FA: Another "LAME" MAME Machine on ebay

[RayB]

As to why ... I'll never know since a computer nor any ROM CDs were included in the original auction listing.

[CheffoJeffo]

You've got to be kidding me ...

I SAID that he had the right to do what he wanted with the asking price ... and I have the right to dispute that value in a thread here (where, exactly, did you come up with "doesn't give anyone the right" to post their opinions ?)

In order to sue for 'Internet libel'  , the seller would have to show that the statements were false and that they caused him harm. Show me where I, or anybody else, has done that. And then have good luck showing damages.

Further, since the seller would be bringing suit in Ontario, he would have to be very specific and certain of the above as the courts can assign HIM costs and fines for bringing a frivilous suit.

Then, after chastising me for bitching about price in a public forum, you do exactly that with CustomArcades !?!

Pot, kettle, black.

Cheers.

[SUB ZERO]

Nevermind ... I can see this is pointless.

You can't tell the different between a question and a statement ... nor do you know what libel is.

I suggest you look up defamation and what that encompasses since you don't have a clue.

Have a nice day.

You've got to be kidding me ...

I SAID that he had the right to do what he wanted with the asking price ... and I have the right to dispute that value in a thread here (where, exactly, did you come up with "doesn't give anyone the right" to post their opinions ?)

In order to sue for 'Internet libel'

[CheffoJeffo]

Nevermind ... I can see this is pointless.

You can't tell the different between a question and a statement ... nor do you know what libel is.

I suggest you look up defamation and what that encompasses since you don't have a clue.

Have a nice day.

OK ...

In many, though not all, legal systems, factual statements must be false to be defamatory. Proving statements to be true is often the best defense against a prosecution for libel. Statements of opinion which cannot be proven true or false will likely need to apply some other kind of defense.

In some systems, however, truth alone is not a defense. It is also necessary in these cases to show that there is a well founded public interest in the specific information being widely known, and this may be the case even for public figures.

Almost all legal systems, including those of the United States, Scotland, and England and Wales, require in some situations that the subject of the communication prove, in a civil court, that the defendant made the statement with "malice", meaning either believing it was false or with "reckless disregard" for whether it was false.

or

In most states, public officials or figures as plaintiffs are required to prove negligence or actual malice on the part of the publisher. To prove actual malice, a person needs to show that at the time of publication or broadcast, those responsible for the story either knew it was not true or had a reckless disregarded for the truth.

I'm not trying to convince you to like the fact that I wrote things about the auction as THAT would be pointless -- we can agree to disagree there.

Your ranting about legal risks and specifically about what rights we have are what I would argue about. I trust that the mods or Saint himself would step in and send this entire thread to PostHell if we really were as far out of line as you pretend.

Can you tell me at which point I didn't have a clue ?

Wait --- didn't that comment defame me ? [Hint: no it didn't]

Cheers.

[CheffoJeffo]

I notice that SUBZERO unregistered himelf, apparently a few minutes after my last posting ... c'mon, it was ONE thread, and a fairly tame one at that. It certainly isn't representative of normal activity, at least in this part of the forums.

Don't go just because this thread doesn't sit right with you.

I wonder what would have happened if DK or CT had decided to venture outside of EE and argue against him ...

Cheers.

EDIT: Since I didn't say it in this post: I am asking you to stay ... plonk me if you must (although occasionally I post useful stuff), but stay.

EDIT2: I just noticed that, before leaving, SUBZERO deleted the lengthy diatribe that my last posts were in response to, and in which he replied to RayB as well. So, there may be a non-sequitur for those trying to follow the latter portion of this thread. Maybe I can find a copy in my cache.

[pointdablame]

I wonder if this SubZero was the same subzero who was banned for being a huge tool... certainly seems like a possibility....

[RayB]

I wonder if this SubZero was the same subzero who was banned for being a huge tool... certainly seems like a possibility....

It would be quite a coincidence if it were NOT the same guy.

[CheffoJeffo]

I think the old SubZero said he was in his early twenties and this guy's profile said he was 30 ... although there certainly are some parallels, only this guy provided less entertainment value.

Cheers.

[Hoopz]

The old Subzero would not have given in this early.  It would have gone on and on and on.

[pointdablame]

The old Subzero would not have given in this early.  It would have gone on and on and on.

this is the only reason I question it.

He'd be rambling on and on and on.....

[missioncontrol]

I think the old SubZero said he was in his early twenties and this guy's profile said he was 30 ...

does that mean Saint is really 3?

[CheffoJeffo]

I think the old SubZero said he was in his early twenties and this guy's profile said he was 30 ...

does that mean Saint is really 3?

[missioncontrol]

I think the old SubZero said he was in his early twenties and this guy's profile said he was 30 ...

does that mean Saint is really 3?

If you look at Saint's profile his age is listed as 3