per legal advice Ive sought,even if a statement is derogatory, there are some circumstances in which such statements are permissible in law ( U.S. law that is)
i.e not everything is "defamatory" or actionable
For instance, mere name-calling is NOT
There are also fair-comment defenses. But you see, the Admin cannot be responsible for making judgement calls on whether to allow material that could result in possible actions being filed...or be forced to become an expert on American defamation law...or its international implications on the internet.
But...AGAIN...the point here is to avoid a situation where a possible claim could be lodged and you cannot expect that the Admin should have to wade through the internet trying to figure out whether your accusations are true, or not.
And it is not difficult, AT ALL to avoid these situations. You simply respond to what the person says...and NOT the person.
When in doubt...don't post it
. Or use e-mail. Or if you absolutely must
...just cannot stop yourself...then, post it on sci.med.diseases.lyme.
And it costs $$$ to hire lawyers and there is a damned good reason to be cautious about some of the type of comments you are now making.
And when weighed against the overall importance of those comments...in the big picture...the point is, no post is worth risking the survival of the board and it is unfair to other posters to insist that you have the right to just attack others and place the board in potential jeopardy.
I am grateful to the Admin for creating a place like this that allows differing viewpoints, has established high standards and upholds them...and consider it a privilege to post here.
I think that the Admin has allowed you and others a great deal of latitude on this subject, previously. The threads are still up. Why push it? Aren't we talking about what is, essentially, now, piling on...a late hit out-of-bounds?
of course all attorneys like doctors have their own and often differing opinion and interpretations
Well, yes...and you cannot place the Admin in the position of deciding these things.
And what your lawyer is saying is true, so far as it goes, when these matters are litigated...but the point is to avoid that, you see?
We don't want to say things here that could cause LNE to be sued, do we?
If YOU want to litigate this...all the power in the world to you, go for it. But why bring others along with you?
If I misunderstood anything my legal advisor imparted to me, Id be happy to stand corrected.
We are NOT talking about how these matters would be resolved if they were addressed in COURT. Do you understand? We are talking about making sure we don't have to deal with that. So that we don't have to find out what would happen in Court.
Im not a gambling gal,but I bet the timing and placement of Spanky's comments are not at all accidental,
Well, it is not entirely "accidental"...as I have heard some rumblings and rumors and am smart enough (I think
) to understand why Lymenet posted that warning about comments directed at Schaller. I can read between the lines there and figure out what probably happened over there.
Lawyers, you see, are basically all trained to think alike, more or less...
and Im also betting to now see an onslaught from him of how and why my legal advice is incorrect and how I am the reason for placing this site under liability while others with similar postings are not.( oh yes, me with my "group" --the complement of which Spanky still hasnt yet defined
No, your advice is more or less correct, insofar as you have stated it. It's your interpretation of that advice that is the problem, here...and to borrow another football analogy...a famous running back once said that the name of the game wasn't hitting...it is "hitting avoiding
(And the group that I am referring to, as being yours is located here):
http://lymegate.ning.com/main/authoriza ... 3Dactivity