Who was the real winner of Flanders?

[Race Radio]

With respect to BPC et al...

What is the difference between a mild socio-path and a troll? Are we saying they are one and the same or something different?

For what it's worth I would expect a troll to be acting deliberately and knowingly trying to antagonise and disrupt. A socio-path is typically unaware of the consequences of their dysfunctional behaviour.

I have always and will continue to maintain that BPC is a mild socio-path. And IMHO mostly harmless, clueless and bloody irritating.

I would agree with you, however there have been a few occasions where he was either drunk or impaired, where he admitted his goal was to troll. He gloated about his ability to stir up the forum with his nonsense and bragged about winding everyone up.

At the same time he has sent me some rather insane PM's that seem to show that he is not fully in control of all of his faculties. The sheer volume of them alone was nuts

 

[buckwheat]

I was pretty sure that you're overstating how difficult it is to win a libel suit in the US, so I looked it up on wikipedia. It looks like you're partially correct, but only partially.

No, I'm fully correct as BroDeal points out below. Defamation per se is another matter entirely. Why don't you think Walsh got sued for FLTL? It was published by Random House out of NY.

Anyway, doping in cycling is a completely legitimate topic for discussion and the recent evidence and news throughout the sporting world suggests that the sports world in general and cycling in particular is awash in PED's. If the "absence of malice" doctrine were not in place regarding public figures, the publicity machine in the U.S. would be severly hampered. PR in the U.S. is huge and that sword cuts both ways. This issue cuts to the heart of what free speech is about.

In the U.S. public figures are treated differently when it comes to proving defamation. A public figure has to prove that the defamatory statement was made with actual malice, which legally means the statement was made with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard to whether it was false or not.

 

[Cerberus]

No, I'm fully correct as BroDeal points out below. Defamation per se is another matter entirely. Why don't you think Walsh got sued for FLTL? It was published by Random House out of NY.

Ok, I wasn't aware that there was a difference between defamation and libel. Danish law doesn't AFAIK use two different terms for that, though some legal distinction is made between accusing other of a crime and accusing them of a non-crime.

Anyway, doping in cycling is a completely legitimate topic for discussion and the recent evidence and news throughout the sporting world suggests that the sports world in general and cycling in particular is awash in PED's. If the "absence of malice" doctrine were not in place regarding public figures, the publicity machine in the U.S. would be severly hampered. PR in the U.S. is huge and that sword cuts both ways. This issue cuts to the heart of what free speech is about.

I agree with you on that.

 

[buckwheat]

Ok, I wasn't aware that there was a difference between defamation and libel. Danish law doesn't AFAIK use two different terms for that, though some legal distinction is made between accusing other of a crime and accusing them of a non-crime.

I agree with you on that.

Oh yeah I agree, as for

Sorry, not trying to be annoying. I just think that if Cancellera can benefit from the Spartacus allusions, someone else can point out the liklihood that his achievements are apocryphal.

That's why "absence of malice" is important. All this stuff is just grist for the mill.

 

[Péviste]

Just so everyone is clear....defamation and libel are the same. Well, technically speaking, libel is published written material that is defamatory and slander is "published" (as in communicated to another party) verbal material that is defamatory. This is the position in UK law and I am sure US law is no different. So no need to draw any distinction between defamation and libel.

How was that for my first post?

 

[180mmCrank]

Just so everyone is clear....defamation and libel are the same. Well, technically speaking, libel is published written material that is defamatory and slander is "published" (as in communicated to another party) verbal material that is defamatory. This is the position in UK law and I am sure US law is no different. So no need to draw any distinction between defamation and libel.

How was that for my first post?

Very helpful - thank you

 

[buckwheat]

Just so everyone is clear....defamation and libel are the same. Well, technically speaking, libel is published written material that is defamatory and slander is "published" (as in communicated to another party) verbal material that is defamatory. This is the position in UK law and I am sure US law is no different. So no need to draw any distinction between defamation and libel.

How was that for my first post?

mixed.

We were talking about "defamation per se" which is a component of libel law.

U.S. law is significantly different than U.K. law. A lawsuit by someone such as LA against say Walsh, has no chance of succeeding in the States.

If I state here that I believe the achievements of "Spartacus" are of doubtful authenticity, he has a Slim to none chance of prevailing in a libel action against me and Slim just left town.

Just wanted to clarify.

If anyone doubts what I say, I ask, why no action against Walsh for FLTL?

It's clear, no one can prevail in a libel case against him or Random House or this forum or basically anyone.

 

[Ferminal]

Libel cases on the internet (social domains) have a poor record.

 

[gingerwallaceafro]

Jusr responded to a troll...that's why I;m editing.

Back on point....

Whenever you get pulled up on a point, like your mates, you pull the TROLL card. You're like Cristiano Ronaldo taking a dive and asking for a yellow card mate, grow a pair...

 

[Dr. Maserati]

Whenever you get pulled up on a point, like your mates, you pull the TROLL card. You're like Cristiano Ronaldo taking a dive and asking for a yellow card mate, grow a pair...

Can you highlight the post where you made a "point" that was relevant to this thread? .. I must have missed it.

 

[davidg]

OK, almost time to close this thread. Has been an interesting journey from cycling to legal definitions, with the obligatory visit to the clinic.

Starting tomorrow I will be waiting to see how quickly the next thread gets put up. Feel free to cut/paste from this thread.

'Who was the real winner of Paris-Roubaix?'

 

[Ferminal]

'Who was the real winner of Paris-Roubaix?'

Boonen... Always.

 

[buckwheat]

'Who was the real winner of Paris-Roubaix?'

Amgen and Pablo Escobar.