More Max Mosely :OS (86)

25 Jul 08, 7:47 AM
nortyboy
UK, 15 mths

strictlynormal wrote:

MistressKarla wrote:

strictlynormal wrote:

MistressKarla wrote:
He is after all a proven liar as well,just ask his wife.

And your proof for stating the above would be what exactly?
What are these lies you assert he has told?
Have you spoken to his wife? How do you know he lied to her?
[For the record, I don't think a lot of MM because of the way he has behaved as President of the FIA, in matters relating to the governance of motorsport, but that's not what's being discussed here]

So you dont care that he was a neo nazi thug but you do
care that he messed up the governance of the FIA!!!!!Whats
your proof for that?No on second thoughts keep it to
yourself.
I know he lied to her because he has admitted it!
Now i remember you as one of the bullys from the other
posts.First telling Nortyboy to stop posting,then trying
to goad him to post ,then saying he only posted to bring
attention to himself.
The only thing consistant about you is your hypocracy!

Oh dear..
If you cannot tell the wood from the trees then that is your problem, not mine.
If you cannot understand why nortyboy pissed off so many people with his constant hijacking of threads, rather than having the cojones to start one of his own, then I cannot help you with that either.
I do not in any way, shape or form, condone any Nazi activity, beliefs or actions, yet you try to ascribe those characteristics to those of us who took offence at nortyboy's trolling activities, and who objected to his continued thread hijacking and banal repetition of 'facts', both real and imagined.
It seems that those of us who objected to nortyboy's trolling posts are now being accused of supporting Max Mosely's views, politics [whatever those might curently be???] and much more. This is quite incorrect and where nortyboy's apologists completely fall down in their 'argument' against anyone complaining about his trolling.
Just because I object to the way in which 'A' complains about 'B' does not necessarily mean that I am against what 'A' is actually saying. In this case, it simply means that I disagree violently with the way 'A' is putting across his case.
Does that help to explain things?
Regards
SN
Strictlynoone,
leave it !Your looking a bit too obsessed with me.
You focus on the big issues in life like FAI governance.
Maybe a strong letter to the Times is in order?

25 Jul 08, 8:24 AM
MistressKarla
UK, 2 yrs

strictlynormal wrote:

MistressKarla wrote:

strictlynormal wrote:

MistressKarla wrote:
He is after all a proven liar as well,just ask his wife.

And your proof for stating the above would be what exactly?
What are these lies you assert he has told?
Have you spoken to his wife? How do you know he lied to her?
[For the record, I don't think a lot of MM because of the way he has behaved as President of the FIA, in matters relating to the governance of motorsport, but that's not what's being discussed here]

So you dont care that he was a neo nazi thug but you do
care that he messed up the governance of the FIA!!!!!Whats
your proof for that?No on second thoughts keep it to
yourself.
I know he lied to her because he has admitted it!
Now i remember you as one of the bullys from the other
posts.First telling Nortyboy to stop posting,then trying
to goad him to post ,then saying he only posted to bring
attention to himself.
The only thing consistant about you is your hypocracy!

Oh dear..
If you cannot tell the wood from the trees then that is your problem, not mine.
If you cannot understand why nortyboy pissed off so many people with his constant hijacking of threads, rather than having the cojones to start one of his own, then I cannot help you with that either.
I do not in any way, shape or form, condone any Nazi activity, beliefs or actions, yet you try to ascribe those characteristics to those of us who took offence at nortyboy's trolling activities, and who objected to his continued thread hijacking and banal repetition of 'facts', both real and imagined.
It seems that those of us who objected to nortyboy's trolling posts are now being accused of supporting Max Mosely's views, politics [whatever those might curently be???] and much more. This is quite incorrect and where nortyboy's apologists completely fall down in their 'argument' against anyone complaining about his trolling.
Just because I object to the way in which 'A' complains about 'B' does not necessarily mean that I am against what 'A' is actually saying. In this case, it simply means that I disagree violently with the way 'A' is putting across his case.
Does that help to explain things?
Regards
SN

So i take it you accept both his neo nazi past and
the fact that he is a liar?
I take it you accept people have the right not want a
poster boy who behaves like that?
Why do you make things up about people?I have never said
you were a nazi?You have spent a lot of time defending his
political reputation and one may wonder why?But i have
never made claims like that.In fact none has.
You seem to like to ask questions that ask for proof and
then launch personal attacks on people in a patronising
manner .
Its a matter offact that he an ex member of a neo nazi
organisation,hes a liar.Just accept it.
Finally stop talking to people in a patronising manner and
take your need to feel persecuted elsewhere.The reason
these threads on maxs politics have gone on so long
seems to have been to allow you to express your slavish
devotion to Max.
Yuk!

25 Jul 08, 8:50 AM
WickedHands
UK, 7 yrs In light of the news that Mosley's legal team are, apparently, now preparing papers for defamation claims (source: timesonline; yesterday), the "Nazi" & related issues are very likely to be put to bed once and for all (either way). If I was Mosley, and assuming that my past did not reflect my CURRENT views, I'd be most interested in some of the things that have been stated on these boards......
As already stated elsewhere; it is not for Mosley to come forward and publicly state what his CURRENT views are (one way or the other). It is for those asserting / attributing such views to evidence them. Both the web owner(s) AND the individual poster can be held liable if any defamation has occurred.

25 Jul 08, 9:28 AM
otrok
UK(B), 7 yrs Almost everyone does nt seem to know that we have already lost our country to the unelected EU. This is already a Dictatorship and guess what form its going to take.This is a little bit ahead of its time you may think but on the 19th June G.Brown signed away our Country together with Army,Navy,Air Force and Nuclear weapons. 'Habeaus corpus' will very soon be a thing of the past;if its not already! It is now or more probably,more correctly, going to be enacted on 1st Jan 2009)'Corpus Juris'.(I.E You are guilty before proven innocent.) Before you know it you will have no politicians,no councilors and No Vote.The elections that you will probably have for a while at least will be a total sham.All major parties are in this together.They have sold the country down the river; and guess what ?It will then be illegal to even criticise the EU; if God Forbid, its not already! This country will simply be 9 states(or thereabouts). France and Germany are the main instigators behind all this and France thinks its the main one but its really Germany. Are you thinking what im thinking;because you should? All those people who have been against Fascism are about to see it return with a vengeance.It could nt happen here? It can, it has, and its going to get worse, much much worse.Worse than you could ever imagine and all because you cant even countenance the posssiblity.Its a done deal! We are dead!
Edited 25 Jul 08, 9:31 AM by otrok

25 Jul 08, 1:05 PM
MistressKarla
UK, 2 yrs

WickedHands wrote:
In light of the news that Mosley's legal team are, apparently, now preparing papers for defamation claims (source: timesonline; yesterday), the "Nazi" & related issues are very likely to be put to bed once and for all (either way). If I was Mosley, and assuming that my past did not reflect my CURRENT views, I'd be most interested in some of the things that have been stated on these boards......
As already stated elsewhere; it is not for Mosley to come forward and publicly state what his CURRENT views are (one way or the other). It is for those asserting / attributing such views to evidence them. Both the web owner(s) AND the individual poster can be held liable if any defamation has occurred.

Well he can sue me for not liking men who have been in neo nazi organisations and who lie to there wives then!

25 Jul 08, 4:57 PM
strictlynormal
UK, 3 yrs

WickedHands wrote:
In light of the news that Mosley's legal team are, apparently, now preparing papers for defamation claims (source: timesonline; yesterday), the "Nazi" & related issues are very likely to be put to bed once and for all (either way). If I was Mosley, and assuming that my past did not reflect my CURRENT views, I'd be most interested in some of the things that have been stated on these boards......
As already stated elsewhere; it is not for Mosley to come forward and publicly state what his CURRENT views are (one way or the other). It is for those asserting / attributing such views to evidence them. Both the web owner(s) AND the individual poster can be held liable if any defamation has occurred.

Ding ding .. Round 2
Mosely issues libel proceedings
http://www.pitpass.com/fes_php/pitpass_news_item...

==================================
Growing old is unavoidable but growing up is optional
Croydon Munch Hades LAM

25 Jul 08, 6:08 PM
WickedHands
UK, 7 yrs
Master_Craftsman wrote:

WickedHands wrote:
As already stated elsewhere; it is not for Mosley to come forward and publicly state what his CURRENT views are (one way or the other). It is for those asserting / attributing such views to evidence them. Both the web owner(s) AND the individual poster can be held liable if any defamation has occurred.

I would doubt it.
I am not a lawyer, but I believe the case of Godfrey v Demon requires that the site operator be informed of any alleged libel. If the statement(s) in question are not removed in a timely manner, then the site operator may become jointly liable for the continued publication of the defamatory statement(s).
However, there will probably be a grat many web-boards, blogs and messages commenting on the case, to say nothing of postings to Usenet about it. I would doubt that MM's lawyers would bother about this and would content themselves with printed newspapers and magazines.
I agree that the relevant case law is Demon. And just to clarify, I did state "Both the web owner(s) AND the individual poster can be held liable if any defamation has occurred." Emphasis now given to "can". Based on personal experience, I stand by that.

25 Jul 08, 6:48 PM
DarkLordDredd
UK(NG), 6 yrs

WickedHands wrote:

Master_Craftsman wrote:

WickedHands wrote:
As already stated elsewhere; it is not for Mosley to come forward and publicly state what his CURRENT views are (one way or the other). It is for those asserting / attributing such views to evidence them. Both the web owner(s) AND the individual poster can be held liable if any defamation has occurred.

I would doubt it.
I am not a lawyer, but I believe the case of Godfrey v Demon requires that the site operator be informed of any alleged libel. If the statement(s) in question are not removed in a timely manner, then the site operator may become jointly liable for the continued publication of the defamatory statement(s).
However, there will probably be a grat many web-boards, blogs and messages commenting on the case, to say nothing of postings to Usenet about it. I would doubt that MM's lawyers would bother about this and would content themselves with printed newspapers and magazines.
I agree that the relevant case law is Demon. And just to clarify, I did state "Both the web owner(s) AND the individual poster can be held liable if any defamation has occurred." Emphasis now given to "can". Based on personal experience, I stand by that.

Just got in, phoned m' learned friend and she concurs with MC's and WH's take on the situation. However, today we did hear that News International has threatenned one web board with a libel action, to which I gather the middle didgit was flicked, seems the boards based somewhere offshore amnd is run by ex News International employees! I am currently trying to obtain further details.

25 Jul 08, 8:22 PM
ClassAct2005
UK, 3 yrs
And there are some UK regs that brought an Eu directive into place on electronic commerce. If you're not checking the posts in advance and you move stuff fast which is defamatory then I think there's no liability although it's not 100% clear. Mumsnet nearly got sued by Miss Gina Ford in a similar sort of set up.

WickedHands wrote:

Master_Craftsman wrote:

WickedHands wrote:
As already stated elsewhere; it is not for Mosley to come forward and publicly state what his CURRENT views are (one way or the other). It is for those asserting / attributing such views to evidence them. Both the web owner(s) AND the individual poster can be held liable if any defamation has occurred.

I would doubt it.
I am not a lawyer, but I believe the case of Godfrey v Demon requires that the site operator be informed of any alleged libel. If the statement(s) in question are not removed in a timely manner, then the site operator may become jointly liable for the continued publication of the defamatory statement(s).
However, there will probably be a grat many web-boards, blogs and messages commenting on the case, to say nothing of postings to Usenet about it. I would doubt that MM's lawyers would bother about this and would content themselves with printed newspapers and magazines.
I agree that the relevant case law is Demon. And just to clarify, I did state "Both the web owner(s) AND the individual poster can be held liable if any defamation has occurred." Emphasis now given to "can". Based on personal experience, I stand by that.

25 Jul 08, 8:41 PM
DarkLordDredd
UK(NG), 6 yrs

MistressKarla wrote:

DarkLordDredd wrote:

nortyboy wrote:

Master_Craftsman wrote:

nortyboy wrote:
Check your own posts, you keep responding dont you? lmao
Not any more.
But thank you for having confirmed that you post only to attract attention to yourself, or to try to irritate others.

Of course noone is allowed to disagree with you cos you might be a tiny bit wrong are they?

Is it just me, or does that smack of the pot calling the kettle black??
No i think people like you have behaved appallingly.
Nortboy and others have raised a valid issue.They dont
like the sad ass kissing that has gone on towards a man
who is an ex nazi thug .Why would anyone want to shake
this mans hand if they were are jewish? He was an active
member of a racist , anti semitic group. For christ sake
get real.
All people like you have done is behaved like two bob
bullies .You will just have to accept that many people
don't actually want to worship a man whose past is that of
a nazi.To be quite frank,he has his right to privacy ,
but he clearly has never publically regretted his
past.
He is after all a proven liar as well,just ask his
wife.
As for you, i suggest you treat people with respect,
instead of trying to be a playground bully!

Now I've finished laughing at your post I'll respond, you talk more drivel than nortyboy does. I thought the respect bit of your post was an absolute gem. Respect is earnt and not automatic, and I respect no-one who fails to respect the convention on threads and goes on moronic ill thought out attacks. You are no better than nortyboy.

Next page


	©1997-2008 Informed Consent