No wrongdoing for ACORN in Cal.

[Cavemonster]

You might understand him, but he clearly doesn't understand you, because he still doesn't get that you backtracked. Either that, or he's just dishonest.

No.

Look back at his posts. He was asking you a question.
Look back at my posts, I didn't backtrack.

Let's put it this way. There are three elements we've discussed.

A) What is required for a defamation/libel/slander case

B) What is required for a defamatory statement (included in A)

C) Valid defenses in a libel case.

That a defamatory statement is true falls under C, and not in all jurisdictions for all cases. Just like being insane is a valid defense against murder. It doesn't mean it didn't occur, just that you can't be held liable for it.

Do you understand how that's an expansion, not a backtrack?
Do you understand that since O'Keefe's statement was untrue the defense does not protect him?

Coyote is well aware of this. What do you think he was repeatedly asking you to figure out?

Now. Do you know why you would not be liable for making that communication?

To recap from your example.
Telling the neighbors that the guy who just moved in is a sex offender is a defamatory statement.
If he actually is, you most likely have a valid defense against any defamation case he would bring against you.

 

[tyr_13]

Nice straw man you've got there. I'm sure it will keep the crows aware from your corn.

Surely you can do better than this.

Your argument is that O'Keefe must not have committed libel because ACORN didn't file a lawsuit, and that ACORN knew it must be 'in the wrong' because they didn't file a lawsuit.

So it's their fault evidenced by the lack of a lawsuit.

No straw, just what you're maintaining.

 

[Ziggurat]

No.

Look back at his posts. He was asking you a question.
Look back at my posts, I didn't backtrack.

You originally laid out criteria for a slander case. Those criteria were clearly insufficient, and you subsequently admitted they were insufficient.

Do you understand how that's an expansion, not a backtrack?

Call it what you want, you were wrong in your original claim.

Do you understand that since O'Keefe's statement was untrue the defense does not protect him?

What statement? Let's see a quote, shall we?

 

[Ziggurat]

Your argument is that O'Keefe must not have committed libel because ACORN didn't file a lawsuit, and that ACORN knew it must be 'in the wrong' because they didn't file a lawsuit.

So it's their fault evidenced by the lack of a lawsuit.

No straw, just what you're maintaining.

Yes everything is ACORN's fault.

Zig approves of propaganda and lies being fed to the American people, but it's ACORN's fault for not filing a lawsuit.

So not only did you construct a straw man, you're now trying to hide what you actually said. Perhaps I was wrong. Perhaps you can't do better than this.

 

[Cavemonster]

You originally laid out criteria for a slander case. Those criteria were clearly insufficient, and you subsequently admitted they were insufficient.

Only in the sense that a definition of murder without the phrase "And the perpetrator must not be insane". Is insufficient.

What statement? Let's see a quote, shall we?

See our former discussion of the definition of DEFAMATORY STATEMENT.

 

[tyr_13]

So not only did you construct a straw man, you're now trying to hide what you actually said. Perhaps I was wrong. Perhaps you can't do better than this.

Oh, so you don't approve of O'Keefe's actions?

 

[TraneWreck]

Then why bring up Madoff?

Both are malicious liars.

 

[Ziggurat]

Oh, so you don't approve of O'Keefe's actions?

I took no position in that regard. But that didn't stop you from inventing one for me. And in a manner which both poisoned the well and attacked me personally. Not one of your better moments, tyr.

 

[tyr_13]

I took no position in that regard. But that didn't stop you from inventing one for me. And in a manner which both poisoned the well and attacked me personally. Not one of your better moments, tyr.

So you do approve of what O'Keefe did?

 

[Ziggurat]

So you do approve of what O'Keefe did?

I am not going to take a position on that, because it isn't relevant to my argument here. Nice attempt to retroactively cover up your straw man ad hominem, but I'm not going to rescue you from your own mistake, tyr.

 

[tyr_13]

I am not going to take a position on that, because it isn't relevant to my argument here.

And you call ACORN craven.

Nice attempt to retroactively cover up your straw man ad hominem, but I'm not going to rescue you from your own mistake, tyr.

You've made a very good appearance of approving of O'Keefe's actions and when asked directly about it, you dodge. It wasn't a strawman and it isn't ad hominem because it's part of this thread topic.

But go back to talking about what you think defamation is. That's going so much better for you.

 

[TraneWreck]

And you call ACORN craven.

I'm not going to take a position on who's right and who's wrong, but good point. It made me laugh.

 

[Ziggurat]

And you call ACORN craven.

It was a conditional accusation, but yes. They have a responsibility to their employees. I have no responsibility to you, tyr, or to anyone else on this thread. You can't honestly be unaware of this difference, you're just using this as an opportunity to try to insult me. Which makes your protestations below that you aren't engaging in ad hominems more than a little ironic.

You've made a very good appearance of approving of O'Keefe's actions and when asked directly about it, you dodge. It wasn't a strawman and it isn't ad hominem because it's part of this thread topic.

It was a strawman because it's a position I never expressed, and it's an ad hominem because its intention was purely to discredit me personally. Which is why you expressed it in such an inflammatory manner the first time, even though you tried to reframe it in a more neutral tone in subsequent posts.

But go back to talking about what you think defamation is.

Not with you, tyr. We're not done dealing with your false claims about me. I have no intention of engaging with you on any other topic until you apologize for your baseless attack. I do not expect you will actually offer one sincerely, but who knows, you might surprise me.

 

[Neally]

Finally, all of this is an attempt to distract from the essence of this issue: O'Keefe blatantly lied to destroy an organization that does important, unique work at a level of competency and with integrity that exceeds most government contractors, especially those of the defense variety:

ACORN imploded themselves with their ongoing pattern of corruption at all levels. The videos exposed more of the existing corruption. Brown's report confirms this. Thankfully they have finally dissolved. Long overdue.

 

[TraneWreck]

ACORN imploded themselves with their ongoing pattern of corruption at all levels. The videos exposed more of the existing corruption. Brown's report confirms this. Thankfully they have finally dissolved. Long overdue.

Ah, so just say good bye to substance. Ok, I take that as a surrender.

Ongoing pattern of corruption, hilarious.

 

[tyr_13]

It was a conditional accusation, but yes. They have a responsibility to their employees. I have no responsibility to you, tyr, or to anyone else on this thread. You can't honestly be unaware of this difference, you're just using this as an opportunity to try to insult me. Which makes your protestations below that you aren't engaging in ad hominems more than a little ironic.



It was a strawman because it's a position I never expressed, and it's an ad hominem because its intention was purely to discredit me personally. Which is why you expressed it in such an inflammatory manner the first time, even though you tried to reframe it in a more neutral tone in subsequent posts.



Not with you, tyr. We're not done dealing with your false claims about me. I have no intention of engaging with you on any other topic until you apologize for your baseless attack. I do not expect you will actually offer one sincerely, but who knows, you might surprise me.

You're defending a man (poorly) who lied, produced propaganda, and got innocent people fired from their jobs, using downright silly logic, and you say it is a false claim to say you support his tactics? If it was a false assumption say so, but stomping and moaning while not actually saying if you denounce his tactics is simply dishonest.

I've disagreed with this type of tactic for a long time now, as any glance at the Moore threads will tell you. Yet you want to turn this into being about you.

And that you call this ad hom is even stranger. How does it discredit you to explain if you do or don't support what O'Keefe did?

Lecture all you want about neutral tone mister "I guess you must share tyr's opinion that ACORN is just craven," it won't fly.

 

[Ziggurat]

You're defending a man (poorly) who lied, produced propaganda, and got innocent people fired from their jobs, using downright silly logic, and you say it is a false claim to say you support his tactics?

You lied about me, tyr. It's really not hard to understand. You aren't this stupid. You just can't be. You know what you said about me was wrong, which is why you aren't actually repeating it.

I've disagreed with this type of tactic for a long time now

And I've disagreed with lying about other posters for a long time now.

And that you call this ad hom is even stranger. How does it discredit you to explain if you do or don't support what O'Keefe did?

You said "Zig approves of propaganda and lies". That's an ad hominem, and an obvious one. You have been wise enough to refrain from repeating this lie, but you haven't been big enough to apologizing to me for it, or even acknowledge that the accusation was baseless. It doesn't discredit me to explain my position, but I owe you no further explanation, and I'm not going to give you one. I shouldn't have to explain anything to you to keep you from lying about me.

 

[applecorped]

Both are malicious liars.

Comparable?

 

[tyr_13]

You lied about me, tyr. It's really not hard to understand. You aren't this stupid. You just can't be. You know what you said about me was wrong, which is why you aren't actually repeating it.



And I've disagreed with lying about other posters for a long time now.



You said "Zig approves of propaganda and lies". That's an ad hominem, and an obvious one. You have been wise enough to refrain from repeating this lie, but you haven't been big enough to apologizing to me for it, or even acknowledge that the accusation was baseless. It doesn't discredit me to explain my position, but I owe you no further explanation, and I'm not going to give you one. I shouldn't have to explain anything to you to keep you from lying about me.

The actual line is, "Zig approves of propaganda and lies being fed to the American people, but it's ACORN's fault for not filing a lawsuit. "

It shows the ridiculousness of the the reasoning you are using. Try to squirm this topic into being about you if you must, but don't expect me to apologize for your twisting.

You can't be that stupid as to miss so completely what I've said.

 

[Ziggurat]

The actual line is, "Zig approves of propaganda and lies being fed to the American people, but it's ACORN's fault for not filing a lawsuit. "

It shows the ridiculousness of the the reasoning you are using.

No, it shows the ridiculousness of the straw man you've constructed. But that's what straw men are for, of course.

You can't be that stupid as to miss so completely what I've said.

I haven't. You've said more than just that lie, but I'm not interested in what else you've said. I'm interested in the lie. Until you retract it and apologize, I'm not going to discuss any other topic with you. What will it be, tyr?