HARRIET EDUCATIONAL GROUP THREATENS SGFORUMS WITH DEFAMATION
-
Originally posted by MyPillowTalks:
The fact that you do not screen what your users post on your website forum (which is not admitted).
From here the "which" might mean what the users post, and "admitted" may mean that the user did not admit that he/she posted that.
OR
the user did not enter that, but just copy and paste from somewhere?
off topic abit:
does not absolve you from liability for the defamatory material posted on your website forum.
if the forums never screen what the users post, can say the forum hold no responsibility to that is being posted here on the screen.?If the forum hold no responsibility, in the first place the server will not store their informations liao
but sgf can give ppl ip add one? need legal documents to do so?
Then people like Poh Ah Pak, and Ah Chia are in grave danger.
-
Originally posted by MyPillowTalks:
the letter says "the fact that there are no screening"
so now have screening or not?
How I know?You think there is screening or not? What with he taking down the threads related to the 1st complaints liao or have mods.
Thats why I want to see the 1st letter. Because 2nd letter just is answering to Jason's denial of responsibilities.
-
Originally posted by Fryderyk HPH:
Yeah, but since now they know Jason cannot give any info of valuable worth, they would want to pursue his IP address...
IP address, once track, can have vast implications.
Provided they can get the court orders to do it first. At least 2 is needed. One from SG, the other to the UK.
-
Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:
Provided they can get the court orders to do it first. At least 2 is needed. One from SG, the other to the UK.
Huh but why UK? Sorry I not so clear on that please enlighten me thx.
-
Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:
Provided they can get the court orders to do it first. At least 2 is needed. One from SG, the other to the UK.
Think only one is needed. Wong Partnership can adding cost and have their UK counterparts do on their end. -
Originally posted by viciouskitty74:
BTW, where is the 1st letter dated 11 June?
I read until blur. Who exactly is asking for who and what?
I thought the whole hoo hah was over that Iamw7 fella?
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3360/3634377229_571916e1b3_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3406/3634377671_3c649d8f3d_b.jpg
The educational group is asking for youyayu's details. Apparently iamw7 has been tracked down from the letter dated 11 June 2009.
-
Originally posted by viciouskitty74:
How I know?You think there is screening or not? What with he taking down the threads related to the 1st complaints liao or have mods.
Thats why I want to see the 1st letter. Because 2nd letter just is answering to Jason's denial of responsibilities.
If jason say no screening, then the mods presence may be abit of contridicting
Unless the job scope of the mod does not screen what the users post
and logically speaking one mod cannot read every single post
-
Originally posted by Fryderyk HPH:
Huh but why UK? Sorry I not so clear on that please enlighten me thx.
the server is hosted in uk?
-
Originally posted by MyPillowTalks:
The fact that you do not screen what your users post on your website forum (which is not admitted).
From here the "which" might mean what the users post, and "admitted" may mean that the user did not admit that he/she posted that.
OR
the user did not enter that, but just copy and paste from somewhere?
off topic abit:
does not absolve you from liability for the defamatory material posted on your website forum.
if the forums never screen what the users post, can say the forum hold no responsibility to that is being posted here on the screen.?If the forum hold no responsibility, in the first place the server will not store their informations liao
but sgf can give ppl ip add one? need legal documents to do so?
"Admitted" has two meanings to me here:
1. Not admitted under the court of laws (that means not recognized, that shall be another issue to fight on)
2. sgforums didn't admit it (lawyers need magnifying glass, apparently T&C font too small for them to see the clause)
Until a court order is given, they don't have to comply with the demand of giving out the IP address.
-
why they want to know me sia?
-
Originally posted by Fryderyk HPH:
Huh but why UK? Sorry I not so clear on that please enlighten me thx.
Server resides in the UK. SG court order is needed to release the particulars for that IP address that they have gotten (assume that they have gotten it successfully)
-
Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3360/3634377229_571916e1b3_b.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3406/3634377671_3c649d8f3d_b.jpg
The educational group is asking for youyayu's details. Apparently iamw7 has been tracked down from the letter dated 11 June 2009.
iamw7 most probably tracked down because that single moniker has posted across several forums as claim. those other several forums may have received the same legal letter and immediately succumbed to providing the information to them
-
And when Jason duplicate Iamw7's postings for all to see, after deleting the thread.....
Shows his defiance, but does it absolved him of allowing Iamw7's post to be deframating to the lawyers's clients again? And this time........can he deny liability?
-
Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:
Letter says this:
"that you disclose the name and full particulars of the members registered under the moniker "youyayu";"
come come... so who wan to know the full name of FI ar? we call ah Wong to write a letter for us too..
v -
Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:
Server resides in the UK. SG court order is needed to release the particulars for that IP address that they have gotten (assume that they have gotten it successfully)
Why still need Sg court order???????If server and forum registration is in UK. Uk side can liao.
And the costs aka the lawyers bill will be billed to the forumer. And if Jason wants to side with the fella by not providing information.
Then the Jason is deemed to take responsibilty for the others actions and be fined only what.
Someone may need to take a manifying glass to look thru UK law.
-
Originally posted by I-like-flings(m):
come come... so who wan to know the full name of FI ar? we call ah Wong to write a letter for us too..v
That one. No need lawyers. PI can liao.You come up $5k Sing Dollar Cash and I share with you the information.
-
Originally posted by viciouskitty74:
That one. No need lawyers. PI can liao.You come up $5k Sing Dollar Cash and I share with you the information.
knn.. i ask lawyer better.. write 10 letter also dun need $5k lor.. -
Originally posted by viciouskitty74:
And when Jason duplicate Iamw7's postings for all to see, after deleting the thread.....
Shows his defiance, but does it absolved him of allowing Iamw7's post to be deframating to the lawyers's clients again? And this time........can he deny liability?
So... Who's side are you on? The majority of forumers here but the minority bumpkins who want to sue aimlessly?
-
mayi...
another interpretation from me again, might not be what they meant
could it sth like:
yes you say that u dun take responsibility of what is posted. how ever, since it is on ur website, you must take responsibility?my eng cmi, very hard to interpret
-
Originally posted by Fryderyk HPH:
So... Who's side are you on? The majority of forumers here but the minority bumpkins who want to sue aimlessly?
Jasons.If we are talking about the educational company being a sham company.
If we are discussing taking responsibility and denying what one is not guilty of.
The laws.
If we are talking about procedures and how to go about it or defending it.
-
Shows his defiance, but does it absolved him of allowing Iamw7's post to be deframating to the lawyers's clients again? And this time........can he deny liability?
Logically, he can't. However, it may not hold up in courts.
The very clever lawyers requested the original postings be removed. That means no more originals. No originals, very hard to convince. Other medium could be used, such as a photo of that posting, but that photo will be under heavy scrutiny whether it has been edited to prove that youyayu and/or iamw7 is guilty.
-
Originally posted by viciouskitty74:
Why still need Sg court order???????If server and forum registration is in UK. Uk side can liao.
And the costs aka the lawyers bill will be billed to the forumer. And if Jason wants to side with the fella by not providing information.
Then the Jason is deemed to take responsibilty for the others actions and be fined only what.
Someone may need to take a manifying glass to look thru UK law.
Err.. IP address is registered to Singapore ISPs. Can get IP address is one thing. Can get that fellow's particulars who used that IP address is another thing (if I'm not mistaken).
I don't think our ISPs share that info with our UK counterpart?
I do need the magnifying glass for UK laws.
-
Gin la na bu. i touch untill harriet education group isit? want come find trouble with me isit?
I IN TAIWAN COME IF U CAN LA.
try finding me! GOOD LUCK!
-YYY
-
Originally posted by ndmmxiaomayi:
Logically, he can't. However, it may not hold up in courts.
The very clever lawyers requested the original postings be removed. That means no more originals. No originals, very hard to convince. Other medium could be used, such as a photo of that posting, but that photo will be under heavy scrutiny whether it has been edited to prove that youyayu and/or iamw7 is guilty.
Yes. But its a MAY.What if it does. That Jason duplicated the postings of Iamw7 and post it up for all to see.
And if it comes to arguing that the originals was losted. Isnt Jason the one to finger for 'editing' the postings?
And in this case, is it now him posting deframing posts against a entity? So can he be absolved from liability if he himself posted stuffs that was originally offensive to the entity?
Even if its a copy, the very first page of this thread already is violating the entity.
Can he or the company now deny any more liability?
-
Originally posted by viciouskitty74:
Yes. But its a MAY.What if it does. That Jason duplicated the postings of Iamw7 and post it up for all to see.
And if it comes to arguing that the originals was losted. Isnt Jason the one to finger for 'editing' the postings?
And in this case, is it now him posting deframing posts against a entity? So can he be absolved from liability if he himself posted stuffs that was originally offensive to the entity?
Even if its a copy, the very first page of this thread already is violating the entity.
Can he or the company now deny any more liability?
Why would the first page of this thread be violating the entity???