The "Nintendo Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Just Use this topic like a narmol chat room. and keep it livin'
If you have anything to say. Say it here.
[Captain's Log: 10/03/04 - Day of the Edit Post Feature]
[Diary Entry: 7/7/05 - "We shall never forget"]
If you have anything to say. Say it here.
[Captain's Log: 10/03/04 - Day of the Edit Post Feature]
[Diary Entry: 7/7/05 - "We shall never forget"]
Page:
Good luck in the exams... You hoping to be a lawyer?
Sibs wrote:
> You doing a law degree or something...?
Yep, up until they kick me out for failing these exams.
Always the optimist : )
> You doing a law degree or something...?
Yep, up until they kick me out for failing these exams.
Always the optimist : )
Condom wrote:
>
> Now, I am going to leave you all in peace now while I do some
> shopping
Shame you can't buy intelligence isn't it?
>
> Now, I am going to leave you all in peace now while I do some
> shopping
Shame you can't buy intelligence isn't it?
You doing a law degree or something...?
Edgy wrote:
> Condom: I paiye yawr wages mummy!
Lol, classic : D
Having double checked the posts, there's nothing he could use to bring a tortious defamation action, as under the case of Youssoupoff v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (libel, as opposed to slander, as publishing to the web is considered a permanant form), in my opinion.
Considering the effect of inducing others to shun and aviod, since we don't know the real 'condom', no effect can be applied there, and fankly, we've all shunned and avoided him anyway ¦ D
Even if defamation per se could be shown, the affirmative defence of qualified privilage, as applied, for example, in Watts v Times Newspapers seems likely to apply, the individual making the statement having a duty to make the stateent, and the recipients having an interest in receiving it.
Also available would be the defence of fair comment (ie, a statement of opinion) (Silkin v Beaverbrook Newspapers Ltd).
Ah, not of any real interest to any of you guys, but it was a useful chance to flex my memory on my revision for tomorrow's exam : )
> Condom: I paiye yawr wages mummy!
Lol, classic : D
Having double checked the posts, there's nothing he could use to bring a tortious defamation action, as under the case of Youssoupoff v Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (libel, as opposed to slander, as publishing to the web is considered a permanant form), in my opinion.
Considering the effect of inducing others to shun and aviod, since we don't know the real 'condom', no effect can be applied there, and fankly, we've all shunned and avoided him anyway ¦ D
Even if defamation per se could be shown, the affirmative defence of qualified privilage, as applied, for example, in Watts v Times Newspapers seems likely to apply, the individual making the statement having a duty to make the stateent, and the recipients having an interest in receiving it.
Also available would be the defence of fair comment (ie, a statement of opinion) (Silkin v Beaverbrook Newspapers Ltd).
Ah, not of any real interest to any of you guys, but it was a useful chance to flex my memory on my revision for tomorrow's exam : )
Condom wrote:
> Now, I am going to leave you all in peace now while I do some shopping
> (I fancy a new Snooker table actually).
lol, I hear Argos are doing full sized snooker tables at their megastores!
What a ####
If you even believe that this person was a millionnairre as he says then you are a muppet!
It's somebody just signing up to annoy us all.
> Now, I am going to leave you all in peace now while I do some shopping
> (I fancy a new Snooker table actually).
lol, I hear Argos are doing full sized snooker tables at their megastores!
What a ####
If you even believe that this person was a millionnairre as he says then you are a muppet!
It's somebody just signing up to annoy us all.
Hey all.
Is that idiot still here?
Is that idiot still here?
Let's just forget him now yer!
:)
:)
Condom wrote:
> 1) My e-mail address is real - big deal
> 2) The address and phone details certainly aren't; are yours?
> 3) I haven't threatened anyone, or made any perverse sexual
> references, so what are you going to do?
>
> Now, I am going to leave you all in peace now while I do some shopping
> (I fancy a new Snooker table actually).
>
> Oh, and before I go. I know the story you are going on about. So you
> are accusing me of being a killer eh? Well, I should get the feds
> onto you cos' it's remarks like that that get you put away. For the
> record, don't you think this little girl was just a bit silly agreeing
> to meet up with someone on a forum whom she'd never met before? She
> didn't deserve to die (nobody does), but you've got to question her
> actions.
Sure, go ahead! Call your lawyers! I'm sure they'll be able to get a really big case against us. Why you'd want to do it I don't know because it's only worth suing the rich as the normal civilian doesn't have a large fortune you can steal.
Condom: Mummy! Mummy! Sum won cawled me a peterfile on a message bowd!
Lawyer: I am not your mother, and with a name like that and your claim to being 29 years old on a message board aimed at teenagers and young adults what do you expect?
Condom: I paiye yawr wages mummy!
Lawyer: I work for an independent firm. It's winning cases that pay my wages, now go back home to play on your "My first snooker table".
Condom: Sowie mom.
> 1) My e-mail address is real - big deal
> 2) The address and phone details certainly aren't; are yours?
> 3) I haven't threatened anyone, or made any perverse sexual
> references, so what are you going to do?
>
> Now, I am going to leave you all in peace now while I do some shopping
> (I fancy a new Snooker table actually).
>
> Oh, and before I go. I know the story you are going on about. So you
> are accusing me of being a killer eh? Well, I should get the feds
> onto you cos' it's remarks like that that get you put away. For the
> record, don't you think this little girl was just a bit silly agreeing
> to meet up with someone on a forum whom she'd never met before? She
> didn't deserve to die (nobody does), but you've got to question her
> actions.
Sure, go ahead! Call your lawyers! I'm sure they'll be able to get a really big case against us. Why you'd want to do it I don't know because it's only worth suing the rich as the normal civilian doesn't have a large fortune you can steal.
Condom: Mummy! Mummy! Sum won cawled me a peterfile on a message bowd!
Lawyer: I am not your mother, and with a name like that and your claim to being 29 years old on a message board aimed at teenagers and young adults what do you expect?
Condom: I paiye yawr wages mummy!
Lawyer: I work for an independent firm. It's winning cases that pay my wages, now go back home to play on your "My first snooker table".
Condom: Sowie mom.
Quality! He actually got banned on a weekend!
:D
:D
Page: