biographco
post Fri 6th April 2007, 2:53am
Post #26


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu 29th Mar 2007, 9:03pm
From: Los Angeles, CA.
Member No.: 1,201

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Toledo @ Thu 5th April 2007, 5:40pm) *

QUOTE(biographco @ Thu 5th April 2007, 4:22pm) *
The article is libelous because it presents inaccurate information as "Facts". Also it is intentional to use certain inclusions as to purposely dicredit the company. Quote from Wikipedia "Talk":

"I think it's obviously an attempt at self-promotion. I don't care whether it stays or goes. I've left it in myself because I think it's so silly that it undercuts any suggestion that the new Biograph is to be taken seriously. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)"

This is just ONE verified statement in writing of the intentions. There are MANY more.
For writing to be libelous, there must be an assertion of fact that is both false and defamatory. An opinion that is not an assertion of fact (e.g., "the new Biograph is not to be taken seriously") is protected speech.

What in the section of the article about your company is factually false and defamatory?

Thank you for your response. I am not an attorney, and have to consult our people. If I get an OK to reval more information on this, I will let you know, but I can tell you now, according to our people, the fact that they are using a fact for a purpose and intent to de-fame the party involved does fall under libel and that it is not expressed as an opinion. In all fairness, it is way more complicated. It does show that the "Editors" do hgave an agenda to discredit the company by leaving the insertion in, not just leaving it in for informational purposes. Honestly, the more they do this, the better it is for us.

This post has been edited by biographco: Fri 6th April 2007, 2:54am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Uly
post Fri 6th April 2007, 2:27pm
Post #27


Junior Member
**

Group: Contributors
Posts: 80
Joined: Wed 7th Jun 2006, 8:01pm
Member No.: 250



There's a saying in the legal profession: 'Truth is an absolute defense to defamation'

If your lawyer is telling you that repeating factual information is libel, you probably need to consult with another lawyer.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Cedric
post Fri 6th April 2007, 5:27pm
Post #28


General Gato
******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,648
Joined: Sun 11th Mar 2007, 5:58pm
From: God's Ain Country
Member No.: 1,116

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Uly @ Fri 6th April 2007, 9:27am) *

There's a saying in the legal profession: 'Truth is an absolute defense to defamation'

If your lawyer is telling you that repeating factual information is libel, you probably need to consult with another lawyer.

In general, yes. However, some states also recognize "false light" claims, which do not necessarily require a knowingly false statement. A selective accounting of the facts will be enough, if an intent to place the plaintiff in a false light can be shown. However, it is my understanding that false light claims are rather hard to prove. But then, much the same can be said for about any defamation case. I should imagine that any company considering such a claim would do better to consult with an outside attorney with a strong background in defamation and media law before seriously pursuing such a case.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Toledo
post Sat 7th April 2007, 1:51am
Post #29


Neophyte


Group: Contributors
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat 31st Mar 2007, 5:37pm
Member No.: 1,212



62A Am. Jur. 2d Privacy § 128:
QUOTE
The false-light claim is closely allied with an action for defamation, and the same considerations apply to each. For both actions the matter publicized must be in fact false, it must be "published" or communicated to third parties, and the publication must be made with some degree of fault on the part of the originating party.

Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652E (1977):
QUOTE
One who gives publicity to a matter concerning another that places the other before the public in a false light is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if
(a) the false light in which the other was placed would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and
(B) the actor had knowledge of or acted in reckless disregard as to the falsity of the publicized matter and the false light in which the other would be placed.

[B]Comment:

a. Nature of Section. The form of invasion of privacy covered by the rule stated in this Section does not depend upon making public any facts concerning the private life of the individual. On the contrary, it is essential to the rule stated in this Section that the matter published concerning the plaintiff is not true.

50 Am. Jur. 2d Libel and Slander § 27:
QUOTE
The burden of proving falsity rests upon the plaintiff, and if the plaintiff cannot prove the falsity of a particular statement, the statement will not support an action for defamation. At common law, however, a defendant had the burden of proving the truth of a defamatory statement as an affirmative defense. United States Supreme Court cases have declared a new rule requiring the plaintiff to prove falsity in cases where damages are sought for speech of public concern, at least in cases with media defendants; the lower courts have extended the Supreme Court's ruling to non-media defendants.


This post has been edited by Toledo: Sat 7th April 2007, 2:01am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
biographco
post Sat 7th April 2007, 3:42am
Post #30


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu 29th Mar 2007, 9:03pm
From: Los Angeles, CA.
Member No.: 1,201

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Toledo @ Thu 5th April 2007, 2:44am) *

I've read through all the discussion page (includng the archived portion), and did not find anywhere where "they mention it several times that they added information specifically to make the company look bad."

Toledo, I need to look it up, it has been awhile and when I find it I will list. Thanks again


QUOTE(Uly @ Fri 6th April 2007, 7:27am) *

There's a saying in the legal profession: 'Truth is an absolute defense to defamation'

If your lawyer is telling you that repeating factual information is libel, you probably need to consult with another lawyer.

What we were going on is "Intent". If you state let's say, you wanted to one be an astrounaut, and possibly could if you were in the proper situation, you could. But, a certain group continued to barade you publicly on how "Stupid" you are, that you have no creditability, and so forth, that is just harassment with malicious intent. It IS true what you said, you DID want to become an astronaut, but the harassment that follows is what is the problem. If it is the intent of a person to discredit another by using information, the intent is there. Again I state, we may not have a chance in court. I do not know. There are alot of "If's" internet freedoms, etc. I do not know if we will go to court, altough we hold all options open. I do know that the more Wikipedia attempts is malicious towards the company for no reason, the better it is for us. I do believe there are alterior motives here.

This post has been edited by biographco: Sat 7th April 2007, 3:45am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
biographco
post Sat 7th April 2007, 7:08pm
Post #31


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu 29th Mar 2007, 9:03pm
From: Los Angeles, CA.
Member No.: 1,201

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Toledo @ Thu 5th April 2007, 2:44am) *

I've read through all the discussion page (includng the archived portion), and did not find anywhere where "they mention it several times that they added information specifically to make the company look bad."

I don't want to repeat the listing but it's posted, it is on the "Moon" subject.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Toledo
post Sat 7th April 2007, 8:08pm
Post #32


Neophyte


Group: Contributors
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat 31st Mar 2007, 5:37pm
Member No.: 1,212



One comment from one editor = "they mention it several times"?

He (or she) isn't even the editor who added the section on the moon lot; he's commenting on some other editor's addition of the section about the moon lot.

This post has been edited by Toledo: Sat 7th April 2007, 8:11pm
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
biographco
post Sat 7th April 2007, 11:58pm
Post #33


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu 29th Mar 2007, 9:03pm
From: Los Angeles, CA.
Member No.: 1,201

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Toledo @ Thu 5th April 2007, 2:44am) *

I've read through all the discussion page (includng the archived portion), and did not find anywhere where "they mention it several times that they added information specifically to make the company look bad."

Because of time constraints, I cannot give you the edtails, but this week I will post. One definate was the earlier posting about imentionally attempting to make the company look non-creditable. That is as direct as you can get.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
biographco
post Sun 8th April 2007, 12:11am
Post #34


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu 29th Mar 2007, 9:03pm
From: Los Angeles, CA.
Member No.: 1,201

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 5th April 2007, 8:28am) *

Bingo! Couldn't have said it better muh'self...

Think what you will about the folks who run the American Mutoscope and Biograph Company - even if it does seem apparent that they're not quite living in the Real World™ due to their plans to start filming on the Moon in the not-too-distant future, so what? Lots of companies are run by people with all sorts of crazy and/or weird ideas. And frankly, one of these days, some private company probably is going to make movies on the Moon. (Just not next year...) One man's nutcase is another man's "forward thinker," after all!

The point is that Wikipedia doesn't deal with these entities realistically, fairly, or even honestly. If someone puts up an article about a company on Wikipedia, people start combing the internet for dirt on it, and if they find any at all, it gets put in immediately - almost without fail. And so the company is forced to either "defend" the article or ignore it, and in many cases, that decision is almost a no-brainer - if you depend on the internet for revenue, you have to defend it, because Wikipedia is practically ubiquitous these days, what with Google, the scrapers, and certain less-than-professional journalists who use it as a source.

Admittedly, this is to some extent a positive thing, in that it's yet another reason for companies to avoid doing things that are bad. But if the negative information is inaccurate, or even weighted unfairly, peoples' jobs and livelihoods can be jeopardized.

The other thing we have to remember here is that AMBC hasn't really done anything wrong, though of course one can certainly argue that using their website to espouse a particularly strong position on a controversial issue (euthanasia) is not a proper thing for a company to do. (Any progress on moving that stuff off, btw?)

Ultimately it's just another example of why companies should be very, very careful of how they interact with Wikipedia, if they even attempt to do it at all. WP just doesn't play by Real-World rules, as we've seen time and time again.

First, thank you for your input it is always appreciated. On the company being attacked because of a particular controversial stance that has nothing to do with th company's validity, is ridiculous, let alone irrelevent. Michael Moore (Filmmaker) espoused a strong position on a very controversial subject in his film(s). I know Mike, he lives in the "Real" world and is a very good producer. But, that is what independent filmmakers do. This was not a "Website" opinion, it is a project that we are working on for release. Everyone has an opinion, which is fine. Trying to discredit or attack a company for NO reason smells. There are alterior motives here, seriously. As stated in the Wikipedia Review, editors could be even paid off to do "Things". This is very possible and can happen. I do close with the more they attack us, the better it is for us. When the legal hammer falls, it will fall hard and silent and it will be on them.


QUOTE(Toledo @ Sat 7th April 2007, 1:08pm) *

One comment from one editor = "they mention it several times"?

He (or she) isn't even the editor who added the section on the moon lot; he's commenting on some other editor's addition of the section about the moon lot.

That is true, it is messed up.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Toledo
post Sun 8th April 2007, 2:54am
Post #35


Neophyte


Group: Contributors
Posts: 11
Joined: Sat 31st Mar 2007, 5:37pm
Member No.: 1,212



QUOTE(biographco @ Sat 7th April 2007, 7:58pm) *
Because of time constraints, I cannot give you the edtails, but this week I will post. One definate was the earlier posting about imentionally attempting to make the company look non-creditable. That is as direct as you can get.
So far, you have quoted only one editor making one comment, Dpbsmith (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC).
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
biographco
post Sun 8th April 2007, 4:40am
Post #36


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu 29th Mar 2007, 9:03pm
From: Los Angeles, CA.
Member No.: 1,201

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Toledo @ Sat 7th April 2007, 7:54pm) *

QUOTE(biographco @ Sat 7th April 2007, 7:58pm) *
Because of time constraints, I cannot give you the details, but this week I will post. One definate was the earlier posting about attempting to make the company look non-creditable. That is as direct as you can get.
So far, you have quoted only one editor making one comment, Dpbsmith (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC).

Toledo, was this posting above on Wikipedia. This is one of our problematic "Editors". I do thank you Toledo for letting me see that again, but their biased opinions are irrelevent at this time. Our people only periodically review Wikipedia as any company should. It is obvious of thier intent in the "Real" world, outside the Wiki-world. Again, the more they discredit, the better.

This post has been edited by biographco: Sun 8th April 2007, 4:52am
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
biographco
post Sun 8th April 2007, 12:35pm
Post #37


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu 29th Mar 2007, 9:03pm
From: Los Angeles, CA.
Member No.: 1,201

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Toledo @ Thu 5th April 2007, 2:44am) *

I've read through all the discussion page (includng the archived portion), and did not find anywhere where "they mention it several times that they added information specifically to make the company look bad."

Quote from Wikipedia "Talk":

Refering to the "Moon" press release...

"I think it's obviously an attempt at self-promotion. I don't care whether it stays or goes. I've left it in myself because I think it's so silly that it undercuts any suggestion that the new Biograph is to be taken seriously. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)"
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
dtobias
post Sun 8th April 2007, 4:10pm
Post #38


Obsessive trolling idiot [per JzG]
*******

Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,213
Joined: Sun 11th Feb 2007, 2:45pm
From: Boca Raton, FL, USA
Member No.: 962

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(biographco @ Sun 8th April 2007, 8:35am) *

"I think it's obviously an attempt at self-promotion. I don't care whether it stays or goes. I've left it in myself because I think it's so silly that it undercuts any suggestion that the new Biograph is to be taken seriously. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)"


That hardly constitutes actionable libel. I don't see how it can by any stretch of the imagination be considered a legal tort to express an opinion that somebody shouldn't be taken seriously, and that you'd like their own words to be publicized because they speak for themselves to that end.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
biographco
post Sun 8th April 2007, 7:29pm
Post #39


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu 29th Mar 2007, 9:03pm
From: Los Angeles, CA.
Member No.: 1,201

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(dtobias @ Sun 8th April 2007, 9:10am) *

QUOTE(biographco @ Sun 8th April 2007, 8:35am) *

"I think it's obviously an attempt at self-promotion. I don't care whether it stays or goes. I've left it in myself because I think it's so silly that it undercuts any suggestion that the new Biograph is to be taken seriously. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)"


That hardly constitutes actionable libel. I don't see how it can by any stretch of the imagination be considered a legal tort to express an opinion that somebody shouldn't be taken seriously, and that you'd like their own words to be publicized because they speak for themselves to that end.

Again, I am not an attorney, and it may or may not be. That is up to an attorney. However, the intent is there to include information to undercut a company's creditability. Unfortunateley I would like to go into more, but I was advised legally to only to relese so much information, but I do thank you for your input.


QUOTE(biographco @ Sun 8th April 2007, 12:28pm) *

QUOTE(dtobias @ Sun 8th April 2007, 9:10am) *

QUOTE(biographco @ Sun 8th April 2007, 8:35am) *

"I think it's obviously an attempt at self-promotion. I don't care whether it stays or goes. I've left it in myself because I think it's so silly that it undercuts any suggestion that the new Biograph is to be taken seriously. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)"


That hardly constitutes actionable libel. I don't see how it can by any stretch of the imagination be considered a legal tort to express an opinion that somebody shouldn't be taken seriously, and that you'd like their own words to be publicized because they speak for themselves to that end.

Again, I am not an attorney, and it may or may not be. That is up to an attorney. However, the intent is there to include information to undercut a company's creditability. It is alsonot included in the article as an "Opinion, but as a "Fact". Unfortunateley I would like to go into more, but I was advised legally to only to relese so much information, but I do thank you for your input.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
biographco
post Tue 10th April 2007, 9:27pm
Post #40


Member
***

Group: Contributors
Posts: 104
Joined: Thu 29th Mar 2007, 9:03pm
From: Los Angeles, CA.
Member No.: 1,201

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(biographco @ Sun 8th April 2007, 12:29pm) *

QUOTE(dtobias @ Sun 8th April 2007, 9:10am) *

QUOTE(biographco @ Sun 8th April 2007, 8:35am) *

"I think it's obviously an attempt at self-promotion. I don't care whether it stays or goes. I've left it in myself because I think it's so silly that it undercuts any suggestion that the new Biograph is to be taken seriously. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)"


That hardly constitutes actionable libel. I don't see how it can by any stretch of the imagination be considered a legal tort to express an opinion that somebody shouldn't be taken seriously, and that you'd like their own words to be publicized because they speak for themselves to that end.

Again, I am not an attorney, and it may or may not be. That is up to an attorney. However, the intent is there to include information to undercut a company's creditability. Unfortunateley I would like to go into more, but I was advised legally to only to relese so much information, but I do thank you for your input.


QUOTE(biographco @ Sun 8th April 2007, 12:28pm) *

QUOTE(dtobias @ Sun 8th April 2007, 9:10am) *

QUOTE(biographco @ Sun 8th April 2007, 8:35am) *

"I think it's obviously an attempt at self-promotion. I don't care whether it stays or goes. I've left it in myself because I think it's so silly that it undercuts any suggestion that the new Biograph is to be taken seriously. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)"


That hardly constitutes actionable libel. I don't see how it can by any stretch of the imagination be considered a legal tort to express an opinion that somebody shouldn't be taken seriously, and that you'd like their own words to be publicized because they speak for themselves to that end.

Again, I am not an attorney, and it may or may not be. That is up to an attorney. However, the intent is there to include information to undercut a company's creditability. It is alsonot included in the article as an "Opinion, but as a "Fact". Unfortunateley I would like to go into more, but I was advised legally to only to relese so much information, but I do thank you for your input.

Also, I noticed you are one of the "Editors" making unsavory aka (Crackpot) remarks against me and the company. They "Editors" will also be held accountable.

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 25th 2 18, 7:57pm