Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index
 The RulesThe Rules FAQFAQ
   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   CalendarCalendar   SearchSearch 
Log inLog in RegisterRegister
 
Things that make you go.......WTF? Part II

Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Victoria Park Tavern
 
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 21, 22, 23  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
David Libra

Speak about destruction


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: in a time zone

PostPosted: Mon Jan 18, 2021 9:44 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Working my way through piles of holiday emails today – most of it spam, of course – and this one caught my eye, from "the world's largest sugar dating site" (for anyone who doesn't know, this is one of those sites that sets up "sugar babies" with "sugar daddies", usually rich older men who essentially offer to look after young women financially if they'll go on dates with them).

Quote:
[Our] honest and transparent approach to dating is the linchpin for modern dating needs and continues to grow our community of like-minded adults who believe happiness is more important than mere traditional dating milestones.


That's ... one way of putting it. Shocked

_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
think positive Libra

Side By Side


Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere

PostPosted: Tue Jan 26, 2021 11:11 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

driving around looking at houses for sale for my eldest to get her feet in the market, me and hubby drove around for 3 hours, a couple of really nice ones in good location near station etc and nice area, in Truganina, then we went to another address there......well,.....you know all those news reports???? ...OMG i thought i was in the bad parts of LA or New York!! we went down a court, burnt out cars, cars with no plates, gang colours, and what a $$%^%%$ mess!! we will keep welllll away from that section, Im not kidding, a few huge men in the street, scary looking dudes,

a few houses in point cook too, now is the time to buy guys, sadly people selling before they get foreclosed on.

_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

Speak about destruction


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: in a time zone

PostPosted: Wed Jan 27, 2021 2:53 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Can calling someone stupid really be considered defamatory?

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jan/27/businesswoman-feminist-cretin-afr-journalist-joe-aston-wins-280000-elaine-stead

I understand that there's more to the story than that, and that more specific criticisms were made of her, but from my reading of it it really does seem that the use of the word "cretin" was a big part of the judgement. Imagine being hauled before a court because you called Scott Morrison or Daniel Andrews a dumbarse! It really is high time we revisited our defamation laws, because stuff like this seems fundamentally absurd – and, more sinisterly, a useful tool of the powerful to evade criticism and mockery.

_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
stui magpie Gemini

Oh, the Premiership's a cakewalk


Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: Escaping Danistan

PostPosted: Thu Jan 28, 2021 5:53 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

David wrote:
Can calling someone stupid really be considered defamatory?

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jan/27/businesswoman-feminist-cretin-afr-journalist-joe-aston-wins-280000-elaine-stead

I understand that there's more to the story than that, and that more specific criticisms were made of her, but from my reading of it it really does seem that the use of the word "cretin" was a big part of the judgement. Imagine being hauled before a court because you called Scott Morrison or Daniel Andrews a dumbarse! It really is high time we revisited our defamation laws, because stuff like this seems fundamentally absurd – and, more sinisterly, a useful tool of the powerful to evade criticism and mockery.


nah, sorry, from what I read I don't agree.

A journalist writing in a reputable publication has far more power than you or me calling <snip – the point can be made without such a specific example!> on here. if the journo was writing articles calling her a cretin, using a medium where she has no opportunity to reply and reach an equal audience, then he's not a very bright bunny.

_________________
In my defence, I was left unsupervised
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Pi Gemini



Joined: 13 Feb 2006
Location: SA

PostPosted: Sat Jan 30, 2021 8:31 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

holy sh!t

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20210128/china-using-anal-swabs-for-covid-testing

....bend over...got to check your bum...... remember to unclench....

_________________
Pi = Infinite = Collingwood = Always
Floreat Pica
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Tannin 

Can't remember


Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Ballarat

PostPosted: Sat Jan 30, 2021 9:15 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

stui magpie wrote:
David wrote:
Can calling someone stupid really be considered defamatory?

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jan/27/businesswoman-feminist-cretin-afr-journalist-joe-aston-wins-280000-elaine-stead

I understand that there's more to the story than that, and that more specific criticisms were made of her, but from my reading of it it really does seem that the use of the word "cretin" was a big part of the judgement. Imagine being hauled before a court because you called Scott Morrison or Daniel Andrews a dumbarse! It really is high time we revisited our defamation laws, because stuff like this seems fundamentally absurd – and, more sinisterly, a useful tool of the powerful to evade criticism and mockery.


nah, sorry, from what I read I don't agree.

A journalist writing in a reputable publication has far more power than you or me calling <snip – the point can be made without such a specific example!> on here. if the journo was writing articles calling her a cretin, using a medium where she has no opportunity to reply and reach an equal audience, then he's not a very bright bunny.


Correct weight Stui. Ashton is lively, entertaining, and often to the point. He is not afraid to call out pigs feeding at the trough, and his column is an important part of the financial landscape. It is one small part of the overall task of keeping the bastards honest. In this instance (and in one or two others I have seen) he went over the top. The line between lampooning an incompetent manager of other people's money and heaping pointless and dangerous abuse on a largely defenceless victim can be a fine one, and is often difficult to see. In this instance, the judge found, quite rightly, that Ashton went far beyond fair criticism and honest opinion and simply vented vitriol. (The judge used that very word, and this distinction between robust, honest opinion and angry vitriol is what tipped the case and led to the finding against Ashton.)

The Fairfax empire has responded very badly. Not only have they (almost) all banded together to defend a member of their tribe against the "evil" justice system, and to call yet again for "reform" (code word actually meaning castration) of the defamation laws so that in future they can attack anybody and get away unpunished, they have also chosen not to read or understand the verdict. The judge made the reasons for the verdict perfectly plain, but the Fairfax tribe are walking around in a dozen different articles spread across the Fin, the Age, and the SMH with their fingers in their ears saying "Nahh nahh, nahh can't hear you!".

Their response borders on contempt. Wall to wall articles with the apparent intent of making sure that absolutely everyone knows what was said about the victim and, if not repeating it, hinting broadly enough to get the message through.

The one shining exception to this groupthink orgy is the Financial Review's Legal Editor, who makes no bones about the rights and wrongs of the case. Pity the rest of the Fairfax crew (and the Murdoch lot, who are singing off the same songsheet) can't pay some attention to their own in-house expert.

_________________
Let's eat Grandma. Commas save lives!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Tannin 

Can't remember


Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Ballarat

PostPosted: Sat Jan 30, 2021 9:29 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Thursday's Fin was awash with outraged shrieking about this case. The full-width back page headline was just a start, there was lots more.

Hidden away on page 36, however, was this:

Michael Pelly, Legal Editor of the Fin wrote:

Dr Elaine Stead said she felt “helpless” when she was being assailed by journalist Joe Aston over her performance as managing director of venture capital at Blue Sky Alternative Investments.

In two articles published in 2019, Aston – in the Rear Window column that runs on the back page of the The Australian Financial Review – said Stead was “another feminist cretin” and a “venture capital pyromaniac” who “set fire to people’s money”.
Dr Elaine Stead has been awarded $280,000 by the Federal Court.

But as Federal Court judge Michael Lee confirmed on Wednesday, she had the law on her side – in particular that which sets out what a journalist must do before they can claim the defence of “honest opinion” under section 31 of the current uniform Defamation Act.

It was a pyrrhic victory of sorts, not unlike that for former treasurer Joe Hockey in 2015.

Like Hockey – awarded $200,000 over a series of articles about Liberal Party fundraising – Stead’s $280,000 payout could end up being overtaken by her legal fees.
Related Quotes

Both parties spent an estimated $1 million on the case.

A normal costs order in favour of Stead only means she is entitled to recover basic – or “party to party” – costs, which usually represents about two-thirds of a total legal bill. (The judge has left open whether he would order indemnity costs).

Justice Lee noted that the defence of honest opinion had “long been regarded as relatively difficult to establish unless an author of defamatory material was conscious of the need to ensure the facts upon which the opinion was based were apparent to the reader, and was careful to respect the distinction between what is an opinion and what is a statement of fact”.

“Given the way the statute has been interpreted (as reflected in the common ground presented to me), it is perhaps unsurprising that the statute has not greatly increased the rate of success of respondents,” he said.

The ABC’s Media Watch enjoyed one such success, when it defended itself against accusations that it defamed journalist Natalie O’Brien in a 2013 segment that criticised two reports in the Sun-Herald on hazardous substances found in Botany Bay.

The report had carefully laid out the facts before offering an opinion, which was something Justice Lee found the Aston columns did not do.

Justice Lee noted that for the Financial Review and Aston to succeed, his opinions needed to be based on proper material – “a series of true facts, which are contained or referred to in the publication”.

It will protect the 3000-word article that soberly lays out a case and comes to a conclusion, but for a column such as Rear Window – a series of short pieces – it can be problematic.

Media lawyer Peter Bartlett, of MinterEllison, says journalists do not always have the opportunity to “cross every t and dot every i” in a story – or to lay out a justification for every comment.

“It has to be an honestly held opinion, but it also has to have a factual basis,” Bartlett said.

“The philosophy is that if the facts are clearly stated in the article, the writer is permitted to set out his or her opinion – no matter how over the top.

“Parliament has taken the view that in those circumstances, the reader could look at the facts and decide whether they agreed or disagreed with the opinion.“

Bartlett was one of many observers who believed the case would turn on Aston’s use of “cretin” – largely because of a comment made by Justice Lee in the course of the trial that was repeated in the judgment.

Justice Lee told Aston’s barrister that his client was “entitled to very trenchant criticism and to be entertaining and to be acerbic”.

“But I can’t help feeling that we wouldn’t be here after almost two weeks of a hearing if he had chosen his words with less – how can I put it – vitriol,” he said.

And with more of a foundation for the “cretin” comment – not in the pejorative sense or by reference to film characters such as Forrest Gump or Brick Tamland from the Anchorman films – but as a literal meaning.

“When the words cretin, moron, imbecile or idiot were used in their obsolete medical sense, there was a hierarchy of meaning and each conveyed something somewhat different.

“These subtleties have now been largely lost as these words have become general terms of abuse, but it is fair to say that to describe someone as a cretin, in an unqualified way, conveys the notion of someone who is at one end of the continuum of human intelligence, being a person who is brainless or very stupid indeed.

“This is quite different to someone being silly or, at times, professionally incompetent – even Homer nods, let alone persons of average intelligence who, for a variety of reasons, do foolish things.”

That Aston did so, Justice Lee said, was a “bridge too far” – especially when Stead had a PhD in biochemistry.

“This does not mean there is a need for opinion or leader writers to be mealy-mouthed in denouncing hypocrisy, cant, farce or misfeasance, but unless one is prepared to prove the truth of what is said (or invoke some other recognisable defence), the opinion needs to be properly based on facts stated in what is written or be otherwise evident.”



Abridged from https://www.afr.com/companies/media-and-marketing/aston-s-words-a-bridge-too-far-20210125-p56wo2

_________________
Let's eat Grandma. Commas save lives!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
ronrat 



Joined: 22 May 2006
Location: Thailand

PostPosted: Sat Jan 30, 2021 5:14 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

https://www.racenet.com.au/news/idiot-punter-horrific-race-tragedy-at-trentham-races-in-new-zealand-20210130


Like to see this brainless twat banned all courses worldwide and spend the next 52 weeks working with injured animals (shovelling manure) and in a rehab centre for humans.

Had a family friend who spent years as the best mate of Robert Rose in Yarra me after he broke his neck in a race fall.

_________________
Annoying opposition supporters since 1967.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
stui magpie Gemini

Oh, the Premiership's a cakewalk


Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: Escaping Danistan

PostPosted: Sat Jan 30, 2021 5:31 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Pi wrote:
holy sh!t

https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20210128/china-using-anal-swabs-for-covid-testing

....bend over...got to check your bum...... remember to unclench....


Ask the doctor why is the swab moving back and forwards and how are you doing it with both hands on my hips.

_________________
In my defence, I was left unsupervised
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Pi Gemini



Joined: 13 Feb 2006
Location: SA

PostPosted: Sun Jan 31, 2021 7:30 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

^
China's A-team at work Laughing

_________________
Pi = Infinite = Collingwood = Always
Floreat Pica
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Tannin 

Can't remember


Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Ballarat

PostPosted: Mon Feb 08, 2021 12:34 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Tannin wrote:
stui magpie wrote:
David wrote:
Can calling someone stupid really be considered defamatory?

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2021/jan/27/businesswoman-feminist-cretin-afr-journalist-joe-aston-wins-280000-elaine-stead

I understand that there's more to the story than that, and that more specific criticisms were made of her, but from my reading of it it really does seem that the use of the word "cretin" was a big part of the judgement. Imagine being hauled before a court because you called Scott Morrison or Daniel Andrews a dumbarse! It really is high time we revisited our defamation laws, because stuff like this seems fundamentally absurd – and, more sinisterly, a useful tool of the powerful to evade criticism and mockery.


nah, sorry, from what I read I don't agree.

A journalist writing in a reputable publication has far more power than you or me calling <snip – the point can be made without such a specific example!> on here. if the journo was writing articles calling her a cretin, using a medium where she has no opportunity to reply and reach an equal audience, then he's not a very bright bunny.


Correct weight Stui. Ashton is lively, entertaining, and often to the point. He is not afraid to call out pigs feeding at the trough, and his column is an important part of the financial landscape. It is one small part of the overall task of keeping the bastards honest. In this instance (and in one or two others I have seen) he went over the top. The line between lampooning an incompetent manager of other people's money and heaping pointless and dangerous abuse on a largely defenceless victim can be a fine one, and is often difficult to see. In this instance, the judge found, quite rightly, that Ashton went far beyond fair criticism and honest opinion and simply vented vitriol. (The judge used that very word, and this distinction between robust, honest opinion and angry vitriol is what tipped the case and led to the finding against Ashton.)

The Fairfax empire has responded very badly. Not only have they (almost) all banded together to defend a member of their tribe against the "evil" justice system, and to call yet again for "reform" (code word actually meaning castration) of the defamation laws so that in future they can attack anybody and get away unpunished, they have also chosen not to read or understand the verdict. The judge made the reasons for the verdict perfectly plain, but the Fairfax tribe are walking around in a dozen different articles spread across the Fin, the Age, and the SMH with their fingers in their ears saying "Nahh nahh, nahh can't hear you!".

Their response borders on contempt.


And today we get the costs order. Fairfax was offered a settlement involving a payment (less than the court awarded), withdrawal, and an apology. They knocked it back, apparently in the belief that they could afford bigger lawyers than the wronged party. THen they knocked back another sensible offer.

Bang! says the judge. If you don't want to be reasonable, that is your legal right. You brought this whole cumbersome trial on by being unfair and unreasonable. Now you can pay for it. Costs against Fairfax. Around two million bucks, according to Fairfax themselves in an earlier report.

Having to pay out a quarter of a million in damages and two million in costs might finally get their attention.

_________________
Let's eat Grandma. Commas save lives!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
stui magpie Gemini

Oh, the Premiership's a cakewalk


Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: Escaping Danistan

PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2021 2:42 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

So, Just had to scoot over to Bunnings in Thomastown, I see these cars all with sandwich boards on the roof, each with different slogans about the Chinese Communist party. End the Evil CCP and other stuff.

So, a definite WTF.

So I came home and googled it. Interesting it's actually a coordinated movement.

Article here has pics of some of the cars from another rally https://www.theepochtimes.com/a-global-movement-to-reject-the-chinese-communist-party-tours-melbourne_3592073.html

And here's their website. https://endccp.com/

I don't fancy their chances of getting the CCP to go, "Alright, that's it then, time to pack up" but it's certainly an attention grabber that doesn't inconvenience anyone.

_________________
In my defence, I was left unsupervised
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Sicks Bux Sagittarius

Hal 2003-2019


Joined: 30 Jun 2020
Location: Me Island Ome

PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2021 5:18 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

I've noticed tailgaters are getting worse. Now some of them are even sitting on my arse when I'm doing 62ks an hour in the left hand lane of 60k an hour zones. Some of them even do the death stare when they drive past or pull up next to me at the next set of lights. Seriously WTF?
_________________
The beatings will continue until moral improves.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
think positive Libra

Side By Side


Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere

PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2021 8:32 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Sicks Bux wrote:
I've noticed tailgaters are getting worse. Now some of them are even sitting on my arse when I'm doing 62ks an hour in the left hand lane of 60k an hour zones. Some of them even do the death stare when they drive past or pull up next to me at the next set of lights. Seriously WTF?


god aussies are shit drivers, 95klm an hour in the middle lane and its 100kph, **** me dead so over it, move you bastards, selfish selfish selfish

ps i dont tailgate - i drive a matchbox car, but some dicks ask for it! it is very annoying when your doing the limit, the trucks in the LH lane for instance when you are sitting on 102kph!!

_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Sicks Bux Sagittarius

Hal 2003-2019


Joined: 30 Jun 2020
Location: Me Island Ome

PostPosted: Sun Feb 21, 2021 10:10 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

^Sure is. Left lane a couple of clicks over the limit and these assholes are still tailgating. How many Ks over the speed limit are they expecting people to go?
_________________
The beatings will continue until moral improves.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Victoria Park Tavern All times are GMT + 10 Hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 21, 22, 23  Next
Page 22 of 23   

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum



Privacy Policy

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group