QUOTE(happy4ever @ Aug 7 2008, 02:56 AM)
Slander is only when a negative impression/perception of a party is made public, hence jeopardizing the reputation of the affected party.
It is not slander if it is kept to oneself privately.
Isn't it so?
Do note here that the person charged with the suit is the one deemed by those who had filed the suit as the originator or the information that they deem to be negative, and also the fact that its not likely that all those who had gotten the negative impression as a result of RPK's writings had kept this privately to themselves either.It is not slander if it is kept to oneself privately.
Isn't it so?
QUOTE(happy4ever @ Aug 7 2008, 02:56 AM)
Difference is, one side knew of the slander, the other (STG) knew not.
And from the other discussion (95% sdn bhd right?), those who cried scam were misled by misinformation, but still, doesn't justify a scam.
Hence i refrained from using the word scam so as not to get implicated.
To be made to perceive as a scam does not justify a public absolute stance that it MUST be a scam unless proper evidence has been put forth, and clear indication of clearing all doubts with the Management be sought first, of which chatwarrior did not show that to be done. All he had was his interaction with one or few members. No indication of involvement by chatwarrior with the Management to solve the dispute amicably.
Yes, this excuse can be used as well to defend the act of slander, that the representative of the company had deliberately misled me to perceive such as such and such, etc. and hence my public outcry. Not sure if this will hold in court.
Thats why he cannot be from the management team or official representative lor....so no point in chatwarrior arguing with Silicon.
Best is to bring it up to consumer tribunal, or Malay Mail Hotline, or even MCA michael chong?
Posting all over LYN doesn't really raise much awareness...as not many people wants to read 20 over pages of long postings and arguments.
Its like I said before, Chatwarrior's decision is his own. Should he wishes to listen to your suggestions, then its his choice.And from the other discussion (95% sdn bhd right?), those who cried scam were misled by misinformation, but still, doesn't justify a scam.
Hence i refrained from using the word scam so as not to get implicated.
To be made to perceive as a scam does not justify a public absolute stance that it MUST be a scam unless proper evidence has been put forth, and clear indication of clearing all doubts with the Management be sought first, of which chatwarrior did not show that to be done. All he had was his interaction with one or few members. No indication of involvement by chatwarrior with the Management to solve the dispute amicably.
Yes, this excuse can be used as well to defend the act of slander, that the representative of the company had deliberately misled me to perceive such as such and such, etc. and hence my public outcry. Not sure if this will hold in court.
Thats why he cannot be from the management team or official representative lor....so no point in chatwarrior arguing with Silicon.
Best is to bring it up to consumer tribunal, or Malay Mail Hotline, or even MCA michael chong?
Posting all over LYN doesn't really raise much awareness...as not many people wants to read 20 over pages of long postings and arguments.
Aug 7 2008, 03:14 AM
Quote
0.0263sec
0.45
7 queries
GZIP Disabled