I'm having a party

[chazzyphizzle]

<3

[chazzyphizzle]

Apologies.

[#686578]

it's not slander if it's not spoken aloud, either. lrn2libel.

Dictionary: li·bel (lī'bəl) http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/pron.gif

n.

1. A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.

Wat

[Rocl]

i think we might be getting trolled numbers

[Shiroikage]

no man, she said it, she must mean exactly what she said

[Rocl]

The fundamental distinction between libel and slander lies solely in the form in which the defamatory matter is published. If the offending material is published in some fleeting form, as by spoken words or sounds, sign language, gestures and the like, then this is slander. If it is published in more durable form, for example in written words, film, compact disc (CD), DVD, blogging and the like, then it is considered libel.

words troll me hard

[#686578]

it's not slander if it's not spoken aloud

Explain yourself wench.

[Ryko]

She explained. Printed "slander" is libel. Seems pretty simple.

[#686578]

Nah, she tried to and pretend that's what she said to begin with.

[Conrad]

That is what she said to begin with.

[Ryko]

Yeah i'm not seeing the discrepancy.

[Ryko]

This is like the qalbert moment all over again

[#686578]

it's not slander if it's not spoken aloud, either. lrn2libel.

Here we have the original statement. It is wrong in intent and meaning.

Dictionary: li·bel (lī'bəl) http://content.answers.com/main/content/img/pron.gif

n.

1. A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.

Wat

My objection

it's not slander if it's [written/not spoken aloud], because it is then libel.

Her explaining what she MEANT to say.

was it really that hard? i mean granted you may have needed to read it more than once, but wow.

Her pretending that it's what she ACTUALLY said.

Explain yourself wench.

Me objecting that she in fact did NOT say anything closely related to that, and her pretending to have said that to begin with is ridiculous.

>"All cats are dogs"
>>"Well, I dont believe that cats are dogs"
>"What I meant was all cats are cats"
>"Clearly you would've read cats=cats if you had read it more than once"
>>"I object, you clearly did not say that or mean to say that at all"

[Conrad]

Numbers you are looking very Qalbert right now

[Conrad]

it's not slander if it's not spoken aloud, either. lrn2libel.

That is a double negative. Rewritten, the sentence is:

It is slander if it is spoken aloud.

Which is a correct statement that she has maintained throughout this page. I don't understand what you're arguing, because you are quite wrong here.

[Ryko]

Oh shut the fuck up numbers with that square/rectangle bullshit. Her textual intent was obvious, just because there are more media than spoken or printed she obviously was only including those 2 categories when she said "not spoken aloud".

Ignoring that she used 2 negatives to qualify the statement correctly.

[Day]

lame discussion

[Conrad]

Not my fault numbers is wrong and then continues to argue despite being wrong

[Charismatic]

Yeah, you guys do that all the time.
Not sure what's up with ya'll spammers.

[Day]

fucking insiders