Has anyone in Australia ever been sued for calling someone else something hurtful? If this is possible, imagine how much money politicians & celebs could make.
Terms like twit are really best avoided, but that's not for legal reasons, AFAIK. I found this thread by accident - I filter this list from my inbox, & I'm happier for that. On 17 March 2014 03:26, <[email protected]> wrote: > Warning, Russavia: you are coming perilously close to being sued. Keep > repeating your behaviour and I'll have no choice to be file a case. If the > list administrators are prepared to accuse me without basis of making > personal attacks while letting other members personally attack me, they > will probably be involved in the litigation too > > Tony > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > "Wikimedia Australia Chapter" <[email protected]> > > To: > "Wikimedia Australia Chapter" <[email protected]> > Cc: > > Sent: > Mon, 17 Mar 2014 00:17:01 +0800 > > Subject: > Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list > > > Tony, > > I have a very low tolerance for bullshit, and I will call people out on it > whenever I see it. > > Seriously, if you feel belittled and hurt by me calling you an a-grade > twit, then might I suggest you stop acting like, well, an a-grade twit. If > you can't do that, then I have nothing more to say to you but toughen up > princess! > > Oh Tony, by the way, the case you mentioned involved a student who posted > comments on facebook about a music teacher at Orange High School, accusing > her of being responsible for her father leaving the school -- his father > used to be the music teacher. > > There is a vast difference between me expressing my personal opinion of > you being a twit, and the student essentially accusing the high school > teacher of....would corruption fit the accusations? Isn't corruption > exactly the same thing that you have accused others of on numerous > occasions, including in the subject of your initial email. Wouldn't this > open you up to legal action? > > So Tony, take your threats of legal action and shove em where the sun > don't shine. > > You really are your worst enemy! > > Scotty > > > > > On Sun, Mar 16, 2014 at 11:34 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Dear subscribers >> >> I reply to comments in this thread: >> >> To Scott Bibby (Russavia): Thank you for your in-principle support; your >> argument was compelling and well expressed. However, I find the personal >> attack in public belittling and hurtful. Please note the recent Australian >> court judgement in which a schoolboy was ordered to pay his former school >> teacher $110,000 in damages for what he said about her on the internet. >> Calling me an "a-grade twit" on a public list exposes you to the risk of >> legal action. >> >> It's interesting that Steven Zhang, as an administrator of the mailing >> list, chose to let this attack pass without mention, while at the same time >> accusing me of having "engaged in repeated personal attacks on a number >> of individuals". No evidence of personal attacks by me has been >> provided. I am careful not to insult or belittle anyone in public. >> Accusing the committee of neglect or wrongdoing in their official capacity >> is quite a different matter--if we try to censor criticism of legal >> propriety and governance, we're better off in Putin's Russia, and we >> certainly don't deserve to use the WMF trademark. >> >> So where exactly are the are the "personal attacks" I've made on this >> mailing list, aside from raising uncomfortable questions about governance >> and transparency? >> >> I, too, would like to know who the WMF staff member was. Did Zhang >> explain the actual situation to them properly? Was I maligned in >> communications with them? For the Foundation to support what amounts to the >> maladministration of one of its mailing lists needs to be investigated. >> >> Transparency is required in the way the WMAU committee does business. I >> raised several issues concerning governance and transparency in the post >> that seems to have prompted Steven Zhang to ban my email address from the >> list. Rather than responding to the issues I raised, there was a blunt >> refusal to do discuss them. This should be of concern to all members of the >> WMF movement. There is an implicit expectation that the ways in which >> $80,000 in donors' money is spent should be open and accountable. What >> recent spending decisions have been made? Are all members of the committee >> consulted about financial decision-making? >> >> Was Andrew Owen legally a member of the chapter when he stood for >> election last November? Did he pay his renewal fee "in advance on or >> before 1 July" as required by chapter by-law 4(12)? If not, was his >> cessation of membership recorded on the members' register by 14 July, as >> required by section 56(3) of the Associations Incorporation Reform Act >> 2012? Did the committee "approve" his application for membership that was >> made just before the November election in which he stood for the position >> of secretary? (Formal approval is required under chapter by-laws 4(5) and >> 4(6).) If not, I believe that neither his membership nor his position on >> the committee is legal. >> >> Tony >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: >> "Wikimedia Australia Chapter" <[email protected]> >> >> To: >> "Wikimedia Australia Chapter" <[email protected]> >> Cc: >> >> Sent: >> Sun, 16 Mar 2014 17:23:18 +0800 >> Subject: >> Re: [Wikimediaau-l] Apparently corrupt administration of this list >> >> >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mailing_lists >> >> "Please respect >> Wikiquette<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette>and avoid >> personal >> attacks<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks>on the >> mailing lists, especially in the subject header as this is likely to >> be repeated by those replying." >> >> It's in black and white. >> >> kindest regards >> Andrew >> >> >> >> >> On 16 March 2014 17:18, K. Peachey <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On 16 March 2014 17:50, Steven Zhang <[email protected]>wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> 2. ... but actively disrupting the list is against both the rules and >>>> spirit of the list, and always has been. ... >>>> >>> >>> [Citation Needed], I see no rules >>> http://www.wikimedia.org.au//wiki/Mailing_list or >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l. >>> >>> And what and which foundation staff members where involved in this? >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikimediaau-l mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.wikimediaorg/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l> >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikimediaau-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimediaau-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l > > -- Chris Watkins Appropedia.org - Sharing knowledge to build rich, sustainable lives.
_______________________________________________ Wikimediaau-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
