dorf wrote on Mar 11
th, 2008 at 7:07pm:
Andy, it seems either we use a different language, or we are using English in a completely different way, with different meanings of words. I did not
Quote:allege deliberate scams, cheating, etc, and suggest that the networks are responsible.
[...]
Please read what I have actually posted, ...
I did so, and you did indeed use the words ripped off, scams, cheated, cheat, and so on. You then follow on with remarks asserting vicarious liability of the networks for their agents' behaviour, and hence reasons to take class action against them, the networks.
Legal cases don't turn on feelings, but on questions of fact. Phrases like "are reputed" and "increasing realisation" are secondhand hearsay and innuendo at the moment, and you would be obliged to produce proof if that is the case you are tring to make.
You need to look up the words vicarious liability. This means exerting a control or influence over the actions of another party that is deemed liable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liabilityReading this, in close association with the words mentioned, your opponents' lawyers may take it as intended to be defamatory, despite your denials, and suggest that a reasonable person would see it as so. They might also be minded to act against the publisher.
That is why some perhaps careless discussion of these matters on other forums has been curtailed or even provisionally removed, and why I suggested that the forum owner here might need to pay some attention.
As I already suggested, you should be able to attract interest from other consumers without setting out too much of a case here before taking legal advice.