I said:
Your integrity is in question because you remain 'impersonal' and hidden and ambiguous. You are not direct or open and I seen no honesty in that.

So impersonal equals dishonesty?

"impersonal, hidden and ambiguous" is an indication of dishonesty. It is not a guarantee of dishonesty, but when a person seems to be hiding something, I cannot form a bond of trust with them, so trust is withheld.

I am quite direct at times... you just do not "get it"!

You are rarely direct and clear.

I would not mind answering any of your questions but you are not interested in real answers,

you just want to be sarcastic and critical. You can't handle the truth.

If you are being yourself then you are a cold and impersonal person, who is emotionally crippled or injured.

But since you are guarded and hidden and evasive and ambiguous, then I must conclude that you are not being or your true self.

Don't expect me NOT to form an opinion just because you want to be a non personal person

I have yet to be sarcastic with you today. I am always critical. What makes you claim that I cannot handle the truth? Do you even know what it is? I read your opinion of me. It reads as you state it. You state it as a fact, and it is not. It is your opinion of me based upon your percpetion of me. That does not mean that the content of what you think about me is accurate.

So impersonal equals dishonesty?

Just because it is not clear to you does not make it unclear.

So then, one who is impersonal or private in nature must also be emotionally crippled or injured?

How can you possibly get to know anyone with so many assumptions regarding that which you do not truly understand?

A Crime vs. a Tort

A crime is punishable by loss of liberty or life and is brought by the government against a defendant for violation of that government's laws. The burden of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt."

A tort is a civil action brought by one party against another to redress some wrong committed by the party being sued (the defendant) against the party suing (the plaintiff). The remedy in a tort case is payment of monetary damages by the party being sued to the party suing, and the burden of proof is "more probable than not."

My openness and honesty with you has failed. Some things are better left alone.

I don't state my opinion as a fact. I told you it was my opinion, and that is what it is. I never claimed that it was "accurate." It is just my opinion and my honest impressions.

I believe you are not interested in the truth because you are NOT making any attempt to understand what I am trying to communicate. You are just playing mind games.

"Impersonal, hidden and ambiguous" equals possible dishonesty and fails to establish trust.

I am only trying to assess and understand why you want to be "impersonal." You said you were just gathering information about other people's perspectives, in an impersonal manner therefor it follows that you are not interested in people as individuals, you are just taking a poll of some sort. I find that strange and rather cold if it is true.

Artgurl,

I hear and feel and understand you on a personal human level. It is the same with Abra and even Feralcatlady and Morningsong. I feel where they are and what they are feeling. Funches is playful yet deep. Spider, intelligent and emotional. I can feel who they are.

Creative is intellectual and introverted (dwelling within himself a lot.) (He will probably be offended that I made any judgment of him at all as he does not like to be seen.) I can only guess the rest about him because he remains hidden, at least to my vision.

Jb wrote...



Regardless of any distinction between the individual nuances regarding criminal and civil court, both are punishable. If it is punishable by law, then one has been broken. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend, and what difference does it make?

And me.......????? Other than idiot?

Failed in what way?

My point is that you are not in a reliable position to make any claims about my character. This is emphasized by the fact that you cannot even provide reasonable grounds for your personal remarks about me other than they are your opinion and/or perception based upon our conversations(which have not contained enough information for you to even be able to reliably draw the conclusions which you have).

Creative said:

Just because you say something is so does not make it so.

There is a need to establish warrant to believe your claim(s). If my memory serves me, I cannot remember my having made a personal remark about you without being able to substantiate it.

I said:


So then, because you think that I do not understand you, that means that I am not making an attempt? What if I do understand what you write and this does not match what you mean?

One truth that I have seen displayed here today is the fact that your written expressions about me are quite presumptious.

There are innumerable things which could be an indication of dishonesty, but it does not follow that they are.

When in a conversation with another online, the content of what is written is the only thing that can be considered as a measure by which one can assess the reliability of another's knowledge base. Let us not forget that that is the foundation by which all consideration is measured against, and it forms the basis for all opinion, regardless of it's accuracy.

The fact that one writes in an impersonal manner does not mean that one does not care about people. Here, once again, you have made a wrongful assumption based upon what you think(without sufficient grounds) it means for another to be impersonal, and it has negative implications.

Doctors are often impersonal as well, does that mean that the ones who are do not care about their patients? Is that the only reason(s) you can think of for one being impersonal?

You can make the claim but you better have sufficient evidence to back it up.

But the important difference is that with a crime, the plaintiff is "the people" vs the defendant. Therefore it is the government (which is the people) who make the claim. This is backed up by laws that are punishable by prison or the death penalty.

In regards to 'freedom of speech' any law prohibiting freedom of speech by the government should be very carefully weighed otherwise you could loose your freedom of speech...

People who do not know the difference between these two things are the kind of people who would likely pass laws that would rob them of their freedom. Ignorance is no excuse once your freedom is gone.

Why is that so hard for you to comprehend?

I don't make claims about your character. I voice my impressions which are opinions.

You THINK I don't have 'enough information' to draw the conclusions that I have. THAT IS YOUR OPINION. (I apparently do because I have.)

Just because you say something is so does not make it so.

I suppose you would like to pass a law that prohibits people from expressing their opinions.

But there is no need to establish warrant to believe my 'claims.' because they are opinions and I do not require you or anyone to agree with me. I am simply expressing my opinion. You can agree with me or not. But you can believe that it is my opinion.

One truth that I have seen displayed here today is the fact that your written expressions about me are quite presumptious.

So what?

Are you a human with warmth and feeling or are you as you project yourself to be, ~ mental, cold and impersonal?

Don't assume that I can't 'feel' the person behind the words. I can. I do consider the words and the flavor of them. But you can come to know a person by their writing if they choose to be real and reveal themselves.

If you care about people it usually shines through in all that you say and do.

LIBEL AND SLANDER occur when a person or entity communicates false information that damages the reputation of another person or entity. Slander occurs when the false and defamatory communication is spoken and heard. Libel occurs when the false and defamatory communication is written and seen. The laws governing libel and slander, which are collectively known as DEFAMATION, are identical.

A plaintiff who wishes to sue an individual or entity for libel or slander has the burden of proving four claims to a court: First, the plaintiff must show that the DEFENDANT communicated a defamatory statement. Second, the plaintiff must show that the statement was published or communicated to at least one other person besides the plaintiff. Third, the plaintiff must show that the communication was about the plaintiff and that another party receiving the communication could identify the plaintiff as the subject of the defamatory message. Fourth, the plaintiff must show that the communication injured the plaintiff's reputation.

There are four general defenses to slander and libel. Truth is an absolute defense. Consent by the plaintiff for the publication of the defamatory statement is a defense. Accidental publication of the statement is a defense. Finally, the statements of certain defendants in certain circumstances, such as lawyers, judges, jurors, and witnesses, are protected from defamation for PUBLIC POLICY reasons. This type of protection is known as privilege.

Prior to the American Revolution, the laws regarding slander and libel stemmed from the English COMMON LAW system, which permitted the publishers of LIBELOUS material to be prosecuted and jailed. James Madison saw the need for a press free from governmental restraint, and the Constitution's First Amendment reflects this value by prohibiting laws abridging FREEDOM OF SPEECH or FREEDOM OF THE PRESS.

Prior to 1964, laws regarding slander and libel were made by the states. Courts at that time did not believe that libelous or slanderous communications were protected by the United States Constitution; therefore, defamation was an issue for the states rather than the federal government.

In 1964, the United States Supreme Court heard the case of The New York Times v. Sullivan, and the law of defamation changed drastically. For the first time, the Supreme Court recognized that the First Amendment, which protects an individual's freedom of speech and expression, protects even speech and expression that is defamatory. In Sullivan, the plaintiff was a public official who sued The New York Times for libel after the newspaper published certain unfavorable allegations about him. The Supreme Court discussed the First Amendment to the Constitution, which states in part that "Congress shall pass no law abridging freedom of speech or of the press." The First Amendment exists, according to the Court, to help protect and foster the free flow and exchange of ideas, particularly on public or political issues. The Founding Fathers of the United States valued open debates regarding political issues or governments, determining that citizens in a democracy need a free marketplace of ideas in order to become informed and make good decisions. Open debates often become caustic and emotional, with opponents sharply attacking one another in the effort to persuade others. Sanctioning defamatory speech or expression would put an end to such attacks, but sanctions would also jeopardize the free marketplace of ideas by effectively censoring free and open debate.

The Court saw the need for balancing an individual's right to be protected from false and defamatory accusations with the country's right to be informed via a free marketplace of ideas. It determined that in the case of a public official, such as the police official in Sullivan, the First Amendment rights of free speech and expression outweigh the public official's rights unless the public official can prove that the defendant acted with actual MALICE. Actual malice means that the defendant who communicates a defamatory statement does so knowing that the statement is false or very likely false. The defendant need not harbor ill will toward the plaintiff for the public official to recover in an action for slander or libel; the public official need only prove that the defendant knew that the defamatory statement was false or had serious doubts as to its truth.

The actual malice standard only applies to public officials or public figures who sue for slander or libel. Other examples of public officials include elected officials, such as governors or senators, or non-elected government employees with substantial responsibility or control over public affairs. Courts have held that candidates for public office also are public officials and must prove the actual malice standard before prevailing in libel or slander lawsuits.

The Supreme Court in 1967 expanded the actual malice standard for public officials to include public figures as well. Public figures, unlike public officials, are not government officials but instead are extremely prominent private citizens whose prominence allows them to use the mass media to influence policy. Public figures, by the Court's definition, thrust themselves into the public arena. Examples of public figures include famous movie actors, musicians, professional athletes, authors, and others who are so prominent as to be household names.

Courts also recognize limited-purpose public figures, who may not be known in all households but are known for their involvement in a limited public controversy. Examples of limited-purpose public figures may include an attorney representing a notorious criminal in a highly publicized trial or the winner of a multi-million dollar lottery. Courts do not allow the media to create public figures or limited purpose public figures merely by thrusting private citizens into the spotlight; public figures must voluntarily place themselves in the spotlight by, for example, deciding to buy a lottery ticket or by deciding to play football professionally. Public figures and limited-purpose public figures must demonstrate a defendant's actual malice before prevailing in a libel or slander lawsuit.

Elements of Defamation
To prove that a written or verbal statement is defamatory, it is sufficient for a plaintiff to prove that at least one person who received the communication believed that it was detrimental to the plaintiff's reputation. A message that decreases respect for the plaintiff or confidence in the plaintiff or causes disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions about the plaintiff is detrimental to the plaintiff. Even a message that is intended as a joke may be defamatory if at least one person believes it to be serious.

The plaintiff must next prove that the defamatory statement was published. In the law of defamation, the term publication merely means that the statement, either written or spoken, was communicated to someone other than the plaintiff. It is not necessary that the statement be printed or distributed for it to be considered published slander or libel. Publication may occur when the defendant is speaking to another person or group of people. It may occur when the defendant sends an e-mail message or writes a personal letter. It may occur when the defendant speaks loudly on an elevator and other people hear. It may occur when the defendant writes a newspaper article or book or draws a cartoon and posts it on a bulletin board. However, if the defendant intends to keep communication with the plaintiff private and communicates in a way that demonstrates that intent, publication does not occur when a third party inadvertently receives the communication. For example, a defendant who faxes the plaintiff a letter critical of the plaintiff's work skills is not guilty of publishing the letter if the plaintiff's co-worker receives and reads the letter by mistake.

An entity that republishes a defamatory statement is equally liable as the original publisher. This law means that a newspaper editor who receives a letter to the editor defaming another person is just as liable as the letter's writer if the letter ends up in print in the newspaper. However, this rule applies only if the entity knew or had reason to know the defamatory nature of the statement. Therefore, libraries and bookstores usually are not liable for republishing libelous material.

A plaintiff may not recover for libel or slander without proving that the defamatory statement identified the plaintiff. A defamatory statement that names the plaintiff clearly identifies the plaintiff as the subject of the defamation. Not all defamatory remarks name the subject, however, and defamatory messages alone do not damage reputations. A damaged reputation only occurs when recipients of the message know who the message is defaming. Defamation against one unidentified member of a general group or category of people is not slanderous or libelous. For example, a false ACCUSATION that an otherwise unidentified student at the state university cheated on final exams is not slanderous or libelous because the student remains unidentifiable. The question becomes more difficult if the message offers more identifiable information. A false accusation that a red-haired female business major who lives on the second floor of her sorority house and drives a black sports car cheated on a final exam in her accounting class could be slanderous or libelous if the female business major could show that others identified her as the subject of the defamation.

The final element of slander or libel is that the defamatory statement damaged the plaintiff's reputation, and that the plaintiff suffered damages as a result. Certain defamatory messages are slanderous or libelous PER SE, meaning that the plaintiff need not prove that the message damaged his or her reputation. Libel or slander per se occurs when the message accuses the plaintiff of committing a crime, of having a loathsome disease, or of being professionally incompetent. Other types of messages may damage the plaintiff's reputation, but because they are not per se slanderous or libelous, it remains the plaintiff's burden to prove that the defamation damaged his or her reputation.

Defenses to Libel and Slander
If the defendant can show that the substance of a defamatory statement is essentially true, then the plaintiff's claim for slander or libel will fail. For example, assume that the defendant publicly ACCUSED his boss of cheating on taxes. The boss could sue for slander or libel, depending on whether the accusation was written or spoken. If the defendant could prove that the boss actually did cheat on taxes, the defendant would prevail. If the defendant had no proof of such tax cheating, the plaintiff would prevail.

If the plaintiff consents to the publication of the defamatory information, the plaintiff may not prevail in a lawsuit for slander or libel. This defense most typically arises when the plaintiff has signed a valid document releasing the defendant from liability for statements made regarding the plaintiff. For example, an employee may ask a former employer to write a letter of recommendation regarding the employee's professional and career skills to assist the employee in obtaining a new job. The former employer may, as a precaution, insist that the employee sign a release of liability to ensure that the letter of recommendation does not result in a libel lawsuit. If the former employer then reveals unflattering descriptions of the employee's work habits in the letter, the employee may be precluded from suing for libel even if the unflattering remarks are untrue.

Defamatory statements made during court proceedings or written in legal documents for purposes of LITIGATION generally are privileged, or protected, from slander or libel lawsuits. This privilege exists for reasons of public policy. A witness at a criminal trial, for example, would have difficulty testifying completely and truthfully about witnessing a crime if she feared that her statements could result in a slander lawsuit against her. Similarly, a lawyer who prepares a lawsuit must describe in writing the nature of the accusation against the defendant, and such court pleadings are almost always defamatory in nature. Justice would not be served if the judicial process were hampered by the constant threat of slander or libel lawsuits.

Now this brings about the need to mention, once again, why it is important to understand how one's freedom of speech may be used to infringe upon another's human rights.

The laws are in place to protect people from things such as what has transpired in this forum.

As someone said earlier...

Your rights begin where mine end, and vice - versa.

Now what constitutes proof in a case of slander is no longer in question, I could only hope.

This being a place intended for one to find a date, I would think that one's reputation was rather important in the forums, wouldn't you?



I believe that the rabbit hole is at it's end now.