NGMsGhost wrote on Mar 12
th, 2008 at 8:46pm:
(
# Inflamatory comments removed ~ DaveM
). . . andy9, who had set out quite deliberately to rile another forum member by making absurd claims that normal fair comment by dorf about a now bankrupt mobile phone company amounted to potentially libelous comments.
It is clear that andy9 does not work in the law as if he did he would understand what is real libel that people actually sue for and what is merely fair comment that those expressing such views could justify in the wholly unlikely event that any libel action against them was ever attempted (as it almost certainly would not be).
As far as I can see andy9 only makes his sudden threats that comments of another poster are libelous when he sees comments that he does not like and wants to try to silence them.
False grounds, I'm afraid.
You are correct that I am not a lawyer, but I think that I can still identify who are the parties in the dispute dorf is talking about.
My comments express no opinion at all on dorf's opinions about a bankrupt mobile company, but are about what dorf says about the network's vicarious liability, which is the case he is actually on about, and associating those remarks with the other words used.
Pages: 1 2
Mobile phone cashback fraud/possible class action (Read 15,755 times)
