Mark Stanton Posted November 18, 2003 Posted November 18, 2003 There are strong personalities within the WSCC boardroom with opinions and nowt wrong with that Difference is we seem to be able to respect and consider each other rather than slinging handbags and know when a wind-up is in order to "cool" a situation I'll only group hug if proper girlies are involved Quote
Blatman Posted November 18, 2003 Posted November 18, 2003 I'll only group hug if proper girlies are involved You had your chance on Saturday....... Quote
Paul Hurdsfield - Joint Manchester AO Posted November 18, 2003 Posted November 18, 2003 group hug No thanks what do you think my name is Charlie Windsor Quote
V7 SLR Posted November 18, 2003 Posted November 18, 2003 FA, you were right to point it out. The comments I made have been troubling me since I placed them and yet I can't bring myself to retract. I take no offence from you because what I wrote looks spiteful and I am indeed responsible for it. It looks no better than the other spiteful comments placed on BC of late and I ought to know better. Anyway, I'm back in a better frame of mind and ready to talk cars. Fast ones. P.S. I don't do group hugs unless naked women are involved. Quote
Matt Seabrook Posted November 18, 2003 Posted November 18, 2003 P.S. I don't do group hugs unless naked women are involved. Quote
Nick M Posted November 18, 2003 Posted November 18, 2003 P.S. I don't do group hugs unless naked women are involved. And how is the local WI group ?? Quote
Blatman Posted November 18, 2003 Posted November 18, 2003 Fat 'n' Fifty +, I should imagine...... I'm back in a better frame of mind and ready to talk cars. Fast ones Looks like V7 is being sold to buy a Westfield........ Taxi..................a fast one......... Quote
Matt Seabrook Posted November 18, 2003 Posted November 18, 2003 Fat 'n' Fifty +, I should imagine. Oh right I should imagine.!!!!! Quote
Blatman Posted November 18, 2003 Posted November 18, 2003 Well, if that calendar is anything to go by..... Quote
Paul Hurdsfield - Joint Manchester AO Posted November 18, 2003 Posted November 18, 2003 Fat 'n' Fifty +, I should imagine And I'm Fin 'n' Fifty+ so whats wrong with that Quote
stu999 Posted November 18, 2003 Author Posted November 18, 2003 OK then. So the group hug thing needs a re-think..... The more I think about the whole issue, the more it is puzzling me. Maybe I am looking at things a little simplistically, but the crux of the matter is that the management of L7CGB is worried of the potential implications of 'publishing' libelous/slanderous material as perhaps a newspaper would be. But surely a forum-any forum is merely a *virtual* piece of paper, on which people can write anything they like (within reason). Now the simplistic bit.... *If* the management of L7CGB were taken to task over comments made on the boardroom, would this not be the same as reading something upsetting on a piece of paper, and then deciding to take the paper supplier to court? With a newspaper, the publishers are taken to task because they have control of the content of the newspaper in the first place regardless of whether they know the author of said article or not. Interestingly I've just looked up Publisher on the good old AOL dictionary. 1. publisher •n. (100%) a company or person that prepares and issues books, journals, or music for sale. (From The Concise Oxford Dictionary in English Dictionaries and Thesauruses) Would the emphasis be on for sale in a court of law? If the forum users were now charged for the privelige of using it, then is it possible that they actually become publishers? P.s. As this thread is now linked across to BC, I'd just like to say that we aint taking the p1ss chaps, on the contrary, it is sad news that the L7CGB has been forced to consider such measures in the first place and I for one hope that the problems are sorted quickly and amicably (And hopefully stays open too all). These are purely my thoughts, but I feel I can safely say that a fair few other folk within this forum will be thinking the same. Quote
Matt Seabrook Posted November 19, 2003 Posted November 19, 2003 P.s. As this thread is now linked across to BC, I'd just like to say that we aint taking the p1ss chaps, on the contrary, it is sad news that the L7CGB has been forced to consider such measures in the first place and I for one hope that the problems are sorted quickly and amicably (And hopefully stays open too all). These are purely my thoughts, but I feel I can safely say that a fair few other folk within this forum will be thinking the same. Couldn’t agree more Quote
7SE Posted November 19, 2003 Posted November 19, 2003 Would the emphasis be on for sale in a court of law? I think that is the crux of the problem, the courts aren't yet up to speed on this whole wibbly web thing, no one really knows. Perceived wisdom, from someone who ought to know (not me), is that if the hosts of a forum remove an offending text within a reasonable time of being given notice of its existence, then they won't get held responsible for it. But there is a theoretical risk that the directors of a limited company hosting a web forum might get dragged into court. However small you, or I (or V7) think the risk is, is probably irrelevant as we aren't the directors. Reading between the lines a bit, I don't think that they are concerned over the risk of personal liability so much as the aggravation and effort of just dealing with a complainant who threatens to take them to court. Hence all the references to Arrowstar (whoever they are) (allegedly ) I could be wrong of course, frequently am Quote
Blatman Posted November 20, 2003 Posted November 20, 2003 Reading between the lines a bit, I don't think that they are concerned over the risk of personal liability so much as the aggravation and effort of just dealing with a complainant who threatens to take them to court. Hence all the references to Arrowstar (whoever they are) (allegedly ) I could be wrong of course, frequently am Not this time........... The whole basis for this issue is not *actual* legal action, but the threat. If some-one threatens, the L7Club Commitee will be forced to engage their own lega brains to counter the threat. The threat will no doubt arrive on solicitors note paper, so the reply must be from an equally qualified person. This costs money, irrelevant of if it ever gets to court....... I'd bet a fair amount of my salary that it cost the L7Club quite a bit to sort out Arrows***, even though it got nowhere near a court room....... Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.