On the nature of ranting and gossip

[David Jamieson]

Hello everyone, how' are you all liking the forum so far?

It's pretty robust, with many features.

Now, about the topic, there are some members here who insist on circumventing the rules in regards to wasted bandwidth and continuing to write libel in the forums.

Granted, the moderators, administrators or the sponsors and publishers of Kung Fu Qigong magazine are not responsible for the content that you as members here post.

But fair warning, all ip's are logged, yes even those of you on public systems such as the ones you use at your respective schools or peripheral institutions.

If there is continued abuse of the rules and continued liable posted here, users who are posting from suspected ip ranges will be held accountable.

lieniency is key to a good forum. But so is intelligent commentary that is relative to the topics at hand.
off topic subjects are fun, but shouldn't dominate the content and contribute to a lesser quality surf for others who view these forums seeking general information or otherwise.

argue as you will, but think before you lash out at an individual or a style for the sake of lashing out at it.

Constructivness has more value and is more Kung Fu than the easy destructiveness of writing a few lines containing negative emotionalism or just plain biased judgementalism.

So, continue to enjoy but those of you who continually bridle against the set rules of this forum understand that in order to continue here you must temper yourselves and your posts or forfeit your privileges to post here. I urge you to read and absorb the rules and regs of this online community. They are well written with good intention.

peace

[diego]

:p

[Chang Style Novice]

Hello, this is your official forum pedant, here to clarify the definitions of a couple of ****nyms.

Liable is an adjective meaning likely to occur. Libel is a noun/verb that means written falsehoods intended to damage a person's reputation, or the act of writing those falsehoods.

For example;

Foolish Canadians are liable to not understand that if a statement is true, it cannot be classified as libel.;)

With the pedantry out of the way, let me comment more directly on the controversy surrounding Qimaster/Rich Mooney. I agree that there seems to be a lot of wasted bandwidth on the subject. Mr. Mooney has made some claims that are difficult to believe and that defy common sense. This in itself does not mean that his claims are false, but it cannot be surprising that such claims arouse a great deal of passion in both believers and skeptics. Mr. Mooney has been both the subject and purveyor of vicious, profane attacks in various threads, although the tone of the debate seems to have taken an overall turn for the better since the forum has moved to the new hosting service.

Controversy and vigorous debate are healthy for a forum such as this; I'd even say they are one of the main reasons for such a place to exist. What is the purpose of this forum if not to spread good, real information about the CMA? And indeed, how can we know that the information posted is good and real if it is not occassionally challenged and made to 'put up or shut up'? I am of the opinion that as long as the debate focuses on the claims and rebuttals, and doesn't extend to the people making the claims or rebuttals, it is all good and fair. However, I also believe that if claims and rebuttals are made in ill faith or with poor manners, those low qualities reflect back on the speaker.

Or to quote the contemporary poet Pep Love; "What you are is what you do; you'd better watch yourself because they're watching you."

[Chang Style Novice]

Good gravy! 'H.omonyms' got censored because of the 'h.omo'? This board nanny software is a little too sensitive, methinks. It's a latinate prefix meaning 'same,' not a vulgar slur. I suppose that I drink starstarstarstargenized milk and am of the species starstarstarstar sapiens, as well.

What a nuisance.

[David Jamieson]

Thanks for the spelling correction. I have made the correction and have clarifyed the intent of my post by doing so.

This post was not specifically concerning any particular individual, but rather it was intended as a generalism.

There has been a history of many posts regarding this person that person or some other person.

To me, the question at hand is content.

For instance, i have issues and concerns regarding the published works and published interviews with the leader of the falun Gong organization and I question only that which is stated by that organization when it is contradictory to their actions.

To question something in and of itself is a good thing in my opinion, to do so in a way that precludes a biased response such as using terms like "what do you think of this BS" or "is this person a nutcase" and so on does not lead to the heart of the question at hand but rather it leads to continued bashing on the lines of the original intent behind the original message.

And, in fact, many statements made here in thse forums are "libel".

My purpose in making this post was to generate thoughtful insight into the nature of our posts before we post.
Because it is true, One's words are a direct reflection of one's character, but only to those who understand at least that point.

To the rest, it becomes just another opportunity to find community in negative rumination, which casts a dim light on us all.

peace

[Chang Style Novice]

"My purpose in making this post was to generate thoughtful insight into the nature of our posts before we post.
Because it is true, One's words are a direct reflection of one's character, but only to those who understand at least that point. "

We agree. Now is there anything we can do about the silly asterisks that obscure the meanings of perfectly good, non-perjorative words?

[qeySuS]

You cant get the IP of individual computers at schools :P Most schools only have one IP out and a big local net (usually a proxy os the only way out). And you arent going to see the local IP's (and hence what computer in school) it was :D

[xiong]

Actually I think he's just trying to get people to tone down the trash talking. I think that stumblefist's post is a perfect example of an intelligent counter arguement with citations that does not degenerate into calling Kung Lek a **** sucker.
I think that was the point, and it should be one well taken. Again I think it goes back to the idividual and what they are getting out of their training. I don't need Martial arts to show me the way to be an argumentative *******, I'm hoping to learn to be more compassionate and understanding as well as fit.
My two cents.

THANK YOU, Kung Lek!

I am heartened to see that KFO wishes to uphold the highest standards of integrity - not that your demands are oppressive in the least bit.

This forum is not a place for "Let the people speak and let the people decide for themselves." This is KFO, which is a kung fu BUSINESS ENTITY which is represented in no small part by its posters here.

In short, this forum is NOT your playpen.

Let's all not forget that we are GUESTS of KFO. Guests do not have the right to start fights and flame people in other people's houses.

[rogue]

Where is the fine line between a negative opinion about something/someone and libal?

[Cody]

I'm not interested in reading name-calling posts. Or, ones where the rant goes into obvious personal attack which excludes a situational setting (with or without witnesses) or even an allusion to one. So, I don't read them. Their being here, but not covering the board, doesn't bother me. There's a limit.
I am thinking that this is the right place for an occasional "pop" because one might say this is a safe outlet for disillusionment and rage re martial arts.
Feelings and words have a tenuous connection. For some people it is very raw; while with others there is a logicking which separates them and makes them appear civilized. There are some for whom cussing is an artform, some not so artful.

Libel is potentially a legal word, and at its core is the malicious and false. I don't think that has a place here, or anywhere for that matter.

However, one person's reality (and I'm going to assume this is a reliable account) might not be another's. No one is able to Prove the points really, which doesn't mean they aren't so. Or, people treat different people differently. Judging what's out there can become a guessing game.

Tough things go on in this world. Covering them up or walking on egg shells isn't an option anymore. I don't think one should be expected necessarily to talk around a hottish topic. At the same time, looking for an argument isn't the best way. I guess it's a matter of what resources the writer has, and whether the intent is constructive (which can start with a Shiva-like approach) or malicious falsification. Name calling aside, sometimes you just have to call it what it is (to you), and recognize it might be something else to someone else. That's about it.

Sometimes simple criticism or a different view of things, or what appears to be an outrageous statement based on experience, can be seen as libel by those who are not familiar with the situation or who cannot accept, perceive, deal with, a flaw in the armor.

Cody

[tnwingtsun]

'I question only that which is stated by that organization when it is contradictory to their actions."



A nice way of saying......................................

Bide your time, stumblefist.

We shall meet one day.

[SanHeChuan]

NOOO there must be balance in the force!

If very one is all cooperative and stuff, and no one fights then there will be less growth. The “I’m ok your ok” just doesn’t solve anything. There must war and fire, so that those who rise from the flames, temper buy that flame will be stronger, better, faster, like the bionic man.

Yin and Yang, good and evil, without one there is no other.

[David Jamieson]

what you speak of san, is dualism.

dualism is an inherent paradigm and not the reality at hand.

So, the bashing of styles and their bearers or practitioners of things we don't understand doesn't necessarily mean they are fraudulent, they are merely that individual's and like minded one's reality.

it serves no purpose to ridicule.

peace

p.s - qeysus, ip -ranges- are fixed, individual machines may be dynamic or fixed. but a range is a range and it is not a great task to determine who owns a fixed range and which ip's are natted out from it.

[Paul]

The more outlandish the claims, the more skeptical people are going to be. Usually for good reason.

[NorthernMantis]

You guys know what's funny?When Steve used to own the place everyone,including myself, thought kung lek was cool and so mellow.

Then you guys appoint him as moderator and now you think he is trash:D I still think he's cool.

Go kung lek!

[rogue]

The only think wrong with KL is that he's Canadian. What would you expect from a guy who calls a slice of ham, bacon. :D

It's important to remember that KFM owns this place and if something legal came down Gene would be up to his ears in poop. If this place shut down the alternative would be cyberkwoon, which while an ok place, it's lacking on the stimpilating conversation that we love over here.

[Paul]

stimpilating???

[Water Dragon]

Just wondering, does any of this have to do with my little invitation to have a member of this forum prove the validity of his studies? If so, my intentions were strictly for the good of the arts.

[SanHeChuan]

yeah i was just talking out my ase for the fun of it, i got a laugh out of it...i'm cool :cool:

i still think people should be put to the test...fire, fire

[Ryu]

Must be hard to be moderator :(
How I envy that power.... :mad:

:D


Hey, on a completely off topic note, Kung Lek, did you know my ex-girlfriend was a Japanese Canadian? Toronto is a beautiful city. :) Nice girl......well except the whole "break my heart" thing.

:D


(no there's no point to that story. It's late, and I have been training a little, and I want to write more of my script....but I should study for finals. Priorities...priorities... :(

.......... think I'll get something to drink :D

Ryu

Keep flaming, keep hating. Don't stop.

Make me more eager to meet you.

[Merryprankster]

Hmmm...

I thought in order to be libelous, a statement not only had to be false, but also had to damage a person's reputation in a demonstrable way (ie, enough people have to really BELIEVE the false statement... there's a demonstrable loss of sales after the statement, etc).

At least that's what my lawyer girlfriend says :) But I've been wrong before so I will leave it to finer minds than my own.

[Robbie]

Originally posted by Kung Lek


p.s - qeysus, ip -ranges- are fixed, individual machines may be dynamic or fixed. but a range is a range and it is not a great task to determine who owns a fixed range and which ip's are natted out from it.

Then why couldn't you get rid of Ralek?:confused:

[Chang Style Novice]

Okay, I believe Merry Prankster's girlfriend, too. Last thing I want to do is disagree with a lawyer on a point of law, y'know. I can see why the statement would have to cause demonstrable damage to be legally actionable, that makes perfect sense. Such a requirement would protect freedom of speech for those who make negative comments, but aren't taken seriously by anyone due to either their own poor reputation or the self-evident falseness of their speech. Like, if I was a morbidly obese, legally blind guy with MS and went around saying 'don't train with Merry Prankster, he sucks! I slap him around all the time in underground bare-fist fighting matches!' He wouldn't be able to sue me for it, since no-one would buy such nonsense.

Anyway, upon further reflection 'liable' has a technical legal meaning, too, something to do with responsibility under the law, as in "The owner of a kungfu school is legally liable for the safety of his students, and must have insurance in order to operate."

Not saying that's true or false, just giving an example of how the word might be used.

[Merryprankster]

Chang, if you claimed such thing you probably would be right :)

[rubthebuddha]

(digging out cobwebbed memories from press law classes at college)

most of you are hitting the important elements, but let's organize this. since we're all worried about how this would affect gene (cause he's a swell fellow and all that, and we don't want to bring him any harm his training isn't bringing already), let's look at this from a legal standpoint:

libel, legally speaking, is based on harm done to a reputation. character has no play in this, because no one can harm your character. your reputation can be harmed, but who you are and why the libel was committed is where things can get confusing. so, like mc hammer back in the old days, let's break it down:

libel is libel, but to have a case against anyone, it's important to know who you are. the legal nomenclature is private figure, public figure and limited-purpose public figure. private figure is any standard schmoe. public figure is any well-known politician, celebrity, etc. a limited purpose public figure is anyone who would be considered a public figure, but only for a certain aspect of their life. a good example? me. i'm a state worker. i deal with public resources. anything i do at work is considered state business, but anything i do at home is my own business.

let's break this down further into terms applicable to this forum. much of this seems to have stemmed from the discussion of mr. mooney's claims. so leave us apply ...

for mr. mooney to claim libel and win in this case:

1. if he was a private figure, he'd have to prove simple negligence in the printed (or submitted, as online would be considered) material. the burden of proof (whose job it is to prove who's right) falls upon the person who made the allegedly libelous claim to show that they weren't negligent -- that they bothered to take general steps in information gathering.

2. if he was a public figure (either limited-purpose in this instance or a full-purpose), he would be obligated himself to prove that the claims made against him were demonstrated either knowledge of falsity or malicious intent -- both of which demonstrate reckless disregard for the truth.

now the plot thickens. in this instance, he would be considered a limited-purpose public figure at the minimum, because he intentionally and willingly submits himself before the public eye with his business, with his claims and with his participation in this forum. because of this, he enjoys no true privacy in this topic. so we come to more examples:

a. if i post a message that says, "the guy shags sheep and chickens in his free time," there's no libel there, because i'm not making any legitimate claims that anyone will listen to, especially considering that i'm an anonymous poster who has no clue as to what the guy shags, and you all know this.

b. if i post a message that says, "the guy is a crappy teacher," there's no libel, because i'm simply stating personal opinion.

c. if i post a message that says, "the guy is a fraud. he uses wires and mirrors and smoke and swamp gas and nothing else," then we're into libel territory. to demonstrate libel, the requirements would be proving that either i knew that he was, in fact, telling the truth in his claims, and i still said those things in a public medium; or that my sole or primary intent in saying them was to cause my target damage to his reputation. again, it would be the responsibility of the person claiming their reputation was damaged by libelous statements to demonstrate that it indeed is libel.

phew. i think that's it. pardon me for being longwinded, but that hopefully sheds some light on this.

please note: what i just did was NOT giving you an opportunity to dance around the rules and push the limits without actually going beyond them. i just wanted to clear some things up. remember, this is still gene's forum, and kung lek wields gene's hammer with authority, so be careful.

if you have questions, feel free to ask.

-rubthejournalismdegree