Art Fighters Playing Card Company - do your research.

[CBJ]

So, are you saying, that anyone who trashes a new deck / card company, gives a horrible review of a movie, says that Lindsay Lohan is a slut is libel.. no, because there would be a ton of lawsuits.  Maybe I didn't understand what the director of the movie was trying to convey.. doesn't matter.  Maybe Lindsay Lohan is just misrepresented in the media.. doesn't matter.  Maybe the artist really likes the look and feel of his deck.. doesn't matter.  Maybe a card company is just doing it all wrong.

On UC, I did tell people I was staying away from your company, and I suggested they do the same.  What exactly do you think I'm not understanding about your company??  I purchase a card-policy that entitles me to 100 returns/replacements of a deck for 25 years.  It's not rocket science, but that guarantee/price is what I have a problem with though.

I actually like the card back.  I started this thread. 

But ANY start-up that says they will be around 25 years from now is just stupid for trying to guarantee that.  And, at first.. that's what you were trying to say.  But now, you've changed your story...

You: "In case of a freak accident, there is always someone to replace the person that sends out the decks, or even the decks themselves, which are stored at multiple locations."

then.. you changed your tune:

You: "Guarantees do ALWAYS stop when the company in question would not exist anymore."
You:  "However, you legally do have the rights to claim a partial refund but the size of the refund depends on quite some factors, including whether you had your deck resealed at a regular basis and how reasonable the refund would be because if you never opened or used the deck before we passed away while you had the opportunity to, the refund will be significantly less. This is up to a judge to decide."

Significantly less??  How much less?  A judge to decide??  I have to take you to court??  I'm in another country!  And if you're an incorporated company, you as individuals (your estates) would be protected from lawsuits against your dissolved company.  SO my money would be gone. period. end of story.

And, you compare your deck to a deck of Jerry Nuggets.  Really?  Jerry Nuggets' have a history to the deck.  Even a used deck is still worth a good chunk, and I would be proud to have one in my collection. 

Your deck is a brand new deck/company.  Never been proven to the card community, and you go ahead and compare your deck to one of the most sought after decks on the market.  That's just arrogant and idiotic.

I'm not the only one who sees your b/s.  Read the comments.

This business tactic is flawed, and it puts you, and your company under scrutiny.  If you can't take the heat, move along.

Why not just print 5000 decks, and sell them normally.  If someone wants the 100 deck policy... they can just buy a gross(144) of your decks for way cheaper than 5 grand.

And in closing...

I am just one guy.  I have no hold over the card community.  I have given my opinion, and I'm not sure why you keep trying to convince me of something different.

Let's just agree to disagree.
You think you're right, and I think you're a used car salesman.

CBJ

***BTW.. Canped, I was not aware that these were the guys that did the fake Jerry's. Good to know.

[Mystery]

There is only so much allowed in the freedom of speech and expression. There is a clear difference in saying you personally don't trust a company or highly suggesting others to not buy anything from the company and even saying to stay away from them (let alone in capital letters).  If you say you didn't like a movie, that is freedom of speech and expression. If you didn't even see the movie and widely start talking crap on it because you have bad feelings about it, then it's a whole different story.

We never even compared our decks to Jerry's Nuggets, and if you think we did, then that is obviously part of you manipulating things to try to bring your point across. I merely said that the pricing is based on the same principle and that of any other limited and supposedly valuable deck on the market, some of which I listed in the post. "The more limited, the more valuable." This is clearly described on our website too.

As for the judge deciding over the size of the refund, this is how it works with every guarantee of every company in case of replacements and in case the company no longer exists. There is absolutely no need to act as if we came up with something new and disturbingly fishy or so. For instance, my computer used to have lifelong warranty on the RAM memory. One of the RAM drives broke and I got a new one. The company then shut down and later on my memory broke again. All it takes is an e-mail to the chamber of commerce to get redirected to the correct legal persons who then start the case and make sure you get your refund (in case it isn't contractually covered already, which it wasn't in case of the RAM, and the company didn't go bankrupt either), but it won't be a full refund because you were already in possession and made use of the product, and that is what the judge is for. That you're not in the same country doesn't matter at all. It's not a lawsuit. That said, our terms have it covered and the customers of our Miracles either agree or disagree with it. That you personally don't like it doesn't mean anyone else doesn't or shouldn't like it.

I agree to disagree, don't worry about that, but I do not and will not agree with the libel going on.

[Kanped]

So, I could sell the 100 deck back-to-seal policy on to another buyer?  I still don't see the benefit.  If I buy 100 decks outright, I could still sell some on.  Shipping them together is cheaper- the only difference is that they are less 'limited' because more people can heave them.  You're purposefully destroying them to keep the numbers low; preposterously low.  You're creating the atmosphere of a deck that is a talking piece by creating something that is incredibly rare when there is no valid reason to do so, apparently to make a point.  Your whole argument is that the fancy decks arouse suspicion in the audience and magicians should be using cards familiar to them... and then you create a ludicrous system to make these cards the most uncommon on the planet?  Surely, you can see the hypocrisy inherent in that choice. 

Alternatively, I buy my 100 deck outright, shipping is paid for only once and I can do what I damn well please with the product I paid for.  Or even better, how about I have the option to buy as many as I want and do what I like with them?  The only difference between doing that and your system is that your system requires constant maintenance, greater costs at shipping and makes the decks as rare as possible (for absolutely NO reason; they're not that rare, they're just stocked up with you or needlessly destroyed and therefore unavailable).  The whole reason I'm talking about this, by the way, is not to try to bring you down or hurt your company.  Neither am I going to give you the whole 'I appreciate what you're trying to do' or 'I'm sure you're a nice guy, but...' routine.  It's because I totally disagree with the ethos on which your company is founded, I think you're making ridiculous business decisions to make an invalid point and I believe those decisions are counter-intuitive to the point you're trying to make.  Mostly, though it's because the back design is pretty nifty and there's plenty of people here who would love to get their hands on it (personally, even at $9 I think it's a bit pricey.  $6 and I'd get a couple) and I can see no reason why they shouldn't, even by your own standards. 

Finally; the reasoning behind this deck and its creation has obviously been a real hot topic and it's something I never would have personally formed an opinion on if you hadn't done it.  I think at some level, you really wanted to get people thinking about the playing card industry and the direction it's taken and in that respect, it seems to me that this was a success. 

[xela]

sorry Mark. Nothing cbj has said is libel. It's protected under free speech. You don't have to see a movie to trash it, otherwise every male would be in prison for hating on Twilight. Likewise no one has to buy a product to hate on it, especially when the issue isn't with the item, but how it is sold.

I can appreciate you defending what you do, it's your right as a person. However, the accusations of libel against a member here are not grounded and need to cease. Thank you.

[Gunshy1]

personally i feel this whole thread has become laughable and isn't what the discourse needs. opinions are opinions are opinions.

[CBJ]

This will be my last post in this thread.  I do no want to keep bumping it to the top.

CBJ

[Issuxark]

I have no specific comment to make on the legitimacy of the APFCC or its decks. However, a lot of people don't know what libel really entails legally. I studied business law, so let me just tell you that what you are doing to Mystery and the APFCC is indeed very close to being libel:

There is libel (written) vs. slander (spoken) in the tort of defamation (which is a publication to someone other than the person defamed, where the publication is to this forum against  Mystery).

Libel is making untrue statements that injure the reputation of an entity, that being a person or a business. In this case, the accused (Mystery) can sue one (such as CBJ) for libel for potentially injuring the reputation of his business. The law I'm referring to is Canadian law (US law is similar for libel), which is indeed where CBJ is from, as I can see from his profile. The only defense CBJ can have against such a claim is by providing an absolute truth, which obviously no one here has except for Mystery. Only in courts or parliamentary debates are you allowed to make any statements against one another without liability. I currently don't have my law book to reference it to the specific Article, but you can find that yourself using your best friend Google.

I hope this clears things up for people.

In my honest opinion, it's not cool to make such blatant and unsupported claims, especially using law falsely. As a student studying law, I just don't like seeing it used inappropriately, as would a magician wouldn't want to see people using magic for tricking others for money.

[xela]

I have no specific comment to make on the legitimacy of the APFCC or its decks. However, a lot of people don't know what libel really entails legally. I studied business law, so let me just tell you that what you are doing to Mystery and the APFCC is indeed very close to being libel:

There is libel (written) vs. slander (spoken) in the tort of defamation (which is a publication to someone other than the person defamed, where the publication is to this forum against  Mystery).

Libel is making untrue statements that injure the reputation of an entity, that being a person or a business. In this case, the accused (Mystery) can sue one (such as CBJ) for libel for potentially injuring the reputation of his business. The law I'm referring to is Canadian law (US law is similar for libel), which is indeed where CBJ is from, as I can see from his profile. The only defense CBJ can have against such a claim is by providing an absolute truth, which obviously no one here has except for Mystery. Only in courts or parliamentary debates are you allowed to make any statements against one another without liability. I currently don't have my law book to reference it to the specific Article, but you can find that yourself using your best friend Google.

I hope this clears things up for people.

In my honest opinion, it's not cool to make such blatant and unsupported claims, especially using law falsely. As a student studying law, I just don't like seeing it used inappropriately, as would a magician wouldn't want to see people using magic for tricking others for money.

For a statement to be untrue, there has to be something or someone claiming that it is the truth. I have not seen CBJ make any false claims, and his need for evidence is nonexistant. All I have heard him say is that he doesn't trust Mark based on what Mark has said and done. Saying that Mark may trick or cheat someone out of something isn't libel, because it was said as a hypothetical idea.

"What if Wal-mart sets its employees on fire on Black Friday? I'm not buying from Wal-mart unless I get an answer, and neither should you!"

That's not libel. Or slander. Or defamation. It can be construed as such, but then again that is what our court systems are for, to decide for us what is acceptable and protected under free speech, and what is in direct violation of the clauses of free speech.

Besides, as a law student, you should know that the vast majority of libel/slander/defamation cases are not taken very seriously (at least not in the United States). Furthermore, for Mark to take CBJ to court, he would spend countless thousands of dollars to achieve virtually nothing. He could put CBJ through hell, but in the end CBJ would have the last laugh.

I'm not arguing with what the definition of libel is - myself and most everyone else here probably knows in full detail what it is. The problem is that nothing that has been said even remotely resembles libel, and if by some crazy stretch of the imagination it does, it is up to a judge to decide that. Not Mark, not CBJ, not myself and you either.

[Kanped]

a student studying law

You should study harder.

[Issuxark]

For a statement to be untrue, there has to be something or someone claiming that it is the truth. I have not seen CBJ make any false claims, and his need for evidence is nonexistant. All I have heard him say is that he doesn't trust Mark based on what Mark has said and done. Saying that Mark may trick or cheat someone out of something isn't libel, because it was said as a hypothetical idea.

"What if Wal-mart sets its employees on fire on Black Friday? I'm not buying from Wal-mart unless I get an answer, and neither should you!"

That's not libel. Or slander. Or defamation. It can be construed as such, but then again that is what our court systems are for, to decide for us what is acceptable and protected under free speech, and what is in direct violation of the clauses of free speech.

Besides, as a law student, you should know that the vast majority of libel/slander/defamation cases are not taken very seriously (at least not in the United States). Furthermore, for Mark to take CBJ to court, he would spend countless thousands of dollars to achieve virtually nothing. He could put CBJ through hell, but in the end CBJ would have the last laugh.

I'm not arguing with what the definition of libel is - myself and most everyone else here probably knows in full detail what it is. The problem is that nothing that has been said even remotely resembles libel, and if by some crazy stretch of the imagination it does, it is up to a judge to decide that. Not Mark, not CBJ, not myself and you either.

The Wal-Mart example wouldn't be libel in the first place because the actions they have achieved was indeed factual (setting employees on fire), so of course people would have nothing to be liable for, forming an opinion on such an action. That's covered by the constitute. Libel is supposed to be applicable in cases where no such arguable actions have been achieved and yet, people start making comments that harshly affect the future business of a company. I see nothing AFPCC has done wrong; all you are doing is disagreeing with the policies. That's fine. But based on your disagreement (which is purely a bias), you cannot go ahead and claim that a company is a fraud, is a scam, and ultimately defame the company. I don't believe I am wrong at all in this interpretation.

Here's an example of libel: An employer fires an employee for theft. Then, the employee start making rumours that the employer is a jerk who cheats on his wife and sleeps with multiple women every night. He can make the lie worse by photoshopping him with other women and spreading it over the net (let's assume he was amazing at it). But in fact, the employer does not cheat with his wife. Regardless, his wife is tricked and their relationship breaks down. His clients also see his actions as terribly wrong and his business fails.

Can you see the resemblance to this scenario? Future clients (FC) see a company's policies that aren't so usual. They dislike it, so they make claims about such company that is false. In fact, it turns out that AFPCC isn't a fraud or a scam at all. They could have had a successful business with happy customers if not for a strange rumour claiming that is was indeed a scam. Regardless, the other FCs who hear the rumour are tricked and the business and client relationship breaks down, destroying the company's attempts in the future.

That's libel there. There is no absolute truth involved, but rumours destroy the future of the employer and the AFPCC in the example above. Most libel problems of small companies are taken to the Small Claims Court, which is relatively cheaper, but more time consuming since more disputes are taken there. If a AFPCC can indeed prove in the future that what people of this forum have claimed really greatly decreased potential sales, then Mystery really can hold those who spread the rumour liable for the tort of defamation. Don't misread this and start saying BS like how some people might do. This is an "if" situation.

In the case of what CBJ has claimed, there is no absolute truth, there is no absolute falseness either in his claim. Therefore, he is still liable for libel. Only the real truth can save him from that tort. I'm not saying he isn't making good claims or false claims. I'm saying his claims are not the truth, thus, no matter how well opinionated it is, it will turn out to be useless, seeing that he was getting very emotional in what I read and interpreted.

And yes, I do know the exact steps and process of how 2 entities are taken to court, the length of the period, the cost, etc. That's not the point. I'm simply saying something is libel and some others aren't libel, and one shouldn't confuse the two. Not that hard to understand, right?

You should study harder.

Nah, if I study any harder, the law firms all over the world will try to hire me. That's a pain in the ass, declining mails and phone calls of companies I don't want to even go to.

[Kanped]

Everything CBJ said was stated as opinion on an internet forum designed for the free exchange of opinions; there's no legitimate court in the world that would convict someone for libel in these circumstances.

So, here is the Defamation Act of 1952, which although UK based, all commonwealth nations (including Canada) have adapted into law section 2;

Slander affecting official, professional or business reputation.

In an action for slander in respect of words calculated to disparage the plaintiff in any office, profession, calling, trade or business held or carried on by him at the time of the publication, it shall not be necessary to allege or prove special damage, whether or not the words are spoken of the plaintiff in the way of his office, profession, calling, trade or business.

Well, he didn't state anything as fact (and I would argue that nothing said on a forum designed for the free exchange of ideas and opinions can be stated as fact) for a start.  he also did not try to imply that the company was of no value to respective buyers, just that he felt what they were offering was not a good deal; their value and that of their product is open to interpretation and he provided his own opinion on that matter.

None of which matters because the Human Rights Act of 1998, which was signed into law in the UK and therefore, once again, any commonwealth nations (including Canada) states;

If the person against whom the application for relief is made (“the respondent”) is neither present nor represented, no such relief is to be granted unless the court is satisfied—

(a)that the applicant has taken all practicable steps to notify the respondent; or

(b)that there are compelling reasons why the respondent should not be notified.

In other words, Art Fighters would have to get hold of CBJ personally, not as an anonymous online figure to even proceed with any legal action.  If he just changed his username, the moderators of this board have no legal imperative to give out IP information, CBJ would be unreachable and Art Fighters would be responsible for finding a man they know nothing about in a foreign nation or else it all falls through.

The court must have particular regard to the importance of the Convention right to freedom of expression and, where the proceedings relate to material which the respondent claims, or which appears to the court, to be journalistic, literary or artistic material (or to conduct connected with such material), to—

(a)the extent to which—

(i)the material has, or is about to, become available to the public; or

(ii)it is, or would be, in the public interest for the material to be published;

This is the big killer for the libel argument.  Once again, this is a forum for online debate, free exchange of ideas and opinions.  As long as that is the case, anything expressed here is protected as journalism, given that these are ideas and opinions expressed individually and made publicly available.  Moreover, due to the unusual nature of the company's business strategy, it would be very easy to argue that what CBJ has said is in the public interest- they don't have to agree with what he said, it is simply a critique of their (untested) methods, the results of which are speculative for anyone involved and therefore a voicing on potential negative outcomes is of public interest.

One last thing; I am not a lawyer, I have never studied law. I'm just a guy with Google and I have no interest in starting a legal battle against someone who is studying law over a case that has not gone to court and almost certainly never will.  This is my interpretation of the law as it stands, let's leave it at that.

[Issuxark]

So, here is the Defamation Act of 1952, which although UK based, all commonwealth nations (including Canada) have adapted into law section 2;

Slander affecting official, professional or business reputation.

In an action for slander in respect of words calculated to disparage the plaintiff in any office, profession, calling, trade or business held or carried on by him at the time of the publication, it shall not be necessary to allege or prove special damage, whether or not the words are spoken of the plaintiff in the way of his office, profession, calling, trade or business.



One last thing; I am not a lawyer, I have never studied law. I'm just a guy with Google and I have no interest in starting a legal battle against someone who is studying law over a case that has not gone to court and almost certainly never will.  This is my interpretation of the law as it stands, let's leave it at that.

For starters, the above one is for slander, not libel. Secondly, I should have been more clear in how one gets charged for libel.

One is charged for libel when a certain claim has been publicly made to someone other than the defamed person/entity and that leads to AFPCC eventually losing his clientele. That's when Mystery could then charge one for libel if he can prove that the rumour indeed caused the loss of his business. That's why I said before that "it could be very close to being libel", not saying it was libel as of yet in my first post.

Yes, CBJ has indeed only made opinions, and that's a fact. However, ultimately, my point is that you shouldn't always make such blatant claims since that could bite you in the end. I'm sure Mystery is no fool when it comes to doing business and what he says make sense to me. Maybe it doesn't to you. I don't know that, but that' secondary.

Law is very difficult to understand and changes very often since it is  based on the principle of precedent: whatever decision was made last on such similar cases, that's the resolution the judges will use 90% of the time. So older ones usually lose value and become invalid, unless they are constitutional.

[Kanped]

OK; I'm a layman and what you're saying does make absolute sense.  However, 'close to libel' and 'could be charged for libel' are worlds apart.  He hasn't done anything wrong.  I think it'd be virtually impossible for Mystery to argue loss of business anyway, since he is only selling 5 products (at least, of the ones we're all referring to), 2 have already sold and he has stated many times that he does not expect them all to sell.  I could see an argument that defaming this one product defames the company as a whole and its other products, though.  Really, I don't think there's anything we're disagreeing on here- there's no way CBJ could be charged for libel based on what he has said here (although, again given the nature of where he said it, I don't think any statement here could be considered libelous but that's most definitely a grey area.)

[Issuxark]

OK; I'm a layman and what you're saying does make absolute sense.  However, 'close to libel' and 'could be charged for libel' are worlds apart.  He hasn't done anything wrong.  I think it'd be virtually impossible for Mystery to argue loss of business anyway, since he is only selling 5 products (at least, of the ones we're all referring to), 2 have already sold and he has stated many times that he does not expect them all to sell.  I could see an argument that defaming this one product defames the company as a whole and its other products, though.  Really, I don't think there's anything we're disagreeing on here- there's no way CBJ could be charged for libel based on what he has said here (although, again given the nature of where he said it, I don't think any statement here could be considered libelous but that's most definitely a grey area.)

That's completely fine. Your opinions are valid. The second reason I brought this topic up was because when Mystery said that CBJ could be charged for libel, it was indeed a possibility And that one shouldn't always laugh it off. A possible scenario i can think of is that if Mystery, in the future, were to charge someone for libel and he obtained independent sources where the majority claimed that this forum made them stay away from the business, then it s a very very likely scenario libel can be used. Law is agreeably vey complicated but I'll leave the matter here.

[CBJ]

I said I wasn't going to post in this thread again... but I guess I will have to.

There are 1000s of sites that review/comment/judge products, people, companies, company policies, etc on the internet every minute of every day.

I'm just a guy who has an opinion on a new company, their policy, and the person that joined these forums to represent that company.

Opinion - Everything about this business tactic is fishy.  It just doesn't seem right.  I will stay away.  And from experience, and comparing this company to every other company I've dealt with, I would suggest others to stay away.

Opinion - the representative that came on these forums is explaining things in such a way that he comes off as a snake oil salesman/used car dealer.  I'm not saying he is one.  I just don't trust him.  I'm not saying he's not truly trustworthy, because I don't know the man personally.  I am saying that I don't trust him.

Opinion - This has gotten way out of hand, and that just makes my point even clearer.
There wouldn't be any of this if this brand-new-company-with-25-year-guarantee would have launched their decks normally, and not made ridiculous claims.

There's really only so much debate on this company because the users on these forums are not dumb.  They can tell that something isn't right.  And that the representative from this company is not a very good one.

And now to "the law student"...
I find it curious that there was a debate with this company, some things were said.. and then like a gift from the heavens.. a new member (who happens to be a law student) joins, and heads right for this thread and starts attacking the accusers actions.  And this new user, who joined a card forum, has not made any posts in any other thread.  I'm not saying that you're friends with the owners of this company, and that they asked you to join the forum to shame me into retracting my comments.  I'm also not saying that you may even be the same person that just opened a second account just to condemn my comments.  I'm not even saying that the sentence that makes me think this is "I'm sure Mystery is no fool when it comes to doing business and what he says make sense to me.".  I just think it's oddly curious.

Let's just end this now in this forum.  This has gotten way off topic.

if you like them and feel comfortable with what's going on.. then buy them
if you don't like them, or feel that something isn't right.. don't buy them

I will be staying away.


ALEX PLEASE LOCK THIS THREAD DOWN so this useless banter can end

[Issuxark]

I said I wasn't going to post in this thread again... but I guess I will have to.

There are 1000s of sites that review/comment/judge products, people, companies, company policies, etc on the internet every minute of every day.

I'm just a guy who has an opinion on a new company, their policy, and the person that joined these forums to represent that company.

Opinion - Everything about this business tactic is fishy.  It just doesn't seem right.  I will stay away.  And from experience, and comparing this company to every other company I've dealt with, I would suggest others to stay away.

Opinion - the representative that came on these forums is explaining things in such a way that he comes off as a snake oil salesman/used car dealer.  I'm not saying he is one.  I just don't trust him.  I'm not saying he's not truly trustworthy, because I don't know the man personally.  I am saying that I don't trust him.

Opinion - This has gotten way out of hand, and that just makes my point even clearer.
There wouldn't be any of this if this brand-new-company-with-25-year-guarantee would have launched their decks normally, and not made ridiculous claims.

There's really only so much debate on this company because the users on these forums are not dumb.  They can tell that something isn't right.  And that the representative from this company is not a very good one.

And now to "the law student"...
I find it curious that there was a debate with this company, some things were said.. and then like a gift from the heavens.. a new member (who happens to be a law student) joins, and heads right for this thread and starts attacking the accusers actions.  And this new user, who joined a card forum, has not made any posts in any other thread.  I'm not saying that you're friends with the owners of this company, and that they asked you to join the forum to shame me into retracting my comments.  I'm also not saying that you may even be the same person that just opened a second account just to condemn my comments.  I'm not even saying that the sentence that makes me think this is "I'm sure Mystery is no fool when it comes to doing business and what he says make sense to me.".  I just think it's oddly curious.

Let's just end this now in this forum.  This has gotten way off topic.

if you like them and feel comfortable with what's going on.. then buy them
if you don't like them, or feel that something isn't right.. don't buy them

I will be staying away.


ALEX PLEASE LOCK THIS THREAD DOWN so this useless banter can end

Oh you can't end it like that sir, not after not even reading what i wrote properly :|

Please reread my 3rd last post carefully on how one is charged for libel and stop being ignorant. You are amusing good sir.

[Mystery]

I already gave up posting as well (even though Alex said anyone is free to post what they want in here), but I now do have a question for Issuxark. Before Issuxark started posting, there was a time that this thread was called "Art Fighters Playing Card Company - STAY AWAY FROM THEM". Yes, this was corrected later on and I do thank CBJ for that, but it was at that time I called libel on it (you can still see it on the second page). That he changed it says enough to me, but how did that actually qualify for "close to libel" and not actual libel, apart from hard evidence of it damaging us?

Thanks.

[Issuxark]

please STFU or GTFO

Yeah, I think you should. That's called spamming. You aren't contributing to this discussion.

I already gave up posting as well (even though Alex said anyone is free to post what they want in here), but I now do have a question for Issuxark. Before Issuxark started posting, there was a time that this thread was called "Art Fighters Playing Card Company - STAY AWAY FROM THEM". Yes, this was corrected later on and I do thank CBJ for that, but it was at that time I called libel on it (you can still see it on the second page). That he changed it says enough to me, but how did that actually qualify for "close to libel" and not actual libel, apart from hard evidence of it damaging us?

Thanks.

I meant that in the fact that although CBJ is clearly (from my perspective) claiming something against you, it can only qualify under the liability of libel when you, Mystery, would take it to court with evidence and charge him with the tort of defamation. Otherwise, it would just remain an opinion, like CBJ has posted. That's what I meant. I guess my choice of wording was poor in that sense, but hopefully, that clears it up.

[xela]

I'm locking this thread.

False accusations are not to be taken lightly. If Mark decides to sue, he wouldn't win that case in a million years. What he can prove doesn't matter, because at the end of the day, the accused also has defense and the right to make counterpoints. From my experience (and I have a lot of experience in this area), people that cry "LIBEL!" on forums are never taken seriously, and the one time I have seen it brought to a court, the case was thrown out (to my knowledge).

I'd delete the thread, but that goes against our forum policy, and furthermore it's much more hilarious to read.

"You are a fishy company!"
"You are libelous!"
"Y U DONT NO WUT LIBEL?"
"I NO WUT LIBEL! U LIBEL!"

I assure you everyone that has read this thread and has not replied is thinking one thing:

"Who cares?"

For future reference, please refer to our Forum Ettiquette board to avoid making false accusations (part of point #5).

This does apply to both parties.