I win.
And now I want a cookie.
-
Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts access private forums and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!
Krakauer getting defensive?
- Thread starter PlayerRep
- Start date
I win.
And now I want a cookie.
GrizRanger
Well-known member
UMGriz75 I suggest you just put argh on ignore and not waste your time responding to his nonsensical posts.
Even before this latest stuff appeared on egriz, I did not read argh's posts because they rarely made sense. Argh never learned how to write, to use punctuation, to put together logical thoughts in clear sentences, paragraphs, etc.. He does not communicate clearly. Argh babbles on, in his own little world.
Why waste time trying to read and make sense of his babble? He's like a patient in a mental ward who babbles to himself in the corner of a padded cell. Just let him babble on. Why participate in the babble? Life is too short to palaver with a cuckoo bird.
Even before this latest stuff appeared on egriz, I did not read argh's posts because they rarely made sense. Argh never learned how to write, to use punctuation, to put together logical thoughts in clear sentences, paragraphs, etc.. He does not communicate clearly. Argh babbles on, in his own little world.
Why waste time trying to read and make sense of his babble? He's like a patient in a mental ward who babbles to himself in the corner of a padded cell. Just let him babble on. Why participate in the babble? Life is too short to palaver with a cuckoo bird.
super_eagle13
Well-known member
...
AllWeatherFan said:
That lawyer who spoke up, and who the Missoulian called a heckler and reported that he elbowed his way to the podium, had actually talked to the journalism dean/moderator before the forum to say that he planned to asked some questions. When he went to the podium, the dean handed the mic to him. So much for the Missoulian's accurate and fair reporting. The Missoulian has goofed up multiple stories and headlines in the past week. They've had to change and re-write online stories and headlines released in the late afternoon/early evening, and I think are having to retract at least one misstatement. Their performance has been so bad lately. Florio was biased and sometimes infuriating, but at least she wasn't as dumb and uninformed as some of the "reporters" they have now.
fanofzoo said:
A good short summary from Wiki. A dean wouldn't be a public figure.
"There are several ways a person must go about proving that libel has taken place. For example, in the United States, the person must prove that the statement was false, caused harm, and was made without adequate research into the truthfulness of the statement. These steps are for an ordinary citizen. For a celebrity or a public official, the person must prove the first three steps and that the statement was made with the intent to do harm or with reckless disregard for the truth,[11] which is usually specifically referred to as "proving malice".[12]"
"A fairly high threshold of public activity is necessary to elevate people to public figure status. Typically, they must either be:
##a public figure, either a public official or any other person pervasively involved in public affairs, or
##a limited purpose public figure, meaning those who have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved." A "particularized determination" is required to decide whether a person is a limited purpose public figure, which can be variously interpreted:[2]
"A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established..."
More info. A college football coach was once declared a public figure in a case a number of years ago. http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/proving-fault-actual-malice-and-negligence" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Meanwhile, while we continue to argue Krakauers book continues to plummet down the charts.
mtgrizrule
Well-known member
signedbewildered said:
That is the best news to leave this subject on. End of thread. :thumb: :clap:
super_eagle13
Well-known member
...
A dean is not a public figure.
"Later cases expanded the rule to apply to public figures. A public figure is someone who has gained a significant degree of fame or notoriety in general or in the context of a particular issue or controversy. Even though these figures have no official role in government affairs, they often hold considerable influence over decisions made by the government or by the public. Examples of public figures are numerous and could include, for instance, celebrities, prominent athletes, or advocates who involve themselves in a public debate."
"Keeping in mind the difficulty of making the determination of who is a limited-purpose public figure, we've collected the following cases which might be helpful. Courts have found the following individuals to be limited-purpose public figures:
A retired general who advocated on national security issues. See Secord v. Cockburn, 747 F.Supp. 779 (1990).
A scientist who was prominent and outspoken in his opposition to nuclear tests. See Pauling v. Globe-Democrat Publishing Co., 362 F.2d 188 (1966).
A nationally-known college football coach accused of fixing a football game. See Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967).
A professional belly dancer for a matter related to her performance. See James v. Gannet Co., 40 N.Y.2d 415 (1976).
A Playboy Playmate for purpose of a parody. See Vitale v. National Lampoon, Inc., 449 F. Supp 442 (1978).
Courts have found the following individuals not to be limited-purpose public figures (and therefore private figures):
A well-known lawyer and civic leader engaged in a very public trial involving police brutality. See Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1972).
A socialite going through a divorce who both collected press clippings on herself and held press conferences regarding the divorce. See Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448 (U.S. 1976).
A Penthouse Pet for purposes of parody. See Pring v. Penthouse Int'l Ltd., 695 F.2d 438 (1982).
Individuals who are considered to be limited-purpose public figures remain so as long as the public has an "independent" interest in the underlying controversy. Unlike all-purpose public figures, it is relatively easy for a limited-purpose public figure to lose his status if the controversy in which he is involved has been largely forgotten. But most will still maintain their status. For example, a woman who had publicly dated Elvis Presley over a decade earlier, but who had since married and returned to "private" life, was found to remain a public figure for stories related to her relationship with Presley. See Brewer v. Memphis Publishing Co., 626 F.2d. 1238 (5th Cir. 1980)."
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/proving-fault-actual-malice-and-negligence" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Later cases expanded the rule to apply to public figures. A public figure is someone who has gained a significant degree of fame or notoriety in general or in the context of a particular issue or controversy. Even though these figures have no official role in government affairs, they often hold considerable influence over decisions made by the government or by the public. Examples of public figures are numerous and could include, for instance, celebrities, prominent athletes, or advocates who involve themselves in a public debate."
"Keeping in mind the difficulty of making the determination of who is a limited-purpose public figure, we've collected the following cases which might be helpful. Courts have found the following individuals to be limited-purpose public figures:
A retired general who advocated on national security issues. See Secord v. Cockburn, 747 F.Supp. 779 (1990).
A scientist who was prominent and outspoken in his opposition to nuclear tests. See Pauling v. Globe-Democrat Publishing Co., 362 F.2d 188 (1966).
A nationally-known college football coach accused of fixing a football game. See Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130 (1967).
A professional belly dancer for a matter related to her performance. See James v. Gannet Co., 40 N.Y.2d 415 (1976).
A Playboy Playmate for purpose of a parody. See Vitale v. National Lampoon, Inc., 449 F. Supp 442 (1978).
Courts have found the following individuals not to be limited-purpose public figures (and therefore private figures):
A well-known lawyer and civic leader engaged in a very public trial involving police brutality. See Gertz v. Robert Welch Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1972).
A socialite going through a divorce who both collected press clippings on herself and held press conferences regarding the divorce. See Time, Inc. v. Firestone, 424 U.S. 448 (U.S. 1976).
A Penthouse Pet for purposes of parody. See Pring v. Penthouse Int'l Ltd., 695 F.2d 438 (1982).
Individuals who are considered to be limited-purpose public figures remain so as long as the public has an "independent" interest in the underlying controversy. Unlike all-purpose public figures, it is relatively easy for a limited-purpose public figure to lose his status if the controversy in which he is involved has been largely forgotten. But most will still maintain their status. For example, a woman who had publicly dated Elvis Presley over a decade earlier, but who had since married and returned to "private" life, was found to remain a public figure for stories related to her relationship with Presley. See Brewer v. Memphis Publishing Co., 626 F.2d. 1238 (5th Cir. 1980)."
http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/proving-fault-actual-malice-and-negligence" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
statler & waldorf
Well-known member
The Rolling Stone suit will definitely be worth watching. No settling, I hope. Drag the left wing "press" through Hell. Too bad it isn't happening in Missoula. :twisted:
Thank you sweet Angel of Death!!
MsMaroon said:
Where the hell ya been?!?!
MsMaroon said:
Sure thing ... Last week the book was fourth on the NY times bestseller list for nonfiction.... this week it is six.
Sportin' Life said:
I believe that NY Times bestseller ranking reflects sales through the week ending May 2 - almost two weeks old. The Amazon ranking is updated hourly; the book is currently at 116 among all Amazon books and, except for a little surge after the publicity generated by the Missoula forum last week, it has been consistently falling.
