Fencing Sucks really really Sucks

[kini mini]

Originally posted by Philistine


No. They apply to any form of communication--written, oral, electronic, etc.

That's true here in Aus too. On a somewhat related note Philistine, I realise the "trespass to chattels" defence isn't relevant here but what do you think of it? (cf Intel's latest case aginst the ex-employee, the eBay and the bot case...)

Theoretically, yes. Proving that there has been damages is usually the toughest part in this type of case. Prosecuting such a case is generally very expensive, and usually not worth the effort and expense for these types of postings.

To add to that - in New South Wales ( my state in Australia), a defendant in a defamation suit must prove both that what they said was true (or they had good reason to believe it was true) AND that publicising these facts was in the public interest. NSW has more civil litigation suits per head than the USA I hear. But defamation laws are subtly different everywhere.

As Philistine said, most civil suits end in settlements because fighting it out in court is too expensive.

[KBayDog]

pkt,

No Spanish Inquisition here. It is not McCarthyism, nor is it a good-old fashioned witch hunt. It is just a Strother Martin-esque "failure to communicate."

****The "trend" I speak of is your strong opinion of my Commander-in-Chief, and the politics and actions of your neighbors to the south.****

Please note: I do not have an issue with this. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and I firmly believe in the free exchange of thoughts and ideas. While I may not agree with your position, I admire the research you have done to support your stance. You are obviously a highly educated, credible individual. (In fact, I would not mind if you taught the Hollywood-types how to construct an effective argument!)

What I do have issue with, however, is requesting that others stop discussing their threads. No one has asked you to cease posting your opinions on politics, nor should anyone. Apparently there was not "enough said about Fencingsucks," as kini mini had something to share after your most recent post on this thread.

This "forum" should be just that - a medium for public discussion. If you do not want to participate in a thread, you do not have to. Please remember, though, that there are 2,537 other members who might want to.

Hopefully this clears things up.

Respectfully,

KBayDog

[MikeHarm]

Sweet, noone is ripping on me on fencing sucks in any of the threads! Too bad for Ye Old Armorer though, looks like they're really going to work on him this round.

[Philistine]

Originally posted by kini mini
That's true here in Aus too. On a somewhat related note Philistine, I realise the "trespass to chattels" defence isn't relevant here but what do you think of it? (cf Intel's latest case aginst the ex-employee, the eBay and the bot case...)

I'm of two minds about it. I'm not convinced that such a creaky old doctrine really fits the circumstances (for example in the Intel Case, I agree with the dissent that there were was no actual injury--from what I understand, the case was argued in the California Supreme Court earlier this week). On the other hand, I feel there should be some regulation of this type of thing--some states have passed laws addressing it, and I feel this will be the trend as the internet matures rather than fitting square-peg internet issues into round-hole 19th-century tort concepts.

To add to that - in New South Wales ( my state in Australia), a defendant in a defamation suit must prove both that what they said was true (or they had good reason to believe it was true) AND that publicising these facts was in the public interest. NSW has more civil litigation suits per head than the USA I hear. But defamation laws are subtly different everywhere.

In the US, the burden of proof is more of a hodgepodge--currently (IIRC), if it is a public figure OR a matter of public concern, the burden of proof on truth/falsity is on the plaintiff (at least with regard to media defendants). Also, the issue of public interest doesn't arise except to the extent of determining the appropriate burden of proof, and whether actual malice is required.

--Philistine

[thyme_daniels]

though i hate being mentioned on that board, i think that one must realize that all the people who post negative comments about other people are just insecure about their own fencing. Ripping on others is their petty way to vent their jealousy. I also think that it would stink if someone lost their job or something, but i highly doubt anything would come of a scathing rumor. some people are rude, and thats just the way the world works. you cant please everyone. oh well...i try to avoid fs's post board anyway. it's the same old lame stuff. definitely not a forum for intellectual stimulation!

[lochinvar]

Originally posted by Purple Fencer
Lochinvar, that was an EXTREMELY well written posting...aren't you feeling well?

Thanks, Sam. Even a blind hog finds an acorn now and again...

[pkt]

Originally posted by KBayDog
pkt,

****The "trend" I speak of is your strong opinion of my Commander-in-Chief, and the politics and actions of your neighbors to the south.****

Please note: I do not have an issue with this. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and I firmly believe in the free exchange of thoughts and ideas. While I may not agree with your position, I admire the research you have done to support your stance. You are obviously a highly educated, credible individual. (In fact, I would not mind if you taught the Hollywood-types how to construct an effective argument!)

What I do have issue with, however, is requesting that others stop discussing their threads. No one has asked you to cease posting your opinions on politics, nor should anyone. Apparently there was not "enough said about Fencingsucks," as kini mini had something to share after your most recent post on this thread.

This "forum" should be just that - a medium for public discussion. If you do not want to participate in a thread, you do not have to. Please remember, though, that there are 2,537 other members who might want to.

Hopefully this clears things up.

Respectfully,

KBayDog

KBayDog,

I'm not the first one to suggest an end to a miserable thread. edew made a similar suggestion in another thread. Check it out.

Thank you for your clarifications re Spanish Inqusitions / McCarthism, etc.

As a citizen of a country that strongly believe in supporting the UN, that strongly support peace-keeping, I, like the majority of the population of this world, yes, even a big portion of the citizens of the US, have very strong NEGATIVE opinions of your C-I-C.

I appreciate your stance as a 'patriotic' American. You are entitled to your support of your C-I-C as I'm entitled to my NOT supporting him. In fact the track record of the US vis a vis the UN is pathetic. I am not saying it is wrong. I repeat once again my opinion that a nation state has its own best interest as its priority. Altruisms is only for a small handful of countries and I'm proud to be a citizen of one such country.

That said, Canada stance is also taken as a result of Cda being the mouse that sleeps beside the elephant. Cda need the UN more than the US needs the UN.

Cda's stance is not unlike the position that Sir Thomas Moore takes when his son-in-law would put aside the laws so he could get at someone he dislikes.

If you wish me to quote that from 'A Man for all Seasons' I will with great pleasure.

Yes, what I'm repeating is what international legal experts are saying, "The attack on Iraq is illegal under the UN Charter."

Yes, what I'm repeating is what philosophers are saying is an 'unjust' war.

Yes, I am a small-l liberal. I also beleive in the rule of law.

As a result of its actions in the last few years, this neigbou=r to the south is trying mighty hard to act most unneighbourly. You want examples?

1. Tariff of 29% levied on BC softwood. The US lost 3 previous visits on this topic to the International trade tribunal... Guess who get hurt by this tariff? Yes, the lumber mills in BC are hurting, but they adjuct and became more efficient and are actually killing US lumber mills more after the imposition of the tariff. It is the US consumers, the nouse buyers who are hurt. They are paying more for new houses just so the tariffs go to the lumber lobby. It's so unjust that two weeks ago, some US senators are rising to oppose the tariff.

2. Accusations of Cda subsidising the wheat farmers so they can sell wheat below costs when the US subsidizes her own farmers to the tune of ____ Billion dollars. Do you know how much that subsidy is?

3. Tariffs on steel in contravention to the Nor trade treaty

4. The worst case is that of Ambassador Paul Cellucci, under the instrucion of Condy Rice [read: Dubya] attacked Cda's refusal to join the attack on Iraq without UN approval. He had the audacity to suggest that if Cda was attacked the US would come to her aid. WRONG! WWI, WWII are 2 examples of the US following her own drummer. As part of the British Empire in those 2 wars, an attack on Britain = attack on Canada.

5. Cdns on shopping trips- read contributing to the US economy - to Blaine and Bellingham in Washington state are getting nasty printed notes telling them to 'go back were [sic] they came from.' To the dismay of the chambers of Commerce and the merchants of those US towns and cities along the border which depend on Cdns for business. Then there is that case of the seller on e-bay refusing to ship to Cda.

ad nauseum

I guss you get my point on how neigbourly some - emphsise SOME, not all - Americans are.

If only 'patriotic' Americans like yourself can see and hear what the rest of the world think of the US government - emphaise US GOVERNMENT, not the people - you'll agree with Sen. Byrd.

In fact it's too bad I can't find an e-copy of an article I read this morning in the Washington Post comparing the MO of the British Army - which learned their lessons from Northern Ireland - and that of the US armed forces re the Iraqis and similar 'conqured' peoples. This is so symptomatic [spelling] of how the US treat other peoples.
[I found the article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Apr3.html]

I repeat:
I am not saying it is wrong. I repeat once again my opinion that a nation state has its own best interest as its priority.

The US relationship with Israel is a goo dillustration of my point.

If Israel is an example of the kind of democracy that Dubya wishes to export to the rest of the world, God help us all.

But then that's another thread.

I have all the respect for the ingenuity of the American people. I find that American people and Cdns are basically the same if you discount certain things. I've listed some of these somewhere else and will therefore not belabour the point by repeating them here since it appears that you have read some if not all of what I posted.

I do thank you so very much for your kind words about my education [B. Comm only - and the Comm is Commerce, not Communism], and my credibility.

We're here to present our own opinions. If we all agree on all points, then there'll be no forum. I sometimes take the postion of the Devil's Advocate. Yes, I enjoy irritating people. Yes, I enjoy being an agent provocateur. But then, I'm sure Craig appreciates this more than you do.

See, I do agree with you on the thread about 'Waking up'.

Best regards,

PK

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally posted by Mo
Every now and then I check on fencingsucks to make sure that my kids are not being mentioned.
I cannot believe the stuff posted on there is legal. The things posted recently about Kelly Hurley who is 14 years old and an excellent fencer (evidence, making the Cadet and Junior World Epee Team at 14) SHOULD be illegal.
They are sexually attacking women and CHILDREN and (Ye Old Armorer.) The posters use names and locations.
This really sucks.

First of all - stating on an open forum that one checks another forum, in order find if one´s kids are not mentioned, will only encourage the twits. Now they have got proof positive that you care!

I had a look at fencing sucks, and a lot of stuff there was quite offensive. To me, this proves that there are a bunch of immature teenagers out there - something that I had expected. Whether an act is illegal or should be illegal are two different questions - the former is a factual question, the latter is a moral. Whether the statements in fencing sucks are illegal is beyond my competence - I am an engineer, not a lawyer. I do see one problem with suing - which laws would apply? If the poster is in one jurisdiction, the server in another, the people in charge of fencing sucks in a third, and the victim in a fourth, which set of laws will apply? I will leave that to Philistine to sort out. Also, if the messages in question were posted from an Internet café (or other anonymous place) proof will become difficult. Another problem is whether courts will take the case - they may think that they have more pressing problems that one teenager slandering another on the web. I personally think that one should not press this kind of case unless one is reasonably sure of winning - if one loses the defendant will feel vindicated and you would end up having to pay a load of money, feeling doubly hurt in the process. :-(

I should admit that I did somewhat similar stuff when I was 14, 23 years ago. I also commented on the fat tissue surrounding the mammary glands of my female teammates (in kayaking), but I only commented on those that I felt that I could say something positive about. It was intended as positive comments, but it met with total and abject failure. Since then, I have gotten more refined.

One of the things commentd on in several posts in fencing sucks should be acted upon by USFA - the kid stalker posts. Either it is true, and the perp should be kept away from competitions, or it is false, and the rumourmongers should be kept away. IMO.

Peter Gustafsson

[kini mini]

I agree Philistine, I've painstakingly worked my way through the appellate judgement and my disagreement begins around "the common law adapts to human endeavor". I think that new legislation is needed too, rather than restating that "trespass to chattels" "peg".

Originally posted by PeterGustafsson
I do see one problem with suing - which laws would apply? If the poster is in one jurisdiction, the server in another, the people in charge of fencing sucks in a third, and the victim in a fourth, which set of laws will apply? I will leave that to Philistine to sort out.

The case law (precedents) on this is rather confused. A Victorian court (state to the south of mine) ruled that a certain Gabriel Gutnick could sue Dow Jones, the publisher of an online paper (I forget which) that had allegedly defamed him. The court ruled that it did have jurisdiction. I remember reading that at least 2 US state courts have not agreed with this decision and refused to rule on cases with some connection to other states, subject to various conditions which aren't worth going into here. Suffice to say that it's not entirely clear!

It's worth remembering that as most civil cases never do get to court, this issue might never arise.

Another problem is whether courts will take the case - they may think that they have more pressing problems that one teenager slandering another on the web.

Courts don't generally make judgements like that in civil cases AFAIK, what you and I might consider trivial are very serious to others. I think that the court would strongly encourage mediation - that is always the case, but especially so here.

I personally think that one should not press this kind of case unless one is reasonably sure of winning - if one loses the defendant will feel vindicated and you would end up having to pay a load of money, feeling doubly hurt in the process. :-(

People press civil cases for vindication, but also in the hope that the defendant may opt to settle and pay out a load of cash rather than take their chances in court, paying legal fees etc. When juries are used in civil cases they become more unpredictable, leading to more pressure to settle.

[Capt. Slo-mo]

Originally posted by pkt
I'm not the first one to suggest an end to a miserable thread.

Although the number of subsequent posts might suggest it hasn't yet fully played out.

What's "miserable" is a 14-15 year old girl being refereed to as a "(male-part)-gobbling nymphomaniac" by name.

If it was your daughter, PK, would you be so quick to dismiss it and go back to complaining about soft wood tariffs? Would you care that there is a legion of immature young fencers rapaciously discussing who is ficticiously doing what to/with whom in an on-line forum, then passing it back among themselves in person at the next meet with all the glee of bystanders at a car wreck?

Public standing and reputation can be an all-consuming fixation among adolescents. The emotional damage from this kind of innuendo can be devastating. It just seems sad that there is so little we can do about it.

[pkt]

All,

Hre's the article I referred to in my reply to KBayDog re: the MO of the Brits vs the US army.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2003Apr3.html


From London to Iraq: Peacekeeping Lessons Learned the Hard Way
By Glenn Frankel
Washington Post Foreign Service
Friday, April 4, 2003; Page A30
LONDON, April 3 -- It was Royal Marines versus Iraqi civilians on the soccer field in Zubair south of Basra. The referee was a local community leader, and the crowd of onlookers included armed British riflemen who kept a nervous eye on the proceedings. The final score: 9 to 3 for the Iraqis.
The game, as described in today's London Evening Standard newspaper, was the latest example of a military legend being forged in southern Iraq with the help of the media and transmitted home: British soldiers as civic-minded peacekeepers, struggling to win the hearts and minds of Iraqi civilians and deliver the message that the United States and the United Kingdom have come to Iraq not as conquerors but as liberators.
It's a legend built on national pride and years of military training. But there's a flip side to the portrait: While British troops are seen as sensitive and concerned, their American counterparts are often depicted as inflexible and wary warriors who mistreat, humiliate and, even occasionally, slaughter civilians.
"A lot of this is stage-managed and done for public relations," said Ellie Goldsworthy, a former major in British military intelligence who now works for the Royal United Services Institute, a defense research organization. "But a lot of it is for real. British troops are trained to come across as very forthcoming, very friendly and open and ready to take risks in dealing with the civilian population."
"First, we have football matches, then we have tea parties, and then somehow our soldiers go out and meet the local ladies," said Philip Wilkinson, a retired British army colonel who teaches at the Center for Defense Studies at King's College. "It's amazing how quickly they do that. You can't go into a single military base back in Britain and not meet wives who have been brought back from the countries we've served in."
From the beginning of the war, British soldiers in Iraq have appeared more willing to run risks when it comes to civilians. The first British soldier to die from enemy fire, Sgt. Steven Roberts, 33, was shot last week after he stepped down from his armored vehicle in Zubair to tend to an agitated group of civilians.
Still, last Tuesday, Lt. Col. Mike Riddell-Webster of the Black Watch regiment traded his helmet for a tam-o'-shanter, ditched his sunglasses and took his men to patrol the streets of Zubair on foot. It was, reported the Daily Telegraph, "a quintessentially British moment."
"You can't win hearts and minds from the back of an armored vehicle," Goldsworthy said. "You've got to get down, take off your helmet and deal with people on their own level."
The British say the lessons they have learned come from hard experience during the waning days of the British Empire and in Northern Ireland. British forces used brutal tactics to suppress rebellions in Malaya and Kenya in the 1950s. Three decades ago, British troops mowed down 13 unarmed demonstrators in Londonderry on the day known as "Bloody Sunday."
British analysts contend U.S. forces have much to learn. Some British officers disparagingly refer to Americans as "Ninja Turtles" because they are covered in body armor, helmets and Ray-Bans. "There's a warrior-wimp syndrome in the U.S. Army," Wilkinson said. "The Americans treat civil affairs [relations with local civilians] as a specialization, and you have specialized civil affairs battalions to do the touchy-feely stuff. Your warriors stay as warriors and perceive themselves as warriors.
"We don't have those kind of resources. Every single soldier has to become an agent of the civil affairs program. . . . We teach our young officers and soldiers all of this touchy-feely stuff right from the beginning."
American troops have been carefully briefed on protecting Iraqi civilians, U.S. officials say. But often they have been surprised by the hostility they have encountered in southern Iraq. Last Saturday, a suicide bomber driving a taxi filled with explosives killed four soldiers of the 3rd Infantry Division at a checkpoint near the city of Najaf. The driver had slowed down and waved for help, according to one officer's account. When soldiers approached the car, it exploded.
Since then, U.S. troops have adopted a much more wary posture toward civilian vehicles. The British press gave heavy coverage to Washington Post reporter William Branigin's account of an incident Monday in which U.S. troops fired on a van full of Iraqi civilians at a checkpoint outside Najaf, killing 10.
British military experts contend both incidents would be less likely at a British checkpoint. Under their military procedure, checkpoints are manned by only one soldier, with others covering him at a distance, to limit the potential human toll from a car bomb. The British also say they signpost their checkpoints in Arabic and place physical barriers well ahead of the stopping point to slow vehicles before they are deemed a threat.
U.S. officials tend to treat the British viewpoint skeptically. "They like to think of themselves as Athens to our Rome," one official said. "The idea is that they bring quality and character to a rougher-hewn America. It's not quite a myth, more like an ideal."
But some American military leaders have acknowledged that in some areas the British have an edge. Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told a BBC program last Sunday that British operations around Basra were "absolutely magnificent."
"I can assure you that U.S. forces have leaned heavily on our British counterparts, who have a lot of experience in this area," he said.
Britons who have served alongside American forces say U.S. troops tend to stay in fortified bases, surrounded by high walls of barbed wire, holding local populations at bay. "With the United States, force protection is all about body armor, helmets and moving at speed in closed armored vehicles," said Garth Whitty, a retired 25-year veteran officer who also works at the services institute. "With us, it's more about engaging with the local population to get them on-side and minimize hostility and casualties."
"I love Americans -- they're wonderful to work with," said Goldsworthy, who served alongside U.S. forces in Turkey and Bosnia. "But I'm afraid the American attitude of today is like the British attitude of 120 years ago during the Empire. We thought everyone wanted to be an Englishman and live an English life, celebrate the queen and have cream tea. Americans seem to believe that everyone is envious and wants to be part of America. It's as though they haven't learned the lessons we've learned in a very hard way."
Goldsworthy cites photographs showing American soldiers ordering Iraqi civilians to lie face down in the dirt while they are checked for weapons. "For Arabs, to be spread-eagled with your face in the dust is a hugely shameful thing," she said.
What the Iraqis want more than anything is respect, and to feel valued and feel treated as human beings," she said. "What our troops show is a willingness to be humble, to lose a football match 9 to 3. If the Americans had played, I'm afraid they would have wanted to win."
© 2003 The Washington Post Company

[Sabresque]

I think the humor is funny, but that aside, the post section is sickening. Those immature bleeps have insulted my friends and my coach. I also check there to make sure they aren't talking about people I care about. I think it should be shut down. I also read the posts about Kelly and it was unbelievable.

By the way, one of the people on there has claimed he's going to come over here and create a ruckus (yes, I know it's happened before). I say, if he does, DO NOT ANSWER HIS POSTS. It will just worsen things.

[MikeHarm]

At least you know what people are saying about your friends when they aren't in the room now. Being a sabreist I'm sure you'll have an opportunity to express your displeasure at some point.

[Faggot the Hutt]

Originally posted by Sabresque
By the way, one of the people on there has claimed he's going to come over here and create a ruckus

It's meeeeeee! Faggot the Hutt in the fleche! Off with the mask of sanity, for I am here to bust up your party of boredom. Bwaaaa, haaaa haaaaaaaa!




Okay, that's enough for now. I'll... be... back.

[Curious George]

It's meeeeeee! Faggot the Hutt in the fleche! Off with the mask of sanity, for I am here to bust up your party of boredom. Bwaaaa, haaaa haaaaaaaa!




Okay, that's enough for now. I'll... be... back.

Who said
meeeeeee is?What time is it there?
On and off.What kind of food do you like?
Just for now?Yeah okay, It seems like enough to me too.Go ahead.If you could have any kind of robot what would it be?
Does "it" still refer to be?
Etc. Etc. :xmas:

[Faggot the Hutt]

I

[Faggot the Hutt]

hate

[Faggot the Hutt]

bots.