Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Edited out

0 helpful
4 replies

by ontheropes

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.
Edited out

4 replies

by jdclyde

if he really did lie or defame as was indicated in the first article.

Was it just surprise that he was able to assemble a legal team to make the fight harder for them to win, or was it fear of bad publicity from the blogaholics?

I would bet it really is a half and half.

They never expected him to do anything but walk into court and state his case against their laywers. Not the case here, so not the easy target they thought he would be.

This also would take the same ugly route as in the dreaded Napster cases of a certain napoleonic drummer for a band I no longer buy any music from started to lead the charge to sue fans (clients). I personally just recently started buying music again, but not 1/4 of what I was buying back before the lawsuits started flying.

Bite the hand that feeds? Not a good idea.

Thanks for the update!

B-)

by michaelcamp

The main issue is that too many people use their anonymity to vent inappropriately. The industry standard should become (1) that vetted posters with traceable identification are allowed to post/publish without review and (2) anonymous posters must be reviewed before their comments are published. Add to this that any poster's id will be turned over to authorities when subpoenaed.

Posters should not fear the truth -- whether telling or reading. Anonymous, cowardly posters tend to abuse their privileges.

This discussion is closed to new replies.