Drobe article comment clarification

Reader lands us in legal hot water

Links

Previous: Database S-Base bounces back
Next: Could public cash save our software?

Discussion

Whilst it is only right that the erroneous comments concerning Peter W and Paul M should be rectified and apologised for (and they should of course be entitled to defend themselves and their reputations), I think it's also worth bearing in mind that people can make mistakes. I don't really know any of the people concerned, but on reading the comments from the previous article it became very clear that the comments were not true, and Will's apologies came across as unreserved. In my view (personal opinion), no reputations were damaged as a result. (Hopfully drobe will remove this comment if it turns out to be libellous ) flypig on 8/7/06 2:29PM [ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

But not before google and archive.org cache it, and people quote it all in other comments bobloblaw on 8/7/06 9:16PM [ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

If I'm not mistaken, the comments have all been removed now. Which I can understand, but still I feel a little sad to lose part of the record. I think a major issue with the claims was the shear confidence Wills had in their veracity. I think it was quite reassuring that everyone else challenged them relentlessly. Loris on 9/7/06 9:13AM [ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Loris: "I think a major issue with the claims was the shear confidence Wills had in their veracity." Indeed. Of course, he's made other (non libellious) claims with equal confidence in the replies to other articles (or another article[1]), with nothing to back up his claims other than the confidence with which he made them. I've no idea (obviously) wether there is any truth in what he said or not - but assuming they were[2], he's shot himself in the foot by making the claims he did which led to the this discussion, since now whatever claims he makes have to be read with a nagging doubt in mind. [1] [link] - statements about the code in Select 4, that it's entirely RISC OS Ltd code, nothing is subject to licence, etc. [2] Which, TBH, I doubt anyway, but that's just pure opinion, with no evidence or inside knowledge to back it up. VinceH on 9/7/06 12:01PM [ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

What really gets me is the speed people reach for the lawyers. What harm would there have been for the email to drobe if the threat of law had been omitted - you know, asking for an apology first and then saying "here comes the guns, last chance bucko". It's called making a mountain out of a molehill and really makes the one making the threat (idle or not) as being (IMHO) somewhat gun-ho. Of course, the emailer to drobe could claim that they have a reputation to uphold. If the email had asked for a simple apology *without the lawyer threat*, then people would probably have said "he deserves an apology for what was said", the apology was made and all goes on with the world. No reputations tarnished. No-one injured. However, with the threat comes the line "he deserves an apology, but there is no way in hell that I'm going to apologise if someone holds a legal gun to my head" then sure, there is an apology, but the reputation of the emailer becomes tarnished. Some claim to have been libelled without ever really knowing what libel is as well. How can I say this, well, lets just say I had emails from certain RISC OS companies claiming I've libelled them for comments on usenet and of course, who can forget the number of times a certain loon claimed libel against me on usenet... Nodoid on 9/7/06 2:35PM [ Reply | Permalink | Report ]

Please login before posting a comment. Use the form on the right to do so or create a free account.

Search the archives

Today's featured article

South East 2008 show round up
News from the event in the south of the UK
 42 comments, latest by diomus on 9/11/08 8:45PM. Published: 19 Oct 2008

Random article

RiscPC 10 Years Old Today
10 pizza oven cooked slices
 30 comments, latest by guestx on 19/4/04 10:21AM. Published: 16 Apr 2004

Useful links