Re: psychos

[hippy]

"Ray Peace" > wrote in message
...
> I don't recommend kicking his panels in if you happen to see him, but
I
> certainly felt like it, perhaps advise him politely that his moronic
> motoring is now public domain.

I have a list of license plates for similar offenders.. maybe
we should start a site with them listed or is that defammation
or something?

hippy

[hippy]

"Ray Peace" > wrote in message
...
> I don't recommend kicking his panels in if you happen to see him, but
I
> certainly felt like it, perhaps advise him politely that his moronic
> motoring is now public domain.

I have a list of license plates for similar offenders.. maybe
we should start a site with them listed or is that defammation
or something?

hippy

[Stuart Verrier]

I prefer the kick in the panels option. I had a similar experience on
the weekend. the only problem for the driver was I was riding in a group
of 45 riders. We caught him at the next red lights. His saturday
afternoon would have been spent cleaning off the array of sticky sports
and caffine drinks from the duco. Oh the justice.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Stuart Verrier]

I prefer the kick in the panels option. I had a similar experience on
the weekend. the only problem for the driver was I was riding in a group
of 45 riders. We caught him at the next red lights. His saturday
afternoon would have been spent cleaning off the array of sticky sports
and caffine drinks from the duco. Oh the justice.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Paul J]

>I have a list of license plates for similar offenders.. maybe we should
>start a site with them listed or is that defammation or something?

This has been a long time coming. People should be outed publically for
poor behaviour in public. Driving by it's nature is very public and if
ever there was anywhere that a police state was required it is on the
roads. Anyone who thinks that their civil liberties are being infringed
upon when they are out on the road should probably pull their head in
and stay at home.

Even better is when a company car emblazened with advertising is spotted
driven by moron. Then you can spread the word about the company and make
sure they suffer through lack of business.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Stuart Verrier]

It would be a long long list of number plates but I like the idea that
if the car has any company advertising on it let us all know!

One ettiquette issue I have always struggled to come to grips with is
how people perceive riders "carefully" running red lights. I know I
meander through them down on beach street in the early morning but by
doing that I question the right I have to blast drivers when they do the
wrong thing. There seems to be a split amoungst the riding community as
to what is accepted and what isn't. Last weekend our group of 45 was
split into two or three groups due to the various attitudes amoungst us
and it never regained its momentum.

Any thoughts?



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Paul J]

>I have a list of license plates for similar offenders.. maybe we should
>start a site with them listed or is that defammation or something?

This has been a long time coming. People should be outed publically for
poor behaviour in public. Driving by it's nature is very public and if
ever there was anywhere that a police state was required it is on the
roads. Anyone who thinks that their civil liberties are being infringed
upon when they are out on the road should probably pull their head in
and stay at home.

Even better is when a company car emblazened with advertising is spotted
driven by moron. Then you can spread the word about the company and make
sure they suffer through lack of business.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Stuart Verrier]

It would be a long long list of number plates but I like the idea that
if the car has any company advertising on it let us all know!

One ettiquette issue I have always struggled to come to grips with is
how people perceive riders "carefully" running red lights. I know I
meander through them down on beach street in the early morning but by
doing that I question the right I have to blast drivers when they do the
wrong thing. There seems to be a split amoungst the riding community as
to what is accepted and what isn't. Last weekend our group of 45 was
split into two or three groups due to the various attitudes amoungst us
and it never regained its momentum.

Any thoughts?



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[carma1]

Know where you are coming from. Why don't the hosts of this forum create
an area dedicated to the abolition of d.i.p.s.h.i.t. "P" platers, or
anyone else for that matter, that has no idea about driving safely
around cyclists. It should be called the SHAME FILE... Lets band
together and publicly disgrace these fools, I know that one of the
boating forums i go to they have something along the same lines, as does
a 4WD site. They both openly list rego' numbers...................



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[carma1]

Know where you are coming from. Why don't the hosts of this forum create
an area dedicated to the abolition of d.i.p.s.h.i.t. "P" platers, or
anyone else for that matter, that has no idea about driving safely
around cyclists. It should be called the SHAME FILE... Lets band
together and publicly disgrace these fools, I know that one of the
boating forums i go to they have something along the same lines, as does
a 4WD site. They both openly list rego' numbers...................



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Jose Rizal]

Paul J:

> >I have a list of license plates for similar offenders.. maybe we should
> >start a site with them listed or is that defammation or something?
>
> This has been a long time coming. People should be outed publically for
> poor behaviour in public. Driving by it's nature is very public and if
> ever there was anywhere that a police state was required it is on the
> roads. Anyone who thinks that their civil liberties are being infringed
> upon when they are out on the road should probably pull their head in
> and stay at home.
>
> Even better is when a company car emblazened with advertising is spotted
> driven by moron. Then you can spread the word about the company and make
> sure they suffer through lack of business.
>

The biggest problem with this idea is how to ensure that it is not
abused. How will you decide whether someone's complaint of a driver is
true or not? How will you determine whether someone has exaggerated a
situation, or unfairly blames someone else for his/her own mistake?

Not easily nor practically achievable, that's for sure.

[Jose Rizal]

Paul J:

> >I have a list of license plates for similar offenders.. maybe we should
> >start a site with them listed or is that defammation or something?
>
> This has been a long time coming. People should be outed publically for
> poor behaviour in public. Driving by it's nature is very public and if
> ever there was anywhere that a police state was required it is on the
> roads. Anyone who thinks that their civil liberties are being infringed
> upon when they are out on the road should probably pull their head in
> and stay at home.
>
> Even better is when a company car emblazened with advertising is spotted
> driven by moron. Then you can spread the word about the company and make
> sure they suffer through lack of business.
>

The biggest problem with this idea is how to ensure that it is not
abused. How will you decide whether someone's complaint of a driver is
true or not? How will you determine whether someone has exaggerated a
situation, or unfairly blames someone else for his/her own mistake?

Not easily nor practically achievable, that's for sure.

[Jose Rizal]

hippy:

> Gee, I'd been thinking about this for ages... I didn't think there
> would be others so much in favour of it!
> I started collecting licence plate numbers and noting details of
> what drivers actually did a while ago, so that when I got 'enough'
> I could put them all on a website somewhere with a nice message
> to them all...
> I'm still a bit paranoid about the legality of it though...hmm...
> "hosted internationally officer.. i can't do a thing about it"

Nor is it fair. Without casting judgement on the veracity of your
complaints, the fact is readers will only have your side of the story
and your word on the matter. You can see that the potential for someone
being malicious is great; who determines (and how) whether the
accusation of bad behaviour on another is fair or not?

[Jose Rizal]

hippy:

> Gee, I'd been thinking about this for ages... I didn't think there
> would be others so much in favour of it!
> I started collecting licence plate numbers and noting details of
> what drivers actually did a while ago, so that when I got 'enough'
> I could put them all on a website somewhere with a nice message
> to them all...
> I'm still a bit paranoid about the legality of it though...hmm...
> "hosted internationally officer.. i can't do a thing about it"

Nor is it fair. Without casting judgement on the veracity of your
complaints, the fact is readers will only have your side of the story
and your word on the matter. You can see that the potential for someone
being malicious is great; who determines (and how) whether the
accusation of bad behaviour on another is fair or not?

[hippy]

"Jose Rizal" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> > I started collecting licence plate numbers and noting details of
> > what drivers actually did a while ago, so that when I got 'enough'
> > I could put them all on a website somewhere with a nice message
> > to them all...
>
> Nor is it fair. Without casting judgement on the veracity of your
> complaints, the fact is readers will only have your side of the story
> and your word on the matter. You can see that the potential for
someone
> being malicious is great; who determines (and how) whether the
> accusation of bad behaviour on another is fair or not?

But don't a lot of websites only have the author's side of the story?
Don't a lot of books?
Obviously I can see what you are saying and I agree with you to
a certain degree - that's half the reason I've not made the site -
but isn't it actually within my rights to do so?
It's not actually identifying the driver and it seems like a nice way
to vent... I'll wait and see what happens :-)
I still don't see why rocket-propelled grenades are not fitted as
standard equipment to bikes...is is manufacturing costs? What?

hippy
peace? nah... pieces!! :-)

[hippy]

"Jose Rizal" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> > I started collecting licence plate numbers and noting details of
> > what drivers actually did a while ago, so that when I got 'enough'
> > I could put them all on a website somewhere with a nice message
> > to them all...
>
> Nor is it fair. Without casting judgement on the veracity of your
> complaints, the fact is readers will only have your side of the story
> and your word on the matter. You can see that the potential for
someone
> being malicious is great; who determines (and how) whether the
> accusation of bad behaviour on another is fair or not?

But don't a lot of websites only have the author's side of the story?
Don't a lot of books?
Obviously I can see what you are saying and I agree with you to
a certain degree - that's half the reason I've not made the site -
but isn't it actually within my rights to do so?
It's not actually identifying the driver and it seems like a nice way
to vent... I'll wait and see what happens :-)
I still don't see why rocket-propelled grenades are not fitted as
standard equipment to bikes...is is manufacturing costs? What?

hippy
peace? nah... pieces!! :-)

[cfsmtb]

Ahhh, here's a fresh one for your collection.

4.01pm, Thursday arvo, August 28th 2003 Ped light crossing, Lennox &
Bridge Road, Richmond. Peds have green light on Lennox, small silver
plastic bubble car, rego number SIB 003, turns out of Bridge,
speeding, almost collects several people walking across road. PBC
unfortunately too nimble for me to get model details, or give it a
playful slap with one's steel capped Blunnies.:mad: grrrrrrrrr.......



--
it's all a creeping beige conspiracy

>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[cfsmtb]

Ahhh, here's a fresh one for your collection.

4.01pm, Thursday arvo, August 28th 2003 Ped light crossing, Lennox &
Bridge Road, Richmond. Peds have green light on Lennox, small silver
plastic bubble car, rego number SIB 003, turns out of Bridge,
speeding, almost collects several people walking across road. PBC
unfortunately too nimble for me to get model details, or give it a
playful slap with one's steel capped Blunnies.:mad: grrrrrrrrr.......



--
it's all a creeping beige conspiracy

>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Trevor S]

Jose Rizal > wrote in news:eVf3b.19206$8i2.4565
@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:

<snip>

>
> The biggest problem with this idea is how to ensure that it is not
> abused. How will you decide whether someone's complaint of a driver is
> true or not? How will you determine whether someone has exaggerated a
> situation, or unfairly blames someone else for his/her own mistake?
>
> Not easily nor practically achievable, that's for sure.

Coincidentally I have been thinking about this very topic for quite some
time :) Your point is the main problem I forsaw (aside from any legal
ramification). The only way I saw past it was to only allow people you
know and trust to send you the information for you to post on the site. By
myslef I can probably get 3 - 5 a day, ranging from the stupid to the
downright dangerous, with 5 "trusted" friends, that's whole lota number
plates in a short time.

Another point, a photo would be good to document the plate, in case of the
human error problem of remembering a plate incorrectly. This would prove
difficult as the moment has often passed to allow this sort of
documentation and of course the times the most dangeroous events occur is
when you are sans camera :) Perhps when camera quality improves in mobile
phones and they become more ubiqutious (phone cameras not phones), not
having the camer might not be as big a problem :)

--
Trevor S


"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
-Albert Einstein

[Trevor S]

Jose Rizal > wrote in news:eVf3b.19206$8i2.4565
@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:

<snip>

>
> The biggest problem with this idea is how to ensure that it is not
> abused. How will you decide whether someone's complaint of a driver is
> true or not? How will you determine whether someone has exaggerated a
> situation, or unfairly blames someone else for his/her own mistake?
>
> Not easily nor practically achievable, that's for sure.

Coincidentally I have been thinking about this very topic for quite some
time :) Your point is the main problem I forsaw (aside from any legal
ramification). The only way I saw past it was to only allow people you
know and trust to send you the information for you to post on the site. By
myslef I can probably get 3 - 5 a day, ranging from the stupid to the
downright dangerous, with 5 "trusted" friends, that's whole lota number
plates in a short time.

Another point, a photo would be good to document the plate, in case of the
human error problem of remembering a plate incorrectly. This would prove
difficult as the moment has often passed to allow this sort of
documentation and of course the times the most dangeroous events occur is
when you are sans camera :) Perhps when camera quality improves in mobile
phones and they become more ubiqutious (phone cameras not phones), not
having the camer might not be as big a problem :)

--
Trevor S


"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
-Albert Einstein

[Jose Rizal]

hippy:

> "Jose Rizal" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
> > > I started collecting licence plate numbers and noting details of
> > > what drivers actually did a while ago, so that when I got 'enough'
> > > I could put them all on a website somewhere with a nice message
> > > to them all...
> >
> > Nor is it fair. Without casting judgement on the veracity of your
> > complaints, the fact is readers will only have your side of the story
> > and your word on the matter. You can see that the potential for
> someone
> > being malicious is great; who determines (and how) whether the
> > accusation of bad behaviour on another is fair or not?
>
> But don't a lot of websites only have the author's side of the story?
> Don't a lot of books?

The difference is that these have identifiable ownership, that is, book
authors are not anonymous, website authors can be traced, and the
accusations there are attributable and verifiable to an extent.
Anonymous contributions of complaints can't be checked for veracity.

> Obviously I can see what you are saying and I agree with you to
> a certain degree - that's half the reason I've not made the site -
> but isn't it actually within my rights to do so?

Only if you do it in a verifiable way, I would think. Otherwise, your
right to swing your arms ends at the tip of someone else's nose.

> It's not actually identifying the driver and it seems like a nice way
> to vent... I'll wait and see what happens :-)

I think license plates can identify drivers. If not by name, then
certainly by sight; the biggest problem is that the accused wouldn't be
able to defend him/herself easily. The Internet can be a powerful
weapon, but it needs to be handled responsibly.

> I still don't see why rocket-propelled grenades are not fitted as
> standard equipment to bikes...is is manufacturing costs? What?

Too much collateral damage.

[Jose Rizal]

hippy:

> "Jose Rizal" > wrote in message
> hlink.net...
> > > I started collecting licence plate numbers and noting details of
> > > what drivers actually did a while ago, so that when I got 'enough'
> > > I could put them all on a website somewhere with a nice message
> > > to them all...
> >
> > Nor is it fair. Without casting judgement on the veracity of your
> > complaints, the fact is readers will only have your side of the story
> > and your word on the matter. You can see that the potential for
> someone
> > being malicious is great; who determines (and how) whether the
> > accusation of bad behaviour on another is fair or not?
>
> But don't a lot of websites only have the author's side of the story?
> Don't a lot of books?

The difference is that these have identifiable ownership, that is, book
authors are not anonymous, website authors can be traced, and the
accusations there are attributable and verifiable to an extent.
Anonymous contributions of complaints can't be checked for veracity.

> Obviously I can see what you are saying and I agree with you to
> a certain degree - that's half the reason I've not made the site -
> but isn't it actually within my rights to do so?

Only if you do it in a verifiable way, I would think. Otherwise, your
right to swing your arms ends at the tip of someone else's nose.

> It's not actually identifying the driver and it seems like a nice way
> to vent... I'll wait and see what happens :-)

I think license plates can identify drivers. If not by name, then
certainly by sight; the biggest problem is that the accused wouldn't be
able to defend him/herself easily. The Internet can be a powerful
weapon, but it needs to be handled responsibly.

> I still don't see why rocket-propelled grenades are not fitted as
> standard equipment to bikes...is is manufacturing costs? What?

Too much collateral damage.

[Jose Rizal]

Trevor S:

> Jose Rizal > wrote in news:eVf3b.19206$8i2.4565
> @newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > The biggest problem with this idea is how to ensure that it is not
> > abused. How will you decide whether someone's complaint of a driver is
> > true or not? How will you determine whether someone has exaggerated a
> > situation, or unfairly blames someone else for his/her own mistake?
> >
> > Not easily nor practically achievable, that's for sure.
>
> Coincidentally I have been thinking about this very topic for quite some
> time :) Your point is the main problem I forsaw (aside from any legal
> ramification). The only way I saw past it was to only allow people you
> know and trust to send you the information for you to post on the site. By
> myslef I can probably get 3 - 5 a day, ranging from the stupid to the
> downright dangerous, with 5 "trusted" friends, that's whole lota number
> plates in a short time.

Having the contributors to such a website truly identified will
discourage maliciousness to a great extent. However, it's still one's
word against another, except that the other doesn't have an easy way to
refute the accusation unless it's allowed for on the site. It can then
become an argument forum; will its function exist when that happens?

[Jose Rizal]

Trevor S:

> Jose Rizal > wrote in news:eVf3b.19206$8i2.4565
> @newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > The biggest problem with this idea is how to ensure that it is not
> > abused. How will you decide whether someone's complaint of a driver is
> > true or not? How will you determine whether someone has exaggerated a
> > situation, or unfairly blames someone else for his/her own mistake?
> >
> > Not easily nor practically achievable, that's for sure.
>
> Coincidentally I have been thinking about this very topic for quite some
> time :) Your point is the main problem I forsaw (aside from any legal
> ramification). The only way I saw past it was to only allow people you
> know and trust to send you the information for you to post on the site. By
> myslef I can probably get 3 - 5 a day, ranging from the stupid to the
> downright dangerous, with 5 "trusted" friends, that's whole lota number
> plates in a short time.

Having the contributors to such a website truly identified will
discourage maliciousness to a great extent. However, it's still one's
word against another, except that the other doesn't have an easy way to
refute the accusation unless it's allowed for on the site. It can then
become an argument forum; will its function exist when that happens?

[Zig]

Ray

If you have no satisfaction at your cop shop contact the bicycle cops directly.
They will always help out a fellow rider and they take these reports seriously.
Russell Lindsay
Melbourne Bicycle Patrol
Ph.9247 5517

Rgds
Zig

Ray Peace wrote:

> Greetings,
> Have survived yet another encounter with a motorised
> psycho yesterday afternoon, I will out this one on the net and see what
> happens.
> The turd in question was the driver of DJY-997, the male (early 20s, P
> for Pillock Plates, naturally) driver of a white 1988 Honda Civic sedan
> who deliberately swerved so that his ****wit passenger could try to pull
> me off. The police (Camberwell), needless to say, don't give a ****, the
> usual Your Word Against His, except I'm the one that gets killed.
> I don't recommend kicking his panels in if you happen to see him, but I
> certainly felt like it, perhaps advise him politely that his moronic
> motoring is now public domain.
> Regards,
> Ray
>

[Zig]

Ray

If you have no satisfaction at your cop shop contact the bicycle cops directly.
They will always help out a fellow rider and they take these reports seriously.
Russell Lindsay
Melbourne Bicycle Patrol
Ph.9247 5517

Rgds
Zig

Ray Peace wrote:

> Greetings,
> Have survived yet another encounter with a motorised
> psycho yesterday afternoon, I will out this one on the net and see what
> happens.
> The turd in question was the driver of DJY-997, the male (early 20s, P
> for Pillock Plates, naturally) driver of a white 1988 Honda Civic sedan
> who deliberately swerved so that his ****wit passenger could try to pull
> me off. The police (Camberwell), needless to say, don't give a ****, the
> usual Your Word Against His, except I'm the one that gets killed.
> I don't recommend kicking his panels in if you happen to see him, but I
> certainly felt like it, perhaps advise him politely that his moronic
> motoring is now public domain.
> Regards,
> Ray
>

[Luther Blissett]

I think the only way you can do something like what you are proposing is
publish a list of drivers who have been *convicted* in a court of law.
We all know that this is a very small percentage of offenders, but
people also have a right to a fair trial before being smeared.
There is a website (I think crimenet.com or similar) that allows fee
paying subscribers to check if an individual is on the public record for
being convicted of an offence (such as larceny etc).

- Luther
(v. tired, sorry for poor grammar)

[Luther Blissett]

I think the only way you can do something like what you are proposing is
publish a list of drivers who have been *convicted* in a court of law.
We all know that this is a very small percentage of offenders, but
people also have a right to a fair trial before being smeared.
There is a website (I think crimenet.com or similar) that allows fee
paying subscribers to check if an individual is on the public record for
being convicted of an offence (such as larceny etc).

- Luther
(v. tired, sorry for poor grammar)

[DRS]

Stuart Verrier > wrote in message


[...]

> One ettiquette issue I have always struggled to come to grips with is
> how people perceive riders "carefully" running red lights. I know I
> meander through them down on beach street in the early morning but by
> doing that I question the right I have to blast drivers when they do
> the wrong thing. There seems to be a split amoungst the riding
> community as to what is accepted and what isn't. Last weekend our
> group of 45 was split into two or three groups due to the various
> attitudes amoungst us and it never regained its momentum.
>
> Any thoughts?

It's illegal, full stop. Etiquette doesn't come into it.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

[DRS]

Stuart Verrier > wrote in message


[...]

> One ettiquette issue I have always struggled to come to grips with is
> how people perceive riders "carefully" running red lights. I know I
> meander through them down on beach street in the early morning but by
> doing that I question the right I have to blast drivers when they do
> the wrong thing. There seems to be a split amoungst the riding
> community as to what is accepted and what isn't. Last weekend our
> group of 45 was split into two or three groups due to the various
> attitudes amoungst us and it never regained its momentum.
>
> Any thoughts?

It's illegal, full stop. Etiquette doesn't come into it.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

[Paul J]

Once again. The real solution to our problems is a police state on the
roads. Then we wouldn't need to personally attack people for their
stupidity. Fear of being caught (again and again and again and......)
would surely wake them up.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[Paul J]

Once again. The real solution to our problems is a police state on the
roads. Then we wouldn't need to personally attack people for their
stupidity. Fear of being caught (again and again and again and......)
would surely wake them up.



--
>--------------------------<
Posted via cyclingforums.com
http://www.cyclingforums.com

[hippy]

"Luther Blissett" > wrote in message
...
> > I'm still a bit paranoid about the legality of it though...hmm...
> > "hosted internationally officer.. i can't do a thing about it"
>
> Under Australian defamation laws if somebody in Australia can read
> something defamatory on the internet that you have posted then the
> defamed party can sue you, regardless of where it is hosted. The
recent
> defo case with Joe Gutnick brought this into the light.

Scratch that russian hosting then...doh! ;-)

hippy

[hippy]

"Luther Blissett" > wrote in message
...
> > I'm still a bit paranoid about the legality of it though...hmm...
> > "hosted internationally officer.. i can't do a thing about it"
>
> Under Australian defamation laws if somebody in Australia can read
> something defamatory on the internet that you have posted then the
> defamed party can sue you, regardless of where it is hosted. The
recent
> defo case with Joe Gutnick brought this into the light.

Scratch that russian hosting then...doh! ;-)

hippy

[hippy]

"Jose Rizal" > wrote in message
link.net...
> > But don't a lot of websites only have the author's side of the
story?
> > Don't a lot of books?
>
> The difference is that these have identifiable ownership, that is,
book
> authors are not anonymous, website authors can be traced, and the
> accusations there are attributable and verifiable to an extent.
> Anonymous contributions of complaints can't be checked for veracity.

So what if each one of us set up a website - then it's identifiable.

What about those people that host things bagging a company?
i.e. www.ihatemcdonalds.com (I made this up, btw)?
They don't seem to be stopped.. if a lawyer writes to them and
insists that their site be taken down, then it can simply be taken
off the 'net (or moved) with nothing done to the creators unless
it remains online.

> > Obviously I can see what you are saying and I agree with you to
> > a certain degree - that's half the reason I've not made the site -
> > but isn't it actually within my rights to do so?
>
> Only if you do it in a verifiable way, I would think. Otherwise, your
> right to swing your arms ends at the tip of someone else's nose.

So you can defame someone legally if they are there with
you to defend themselves?? I thought it was defamation regardless?

If people can post rego numbers here saying "nearly ran me over"
etc. then what's stopping them posting these details to another
forum, say www.idiotdrivernearlyfugginkilledme.com ??
There has to be massive amounts of defamation happening on
the 'net ALL the time.. why would this be any different?
People bag this bike company and that bike company...
People insult each other... etc.
I just don't see why this would be different - the driver of a
noted vehicle could get on the site and post a reply. This
means they can defend themselves - so does the site become
viable then?

> I think license plates can identify drivers. If not by name, then
> certainly by sight; the biggest problem is that the accused wouldn't
be

A driver can simply claim they weren't driving. It's not a direct
"Joe Bloggs, 27 Evergreen Terrace". Someone would have to
do a fair amount of digging to even produce some 'possible' drivers.

> able to defend him/herself easily. The Internet can be a powerful
> weapon, but it needs to be handled responsibly.

just like http://www.****edcompany.com ?
This one above is real, btw... check it this example post:

<quote>
Rumor has it around 180 E*Trade mortgage workers were
told today to pack their **** and trek to a nearby hotel, where
they were summarily dismissed.
When: 8/28/2003
<unquote>

They posted a "rumour" about a company. You can also search it
for names of individuals.

> > I still don't see why rocket-propelled grenades are not fitted as
> > standard equipment to bikes...is is manufacturing costs? What?
>
> Too much collateral damage.

With some refinements - shaped charges, armour piercing, etc,
surely they'd be useful? ;-)

hippy

[hippy]

"Jose Rizal" > wrote in message
link.net...
> > But don't a lot of websites only have the author's side of the
story?
> > Don't a lot of books?
>
> The difference is that these have identifiable ownership, that is,
book
> authors are not anonymous, website authors can be traced, and the
> accusations there are attributable and verifiable to an extent.
> Anonymous contributions of complaints can't be checked for veracity.

So what if each one of us set up a website - then it's identifiable.

What about those people that host things bagging a company?
i.e. www.ihatemcdonalds.com (I made this up, btw)?
They don't seem to be stopped.. if a lawyer writes to them and
insists that their site be taken down, then it can simply be taken
off the 'net (or moved) with nothing done to the creators unless
it remains online.

> > Obviously I can see what you are saying and I agree with you to
> > a certain degree - that's half the reason I've not made the site -
> > but isn't it actually within my rights to do so?
>
> Only if you do it in a verifiable way, I would think. Otherwise, your
> right to swing your arms ends at the tip of someone else's nose.

So you can defame someone legally if they are there with
you to defend themselves?? I thought it was defamation regardless?

If people can post rego numbers here saying "nearly ran me over"
etc. then what's stopping them posting these details to another
forum, say www.idiotdrivernearlyfugginkilledme.com ??
There has to be massive amounts of defamation happening on
the 'net ALL the time.. why would this be any different?
People bag this bike company and that bike company...
People insult each other... etc.
I just don't see why this would be different - the driver of a
noted vehicle could get on the site and post a reply. This
means they can defend themselves - so does the site become
viable then?

> I think license plates can identify drivers. If not by name, then
> certainly by sight; the biggest problem is that the accused wouldn't
be

A driver can simply claim they weren't driving. It's not a direct
"Joe Bloggs, 27 Evergreen Terrace". Someone would have to
do a fair amount of digging to even produce some 'possible' drivers.

> able to defend him/herself easily. The Internet can be a powerful
> weapon, but it needs to be handled responsibly.

just like http://www.****edcompany.com ?
This one above is real, btw... check it this example post:

<quote>
Rumor has it around 180 E*Trade mortgage workers were
told today to pack their **** and trek to a nearby hotel, where
they were summarily dismissed.
When: 8/28/2003
<unquote>

They posted a "rumour" about a company. You can also search it
for names of individuals.

> > I still don't see why rocket-propelled grenades are not fitted as
> > standard equipment to bikes...is is manufacturing costs? What?
>
> Too much collateral damage.

With some refinements - shaped charges, armour piercing, etc,
surely they'd be useful? ;-)

hippy

[Jose Rizal]

hippy:

> What about those people that host things bagging a company?
> i.e. www.ihatemcdonalds.com (I made this up, btw)?
> They don't seem to be stopped..

"Seem" is the operative word. There's also a difference between someone
expressing an opinion, and someone maliciously slandering a company or
individual.

> if a lawyer writes to them and
> insists that their site be taken down, then it can simply be taken
> off the 'net (or moved) with nothing done to the creators unless
> it remains online.

True, unless the lawyer seeks damages or such.

> So you can defame someone legally if they are there with
> you to defend themselves?? I thought it was defamation regardless?

Never legally. You have a right to accuse someone of evildoing, and
hopefully you'll have evidence for this, but defamation is something
different. Defamation is "the wrong of maliciously injuring the good
name of another" (dictionary term). I don't think this latter is a
right of anyone, and it doesn't impinge on the defamed's right to sue
you.

By using the term defamation up front, you're admitting that you're
engaging in slander, or wrongly attacking the reputation of another. An
accusation backed up by evidence, however, can be proven to not be
defamation.

> If people can post rego numbers here saying "nearly ran me over"
> etc. then what's stopping them posting these details to another
> forum, say www.idiotdrivernearlyfugginkilledme.com ??
> There has to be massive amounts of defamation happening on
> the 'net ALL the time.. why would this be any different?
> People bag this bike company and that bike company...
> People insult each other... etc.
> I just don't see why this would be different - the driver of a
> noted vehicle could get on the site and post a reply. This
> means they can defend themselves - so does the site become
> viable then?

Just because some of people run red lights, doesn't mean you're right in
doing so yourself. This kind of argument won't wash well in court.

Since I'm no lawyer, all of these are my speculations. If you're really
interested in putting up such a site, you might do well to consult
someone versed in such matters of the law.

[Jose Rizal]

hippy:

> What about those people that host things bagging a company?
> i.e. www.ihatemcdonalds.com (I made this up, btw)?
> They don't seem to be stopped..

"Seem" is the operative word. There's also a difference between someone
expressing an opinion, and someone maliciously slandering a company or
individual.

> if a lawyer writes to them and
> insists that their site be taken down, then it can simply be taken
> off the 'net (or moved) with nothing done to the creators unless
> it remains online.

True, unless the lawyer seeks damages or such.

> So you can defame someone legally if they are there with
> you to defend themselves?? I thought it was defamation regardless?

Never legally. You have a right to accuse someone of evildoing, and
hopefully you'll have evidence for this, but defamation is something
different. Defamation is "the wrong of maliciously injuring the good
name of another" (dictionary term). I don't think this latter is a
right of anyone, and it doesn't impinge on the defamed's right to sue
you.

By using the term defamation up front, you're admitting that you're
engaging in slander, or wrongly attacking the reputation of another. An
accusation backed up by evidence, however, can be proven to not be
defamation.

> If people can post rego numbers here saying "nearly ran me over"
> etc. then what's stopping them posting these details to another
> forum, say www.idiotdrivernearlyfugginkilledme.com ??
> There has to be massive amounts of defamation happening on
> the 'net ALL the time.. why would this be any different?
> People bag this bike company and that bike company...
> People insult each other... etc.
> I just don't see why this would be different - the driver of a
> noted vehicle could get on the site and post a reply. This
> means they can defend themselves - so does the site become
> viable then?

Just because some of people run red lights, doesn't mean you're right in
doing so yourself. This kind of argument won't wash well in court.

Since I'm no lawyer, all of these are my speculations. If you're really
interested in putting up such a site, you might do well to consult
someone versed in such matters of the law.

[Trevor S]

Jose Rizal > wrote in
link.net:

<snip>

>
> Having the contributors to such a website truly identified will
> discourage maliciousness to a great extent. However, it's still one's
> word against another,

Agreed, the disclaimer is, the definition of what is considered notable
in this instance lies solely with the publisher ;)

> except that the other doesn't have an easy way
> to refute the accusation unless it's allowed for on the site. It can
> then become an argument forum;

Certainly the right of rebuttal would be allowed but probably would not
be published unless it was a genuine case of error.

"Yes. I didn't give way and nearly ran you over but my Mum was feeling
poorly " is not a suitable defence. Actually thinking about it, nothing
is a suitable "defence" as there is no claim made for vindication or of
determining right from wrong, it is simply a documentation of an
incident, with all the discrimination inherent in that.

i.e. while cycling between X and Y, vehicle XYZ with license plate XYZ
failed to Stop and passed through the intersection, forcing me to mount
the kerb to avoid an accident"

is no different from "Vehicle XYZ with license XYZ was seen pulling up at
a stop sign, giving way correctly and the proceeding on"

It's only in Court where there is redress for punitive damages, be they
incarceration or monetary, where this becomes an issue IMO.

--
Trevor S


"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
-Albert Einstein

[Trevor S]

Jose Rizal > wrote in
link.net:

<snip>

>
> Having the contributors to such a website truly identified will
> discourage maliciousness to a great extent. However, it's still one's
> word against another,

Agreed, the disclaimer is, the definition of what is considered notable
in this instance lies solely with the publisher ;)

> except that the other doesn't have an easy way
> to refute the accusation unless it's allowed for on the site. It can
> then become an argument forum;

Certainly the right of rebuttal would be allowed but probably would not
be published unless it was a genuine case of error.

"Yes. I didn't give way and nearly ran you over but my Mum was feeling
poorly " is not a suitable defence. Actually thinking about it, nothing
is a suitable "defence" as there is no claim made for vindication or of
determining right from wrong, it is simply a documentation of an
incident, with all the discrimination inherent in that.

i.e. while cycling between X and Y, vehicle XYZ with license plate XYZ
failed to Stop and passed through the intersection, forcing me to mount
the kerb to avoid an accident"

is no different from "Vehicle XYZ with license XYZ was seen pulling up at
a stop sign, giving way correctly and the proceeding on"

It's only in Court where there is redress for punitive damages, be they
incarceration or monetary, where this becomes an issue IMO.

--
Trevor S


"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
-Albert Einstein

[hippy]

"Jose Rizal" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> > What about those people that host things bagging a company?
> > i.e. www.ihatemcdonalds.com (I made this up, btw)?
> > They don't seem to be stopped..
>
> "Seem" is the operative word. There's also a difference between
someone
> expressing an opinion, and someone maliciously slandering a company or
> individual.

What if my opinion is that person X just tried to run me over?

> > insists that their site be taken down, then it can simply be taken
> > off the 'net (or moved) with nothing done to the creators unless
> > it remains online.
>
> True, unless the lawyer seeks damages or such.

How often does this happen though, I wonder?

> Never legally. You have a right to accuse someone of evildoing, and
> hopefully you'll have evidence for this, but defamation is something
> different. Defamation is "the wrong of maliciously injuring the good
> name of another" (dictionary term). I don't think this latter is a
> right of anyone, and it doesn't impinge on the defamed's right to sue
> you.

Well if I've got the right to accuse someone of evildoing - why
can't this be in the form of a paragraph or two on a website?

If the information on this website just listed the events that took
place rather than "some f&% in car XXX-123 can't drive for
s&%# and nearly killed me!" that's not maliciously injuring the
good name of someone.
It is just explaining an event that occured in my life and what
I saw - surely there is nothing wrong with that?
Lots of people have blogs online that would mention "some
pri^& in a blue toyota camry backed over my gnome this
morning!!" and I've not heard of action taken against blog
writers. Of course that doesn't mean it's never happened
but I still don't see how it could be illegal to write about
something that I experienced.

> By using the term defamation up front, you're admitting that you're
> engaging in slander, or wrongly attacking the reputation of another.
An
> accusation backed up by evidence, however, can be proven to not be
> defamation.

Okay I'm not up to scratch on the legal terms but why couldn't I
say "car ABC-123 cut me off after performing an illegal u-turn on
suchandsuch rd."?
The evidence would be my vision. Isn't that why they get "witnesses"
into court rooms?

> > There has to be massive amounts of defamation happening on
> > the 'net ALL the time.. why would this be any different?
> > People bag this bike company and that bike company...
> > People insult each other... etc.
>
> Just because some of people run red lights, doesn't mean you're right
in
> doing so yourself. This kind of argument won't wash well in court.

That's fine, I'm still not convinced though that I'd be legally " in the
wrong" if I typed a story of my biking life, including details of cars
that broke the law. It's not attacking someone. It's not without
evidence. The drivers could retort. Where is the illegality?

> Since I'm no lawyer, all of these are my speculations. If you're
really
> interested in putting up such a site, you might do well to consult
> someone versed in such matters of the law.

Maybe I sounded I little too enthusiastic? I'm not "really interested"
but I always wondered about the possibility of this type of site.
I collect the details of idiotic drivers just in case they do it again
and the rego rings a bell or I see them and can approach them
explaining what they did wrong, etc.

hippy
Proprietor: www.fsckheaddrivers.com ;-)

[hippy]

"Jose Rizal" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> > What about those people that host things bagging a company?
> > i.e. www.ihatemcdonalds.com (I made this up, btw)?
> > They don't seem to be stopped..
>
> "Seem" is the operative word. There's also a difference between
someone
> expressing an opinion, and someone maliciously slandering a company or
> individual.

What if my opinion is that person X just tried to run me over?

> > insists that their site be taken down, then it can simply be taken
> > off the 'net (or moved) with nothing done to the creators unless
> > it remains online.
>
> True, unless the lawyer seeks damages or such.

How often does this happen though, I wonder?

> Never legally. You have a right to accuse someone of evildoing, and
> hopefully you'll have evidence for this, but defamation is something
> different. Defamation is "the wrong of maliciously injuring the good
> name of another" (dictionary term). I don't think this latter is a
> right of anyone, and it doesn't impinge on the defamed's right to sue
> you.

Well if I've got the right to accuse someone of evildoing - why
can't this be in the form of a paragraph or two on a website?

If the information on this website just listed the events that took
place rather than "some f&% in car XXX-123 can't drive for
s&%# and nearly killed me!" that's not maliciously injuring the
good name of someone.
It is just explaining an event that occured in my life and what
I saw - surely there is nothing wrong with that?
Lots of people have blogs online that would mention "some
pri^& in a blue toyota camry backed over my gnome this
morning!!" and I've not heard of action taken against blog
writers. Of course that doesn't mean it's never happened
but I still don't see how it could be illegal to write about
something that I experienced.

> By using the term defamation up front, you're admitting that you're
> engaging in slander, or wrongly attacking the reputation of another.
An
> accusation backed up by evidence, however, can be proven to not be
> defamation.

Okay I'm not up to scratch on the legal terms but why couldn't I
say "car ABC-123 cut me off after performing an illegal u-turn on
suchandsuch rd."?
The evidence would be my vision. Isn't that why they get "witnesses"
into court rooms?

> > There has to be massive amounts of defamation happening on
> > the 'net ALL the time.. why would this be any different?
> > People bag this bike company and that bike company...
> > People insult each other... etc.
>
> Just because some of people run red lights, doesn't mean you're right
in
> doing so yourself. This kind of argument won't wash well in court.

That's fine, I'm still not convinced though that I'd be legally " in the
wrong" if I typed a story of my biking life, including details of cars
that broke the law. It's not attacking someone. It's not without
evidence. The drivers could retort. Where is the illegality?

> Since I'm no lawyer, all of these are my speculations. If you're
really
> interested in putting up such a site, you might do well to consult
> someone versed in such matters of the law.

Maybe I sounded I little too enthusiastic? I'm not "really interested"
but I always wondered about the possibility of this type of site.
I collect the details of idiotic drivers just in case they do it again
and the rego rings a bell or I see them and can approach them
explaining what they did wrong, etc.

hippy
Proprietor: www.fsckheaddrivers.com ;-)

[Jose Rizal]

hippy:

> "Jose Rizal" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > "Seem" is the operative word. There's also a difference between
> someone
> > expressing an opinion, and someone maliciously slandering a company or
> > individual.
>
> What if my opinion is that person X just tried to run me over?

I think it might be prudent to put yourself in the other person's shoes
to get a feel for what it would be like. If a motorist puts up a
website, and published details of your bike, equipment, and times you
ride through a commuting route, along with all sorts of accusations eg
"be aware of cyclist on blue Giant NRS, red helmet, green messenger bag,
rides along Smith St heading south between 5-5:30pm weekdays, runs
through red lights, scares little children, abuses the elderly, flashes
shoppers, abducts pets, and oppresses several African countries...". If
your friends recognise you from this description and you feel you're
being harshly judged by this someone whom you don't even know, how would
you like to be able to resolve the situation?

> > Never legally. You have a right to accuse someone of evildoing, and
> > hopefully you'll have evidence for this, but defamation is something
> > different. Defamation is "the wrong of maliciously injuring the good
> > name of another" (dictionary term). I don't think this latter is a
> > right of anyone, and it doesn't impinge on the defamed's right to sue
> > you.
>
> Well if I've got the right to accuse someone of evildoing - why
> can't this be in the form of a paragraph or two on a website?

I think you'll run into trouble once you start to specifically identify
people.

> If the information on this website just listed the events that took
> place rather than "some f&% in car XXX-123 can't drive for
> s&%# and nearly killed me!" that's not maliciously injuring the
> good name of someone.

A car license plate is enough information to identify someone.
Neighbours, friends, and relatives may readily recognise the plate
number. That's when people will start to take issue with you, I'm sure.

> It is just explaining an event that occured in my life and what
> I saw - surely there is nothing wrong with that?

That's different to what you were suggesting though, of a database of
car plates of people who have done you wrong.

> Lots of people have blogs online that would mention "some
> pri^& in a blue toyota camry backed over my gnome this
> morning!!" and I've not heard of action taken against blog
> writers. Of course that doesn't mean it's never happened
> but I still don't see how it could be illegal to write about
> something that I experienced.

That's because each driver of blue Toyota Camrys don't know if it's them
who's being maligned. A "blue Toyota Camry" is general enough of a
description of a car as to be almost anonymous. Car license plates are
much more specific.

> > By using the term defamation up front, you're admitting that you're
> > engaging in slander, or wrongly attacking the reputation of another.
> An
> > accusation backed up by evidence, however, can be proven to not be
> > defamation.
>
> Okay I'm not up to scratch on the legal terms but why couldn't I
> say "car ABC-123 cut me off after performing an illegal u-turn on
> suchandsuch rd."? The evidence would be my vision. Isn't that why they get "witnesses"
> into court rooms?

That's still just your word against the other person's, and who will be
the mediator who will determine whether you are telling the truth or
not? Therefore, who is to prove you're not just slandering someone
baselessly? Following this, you're then open to a defamation suit.

> > > There has to be massive amounts of defamation happening on
> > > the 'net ALL the time.. why would this be any different?
> > > People bag this bike company and that bike company...
> > > People insult each other... etc.
> >
> > Just because some of people run red lights, doesn't mean you're right
> in
> > doing so yourself. This kind of argument won't wash well in court.
>
> That's fine, I'm still not convinced though that I'd be legally " in the
> wrong" if I typed a story of my biking life, including details of cars
> that broke the law. It's not attacking someone. It's not without
> evidence. The drivers could retort. Where is the illegality?

Your contention that they broke the law, and the implication that these
people are wrongdoers, all backed up only by your word can constitute a
basis for a defamation claim against you.

[Jose Rizal]

hippy:

> "Jose Rizal" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
> > "Seem" is the operative word. There's also a difference between
> someone
> > expressing an opinion, and someone maliciously slandering a company or
> > individual.
>
> What if my opinion is that person X just tried to run me over?

I think it might be prudent to put yourself in the other person's shoes
to get a feel for what it would be like. If a motorist puts up a
website, and published details of your bike, equipment, and times you
ride through a commuting route, along with all sorts of accusations eg
"be aware of cyclist on blue Giant NRS, red helmet, green messenger bag,
rides along Smith St heading south between 5-5:30pm weekdays, runs
through red lights, scares little children, abuses the elderly, flashes
shoppers, abducts pets, and oppresses several African countries...". If
your friends recognise you from this description and you feel you're
being harshly judged by this someone whom you don't even know, how would
you like to be able to resolve the situation?

> > Never legally. You have a right to accuse someone of evildoing, and
> > hopefully you'll have evidence for this, but defamation is something
> > different. Defamation is "the wrong of maliciously injuring the good
> > name of another" (dictionary term). I don't think this latter is a
> > right of anyone, and it doesn't impinge on the defamed's right to sue
> > you.
>
> Well if I've got the right to accuse someone of evildoing - why
> can't this be in the form of a paragraph or two on a website?

I think you'll run into trouble once you start to specifically identify
people.

> If the information on this website just listed the events that took
> place rather than "some f&% in car XXX-123 can't drive for
> s&%# and nearly killed me!" that's not maliciously injuring the
> good name of someone.

A car license plate is enough information to identify someone.
Neighbours, friends, and relatives may readily recognise the plate
number. That's when people will start to take issue with you, I'm sure.

> It is just explaining an event that occured in my life and what
> I saw - surely there is nothing wrong with that?

That's different to what you were suggesting though, of a database of
car plates of people who have done you wrong.

> Lots of people have blogs online that would mention "some
> pri^& in a blue toyota camry backed over my gnome this
> morning!!" and I've not heard of action taken against blog
> writers. Of course that doesn't mean it's never happened
> but I still don't see how it could be illegal to write about
> something that I experienced.

That's because each driver of blue Toyota Camrys don't know if it's them
who's being maligned. A "blue Toyota Camry" is general enough of a
description of a car as to be almost anonymous. Car license plates are
much more specific.

> > By using the term defamation up front, you're admitting that you're
> > engaging in slander, or wrongly attacking the reputation of another.
> An
> > accusation backed up by evidence, however, can be proven to not be
> > defamation.
>
> Okay I'm not up to scratch on the legal terms but why couldn't I
> say "car ABC-123 cut me off after performing an illegal u-turn on
> suchandsuch rd."? The evidence would be my vision. Isn't that why they get "witnesses"
> into court rooms?

That's still just your word against the other person's, and who will be
the mediator who will determine whether you are telling the truth or
not? Therefore, who is to prove you're not just slandering someone
baselessly? Following this, you're then open to a defamation suit.

> > > There has to be massive amounts of defamation happening on
> > > the 'net ALL the time.. why would this be any different?
> > > People bag this bike company and that bike company...
> > > People insult each other... etc.
> >
> > Just because some of people run red lights, doesn't mean you're right
> in
> > doing so yourself. This kind of argument won't wash well in court.
>
> That's fine, I'm still not convinced though that I'd be legally " in the
> wrong" if I typed a story of my biking life, including details of cars
> that broke the law. It's not attacking someone. It's not without
> evidence. The drivers could retort. Where is the illegality?

Your contention that they broke the law, and the implication that these
people are wrongdoers, all backed up only by your word can constitute a
basis for a defamation claim against you.

[Trevor S]

Jose Rizal > wrote in
hlink.net:

<snip>

> That's open to interpretation;

Of course it is.

> if the driver's opinion is that you
> were the one who failed to stop

Then they should set up a web site and note that:

> and your swerving on the kerb to avoid
> a collision is all your fault, therefore exonerating him/herself of
> any wrongdoing, why would your account be more credible than his,

You seem to be wanting to assign credibility at a whim. Neither is
credible, credability (for what it is worth) needs to be earned in this
instance.

> in
> the eyes of your website's readers? In the absence of a legal
> moderator to declare your account as the accurate one in the absolute
> sense, you can be accused of defamation.

You don't need a legal moderator to determine accuracy (except under the
law, which has nothing to do with what we are discussing), e.g. something
can be legally accurate but not representative of what happened. How can
they possibly determine the "accuracy" of an incident ? Even an
independent witness can't determine accuracy, all they can do is recount
to the best of their ability what they witnessed. The best you can say
is that you accurately recounted your interpretation of what you
witnessed.

> The difference is that this latter is complimentary to the driver,
> while the former is not.

Says you, _you_ have made a moral judgement.... what I wrote was amoral.

> It's to court where you can be taken if people are identified by their
> license plates and accused of wrongdoing.

That is misleading.

--
Trevor S


"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
-Albert Einstein

[Trevor S]

Jose Rizal > wrote in
hlink.net:

<snip>

> That's open to interpretation;

Of course it is.

> if the driver's opinion is that you
> were the one who failed to stop

Then they should set up a web site and note that:

> and your swerving on the kerb to avoid
> a collision is all your fault, therefore exonerating him/herself of
> any wrongdoing, why would your account be more credible than his,

You seem to be wanting to assign credibility at a whim. Neither is
credible, credability (for what it is worth) needs to be earned in this
instance.

> in
> the eyes of your website's readers? In the absence of a legal
> moderator to declare your account as the accurate one in the absolute
> sense, you can be accused of defamation.

You don't need a legal moderator to determine accuracy (except under the
law, which has nothing to do with what we are discussing), e.g. something
can be legally accurate but not representative of what happened. How can
they possibly determine the "accuracy" of an incident ? Even an
independent witness can't determine accuracy, all they can do is recount
to the best of their ability what they witnessed. The best you can say
is that you accurately recounted your interpretation of what you
witnessed.

> The difference is that this latter is complimentary to the driver,
> while the former is not.

Says you, _you_ have made a moral judgement.... what I wrote was amoral.

> It's to court where you can be taken if people are identified by their
> license plates and accused of wrongdoing.

That is misleading.

--
Trevor S


"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
-Albert Einstein

[Jose Rizal]

Trevor S:

> Jose Rizal > wrote in
> hlink.net:
>
> > and your swerving on the kerb to avoid
> > a collision is all your fault, therefore exonerating him/herself of
> > any wrongdoing, why would your account be more credible than his,
>
> You seem to be wanting to assign credibility at a whim.

No, and that's juts the point: when you put up a website and accuse
people, you are assigning credibility to yourself. In the absolute
picture, that is on a whim because you're asking people to take your
word for it.

> Neither is
> credible, credability (for what it is worth) needs to be earned in this
> instance.

And how do you do that? Certainly not on a personal website which only
relies on your word and a presumption of honesty on your part,
regardless of whether your account is accurate or not. Your accused can
always have an opposite point of view which is just as credible as yours
in the eyes of others, until either account is proven to be less
accurate than the other. This needs to be done in the interests of
fairness, and to minimise the potential for abuse of such a website.
Who will do that?

> You don't need a legal moderator to determine accuracy (except under the
> law, which has nothing to do with what we are discussing), e.g. something
> can be legally accurate but not representative of what happened.

But this is where it can potentially be headed, in the law courts, if
someone takes issue with your account and accusations. This is a
significant issue which you need to look at in putting up a website of
wrongdoers.

> How can
> they possibly determine the "accuracy" of an incident ? Even an
> independent witness can't determine accuracy, all they can do is recount
> to the best of their ability what they witnessed. The best you can say
> is that you accurately recounted your interpretation of what you
> witnessed.

You'll find then that your account is subject to scrutiny and question,
something which is not obvious on a personal website which only contains
your version of events. This is what can lead to claims of defamation
against you.

> > The difference is that this latter is complimentary to the driver,
> > while the former is not.
>
> Says you, _you_ have made a moral judgement.... what I wrote was amoral.

If you look back on what you have written, one was an accusation of
wrongdoing, and the other example was an account of following the law.
It's obvious that when placed side by side, the latter is complimentary.

> > It's to court where you can be taken if people are identified by their
> > license plates and accused of wrongdoing.
>
> That is misleading.

If I have a website which accuses you of evil deeds, with your license
plate number and car description, I'm sure you can sue me for
defamation. Where is the misleading bit there? Whether a court will
take it seriously enough obviously depends on the severity of the
accusations and perceived damage to you, but these are beside the main
point.

[Jose Rizal]

Trevor S:

> Jose Rizal > wrote in
> hlink.net:
>
> > and your swerving on the kerb to avoid
> > a collision is all your fault, therefore exonerating him/herself of
> > any wrongdoing, why would your account be more credible than his,
>
> You seem to be wanting to assign credibility at a whim.

No, and that's juts the point: when you put up a website and accuse
people, you are assigning credibility to yourself. In the absolute
picture, that is on a whim because you're asking people to take your
word for it.

> Neither is
> credible, credability (for what it is worth) needs to be earned in this
> instance.

And how do you do that? Certainly not on a personal website which only
relies on your word and a presumption of honesty on your part,
regardless of whether your account is accurate or not. Your accused can
always have an opposite point of view which is just as credible as yours
in the eyes of others, until either account is proven to be less
accurate than the other. This needs to be done in the interests of
fairness, and to minimise the potential for abuse of such a website.
Who will do that?

> You don't need a legal moderator to determine accuracy (except under the
> law, which has nothing to do with what we are discussing), e.g. something
> can be legally accurate but not representative of what happened.

But this is where it can potentially be headed, in the law courts, if
someone takes issue with your account and accusations. This is a
significant issue which you need to look at in putting up a website of
wrongdoers.

> How can
> they possibly determine the "accuracy" of an incident ? Even an
> independent witness can't determine accuracy, all they can do is recount
> to the best of their ability what they witnessed. The best you can say
> is that you accurately recounted your interpretation of what you
> witnessed.

You'll find then that your account is subject to scrutiny and question,
something which is not obvious on a personal website which only contains
your version of events. This is what can lead to claims of defamation
against you.

> > The difference is that this latter is complimentary to the driver,
> > while the former is not.
>
> Says you, _you_ have made a moral judgement.... what I wrote was amoral.

If you look back on what you have written, one was an accusation of
wrongdoing, and the other example was an account of following the law.
It's obvious that when placed side by side, the latter is complimentary.

> > It's to court where you can be taken if people are identified by their
> > license plates and accused of wrongdoing.
>
> That is misleading.

If I have a website which accuses you of evil deeds, with your license
plate number and car description, I'm sure you can sue me for
defamation. Where is the misleading bit there? Whether a court will
take it seriously enough obviously depends on the severity of the
accusations and perceived damage to you, but these are beside the main
point.

[Luther Blissett]

Hippy, one thing you should think about, is do you really think it will
achieve anything? At best the car drivers won't give a **** that they
have offended a cyclist, at worst it may encourage the hoon element to
get their names on the board.

I must side with Jose on this one, it starts us down the slippery slope
of having East German scenario where everyone is reporting on everyone
else. I can just imagine how many lists I could be named on.

- Luther

[Luther Blissett]

Hippy, one thing you should think about, is do you really think it will
achieve anything? At best the car drivers won't give a **** that they
have offended a cyclist, at worst it may encourage the hoon element to
get their names on the board.

I must side with Jose on this one, it starts us down the slippery slope
of having East German scenario where everyone is reporting on everyone
else. I can just imagine how many lists I could be named on.

- Luther

[hippy]

"Jose Rizal" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> I think it might be prudent to put yourself in the other person's
shoes
> to get a feel for what it would be like. If a motorist puts up a
<snip>
> your friends recognise you from this description and you feel you're
> being harshly judged by this someone whom you don't even know, how
would
> you like to be able to resolve the situation?

Post a reply on their board?

It's more clear to me now what you mean and I see the flaw with
this idea. But, if you dish it out, you've got to be able to take it
too.
Personally, however, I doubt that a motorist could upset me more
by posting my details online rather than nearly killing me. I'd rather
see my name on some bike-hate site than in an obituary column...

> I think you'll run into trouble once you start to specifically
identify
> people.

What about just providing LOTS of details about their actions
without specific identification?

> A car license plate is enough information to identify someone.
> Neighbours, friends, and relatives may readily recognise the plate
> number. That's when people will start to take issue with you, I'm
sure.

Yes. But they will take issue with the dodgy driver first and that
might be enough to prompt a change in their driving habits.
One of those free online forum packages could be used to preserve
the author's anonymity. Of course, now I can't create one because
I'd be know :-P

> > It is just explaining an event that occured in my life and what
> > I saw - surely there is nothing wrong with that?
>
> That's different to what you were suggesting though, of a database of
> car plates of people who have done you wrong.

Okay, well now I'm suggesting a database of 'life events' that happen
to contain the license plates of those involved.

> That's because each driver of blue Toyota Camrys don't know if it's
them
> who's being maligned. A "blue Toyota Camry" is general enough of a
> description of a car as to be almost anonymous. Car license plates
are
> much more specific.

So, if the description didn't contain a number plate it'd be alright?

> That's still just your word against the other person's, and who will
be
> the mediator who will determine whether you are telling the truth or
> not? Therefore, who is to prove you're not just slandering someone
> baselessly? Following this, you're then open to a defamation suit.

Well if someone takes me to court for defamation then it will be the
judge that will act as the mediator and it will again come down to
their word against mine. If it doesn't go to court then I've nothing
to worry about.

> > That's fine, I'm still not convinced though that I'd be legally " in
the
> > wrong" if I typed a story of my biking life, including details of
cars
> > that broke the law. It's not attacking someone. It's not without
> > evidence. The drivers could retort. Where is the illegality?
>
> Your contention that they broke the law, and the implication that
these
> people are wrongdoers, all backed up only by your word can constitute
a
> basis for a defamation claim against you.

So, in court, how will they decide who to prosecute? Do they bust
the driver because he/she broke the law (according to my word) or
do they bust me for defamation, even though it's just their word
against mine that this event didn't occur?

hippy
confuzzed as ever

[hippy]

"Jose Rizal" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> I think it might be prudent to put yourself in the other person's
shoes
> to get a feel for what it would be like. If a motorist puts up a
<snip>
> your friends recognise you from this description and you feel you're
> being harshly judged by this someone whom you don't even know, how
would
> you like to be able to resolve the situation?

Post a reply on their board?

It's more clear to me now what you mean and I see the flaw with
this idea. But, if you dish it out, you've got to be able to take it
too.
Personally, however, I doubt that a motorist could upset me more
by posting my details online rather than nearly killing me. I'd rather
see my name on some bike-hate site than in an obituary column...

> I think you'll run into trouble once you start to specifically
identify
> people.

What about just providing LOTS of details about their actions
without specific identification?

> A car license plate is enough information to identify someone.
> Neighbours, friends, and relatives may readily recognise the plate
> number. That's when people will start to take issue with you, I'm
sure.

Yes. But they will take issue with the dodgy driver first and that
might be enough to prompt a change in their driving habits.
One of those free online forum packages could be used to preserve
the author's anonymity. Of course, now I can't create one because
I'd be know :-P

> > It is just explaining an event that occured in my life and what
> > I saw - surely there is nothing wrong with that?
>
> That's different to what you were suggesting though, of a database of
> car plates of people who have done you wrong.

Okay, well now I'm suggesting a database of 'life events' that happen
to contain the license plates of those involved.

> That's because each driver of blue Toyota Camrys don't know if it's
them
> who's being maligned. A "blue Toyota Camry" is general enough of a
> description of a car as to be almost anonymous. Car license plates
are
> much more specific.

So, if the description didn't contain a number plate it'd be alright?

> That's still just your word against the other person's, and who will
be
> the mediator who will determine whether you are telling the truth or
> not? Therefore, who is to prove you're not just slandering someone
> baselessly? Following this, you're then open to a defamation suit.

Well if someone takes me to court for defamation then it will be the
judge that will act as the mediator and it will again come down to
their word against mine. If it doesn't go to court then I've nothing
to worry about.

> > That's fine, I'm still not convinced though that I'd be legally " in
the
> > wrong" if I typed a story of my biking life, including details of
cars
> > that broke the law. It's not attacking someone. It's not without
> > evidence. The drivers could retort. Where is the illegality?
>
> Your contention that they broke the law, and the implication that
these
> people are wrongdoers, all backed up only by your word can constitute
a
> basis for a defamation claim against you.

So, in court, how will they decide who to prosecute? Do they bust
the driver because he/she broke the law (according to my word) or
do they bust me for defamation, even though it's just their word
against mine that this event didn't occur?

hippy
confuzzed as ever

[hippy]

"Jose Rizal" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> That's open to interpretation; if the driver's opinion is that you
were
> the one who failed to stop and your swerving on the kerb to avoid a
> collision is all your fault, therefore exonerating him/herself of any
> wrongdoing, why would your account be more credible than his, in the
> eyes of your website's readers? In the absence of a legal moderator
to
> declare your account as the accurate one in the absolute sense, you
can
> be accused of defamation.

Oh, okay, I think I get it now. The moderator needs to be present when
the claim of wrongdoing is made, right?
Therefore, any claims made on this website could be defaming due to the
lack of a moderating power, right?

> It's to court where you can be taken if people are identified by their
> license plates and accused of wrongdoing.

What if 5/6ths of the plate was identified along with details of the
car?

hippy

[hippy]

"Jose Rizal" > wrote in message
hlink.net...
> That's open to interpretation; if the driver's opinion is that you
were
> the one who failed to stop and your swerving on the kerb to avoid a
> collision is all your fault, therefore exonerating him/herself of any
> wrongdoing, why would your account be more credible than his, in the
> eyes of your website's readers? In the absence of a legal moderator
to
> declare your account as the accurate one in the absolute sense, you
can
> be accused of defamation.

Oh, okay, I think I get it now. The moderator needs to be present when
the claim of wrongdoing is made, right?
Therefore, any claims made on this website could be defaming due to the
lack of a moderating power, right?

> It's to court where you can be taken if people are identified by their
> license plates and accused of wrongdoing.

What if 5/6ths of the plate was identified along with details of the
car?

hippy

[hippy]

"Luther Blissett" > wrote in message
...
> Hippy, one thing you should think about, is do you really think it
will
> achieve anything? At best the car drivers won't give a **** that they
> have offended a cyclist, at worst it may encourage the hoon element to
> get their names on the board.

Yeah, there does seem to be more negatives than positives with
this idea. I'm sure it would make me (and probably others) feel
better after a close call but it's not worth the associated junk
that it would cause. Retired.

Now, about fitting ground-to-ground rockets to the commuter...?

hippy ;-)

[hippy]

"Luther Blissett" > wrote in message
...
> Hippy, one thing you should think about, is do you really think it
will
> achieve anything? At best the car drivers won't give a **** that they
> have offended a cyclist, at worst it may encourage the hoon element to
> get their names on the board.

Yeah, there does seem to be more negatives than positives with
this idea. I'm sure it would make me (and probably others) feel
better after a close call but it's not worth the associated junk
that it would cause. Retired.

Now, about fitting ground-to-ground rockets to the commuter...?

hippy ;-)

[Peter Cremasco]

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 23:09:32 GMT, "hippy"
> wrote:


>Well if someone takes me to court for defamation then it will be the
>judge that will act as the mediator and it will again come down to
>their word against mine. If it doesn't go to court then I've nothing
>to worry about.

You can still be sued even if the stuff you are saying and writing is
true.

>So, in court, how will they decide who to prosecute? Do they bust
>the driver because he/she broke the law (according to my word) or
>do they bust me for defamation, even though it's just their word
>against mine that this event didn't occur?

Suing is a civil court matter. If you're in court to answer a
slander/libel suit, that is the only thing being judged.

Dangerous driving etc is something that goes to (correct me if I'm
wrong) a criminal court.


---
Cheers

PeterC

[Rushing headlong: out of control - and there ain't no stopping]
[and there's nothing you can do about it at all]

[Peter Cremasco]

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 23:09:32 GMT, "hippy"
> wrote:


>Well if someone takes me to court for defamation then it will be the
>judge that will act as the mediator and it will again come down to
>their word against mine. If it doesn't go to court then I've nothing
>to worry about.

You can still be sued even if the stuff you are saying and writing is
true.

>So, in court, how will they decide who to prosecute? Do they bust
>the driver because he/she broke the law (according to my word) or
>do they bust me for defamation, even though it's just their word
>against mine that this event didn't occur?

Suing is a civil court matter. If you're in court to answer a
slander/libel suit, that is the only thing being judged.

Dangerous driving etc is something that goes to (correct me if I'm
wrong) a criminal court.


---
Cheers

PeterC

[Rushing headlong: out of control - and there ain't no stopping]
[and there's nothing you can do about it at all]