# The New Announcement by Ed **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 23, 2002, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-announcement-by-ed/110473 "2002-05-23T13:18:08Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![The\_Mermaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a183cd/32.png) [@The\_Mermaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Mermaid)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2002, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-announcement-by-ed/110473/81 "2002-05-23T20:53:22Z")
Yes I read the original thread but I honestly can’t remember who poster B is but I know poster A is an monster, possibly immortal, who can say. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Mermaid](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a183cd/32.png) [@The\_Mermaid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Mermaid)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2002, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-announcement-by-ed/110473/82 "2002-05-23T20:55:01Z")
I hope I’m not out of line by saying the original OP was one where a certain doper was being asked what the hell was wrong with him/her. That doper was not A nor B though. ---
**Author:** ![Sauron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce7236/32.png) [@Sauron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sauron)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2002, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-announcement-by-ed/110473/83 "2002-05-23T20:59:01Z")
Well, heck, if folks are willing to e-mail the IDs of these folks, I’m willing to be part of the clique. Anybody wanna share with the Dark Lord? ---
**Author:** ![musicguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ba0ec/32.png) [@musicguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/musicguy)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2002, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-announcement-by-ed/110473/84 "2002-05-23T21:25:27Z")
Just another doper who really wants to know who these two alphabet people were. E-mail is in profile and would be greatly appreciated! ---
**Author:** ![Tejota](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@Tejota](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tejota)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2002, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-announcement-by-ed/110473/85 "2002-05-23T21:28:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Cheesesteak \* > \*\ ***Tejota** the bannable offense here was threatening to sue the Chicago Reader over an on-board dispute. I was following this thread and saw ‘B’ blow up over the revised quote, lawsuits were mentioned in the thread, but I never imagined that ‘B’ would ever contact the staff officially to pursue it, and I don’t recall the Reader being mentioned. I just figured it was a bunch of hot air blown out in the heat of the moment. > > AFAIK, nothing said inside the thread itself was bannable, unless there were lawsuit threatening posts that I missed. \*\* Yeah, I got that, I thought it was hot air too. In fact, I still think so. I happen to think that Poster A was way out of line, the substitution of an ethnicity for a worldview was inappropriate because what was being criticized was a natural aspect of the worldview, but NOT a natural aspect of the substituted ethnicity. Poster A was clearly being a jerk, but it was in the Pit, where I am under the impression that a certain amount of jerkyness is tolerated. But it WAS clear what poster A was doing, I never thought for a moment that Poster B had actually said the substituted text, and I certainly can see how the SMDB would not appreciate the threat of a lawsuit. (though banning seems to be a bit futile) What concerns me about this is that **Ed** seems to be saying that intentionally misquoting someone is now also a bannable offense, but that’s a very broad rule. Just about everyone paraphrases other posters in GD, clearly they don’t mean to shut that down entirely, but we no longer have a concrete example of what is over the line anymore. Also, what’s the point of having a pit if you have to be polite to other posters in it? ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2002, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-announcement-by-ed/110473/86 "2002-05-23T21:48:00Z")
> [@](#): > > What concerns me about this is that Ed seems to be saying that intentionally misquoting someone is now also a bannable offense, but that’s a very broad rule. I’m sure it’s more along the lines of “maliciously misquoting someone for the purpose of undermining their posts”. Personally, I’m glad that his new rule came about. One of my pet peeves in debates is when someone misrepresents the opposition’s viewpoint just to score some cheap points. There’s a difference between parodying someone else’s words for humorous, light-hearted purposes, and deliberately lying about what someone else said in a debate. ---
**Author:** ![Fenris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fenris/32/498_2.png) [@Fenris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fenris)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2002, 9:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-announcement-by-ed/110473/87 "2002-05-23T21:56:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Tejota \* > \*\*I happen to think that Poster A was way out of line, the substitution of an ethnicity for a worldview was inappropriate because what was being criticized was a natural aspect of the worldview, but NOT a natural aspect of the substituted ethnicity. Poster A was clearly being a jerk, but it was in the Pit, where I am under the impression that a certain amount of jerkyness is tolerated. \*\* I agree that ethnicity != worldview, but if Poster B had used “Musilm” in place of “Jew” would you still think it jerkish behavior? How 'bout Catholic? The reason I ask that there was a follow-up conversation in that thread where Poster B made it clear that he wasn’t aware that Judiasm was an ethnicity as well as a religion. It’s not common knowledge apparently, given the number of discussions we’ve had on the board about it. (If you do a search, you’ll find a thread where it took several Jewish Dopers some effort to convince me of it, and I’m Jewish!) So I _don’t_ think that Poster B was jerkish for that post. If he’d used “Black”, I’d feel differently. Fenris ---
**Author:** ![RaCha\_ar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c2a13f/32.png) [@RaCha\_ar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaCha_ar)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2002, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-announcement-by-ed/110473/88 "2002-05-23T22:31:16Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by The Mermaid \* > \*\*Yes I read the original thread but I honestly can’t remember who poster B is but I know poster A is an monster, possibly immortal, who can say. \*\* Subtle. :rolleyes: Honestly, if we’re restricting the identities of the posters to being discussed off-board, hints like this have no place here either. If you’ve agreed not to talk about the identities of the posters in question, _don’t do it_. It’s not particularly cute to hint at identities without naming names. Let it go. ---
**Author:** ![White\_Lightning](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@White\_Lightning](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/White_Lightning)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2002, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-announcement-by-ed/110473/89 "2002-05-23T22:39:28Z")
I’ve already sent out about 30 of these today, so I repeat my offer: anyone who wants to know the story, just email me and ask. I’m not keeping track of who I have and haven’t emailed about it, so I’m not gonna email people based on requests in this thread (let’s be honest – it’s just too much work), but I’m more than happy to respond to emailed queries. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2002, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-announcement-by-ed/110473/90 "2002-05-23T22:43:02Z")
You may have missed it, **Fenris** , but I already responded to that point you’re making. It _is_ worse to condemn on the basis of religion than the basis of political ideology. ---
**Author:** ![BottledBlondJeanie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/0ea827/32.png) [@BottledBlondJeanie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BottledBlondJeanie)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2002, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-announcement-by-ed/110473/91 "2002-05-23T23:08:34Z")
**minty green** Although slander requires proof of sepcial damages, libel does not–at least in TX… I think (this is off top of head) it’s TRPC section 71.003… The libel just has to tend to damage the reputation in accordance with the statute… Which SUCKS in my personal opinion…I didn’t realize how easy it is to claim libel… BBJ ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2002, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-announcement-by-ed/110473/92 "2002-05-24T00:28:18Z")
You mean Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code [section 73.001](http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/ci/ci007300.html#ci001.73.001): > [@](#): > > A libel is a defamation expressed in written or other graphic form that tends to blacken the memory of the dead or that tends to injure a living person’s reputation and thereby expose the person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or financial injury or to impeach any person’s honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation or to publish the natural defects of anyone and thereby expose the person to public hatred, ridicule, or financial injury. The trick to that, of course, is that “defamation” is not defined in the statute, so the courts import the common law definition of defamation, which _does_ require proof of damages to reputation. _See, e.g., Doe v. Mobile Video Tapes, Inc._, 43 S.W.3d 40, 48 (Tex. App.–Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.). Thus, a Texas libel plaintiff still has to come up with proof of damages or prove libel per se. Now I’m not _entirely_ sure of that conclusion, since I don’t have Dorsaneo or O’Connor’s with me at home, but that’s the way it looks to me after a few case law searches on mytexasbar. ---
**Author:** ![Tejota](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@Tejota](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tejota)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2002, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-announcement-by-ed/110473/93 "2002-05-24T00:48:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Fenris \* > \*\* > I agree that ethnicity != worldview, but if Poster B had used “Musilm” in place of “Jew” would you still think it jerkish behavior? How 'bout Catholic? > > The reason I ask that there was a follow-up conversation in that thread where Poster B made it clear that he wasn’t aware that Judiasm was an ethnicity as well as a religion. It’s not common knowledge apparently, given the number of discussions we’ve had on the board about it. (If you do a search, you’ll find a thread where it took several Jewish Dopers some effort to convince me of it, and I’m Jewish!) > > So I _don’t_ think that Poster B was jerkish for that post. If he’d used “Black”, I’d feel differently. > > Fenris \*\* If poster A had used Muslim, and Poster B had replaced it with Jew, that would be an apples for apples substitution. (Jew used as religion/ethnicity). But the original word was ‘conservative’ which is a philosophy chosen by intellect NOT by either faith or by birth. Furthermore, while definitely a rant, Poster A was also making a criticism of ideas that ARE relevant to conservative thought. Insulting, yes, but also **on point**. Switching to Jew substuted ethnicity/religion for governing philosophy, and also removed all of the context that made the rant **relevant** , thus making it appear to be thoughtlessly cruel. It was a sleazy debaters trick, and and definitely the behavior of a jerk. But it was also in the PIT, and if you can’t handle being the butt of a mean joke in the PIT, then you should just not go there. I certainly don’t think that threating a libel suit was an appropriate response. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2002, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-announcement-by-ed/110473/94 "2002-05-24T00:59:57Z")
psst **Tejota** - I feel confident that what **Fenris** was saying was: Poster original post “conservatives are/do blah blah blah” Other poster (I keep getting A/B mixed up), “well, if you substitute ‘Muslim’ instead of conservative, you get, blah blah blah” not, had the one poster been talking about Jews and the other substituted Muslim. My head hurts now. ---
**Author:** ![reprise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@reprise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reprise)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2002, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-announcement-by-ed/110473/95 "2002-05-24T01:07:15Z")
I’d just like to point out to people than if this threatened lawsuit **was** a winnable one, then continuing to “publish” the original statements via email or other messageboards would not be a smart move. The devil with defamation actions is that they are extremely expensive to defend even if the court vindicates you in the end - something which the insurers of media outlets (and the CR is most certainly one of those) take into account when deciding their premiums. I hate to point out the obvious, but the CR doesn’t consider this messageboard as having enough “goodwill” value to spend money on replacing the server - they sure as heck can’t be expected to regard it as being worth the cost of either legal fees spent on defending defamation actions or increased insurance premiums… ---
**Author:** ![Michael\_Ellis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/977dab/32.png) [@Michael\_Ellis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Michael_Ellis)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2002, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-announcement-by-ed/110473/96 "2002-05-24T01:14:32Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Robb \* > \*\*I’ll bet that the initiation rite into The Clique[symbol]ä[/symbol] will now include learning the identities of Posters A and B. \*\* Goody! I’m in! I was there! And I’m not telling… ---
**Author:** ![Tejota](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/958977/32.png) [@Tejota](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tejota)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2002, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-announcement-by-ed/110473/97 "2002-05-24T01:14:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by wring \* > \*\*psst **Tejota** - I feel confident that what **Fenris** was saying was: > > Poster original post “conservatives are/do blah blah blah” > > Other poster (I keep getting A/B mixed up), “well, if you substitute ‘Muslim’ instead of conservative, you get, blah blah blah” > > not, had the one poster been talking about Jews and the other substituted Muslim. > > My head hurts now. \*\* Sorry, I guess I wasn’t clear. I think it _would have been_ ok to substitue Muslim if the original poster had used Jew (or visa versa). But it would never be valid to substitute \ or \ for ‘conservative’ in order to make a point. If he couldn’t make a point by substituting ‘liberal’ for ‘conservative’ then he didn’t have a point to make. ---
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2002, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-announcement-by-ed/110473/98 "2002-05-24T01:15:49Z")
Don’t worry about private republication, **reprise**. Though it was certainly the better part of valor for **Ed** to place the (nonlibelous, IMPO) thread out of view, libel via republication only works against the people who republish. If I tell you something defamatory about Cecil Adams and you repeat it to Ann Landers, Cecil can sue me for telling you, but he has to go after you for telling Ann. ---
**Author:** ![OpalCat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/8edcca/32.png) [@OpalCat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OpalCat)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2002, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-announcement-by-ed/110473/99 "2002-05-24T01:41:00Z")
I’d like to back up tom’s point regarding Fathom. I’d really rather leave this mess here rather than drag it over there. Thanks. ---
**Author:** ![reprise](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ea666f/32.png) [@reprise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/reprise)\ **Post date:** [May 24, 2002, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-announcement-by-ed/110473/100 "2002-05-24T01:41:18Z")
Which is the point I was trying to make **minty** , that private individuals CAN be pursued for “republication” - although they usually are not because they don’t possess assets or insurance which make it worthwhile… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-announcement-by-ed/110473.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-new-announcement-by-ed/110473.md?page=6)