Discussion in 'Feedback' started by sjfan, May 4, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. sjfan



    Morganist appeared to have deleted my post in his book thread that was rather critical of his views (and given what he has said, quite rightly critical of his character).

    This doesn't seem ethically kosher, does it? Should the views of a moderator (on matters that have nothing to do with ET) be protected?
  2. You posted a comment I made to you in confidence, which could be considered slanderous. This is well within the justification for deleting a post.
  3. sjfan


    First, that's not what slander means. Further, under US law, the truth is absolute defensive to libel; You did indeed say everything I said you said.

    Second, there's nothing in confidence. ET rules (as spelled in the conduct) do not seem to say that personal messages are forbidden to be posted. There's no implied confidentiality between you and me. There's no fiduciary duty that attaches from your insane boast.

    Third, there's nothing truly confidential in that PM (ie, your real name, your phone number, etc). So there's no mitigating reason for it.

  4. ET is a global forum. Not just US. Therefore whatever understanding you have of the law is irrelevent on the forum.
  5. sjfan


    Sigh. First, you are completely off as to what slander even means. Second, if you care to sue me for 'slander', note you'll have to sue me in the US jurisdiction (and, as ET is based in the US, this is the forum we'll have to litigate in... forum as in legal forum, not a message board).

    Also, it's not freaking slander. Slander is when I say 'morganist is a [bad person]. I saw him do it' (in words, in writing it's libel). Slander is not 'I think morganist is a [bad person]. I think I saw someone like him do it.' In either case, posting what you said in PM qualifies neither. It's also rather debating whether one can slander a message board handle.

    Lastly, please take note slander/libel are tort constructs. So yes, jurisdiction matter.

    Quite being a child.

  6. No. I am not saying you are slanderous. But you that you inadicted me a slanderous by posting the personal message I sent you. This is why I deleted the post.

    I have no intentions of taking you to court. Please can you now delete the above comments implying molestation.
  7. sjfan


    I don't believe in deleting things i've (or anyone) have written. But I'll make this one exception since (1) I'm not that much of an ass, and (2) I don't want to unfairly taint your school of economics when people inevitably start to google 'morganist' in swarms.

    I think it's clear as day that that was an illustration of the legal concept. In no way do I believe or implied that you as a child molester. As far as I know, you are not.

    Also, I don't know what this means: 'But you that you inadicted me a slanderous'. You said, 'You posted a comment I made to you in confidence, which could be considered slanderous.'

    I explained to you that it's not.

  8. The slander laws are different in England. You understanding of law is irrelevent.

    Please can we stop this argument.
  9. sjfan


    (1) I've gone and edited my part. Because, like I said, I'm not that much of an ass.
    (2) Yes, I'm well aware of that. But you'll have to sue me in my jurisdiction in this case. And finally, your definition of slander fits neither.

    Wait... did you mean to say that what you wrote about Jean Pisani-Ferry may be considered slanderous by him???

    So you are admitting that you made that whole thing up? ... interesting....

  10. Joe


    Closed this thread.
    sjfan email me with any additional correspondence.
    #10     May 4, 2011
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.