 | mobile - desktop |
|
| mobile - desktop |
|
 |
 Contact Sales! |
News & Events:
|
Posted by M_surinamensis on January 09, 2003 at 11:30:46:
In Reply to: well you are right....it is libel, not slander... posted by xta on January 09, 2003 at 11:12:49:
The replies were getting a bit long tacked to the end of the responses, I have deleted them in order to maintain a neater appearance.
I would suggest again that you look at the exacting definition of the word libel, the information given has to be; false, given with malicious intent and damaging in some manner. Since the information was not false, my post was not libelous in any manner.
Secondly, you are enormously overstating the association I have with the originator of the previous thread, I have not the slightest idea who they are, why they went about it the way they did or what reasoning they had for writing it. My posts were made a day later after someone made mention of the existence of the thread and were reasonable and true. Never did I state that following one of her care sheets would be automatic death for the animals involved but I did list a good number of incorrect and (some) dangerous pieces of information that she has placed forth as being truthful.
The categorization of "everyone" who had responded with a post placing Kaplan in a negative light as being a "troll" and trying to start "flame wars" was inappropriate because it was not applicable to the entire group it was attributed to. There were several intelligent, well thought out and truthful responses that showed the danger in trusting this supposed informational authority. I agree that mistakes are part of human nature and do not demand ineffability from individuals who force themselves into the public arena as a credible source but Ms. Kaplan makes too many mistakes of a dangerous nature, refuses to correct them and, despite her admissions to the fact she has no formal education in the biological sciences and minimal experience with the animals in question, places herself into the position of a reliable source of facts. Since she is not a reliable source of facts, I do take issue with her work and her as an individual and I will continually tell people to avoid anything she has written. Boasting about 1400 web pages (or whatever number she's up to these days) becomes a useless activity when there are three and four mistakes, some potentially lethal, on most of them.
I wonder... did you actually get to read my post before the thread was deleted or are you, like "Jake" simply making inaccurate assumptions about what I wrote and how it was phrased?
-Seamus Haley
inspectorparrot@earthlink.net
AIM: SeamusHaley
