Official BF Rooch (Roast) Thread

[RoosterLad]

Yeah i guess this is Goers' first offence, never had a problem with him until todays pathetic effort. Not man enough to come up and call us fire hydrants to our faces, the weak bitch!

 

[PrideOf]

Yeah i guess this is Goers' first offence, never had a problem with him until todays pathetic effort. Not man enough to come up and call us fire hydrants to our faces, the weak bitch!

I don't have a problem with him either. Don't read him. But my North mate is spewing.

I put him in the Nicole Cornes category - they're taking up valuable space in the paper that could be dedicated to more Le Cornus ads.

 

[passamore]

Who is the biggest gutless ****wit? Goers or Rucci?

Photo finish. But Rucci will win it.

 

[JohnK]

john,

this is getting embarassing.

A typical approach of the schoolyard bully, crow-mo. Try to belittle the person, rather than pick up the argument.

It does not matter whether the relevant law is statute, case law precedent or common law it still needs to be tested in court.

Uh-huh.

When you wrote:

stop claiming greater knowledge than you have

were you aware of one of the great truisms of our age that we usually only accuse others of faults that we know exist within ourselves?

 

[arrowman]

Interesting though this debate has been, I think it's fast approaching "agree to disagree" time. Because if there's one thing the "new media" had in common with the old, it's that debates are rarely won or lost, they just go on and on...

In closing my contribution, for the time being anyway, I'll just say (again) that I'm not claiming that it is set in stone, open and shut, predetermined or whatever that BF owners, mods and admins would be slammed for defamatory remarks posted by a BF member. Yes, it is new ground for the law; yes, it has not been thoroughly tested in Australian courts; and yes, there is the defence of "innocent dissemination".

But - and this has been the main reason for my continued involvement in this debate - it is by no means open and shut in the other direction either, as Chief and others seem to be claiming. The mere "wishing it were so" and posting forum rules accordingly, does not make it so.

Crow-Mo: You have made the valid point that it has not been thoroughly tested in court, and that for every legal opinion you can get in one direction, there's one in the other. Sure. But - that means you can get legal opinion to say that BF would have a problem in the case of a defamation action. And given two opinions, one which says "no worries, you don't have to do anything" and another, equally well reasoned, that says "you could be exposed" - which one would it be prudent to go with?

Anyway, as I said, agree to disagree. It's been a good debate guys.

 

[Crow-mo]

Crow-Mo: You have made the valid point that it has not been thoroughly tested in court, and that for every legal opinion you can get in one direction, there's one in the other. Sure. But - that means you can get legal opinion to say that BF would have a problem in the case of a defamation action. And given two opinions, one which says "no worries, you don't have to do anything" and another, equally well reasoned, that says "you could be exposed" - which one would it be prudent to go with?

I'd go with the one that the entire world if the internet is using, on far bigger issues than bigfooty. you have to remember the legal framework that we'll all end up using is being discovered in the US, on far more important matters than a sh*tty australian bulletin board. Given the highly politicised environment that these things operate in over there, it takes a uniquely reduced view of the internet to get so granular on an irrelevant form. For example, hollywood is using the internet to market it's multi million dollar films, US politics is heavily influenced by internet new media, search engines control what we do or do not find. you have increased blogging etc. these are the areas that the law is exploring, establishing realms, jurisdictions and definitions over matters such as defamation. these areas matter, not the compressed view of the internet required to think a bulletin board in an irrelevant country is on the frontline.

If Groves took his lead from anywhere else, he'd be an utter arse clown, but it sounds to me he's going with the wider and majority view on these things. and I might note that I can't see this expert opinion that says bigfooty has a problem?

 

[Crow-mo]

A typical approach of the schoolyard bully, crow-mo. Try to belittle the person, rather than pick up the argument.

John, the problem is you don't have an argument. full stop. I'm not talking about your right to opinion, but the view you're bringing isn't developed enough yet to even really be debated. you're making statments all over the place on things you clearly do not even begin to understand on a process level, let alone the underlying principles.

were you aware of one of the great truisms of our age that we usually only accuse others of faults that we know exist within ourselves?

should we debate the difference between one man's truism, and anothers banal cliched platitudes?

 

[JohnK]

John, the problem is you don't have an argument. full stop. I'm not talking about your right to opinion, but the view you're bringing isn't developed enough yet to even really be debated. you're making statments all over the place on things you clearly do not even begin to understand on a process level, let alone the underlying principles.

You know best, Crow-mo.

I'll follow Arrowman's lead and agree to disagree with you.
Others can make up their own mind.

 

[*PAF]

... banal cliched platitudes?

Do you mean cubicly dull?

 

[Crow-mo]

You know best, Crow-mo.

I'll follow Arrowman's lead and agree to disagree with you.
Others can make up their own mind.

there is nothing to disagree on, I am not making a position beyond it is not yet clear. for you to disagree with that, which you do, is to take the position that the matter is clear. which is just foolish.

enjoy:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2002/56.html

 

[JohnK]

enjoy:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/high_ct/2002/56.html

Crow-mo, PerthCrow has already referred to that case in post no 1123.

 

[Crow-mo]

Crow-mo, PerthCrow has already referred to that case in post no 1123.

jesus, let me spell it out for you - this is the official FULL transcript of the ruling. word for ****ing word. no additives or preservatives, no colourings, and plenty of E numbers.

 

[Cap]

Sorry but I am going to add my little two cents to this arguement

I have finally found something that accurately portrays how I feel when reading the Tiser and Rucci's articles

 

[Blind Fred]

Brilliant, Capitalist. That's how I felt this morning when Rucci managed to get the word lazy into a back page Crows story and headline. Another fabrication by a lazy reporter.

 

[macca23]

Enough of the amateur hour on legalaise. I'm out of my depth there anyway.

Back to the topic of Rucci.

His Roast today in the 'tiser was interesting, particularly in these 2 areas.

1) He gave the van Berlo-ism cult and its use in the census a bit of a plug

2) He posed the question as to who is the Crows player who was so frustrated with the delays in his contract negotiations that he was considering giving John James a ring.

Has anybody heard anything on the second point?

 

[RogerRabbit69]

2) He posed the question as to who is the Crows player who was so frustrated with the delays in his contract negotiations that he was considering giving John James a ring. Has anybody heard anything on the second point?

I can't think of a Crows player who would tell Rucci (or anyone) that. Rooch isn't exactly the AFC's most popular journalist, after all. Perhaps JJ told Rooch there was a Crows player they'd like at Port Adelaide ... Johncock maybe?

 

[Cap]

I can't think of a Crows player who would tell Rucci (or anyone) that. Rooch isn't exactly the AFC's most popular journalist, after all. Perhaps JJ told Rooch there was a Crows player they'd like at Port Adelaide ... Johncock maybe?

Johncocks signed till 07-08 ?

 

[RogerRabbit69]

Johncocks signed till 07-08 ?

Yeah, I know. He just signed for three years, didn't he? But Rooch's article was in past tense .... "was so frustrated", "was considering" ... which suggests the player he was referring to has sorted out their contract problems.

That, or Rooch just made it up.

 

[arrowman]

Yeah, I know. He just signed for three years, didn't he? But Rooch's article was in past tense .... "was so frustrated", "was considering" ... which suggests the player he was referring to has sorted out their contract problems.

That, or Rooch just made it up.

This is drawing a long bow, I know, but is it possible that Stiffy' recent run of average form coincided with his contract negotiations?

 

[RogerRabbit69]

I've got no idea if it was Johncock he was referring to ... really just guessing.

I'd say there's a fair chance the whole things just total bull****.

 

[WhyAlwaysMe]

I'm just taking a stab in the dark but whats the situation with Ivan Marics contract.

 

[RogerRabbit69]

He's contracted until the end of 2007

 

[Mad Dog]

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showthread.php?t=213963

 

[Alex99]

2) He posed the question as to who is the Crows player who was so frustrated with the delays in his contract negotiations that he was considering giving John James a ring.

Has anybody heard anything on the second point?

When we announced about 10 or so player who had resigned with the club (about 6 weeks ago) Scott Thompson’s name was surprisingly missing?


Would he be looking at jumping ship the Power and could he be the player in the Roast?

2 year contract until end of 2006:

Scott Thompson - I'm sure has extended ?? - any ideas ??

 

[Ford Fairlane]

My immediate thought was McLeod, because his protracted contract negotiations had been publicised in the media.