Are things not working for you?

[Cloaked]

Thomas and Maria,

I'm not sure if this is the place to ask this question because everything is working fine for me.
I have a question about the disclaimer on the bottom of each page. I have only just read it yesterday, kind of by accident. The first sentence in the disclaimer states clearly what type of posting is objectionable and what is acceptable.
How important is this disclaimer?  Why is it there?
Is it to remind us that legally we are responsible for what we each post?
Further on it explains that the moderators are not bound to censor.
Does it mean that, even if not censored, what is written (if found illegal by police) can cause the poster to be charged?
And of course the administrators are not responsible.
Have I understood that properly?

Thank you for giving this question consideration.
I am just trying to clarify the importance of that Disclaimer.

Cloaked

And in consideration of Diana's query below ... I've never heard that feeling hate or expressing a negative opinion about a person was actually illegal so I suspect most Dishers would be free to express themselves without fear of retribution.
Would that be right??    

[Diana Again]

Does it mean that, even if not censored, what is written (if found illegal by police) can cause the poster to be charged?
Cloaked  

Charged for what?

Hating Mary?

Is this the only way you and Mary can hope to shut down this board, or at least stop the negative commenst about your Idol - by scaring people that they may end up in jail?

Since everyone has been so open about how they feel about other posters participation, I would like to suggest that you are banned from this board - I for one would like to see you off it.

[Diana Again]

Thomas and Maria,

I'm not sure if this is the place to ask this question because everything is working fine for me.
I have a question about the disclaimer on the bottom of each page. I have only just read it yesterday, kind of by accident. The first sentence in the disclaimer states clearly what type of posting is objectionable and what is acceptable.
How important is this disclaimer?  Why is it there?
Is it to remind us that legally we are responsible for what we each post?
Further on it explains that the moderators are not bound to censor.
Does it mean that, even if not censored, what is written (if found illegal by police) can cause the poster to be charged?
And of course the administrators are not responsible.
Have I understood that properly?

Thank you for giving this question consideration.
I am just trying to clarify the importance of that Disclaimer.

Cloaked

The following paragraph is an excerpt taken from an article entitled "The Truth About Barack Obama: What Every American Needs to Know" by Ross Kaminsky.


"Freddoso shows that Obama the reformer is an imposter and that Obama’s history should give any thinking voter pause before blindly supporting a man whose rhetoric is completely divergent from his record.  It is a record of supporting corruption, associating with criminals and terrorists, taking stances even to the left of our most liberal politicians (including blocking a bill in Illinois to ban a particular sort of infanticide) all from positions of power obtained without ever winning a truly contested election."

The above are some solid and serious accusations about Obama - and so I ask: has Ross Kaminsky been arrested and prosecuted by the Police, or is he currently serving a prison sentence for publishing such information regarding the President of the United States?

So answer that Clacked, and then whatever that answer is, apply the same logic and principles to obtain the answer which you are requiring to your earlier post.

[Diana Again]

Thomas and Maria,

I'm not sure if this is the place to ask this question because everything is working fine for me.
I have a question about the disclaimer on the bottom of each page. I have only just read it yesterday, kind of by accident. The first sentence in the disclaimer states clearly what type of posting is objectionable and what is acceptable.
How important is this disclaimer?  Why is it there?
Is it to remind us that legally we are responsible for what we each post?
Further on it explains that the moderators are not bound to censor.
Does it mean that, even if not censored, what is written (if found illegal by police) can cause the poster to be charged?
And of course the administrators are not responsible.
Have I understood that properly?

Thank you for giving this question consideration.
I am just trying to clarify the importance of that Disclaimer.

Cloaked

And in consideration of Diana's query below ... I've never heard that feeling hate or expressing a negative opinion about a person was actually illegal so I suspect most Dishers would be free to express themselves without fear of retribution.
Would that be right??    

It was clever of you to modify the bolded part of your post at 04:41 after i posted my first response at 04:30.

A very diligent effort at maintaining a positive and congenial public profile for the Princess of Australia.

[CD.]

Does it mean that, even if not censored, what is written (if found illegal by police) can cause the poster to be charged?
And of course the administrators are not responsible.
Have I understood that properly?

   

Libel issues are not police issues so don't try that tactic to scare posters on this board. No one here has personally threatened anyone or any Royal as far as I have seen(wishing something is not a threat).

Ms Donaldson would have to, if seeking Libel, prove a poster wrong. And given that all of the talk on here is from published sources and discussed as Hearsay, the Donaldsons would have to sue the medias for malicious libel. The source is always the focal point. Other sites are then, after court action, asked to withdraw any libel point.

No one and I repeat NO ONE here has created a false allegation about any Royal. If someone creates a topic members always ask the source. For instance, Starmakers and the Handball incident all were reported in the press AND then discussed here.

I know what your up to.......

[Diana Again]

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it...The truth is the greatest enemy..."

J Goebbels (taken from CD's footer).


And a very commonly used PR strategy today - would mary's PR team be using such?  Would they be repeating big lies because they fear the Truth?

[CD.]

And that is why we have newbies on here to dilute the posters average post rate.

[Diana Again]

And that is why we have newbies on here to dilute the posters average post rate.

I dont understand CD?

What do you mean about the average post rate?

[CD.]

OK,

Say you have 100 posters who post in Mary's section. And 70% of those are dislikers of Mary. Well, if one or two PR people create another 20-25 posters who like Mary, then 30 who already like Mary plus the 20+ fake profiles outnumber those who dislike Mary.

You then get a Psycological battle happening in which alot of those who dislike Mary but can't be bothered posting drop off. Those 30 original posters will stay because they feel powerful and on the 'winning' side for the first time...supported by the 20+ fakies.

The original dislikers become the minority because of legal words mentioned (ie Police) and 'can't be bothered fighting' syndrome.

I knew Cloaked was going to throw this line. I posted this. This happened on RB as well. It's designed to scare.

[Diana Again]

And in consideration of Diana's query below ... I've never heard that feeling hate or expressing a negative opinion about a person was actually illegal so I suspect most Dishers would be free to express themselves without fear of retribution.
Would that be right??    

So why ask the question in the first place, if you already know that expressing feelings and negative opinions about a public person is not illegal and would not attract Police action, nor would there be any retribution to the poster?

Did you assume that we are all a bunch of dumb arses who do not know krapp when we see it, hear it, or smell it?

Nice try, but you neglected to consider that some posters here are quite intelligent and not cognitively limited by mental illness like your Payroll Master.

[Diana Again]

OK,

Say you have 100 posters who post in Mary's section. And 70% of those are dislikers of Mary. Well, if one or two PR people create another 20-25 posters who like Mary, then 30 who already like Mary plus the 20+ fake profiles outnumber those who dislike Mary.

You then get a Psycological battle happening in which alot of those who dislike Mary but can't be bothered posting drop off. Those 30 original posters will stay because they feel powerful and on the 'winning' side for the first time...supported by the 20+ fakies.

The original dislikers become the minority because of legal words mentioned (ie Police) and 'can't be bothered fighting' syndrome.

I knew Cloaked was going to throw this line. I posted this. This happened on RB as well. It's designed to scare.

Yep, got it.

And you're right, it's true, when you keep getting these sugar sweet posts about mary, that are totally warped and can only be explained by large amounts of drug taking, and then you get the personal attacks "O you're so mean & nasty, and what a horrible thing to say about another human being, what's mary done to you?" and then you get drawn into battles to defend yourself, thats when you say to yourself "this aint fucking worth it, coz im only dealing with cuckoos in pidgeon land, and there's no bloody way i'm taking PROZAC to see their reality" so you walk away - like Principessa Alessandra did - and then who wins?  Fucking mary.

[CD.]

The only reason I know about Libel and the internet is because family friends of mine engaged a top lawyer/barrister who deals with slander over forum postings related to their business.

The Barrister made it very clear to these friends "Are you sure none of what they are saying is not true." Apparently some was....The only thing they could raise was the fact that these forum members where actually attempting to stop supply to the business. Then that was a different issue. And they were warned about that. But not the opinions members felt about them or the business. No matter how badly it affected their business. Go to Whirlpool and see how businesses like Gerry Harvey are attacked routinely.

And from a PR perspective, it would have shut them down. A David and Goliath battle.

Late add: the issue at hand was that it was hard to prove whether the comments were 'freedom' of expression and just plain defamation. Andrew Bolt was recently tried on such an issue regarding a comment on a person who was of part aboriginal extraction. In Australia, to my knowledge(& definition found), " defamatory statement is one that is likely to cause ordinary, reasonable people to think less of the person about whom the words or images are published. An inference that casts a defamatory imputation is enough to bring an action".

Well that can apply to anyone even posters! But disliking a person is not a crime. It is hard(they were told) to sue because a whilst in theory it seems above board, things like 'fair comments', 'truth', 'trivial issues' , 'innocent dissemination' etc apply. It's also costly and the persons past also comes into play.

[CD.]

You see, I wouldn't go and post on a board if I found the posters offensive or mad. Why come on here and try to convert people to your way of thinking. There are so many other boards out there to visit and those who like this flavour, join here. It's seems simple to me.

Why mention "Police" or "Poster being Charged" or "moderators not being bound to censor"(ie questioning a lack of care and duty by the moderators). Very sly in my humble opinion and without prejudice.

[Diana Again]

You see, I wouldn't go and post on a board if I found the posters offensive or mad. Why come on here and try to convert people to your way of thinking.

yep, you got it - you make a very valid point.

for example, i am a huge mary hater, and i now there are other boards out there that love mary, but do i go and post there to try and convince then that she's actually mentally ill, and that fred hates her? Fuck No. i couldn't be bothered visiting a board who i think are made up by a bunch of fat losers on prozac - i come here and bash about because i know that there are others (in the main) who share my point of view (maybe not as extreme), and together we make sense of mary's mental illness and all the exhibits of her madness, and wait together for the Divorce announcement - so you are correct when you say that the honey suckle sugar posters come here to change the dynamics of the board - why don't they start their own "I Make Love to Mary Board" instead?

But we know the answer to that.

[CD.]

You see, I wouldn't go and post on a board if I found the posters offensive or mad. Why come on here and try to convert people to your way of thinking.

yep, you got it - you make a very valid point.

for example, i am a huge mary hater, and i now there are other boards out there that love mary, but do i go and post there to try and convince then that she's actually mentally ill, and that fred hates her? Fuck No. i couldn't be bothered visiting a board who i think are made up by a bunch of fat losers on prozac - i come here and bash about because i know that there are others (in the main) who share my point of view (maybe not as extreme), and together we make sense of mary's mental illness and all the exhibits of her madness, and wait together for the Divorce announcement - so you are correct when you say that the honey suckle sugar posters come here to change the dynamics of the board - why don't they start their own "I Make Love to Mary Board" instead?

But we know the answer to that.

I never comment on illness because I don't know. And I never talk about the children because I do feel for those poor little sods. Only recently I said X behaved strangely with the 'Jane' incident because it seemed to me he had no boundaries. That was concerning plus he could have been run over!!!!

You and I disagree on the Divorce issue: I feel she isn't going anywhere.