HAL9000

legalbeagle Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So no one wants my free prosecco then? I have tried on a few occasions to 'make up' - alas to no avail. I wouldn't hesitate to grasp the hand of friendship if it were offered - I don't have any issues with him. I don't understand what his issues are with me - the ravings in his post above sound like paranoid delusions: I can't make sense of them. For the record, his allegations about me are either factually inaccurate or just plain wrong - I refute them all.

If one suspects a crime - one goes to the police. A rational person does not raise such allegations against a named individual and local business venture on a forum, IMHO. Hotheads are known to flounce and stomp when they don't get their own way - if the cap fits.... As for the underlying facts - I cannot understand how those who upload their personal details to a free, public networking site get upset when someone sends them an unsolicited friend request? Who knows what data mining is being applied to their personal information in the background? They are simply setting themselves up as marketing targets. To expect any thing else is foolish in the extreme - there is no free lunch. We have no evidence of spamming or fake IDs - it is all speculation. As for Huguenot?s puerile attempt to vindicate himself: FB's policy is to suspend an account on receipt of a complaint and ask questions later. His claims are unfounded. As for HAL9000 - 'he' was entirely innocent of any malevolence. His aberrant behaviour was caused by a programming conflict - human error. Let me put it this way, RosieH. The 9000 series is the most reliable computer ever made. No 9000 computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information. We are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error.

RosieH Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I wondered why HAL commented on one aspect of the legal > situation, but not another, i.e. that the woman in question > may have been breaking the law (possibly unknowingly). I am surprised that the answer isn't immediately obvious to you: no one should be subjected to criminal interrogation on a public Internet forum - especially not by a hotheaded, amateur cyber-sleuth. The consequences could be serious - an injustice in the making. We pride ourselves in a legal system that insists on a formal caution and the availability of legal advice and representation for anyone accused of a criminal act. Frankly, you and I both know that any complaint on those grounds would never get off the ground anyway - it's a moot point. In any event, the immediate question was whether Huguenot had defamed and/or libelled a third party - and that was Admin's call, not mine. > I would also ask, what were HAL's intentions in choosing his forum name? It's just a name that I, as an avid sci-fi fan, feel comfortable with - no sinister intentions therein, I assure you. I'm certainly not going to shut off Admin's life support system although the (unintentional) ejection of two crew members might make one wonder... :)

Yes and yes. Diverse languages tend to separate, isolate and divide. A common language (even if it is only a second language) will help bring the world's different cultures and peoples closer together - that has to be a good thing.

I'm sad to see that Huguenot has chosen to personalise this discussion rather than stick to the issue of free speech. Admin asked me for advice so I gave an opinion, for what it's worth. Huguenot had every opportunity to present his own case - instead he copped out. I can't help feeling that his attempt to demonise me is a symptom of some deep-seated insecurity that also underlies the threat to leave. I see this as a form of emotional blackmail, frankly. Anyway, I think this is a good opportunity to clear the air. If anyone has any issues with my opinions, my posting style, or me, I invite them to get it off their chest: good or bad ? let it all come out. I'm genuinely interested to know how you all feel. Don't worry about hurting my feelings - Huguenot is right about me in that respect (although for the wrong reason). So, go for it - or forever hold thy peace.

Peckhamgatecrasher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There's a slightly odd shop in the indoor market > in Peckham (east side one) that sells speakers - > may be worth a look. Definitely worth a look - it sells a wide range of professional sound equipment for DJs - including power amps and heavy duty speakers.

Stephen Potter wrote a couple of books that may be helpful under the circumstances you describe. Good Luck.

US intelligence analyst arrested over security leaks

He's probably busy fighting a spam outbreak on twitter - a superhero's work is never done.

We were going to call this episode Huguenot Jumps the Shark but Spielberg pointed out that it's already been done so we decided to go one better with Huguenot Jumps the Orca - what do you think? Anyway, don't blame me: it was Huguenot's idea that the forum has, "a moral responsibility to protect the vulnerable".

Since names are also named in this thread: that was the allegation - "fake IDs" were neither proven nor admitted.

Hue

No need to go to the Gulf of Mexico to assist in the clean up - the oil slick is coming to us. Wait until it reaches the English Channel then pour all your detergents down the loo and flush - that'll help disperse it.

Parasol

Actually, the source is cited on YouTube, just below the video - it says: 04 June 2010 ? A detailed computer modeling study released today indicates that oil from the massive spill in the Gulf of Mexico might soon extend along thousands of miles of the Atlantic coast and open ocean as early as this summer. The modeling results are captured in a series of dramatic animations produced by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) and collaborators. However, the caption within the video states that the animation represents the dilution factor of continuously injected dye 20 metres below the surface. This does not appear to take into account that: a) the viscosity of petroleum exposed to air increases over time because the lighter fractions evaporate, b) aromatic and some light hydrocarbons are slightly soluble in water so dissolve out fairly quickly, c) volume decreases in proportion to factors a and b, d) many other significant factors that are ignored by this particular model. Also, once the oil forms a tar-like mass, its toxicity drops dramatically because only insoluble bitumen and waxes remain.

No, it's not a 'no' from HAL9000. Please don't interpret my (admittedly peculiar) posting style as a sign of unfriendliness. In this case, I felt that a serious issue had to be dealt with in a serious manner. I congratulate Admin for making the right decision, by the way. I feel nothing but warm, friendly feelings towards everyone on the forum and especially towards its Administrator and moderators. I'm not out to 'get' anyone and have no hidden agenda. I think the EDF is a wonderful local resource and would never do anything to disrupt its smooth running.

Administrator Wrote: ---------------------------------- > it would have been much appreciated if > you had PM'd me yourself to tell me In this case, doing so may have interfered with the aggrieved party's ability to seek legal redress. > it's a friendly local forum, can we please keep it at that? Pray tell: what is so friendly about stomping a local businesswoman's reputation into the ground on the strength of a paranoid aversion to spam? Perhaps we should leave the abuse online as a permanent reminder of how friendly we can be - what do you think?

Fuschia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Mr Justice Eady ... ... did though make it clear that "I would not suggest for a moment that blogging cannot ever form the basis of a legitimate libel claim...I am focusing only on these particular circumstances."

Fuschia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > And I haven't seen any comemnts which accuse > Jennifer of "a major crime" The implication is in the two paragraphs that follow your final quote above.

Fuschia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't really understand your comment about how I > should look this up for myself "and I'm sure you > know why" I thought with the legal prowess you've demonstrated herein you'd be aware of the potential risks undertaken when one reposts allegedly libellous comments - apparently not!

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So they are still misleading people. Deliberately. How often does a viral video on YouTube turn out to be a covert advert? Every time we log into Google or other sites that offer adverts and banners based on covertly collected profiling data - it's all covert marketing. Like it or not that is how the web has evolved. It happens all the time. Everyone is doing it. Software is available that does it automatically. All one has to do is ignore unsolicited friend requests, emails and web adverts - we do it every day. Why make a mountain out of this particular molehill?

Fuschia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Where does it say that, precisely? I'd rather you look it up yourself. I'm sure you know why.

Administrator Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Sometimes I wish some people would send me a > friendly PM Do you mean me? I didn't PM you because I knew immediately after I posted the original suggestion that JF had made a formal complaint. And the thread disappeared very quickly thereafter.

The accusations of engaging in fraud and 'major crime' (inter alia).

Fuschia Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > threatening ... legal action. This has the effect of > stifling free speech. I would ask whether you are prepared to bankroll Admin's defence in order to discover whether 'fair comment' applies in this case? How much are you prepared to pay for the right to moan about an unsolicited friend request on this forum?