What are the best vintage, investment-type players in your opinion?

[bk400]

Originally Posted by GeoPoto

I don't think Greg meant to opine that Trout had a case, per se. The question for a lawyer here (focusing on the semantics) would appear to be whether typing verbiage into a public "chat room" like Net54 is considered written or spoken "speech".

If chat rooms have displaced town gatherings as common forums for public discourse, it seems logical that laws regarding spoken speech might be deemed applicable in lieu of laws regarding written speech, such as newspapers and other "published" material.

Libel = written and Slander = spoken, at least in the state where I have since retired from the practice of law.

Damages awarded under successful defamation claims are often a function of the number of people exposed to the defamatory speech. Whether that speech is libelous (written) or slanderous (spoken) is less important than how many people read or heard that speech -- and whether that speech is permanent.

To that end, messages posted in a chat forum such as this one (which appear to be searchable on the internet forever) would likely be considered written speech. But I defer to someone whose legal experience is more recent than my own.

[Peter_Spaeth]

It's self evidently written speech so any legal claim would be for libel. That said, and I don't know this to be the case, but it would not surprise me if there is informal usage that some sources recognize where slander is also a more generic term for defamation and not limited to oral speech.

Hmm. dictionary.com definition 2

a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report:
The writer is spewing a despicable slander against an 87-year-old man, and without a shred of proof.

[G1911]

We have 2 different dictionaries now directly put into this thread showing it was used correctly. The legal context is not the only accepted meaning in the English language (and very obviously not the one used in the statement that has nothing whatsoever to do with the law), which is not chosen by calvindog or myself. Nor is this a particularly rare, obtuse or antiquated usage.



I know I have a mob of readers who hang on my every single word and utterance like a cardboard Delphi. They are excited to try and get me on absolutely anything, but maybe, just maybe one should make sure they are actually correct first. I am an idiot who knows nothing, it cannot be that hard to find something I have said in ~7,000 posts over ten years (all of which contain words and most of which contain a claim to fact of some kind) to correct with something that actually checks out as true.

Let's see how long it is before the next late night out of left field attack that is provably false by the usage of a dictionary yet again. This is such a wonderful use of my impassioned followers time and lives.

[Peter_Spaeth]

I've seen examples of this before, where usage that might be technically incorrect becomes sufficiently widespread that it is recognized as accepted.

[calvindog]

Originally Posted by G1911

We have 2 different dictionaries now directly put into this thread showing it was used correctly. The legal context is not the only accepted meaning in the English language (and very obviously not the one used in the statement that has nothing whatsoever to do with the law), which is not chosen by calvindog or myself. Nor is this a particularly rare, obtuse or antiquated usage.



I know I have a mob of readers who hang on my every single word and utterance like a cardboard Delphi. They are excited to try and get me on absolutely anything, but maybe, just maybe one should make sure they are actually correct first. I am an idiot who knows nothing, it cannot be that hard to find something I have said in ~7,000 posts over ten years (all of which contain words and most of which contain a claim to fact of some kind) to correct with something that actually checks out as true.

Let's see how long it is before the next late night out of left field attack that is provably false by the usage of a dictionary yet again. This is such a wonderful use of my impassioned followers time and lives.

Don’t flatter yourself, I actually agree with your politics and most of what you say out here and have never once tried to get you on anything you’ve said. Libel is written defamation. Slander is spoken defamation. We would never tolerate a colloquial, incorrect word usage. We are paragons of pedantic exactitude. You’re welcome.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Don’t flatter yourself, I actually agree with your politics and most of what you say out here and have never once tried to get you on anything you’ve said. Libel is written defamation. Slander is spoken defamation. We would never tolerate a colloquial, incorrect word usage. We are paragons of pedantic exactitude. You’re welcome.

Oh hardly flattery, for to be a cardboard Delphi is to be a false prophet. I flatter myself by calling myself an idiot who knows nothing, albeit a liberal idiot. In the case of calvindog vs. the dictionary with the question of what a word means, I am going to use the dictionary. As a paragon of pedantic exactitude, I am cognizant that dictionaries are the proper resource for the question and not your opinion of what should be struck from the dictionaries.

[calvindog]

Greg, I’m going to watch football now and try to end this debate which seems to have become your raison d’etre. Libel is written defamation. Slander is spoken defamation. This is true in the dictionary and in real life as I’ve handled both slander and libel cases. No need to go to the library and write a research paper on this. We’re not idiots and we don’t run down the list of dictionary definitions until we find one that supports our position in hindsight. We’re educated men. I simply said libel, not slander. I didn’t write a thesis or review all of your 7000 posts. If you want to use the uneducated, colloquial definition of a word I won’t stop you. I’m going to let you live. Now go watch football, this isn’t the Lincoln/Douglas debates.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by calvindog

Greg, I’m going to watch football now and try to end this debate which seems to have become your raison d’etre. Libel is written defamation. Slander is spoken defamation. This is true in the dictionary and in real life as I’ve handled both slander and libel cases. No need to go to the library and write a research paper on this. We’re not idiots and we don’t run down the list of dictionary definitions until we find one that supports our position in hindsight. We’re educated men. I simply said libel, not slander. I didn’t write a thesis or review all of your 7000 posts. If you want to use the uneducated, colloquial definition of a word I won’t stop you. I’m going to let you live. Now go watch football, this isn’t the Lincoln/Douglas debates.

Remember who picked this dumbass argument (and now is too good for it when it turns out he is factually wrong!). Enjoy your football game, I hope you find it more fulfilling than fighting the dictionary.