Has everyone is SC become more moronic??

Waireka wrote:Sandy, please... you make me laugh, you will make the police laugh too if you ever decided to actually action your threats.

Lying now is just showing us it's a compulsion of yours.

Seek help.

Sandy has two stepbrothers who are lawyers and a brother still all practising law, would you like to speak with them and see if they'd like to bring a case.?

You lot really are funny, at least you've all given me a good laugh after a shitty day.

krazy klingon wrote:

Waireka wrote:Sandy, please... you make me laugh, you will make the police laugh too if you ever decided to actually action your threats.

Lying now is just showing us it's a compulsion of yours.

Seek help.

Sandy has two stepbrothers who are lawyers and a brother still all practising law, would you like to speak with them and see if they'd like to bring a case.?

You lot really are funny, at least you've all given me a good laugh after a shitty day.

we'll await our summons Sandy hahahaha

the distant one wrote:

krazy klingon wrote:

Waireka wrote:Sandy, please... you make me laugh, you will make the police laugh too if you ever decided to actually action your threats.

Lying now is just showing us it's a compulsion of yours.

Seek help.

Sandy has two stepbrothers who are lawyers and a brother still all practising law, would you like to speak with them and see if they'd like to bring a case.?

You lot really are funny, at least you've all given me a good laugh after a shitty day.

we'll await our summons Sandy hahahaha

Krazy klingon, just to reiterate your email address and therefore in your case "identity" is not hidden from admin

This thread.

You're all stupid. Learn2law.

frup wrote:You're all stupid. Learn2law.

educate us then.

YDEKM spent 2 years working with a legal team as part of her role... not the first time a scer (or real life person in the case of rach hahahaha) has threatened "libel" or "defamation". she would send her team mates the links for laughs. so we're pretty secure in our understanding when applied to the internet.

Ok I will attempt to post my opinion while not being familiar with defamation legislation and having an extreme headache from work 12 hours.

I posted that everyone is stupid primarily because no legal argument has been made, merely childish threats typical of a forum such as SC. Moronic replies to moronic arguments.

Without knowing all the factors and briefly skim reading this thread I have points to make:

1) How can attacking an online identity be slander and libel, it's no different to attacking harry potter.
2) If you make information public, anyone is free to comment on it from an opinion point of view. I believe that slander and libel apply when false accusations are made as fact. There is a high standard that must be proven to differentiate a mere insult or opinion from the more serious. There is surely a certain "harden the fuck up" quality.
3) Defamation relates to an individual or organisation. I don't think it is possible to threaten action on behalf of another. Generally those who aren't related to the fact don't react in the same way either.
4) I'm reasonably confident some form of harm has to be achieved, I.E loss of business (eg. false claim KFC has cockroaches causing loss of business) Emotional harm isn't the same as actual harm, it is subjective. The law is supposed to be objective.
5) If someone is lying and tries to complain that those uncovering the lie are defaming them, there is no case.

I don't see any culpability for an offence. Nor do I see why anyone would justify arguing such stupid claims in this thread.

I'll just point out again I do not know the legislation involved (yet possibly ) I have a very severe headache and am very worn out mentally at the moment. I believe the next step is for someone to find the relevant legislation a prove or disprove a charge. It will be interesting.

As to the argument of the text in this thread being admissible as evidence in court, I don't see anything which is evidence. I'd advise everyone to keep to the facts. Tell the truth and declare conflicts of interest.

I don't see how claiming you don't believe someone is wrong though. If people don't believe you why would you be hurt by it if you know you're right. Sounds like a crock of BS to me.

Wow, just when you think stupid couldn't get any more stupid...


I would LOL in here... but I do not like the smilies.


Thanks for the laughs... sandy, your immense lack of thought have made my day.

FYI, spell check before pretending NOT to be you. (that may help although I doubt it)

krazy klingon wrote:

the distant one wrote:

krazy klingon wrote:Excuse me,? where the fucks the baseless threats.?

calling someone on their lying isnt reason for slander charges etc and the police would lugh you out of their office if you tried.

Hence baseless threats

Ummmm, the lyes are in the form of written words, and therefore admisable as evidence in court.

I think you kids should take a walk and let waireka fight this fight, it was after all her that started this thread and made the original allegations.

Now after my lunch time play with you kiddys, I'm of back to the office.

It was her that started this thread? Really? Would you like to buy a vowel with that?

Blank

frup wrote:Ok I will attempt to post my opinion while not being familiar with defamation legislation and having an extreme headache from work 12 hours.

I posted that everyone is stupid primarily because no legal argument has been made, merely childish threats typical of a forum such as SC. Moronic replies to moronic arguments.

Without knowing all the factors and briefly skim reading this thread I have points to make:

1) How can attacking an online identity be slander and libel, it's no different to attacking harry potter.
2) If you make information public, anyone is free to comment on it from an opinion point of view. I believe that slander and libel apply when false accusations are made as fact. There is a high standard that must be proven to differentiate a mere insult or opinion from the more serious. There is surely a certain "harden the fuck up" quality.
3) Defamation relates to an individual or organisation. I don't think it is possible to threaten action on behalf of another. Generally those who aren't related to the fact don't react in the same way either.
4) I'm reasonably confident some form of harm has to be achieved, I.E loss of business (eg. false claim KFC has cockroaches causing loss of business) Emotional harm isn't the same as actual harm, it is subjective. The law is supposed to be objective.
5) If someone is lying and tries to complain that those uncovering the lie are defaming them, there is no case.

I don't see any culpability for an offence. Nor do I see why anyone would justify arguing such stupid claims in this thread.

I'll just point out again I do not know the legislation involved (yet possibly ) I have a very severe headache and am very worn out mentally at the moment. I believe the next step is for someone to find the relevant legislation a prove or disprove a charge. It will be interesting.

As to the argument of the text in this thread being admissible as evidence in court, I don't see anything which is evidence. I'd advise everyone to keep to the facts. Tell the truth and declare conflicts of interest.

I don't see how claiming you don't believe someone is wrong though. If people don't believe you why would you be hurt by it if you know you're right. Sounds like a crock of BS to me.

how is that different from what i said, apart from being long winded.

the distant one wrote:

frup wrote:Ok I will attempt to post my opinion while not being familiar with defamation legislation and having an extreme headache from work 12 hours.

I posted that everyone is stupid primarily because no legal argument has been made, merely childish threats typical of a forum such as SC. Moronic replies to moronic arguments.

Without knowing all the factors and briefly skim reading this thread I have points to make:

1) How can attacking an online identity be slander and libel, it's no different to attacking harry potter.
2) If you make information public, anyone is free to comment on it from an opinion point of view. I believe that slander and libel apply when false accusations are made as fact. There is a high standard that must be proven to differentiate a mere insult or opinion from the more serious. There is surely a certain "harden the fuck up" quality.
3) Defamation relates to an individual or organisation. I don't think it is possible to threaten action on behalf of another. Generally those who aren't related to the fact don't react in the same way either.
4) I'm reasonably confident some form of harm has to be achieved, I.E loss of business (eg. false claim KFC has cockroaches causing loss of business) Emotional harm isn't the same as actual harm, it is subjective. The law is supposed to be objective.
5) If someone is lying and tries to complain that those uncovering the lie are defaming them, there is no case.

I don't see any culpability for an offence. Nor do I see why anyone would justify arguing such stupid claims in this thread.

I'll just point out again I do not know the legislation involved (yet possibly ) I have a very severe headache and am very worn out mentally at the moment. I believe the next step is for someone to find the relevant legislation a prove or disprove a charge. It will be interesting.

As to the argument of the text in this thread being admissible as evidence in court, I don't see anything which is evidence. I'd advise everyone to keep to the facts. Tell the truth and declare conflicts of interest.

I don't see how claiming you don't believe someone is wrong though. If people don't believe you why would you be hurt by it if you know you're right. Sounds like a crock of BS to me.

how is that different from what i said, apart from being long winded.

I'm not sure if I'd even read your post at the time. I tend to look at the avatars here as a method of persona identification.

krazy klingon wrote:

Waireka wrote:Sandy, please... you make me laugh, you will make the police laugh too if you ever decided to actually action your threats.

Lying now is just showing us it's a compulsion of yours.

Seek help.

Sandy has two stepbrothers who are lawyers and a brother still all practising law, would you like to speak with them and see if they'd like to bring a case.?

You lot really are funny, at least you've all given me a good laugh after a shitty day.

Sandy is basically a lawyer then!!!

I saw karate kid twice, and rocky 3 times. That makes me real tough!!!

I can just see it now......the landmark case of krazy klingon vs Waireka.

I've listened to Eminem three times, makes me a fully paid up, card carrying white gangsta.

Donkeycheese wrote:

krazy klingon wrote:

Waireka wrote:Sandy, please... you make me laugh, you will make the police laugh too if you ever decided to actually action your threats.

Lying now is just showing us it's a compulsion of yours.

Seek help.

Sandy has two stepbrothers who are lawyers and a brother still all practising law, would you like to speak with them and see if they'd like to bring a case.?

You lot really are funny, at least you've all given me a good laugh after a shitty day.

Sandy is basically a lawyer then!!!

I saw karate kid twice, and rocky 3 times. That makes me real tough!!!

I knew a guy who was serious when he told us he knew Karate. This went on and one for weeks and we just didn't believe it. Amongst us were guys doing kick boxing and Tae kwan do (sp)... They noted how the way he stood etc. just didn't make him appear to be a skilled fighter... long story (and very funny at times)

Turns out he did Karate for a year when he was 11 and had since trained by watching the Karate kid. LOL

frup wrote:
I knew a guy who was serious when he told us he knew Karate. This went on and one for weeks and we just didn't believe it. Amongst us were guys doing kick boxing and Tae kwan do (sp)... They noted how the way he stood etc. just didn't make him appear to be a skilled fighter... long story (and very funny at times)

Turns out he did Karate for a year when he was 11 and had since trained by watching the Karate kid. LOL

I rode in a police car once, I'm a policeman.

Waireka wrote:

frup wrote:
I knew a guy who was serious when he told us he knew Karate. This went on and one for weeks and we just didn't believe it. Amongst us were guys doing kick boxing and Tae kwan do (sp)... They noted how the way he stood etc. just didn't make him appear to be a skilled fighter... long story (and very funny at times)

Turns out he did Karate for a year when he was 11 and had since trained by watching the Karate kid. LOL

I rode in a police car once, I'm a policeman.

I've done a first aid course, I'm a doctor.

I have cooked tea quite a bit so I'm a chef!!! FUCK OFF Gorden you fucking fucker

frup wrote:

Waireka wrote:

frup wrote:
I knew a guy who was serious when he told us he knew Karate. This went on and one for weeks and we just didn't believe it. Amongst us were guys doing kick boxing and Tae kwan do (sp)... They noted how the way he stood etc. just didn't make him appear to be a skilled fighter... long story (and very funny at times)

Turns out he did Karate for a year when he was 11 and had since trained by watching the Karate kid. LOL

I rode in a police car once, I'm a policeman.

I've done a first aid course, I'm a doctor.

Some have gone into a Garage, of course they're Mechanics. Others go into Churches and say they're Christians.

[quote="krazy klingon


Have you thought about this one, YDEKM was given certain facts, all made up by afew of us, just to see what she would do. As expected, a lamb to the slaughter, she just couldn't help herself, no checking to make sure she has ALL the facts right, nothing. Had she asked Sandy, she would've found out his kids did not hold NZ citizenship.

[/quote]

how now that is really strange as i was the person who gave YDEKM most of the 'facts' as i saw them. What a load of bullshit.

dabiarch wrote:[quote="krazy klingon


Have you thought about this one, YDEKM was given certain facts, all made up by afew of us, just to see what she would do. As expected, a lamb to the slaughter, she just couldn't help herself, no checking to make sure she has ALL the facts right, nothing. Had she asked Sandy, she would've found out his kids did not hold NZ citizenship.

how now that is really strange as i was the person who gave YDEKM most of the 'facts' as i saw them. What a load of bullshit.[/quote]

haha but dont you love the dramatics again of the "I'm going to have you up for slander" very reminisscent of when pricey told you and me we were going to jail for harassment or somethingh like that.

You, me and YDEKM are jsut bad asses. Maybe the police should be ehre right now cause ya know its very important they rush to every crime (of course I'm taknig the piss off This thread in sc)

but no one loves the dramatics more than i do..........i wonder if 'krazy klingon' knows that i too knoe sandy campbell in real life too........if he is who he claims to be.....and i am pretty sure he is sandy himself

dabiarch wrote:but no one loves the dramatics more than i do..........i wonder if 'krazy klingon' knows that i too knoe sandy campbell in real life too........if he is who he claims to be.....and i am pretty sure he is sandy himself

He's now seeking the drama in SC. I replied and he did exactly what you've been doing to him. He's starting high school next year isn't he?

Now how am I going to slap people on the back?

ahh so you were the one he deleted and banned........i just couldn't be bothered answering him.......i told him in the thread concerned that i didn't want him posting in my threads.....and he ignored me.........so i will ignore the liar.......i am presuming he just got back from his ban........and of course there were his comments in zampuka over the old man mod incident.........he is an arsehole and deserves to be treated like one