BS: damaging remarks on internet web site

Subject: RE: BS: damaging remarks on internet web site
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 27 Jun 02 - 02:25 PM

I can,t find the ISP. I have taken legal advice however.

I will letyou know the outcome, and I apologise also, I did not realise that some-people would come on posing as guests with intent, shall we say.

Thanks once again to all

Guest

Subject: RE: BS: damaging remarks on internet web site
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 27 Jun 02 - 05:59 AM

If I have offended, I apologise. My object was only clarity

Nigel

Subject: RE: BS: damaging remarks on internet web site
From: pavane
Date: 27 Jun 02 - 04:50 AM

Guest,Guest Would you let us know the outcome? whether the posting was removed either by the site owner or the ISP?

Subject: RE: BS: damaging remarks on internet web site
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 26 Jun 02 - 02:35 PM

I think I mentioned above, it was never my intention to flame... I really couldn't care less if someone want's to post as Guest...

I was only curious for more details... without which, I'm afraid I can't believe the story... I'm just that kind of sceptic...

It's nothing personal...

Subject: RE: BS: damaging remarks on internet web site
From: Wolfgang
Date: 26 Jun 02 - 10:35 AM

Two posts here by GUEST, Guest, eight by an anonymous GUEST who could be eight different GUESTs. The first personal attack in my eyes was by an anonymous GUEST: So kat, does that mean that you'll only ever start music threads here from now on? I hope so!

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: damaging remarks on internet web site
From: Amos
Date: 26 Jun 02 - 10:16 AM

Geeze -- what's all the fuss? This sort of thing happens all the time between individuals and companies. If you actually do steps as outlines in the first post after your query you'll probably succeed -- you just have to get up the tree high enough to talk to a responsible monkey, is all. It's a basic life skill to deal with groups of people and get these contretemps cleared up. It takes a little persistance, communication skill, and some nuisance time. To be smart about it, the lesson learned needs to also be made clear to the person who started the confusion by paying the bill late.

A

Subject: RE: BS: damaging remarks on internet web site
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Jun 02 - 10:08 AM

"I was really asking for help and did post a pm to another member prior to posting as a guest. " I can confirm that, since I was the member - and I suggested that the person in question might start a thread about it since I'm not too up on the issue. And I pointed out that, if they wanted to avoid embarrassment for the family member, they could always do it with a GUEST pseudonym.

And that was why I was so taken aback by some of the unhelpful replies that came up from normally helpful people. I've always protested about people saying that we are unfriendly towards GUESTs, seing thta as a distortion of what happens, since normally it's only the ones who refuse to use any kind of pseudonym who stir up adverse reactions. This is the first time I've seen this kind of reaction to a GUEST with a pseudonym.

Maybe the exception to that rule of thumb is when the pseudonym is "guest", so the poster comes in as "GUEST,guest", rather than say "GUEST,puzzled."

Subject: RE: BS: damaging remarks on internet web site
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Jun 02 - 08:35 AM

Thanks. I admit I did get a bit hot under the collar, as I was really asking for help and did post a pm to another member prior to posting as a guest. But thanks anyway for those who realy did me good advice.

Guest

Subject: RE: BS: damaging remarks on internet web site
From: Grab
Date: 26 Jun 02 - 08:12 AM

Have you spoken to the ppl running that website? If you have, and they haven't taken that text down, try speaking to their ISP. ISPs can get seriously done for hosting defamatory statements these days, so they'll likely pursue it quite vigorously.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: damaging remarks on internet web site
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 26 Jun 02 - 05:12 AM

The problem is Guest, Guest of 4:41am is that anyone posting as Guest, even with another handle attached can be imitated by another Guest or member.

But you being a member will of course know that. You will also know that members posing as guests are also open to the same avenue of misrepresenation. I could, for instance, sign out and post as Guest, Guest saying 'I am a troll, please ignore everything I say'. But I will not. If I have anything to say I do it as myself.

As to the question as to what a troll is. Well, where do I start. Generaly a troll is someone who will post inflamatory or even defamatory remarks just to get a reaction. They say things like "I think it will be quite a time before I post or read mudcat again" just for effect. Not that I am accusing you of that at all:-)

No-one knows who they are are. They do it for their own pleasure. A sort of Forum wanking. They generaly perform a really good service because they provide a channel, for us who live in the real world and have a real life, to help enrich their otherwise sad and dreary lives. It helps us feel good.

Don't think I am getting at you in any way. I believe every word you say. You are a member, not a troll. It must be true because you say so. I would also guess by the time of your posting that you are in the UK so in answer to your initial posting - Go to the Citizens Advice Beureau (sp?). They are free, confidential and have no trolls...

Hope this helps

Cheers

Dave the Gnome

Subject: RE: BS: damaging remarks on internet web site
From: GUEST,Guest.
Date: 26 Jun 02 - 04:41 AM

Actually, I am a member, but posted as a guest to save embarrassment to the member of my family. Thanks to those of you who gave sensible advice, but I feel rather upset at some of the posts. Everyone who comes on mudcat as a guest is not a 'troll'! Whatever that is supposed to be exactly, I do not know. But this was put as a genuine query and asking quite seriously for help. I think it will be quite a time before I post or read mudcat again.

Guest

Subject: RE: BS: damaging remarks on internet web site
From: pavane
Date: 25 Jun 02 - 08:14 AM

Regardless of whether the guest is genuine, it is an important question and should be answered for all of us.

The statement that one bill was paid late is a statement of fact, of which the truth could be established.

However, the allegation that the person does not pay bills in general is not justified by one example, and is (potentially) libellous.

If you have no luck with the site owner, the ISP hosting the site should be approached, as they may also be liable for damages if they do not remove libellous material on request. (Of course, it may be an inhouse site).

I think even ebay would remove material if it risked being sued for libel. The law will take precedence over company policy!

As noted above, depending where you and the company are located, various other legislation may be applicable, and of more use than the libel laws. UK Data Protection act violations are criminal, not civil, offences.

Subject: RE: BS: damaging remarks on internet web site
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 25 Jun 02 - 07:34 AM

McGrath: I wasn't stating it as fact, but accepted that (as Devil's Advocate) there might be justifiable reasons for the original statement.

"The crucial phrase is perhaps "as these remarks are still on the web site" - ie it has not been removed once it has been pointed put that it is libellous."
As English law seems to give the truth of a claim as being the perfect defence to a charge of libel, perhaps the remarks have not been retracted for that reason.

Without fuller details, all any of us can do is offer advise on what we see before us, but we must remember that there are two sides to the question.

CHEERS

Nigel

Subject: RE: BS: damaging remarks on internet web site
From: SINSULL
Date: 24 Jun 02 - 08:43 PM

Did above son or daughter buy a guitar and not pay in a timely manner? Mudcatters might be more helpful in that case.

Subject: RE: BS: damaging remarks on internet web site
From: IvanB
Date: 23 Jun 02 - 10:44 PM

Well, I certainly can't be sure what site Guest, Guest is talking about, but one place I'm aware of comments being made about a person's payment practices is in eBay Feedback. I also know that eBay 'says' feedback cannot be retracted, i.e., once it's made it's there for posterity. But, if a comment was made there, a counter comment is allowed and, if an agreement or accommodation has been reached, the member who made the original comment can add a new comment to that effect.

Having read a lot of eBay feedback I'm aware that many people 'jump the gun' in leaving negative feedback, but I'm not too sure how much credence is given to it, especially if there's only one instance. And I sincerely doubt that it's not within eBay's ability to delete feedback if the member who left that feedback agrees.

But then I may be completely off base in thinking it might be an auction site.

Subject: RE: BS: damaging remarks on internet web site
From: Coyote Breath
Date: 23 Jun 02 - 09:09 PM

yikes!

CB

Subject: RE: BS: damaging remarks on internet web site
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Jun 02 - 07:33 PM

don't I remember a peace conference a number of years ago where they bickered for weeks about 'rules'...(including the shape of the table), before they could even start discussing the issues?

Lets face it...NO ONE could write a set of procedures and rules here that would satify everyone. That is one reason Max has sort of left it open, except in serious cases of abuse.

I am alternately amused and saddened when our 'guests' hone in on their favorite targets, while keeping their OWN identies secret...(wouldn't do to leave yourSELF open to direct criticism, hmmm??)...at least Kat and WYSI and McGrath and 'spaw and others are honest about who & what they are!...I disagree with them at times, but I also RESPECT them!

Subject: RE: BS: damaging remarks on internet web site
From: Bat Goddess
Date: 23 Jun 02 - 07:31 PM

A) of all, this is a legal question, not a music question. B) of all, we really need to know what country in order to give any sort of advice. And, finally, C) of all, there ARE laws about misrepresenting public credit/payment information and how to correct incorrect information.

Linn

Subject: RE: BS: damaging remarks on internet web site
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Jun 02 - 07:18 PM

Yes it is - but that attitude has been engendered by some people posting as GUEST with malevolent intent and damaging cnsequences - paranopia about seeing trolling where it is not is one of the most harmful. No doubt GUEST Date: 23-Jun-02 - 07:06 PM isn't one of that sort - but just click on "From: GUEST" at the top of the post, and a list of GUEST posts will appear, and I think you'll see what I mean.

But please let's not have this thread turn into a ritual coutry dance around the unadorned-GUEST issue. There is a real question from someone who wants advice, and I think that should take priority.

Subject: RE: BS: damaging remarks on internet web site
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jun 02 - 07:06 PM

Well said, McGrath.

This has been a very odd thread, and I think that the view that some have that 'anything posted by a GUEST is bad, and probably a flame/troll' is unhealthy and unhelpful and also exhibits a tendency for petty prejudices.

Subject: RE: BS: damaging remarks on internet web site
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Jun 02 - 06:57 PM

There seem to be some rather unfriendly and unhelpful responses here, from normally helpful people, to someone awsking for help and advicee, well as some helpful responses.

The Mudcat is where I myself would choose to ask this kind of question rather than the Annexe, because it's a larger group of people, with a considerable amount of expertise on just about everything.

I would suggest that GUEST,guest should be responded to on the assumption that he or she is a member who feels it better to remain anonymous in this particular context, as others of us have from time to time when there seems a good reason to do so.

Gareth's point about countries is very relevant. On the assumption that statistically this is most likely to be in America (since that is where most people visiting the Mudcat clearly live) Amos's advice seems sensible.

Assuming the account by GUEST,guest is accurate, I'd disagree with NigelParsons about what is posted on the website not being defamatory. To say that someone does not pay their bills and cannot be trusted goes very considerably further than saying that in a particular instance they have made a late paymnent. I would think it is probably libellous, and that posting it on a website is very risky indeed, both to the person posting it and to those who maintain the website etc.

The crucial phrase is perhaps "as these remarks are still on the web site" - ie it has not been removed once it has been pointed put that it is libellous.

Subject: RE: BS: damaging remarks on internet web site
From: Gareth
Date: 23 Jun 02 - 06:30 PM

Oi ! Children - A question was asked. May be a troll, it may not be a troll, but unless we know what Country is concerned how the heck can any sensible answer be made.

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: damaging remarks on internet web site
From: Murray MacLeod
Date: 23 Jun 02 - 05:14 PM

"A member of my family overlooked paying a bill, through a mix-up.

Perhaps GUEST could enlighten us further concerning the reason for the mix-up, and also reveal the time lapse between the date of the original invoice and the date of eventual payment.

Murray

Subject: RE: BS: damaging remarks on internet web site
From: kendall
Date: 23 Jun 02 - 05:04 PM

There are laws against slander and libel.

Subject: RE: damaging remarks on internet web site
From: Nigel Parsons
Date: 23 Jun 02 - 04:25 PM

I hate to play Devil's Advocate, but, having re-read the initial thread it appears that the comments posted are not defamatory, they mention non payment of bills when payment has been promised. The guest states that these payments were not (initially) made.

Nigel

Subject: RE: damaging remarks on internet web site
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 23 Jun 02 - 04:18 PM

I would if I wanted people to believe my plight...

I'd point folks to the site, and let them make up thier own minds...

Subject: RE: damaging remarks on internet web site
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jun 02 - 04:01 PM

Mark and Clinton,

Fair point perhaps regarding the link, but if you're son/daughter was being misrepresented, I don't suppose that you'd point the whole world to the place where?

Subject: RE: damaging remarks on internet web site
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 23 Jun 02 - 03:59 PM

It does sound slightly suspect... If Guest:guest was really concerned, they could have provided us with links to back up the story...

Besides, it's just the internet... I somehow doubt that EVERYONE else this small business deals with is gonna read the negative comments, let alone take them seriously...

Course, that's just my unfounded opinion...

Subject: RE: damaging remarks on internet web site
From: Mark Cohen
Date: 23 Jun 02 - 03:52 PM

"...put remarks on the link to them..."? I may be wrong, but the whole thing sounds bogus.

Aloha,
Mark

Subject: RE: damaging remarks on internet web site
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jun 02 - 03:49 PM

I'm sorry artbrooks, but if you read the thread, the 'problem' and nonsense have come from Kat.

Subject: RE: damaging remarks on internet web site
From: artbrooks
Date: 23 Jun 02 - 03:45 PM

I don't think so, Susan...just ANON.GUEST with his/her/its usual nonsense.

Subject: RE: damaging remarks on internet web site
From: wysiwyg
Date: 23 Jun 02 - 03:23 PM

LtS, I made the wild leap of logic that perhaps the person in need of help would register so as to be able to message offthread and get some specific help with their specific problem.

Are we all a little touchy today folks?

~S~

Subject: RE: damaging remarks on internet web site
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jun 02 - 03:18 PM

Kat, that's what a *member only* forum means!

You still haven't explained what you have against this thread?

Subject: RE: damaging remarks on internet web site
From: katlaughing
Date: 23 Jun 02 - 03:16 PM

A guest can visit the Annexe and read what is there. To post takes only a minute to register.

Subject: RE: damaging remarks on internet web site
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jun 02 - 03:09 PM

The Anexe has always been member only, Kat.

Pray, what have you suddenly got against non-music threads?

Subject: RE: damaging remarks on internet web site
From: katlaughing
Date: 23 Jun 02 - 03:04 PM

Last I knew Guests were welcome there, LtS.

Subject: RE: damaging remarks on internet web site
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 23 Jun 02 - 02:43 PM

So recommending a members only site to a non member is useful is it?

LTS

Subject: RE: damaging remarks on internet web site
From: wysiwyg
Date: 23 Jun 02 - 02:39 PM

I don't know why Kat said that, and I am not answering for her, but why I would say it is this--

At the Annexe there are people who exchange advice on all sorts of non-music topics, and since it's a members-only site that also allows for personal messaging, one can exchange advice not only in a thread but also privately offthread-- such as if someone were to willing to get involved to help, names and other personal information could be exchanged to facilitate helping.

No big deal. Just a good deal.

THE ANNEXE.

~Susan

Subject: RE: damaging remarks on internet web site
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jun 02 - 01:43 PM

Katlaughing

What do you mean

Guest

Subject: RE: damaging remarks on internet web site
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Jun 02 - 11:49 AM

So kat, does that mean that you'll only ever start music threads here from now on? I hope so!

Subject: RE: damaging remarks on internet web site
From: katlaughing
Date: 23 Jun 02 - 11:34 AM

Take it to the Annexe!

Subject: RE: damaging remarks on internet web site
From: Gareth
Date: 23 Jun 02 - 11:26 AM

Which Country ??? In the UK there are simple means of rectification invoking the Consumer Credit Acts, and the Data Protection Acts.

Gareth

Subject: RE: damaging remarks on internet web site
From: Amos
Date: 23 Jun 02 - 11:20 AM

Phone the company and speak to the manager or local exec. Explain situation request deletion of comments on the basis that it is untrue and defaming. If no joy,

!. Write them a formal hardcopy letter witht he facts. 2. Failing that, get an attorney to also write them.

Write these to the highest management level you can find in the company

If that fails, advise them you will be filing a lawsuit for defamationa nd damages if it is is not rectified in 3 days.

A

Subject: damaging remarks on internet web site
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 23 Jun 02 - 10:57 AM

Can anyone on Mudcat help please. A member of my family overlooked paying a bill, through a mix-up. This has since been paid, but the business has put remarks on the link to them saying the person concerned does not pay their bills and basically can this person be trusted to do what they say. This kind of thing is devastating to a youngster and is resulting in a very negative feeling as regards the work and small business. Any help would be appreciated, as these remarks are still on the web site.

Guest