RE: Techie's List

Subject: RE: Techie's List
From: "Fred Ridder" <docudoc -at- hotmail -dot- com>
To: techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 23:54:38 -0500

So Jim, are you saying that you were not the person who
said "They would have to prove a) a post to this website
was actually a crime"?

Or are you blaming your categorical but incorrect assertion
on some unspecified poster who previously said that libel
was a criminal offense?

Either way, your reply seems pretty disingenuous to me.

And for the record, the one and only place in the thread
where the words "crime" or "criminal" were used in any
posting to the list was in a message from Janice Gelb where
she was directly quoting from an item on a case law website.
The word "criminal" did appear in the quotation, but the
whole point of the quotation was that a specific statute
in Illinois had been interpreted by the state's supreme court
as part of criminal libel law [rather than civil libel law] and
therefore subject to issues of intent and purpose rather
than simply the truth or falseness of the statement.

So as far as the thread itself goes, you *were* the first (and
only) person to state or imply that libel was a crime. Check
the list archive if you think I'm wrong.

From: "James Barrow" <vrfour -at- verizon -dot- net>
Reply-To: vrfour -at- verizon -dot- net
To: <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>
Subject: RE: Techie's List
Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2007 19:25:54 -0800

I know. I wasn't the one who mentioned "crime" first. I was just
continuing the thread. But Fred didn't pick up on the original post, he
waited to comment on mine. The burden of proof lies with the "injured
parties", and it is most definitely an uphill battle.

- Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: Lauren [mailto:lt34 -at- csus -dot- edu]

Not a crime, this is civil. The "injured parties" would need to show
damages and they don't need that much proof. People (defendants) would need
to post something that interfered with the plaintiff's business to what ever
measure is required by the jurisdiction where the damage occurred, but
people should still be able to post their opinions about a recruiter without
the recruiter getting "legally" hurt. On the flip-side, if a recruiter told
a potential employer of an employee, say in a reference, that this employee
barely worked or was bad in some other way, then that recruiter could face
litigation because the recruiter is in a stronger position to cause damage
to the employee.

Jim, regarding your comment,

"I worked for a recruitment agency that didn't do direct deposit, nor did
they mail or deliver paychecks. To get paid, one had to drive to their
corporate office. Had I known that ahead of time, I probably wouldn't have
done business with them."

Was that in California? I thought that employers had to pay at the place of
employment, by mail, or by direct deposit at the employee's discretion.
When was this?


Get in the mood for Valentine's Day. View photos, recipes and more on your page.


Create HTML or Microsoft Word content and convert to Help file formats or printed documentation. Features include single source authoring, team authoring,
Web-based technology, and PDF output.

Now shipping: Help &amp; Manual 4 with RoboHelp(r) import! New editor,
full Unicode support. Create help files, web-based help and PDF in up
to 106 languages with Help &amp; Manual:

You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- infoinfocus -dot- com -dot-
To unsubscribe send a blank email to techwr-l-unsubscribe -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
or visit

To subscribe, send a blank email to techwr-l-join -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com

Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit for more resources and info.


RE: Techie's List: From: James Barrow

Previous by Author: RE: Techie's List
Next by Author: RoboHelp - Troubleshooting
Previous by Thread: RE: Techie's List
Next by Thread: RE: Techie's List

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads