THIS is defamation?? I don't think so! HELP!

[imjustagoyle]

you have enough money saved to hire an attorney at $250/hour to defend you in a defamation lawsuit that you will surely lose? your retraction emphasized your belief of the original post as being the truth.

What retraction exactly? I admitted my original review was over the top - even though I believe it to be fact based on my experience with that company and its owner. My revised review contains no information that is not factual.

Interesting that you all seem to think that a) I'm uneducated and b) that I can't afford a lawyer. Glad I don't actually rely on the help here, since you are all so helpful and whatnot.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

What retraction exactly? I admitted my original review was over the top - even though I believe it to be fact based on my experience with that company and its owner. My revised review contains no information that is not factual.

So? How is that relevant?

Interesting that you all seem to think that a) I'm uneducated

From your comments here and on that 'other' forum you act like it.

and b) that I can't afford a lawyer.

And who said that? was it your invisible friend?

Glad I don't actually rely on the help here, since you are all so helpful and whatnot.

so am I. since your mouth and typing fingers will soon get you in trouble.

The plain fact is, regardless of how long the post was 'visible', you accused someone of a crime wthout factual basis. Even if only one other person read it then the company can and should sue you.

And don't be surprised if they didn't save a copy along with preparing a subpoena for the weblogs and database records.

A review is within the 4th amendment protections. Accussing someone of a crime is NOT!

 

[imjustagoyle]

you have enough money saved to hire an attorney at $250/hour to defend you in a defamation lawsuit that you will surely lose? your retraction emphasized your belief of the original post as being the truth.

Again, this is the post I was referencing that implied that perhaps I didn't have the money for an attorney.

Your point has been made, as well as the attorney for former employer - they demanded that I *change* the review or they would sue. I did JUST THAT, but yet they are still claiming my remaining review is defamatory. If they wanted to sue me for the original review, why didn't they just do that instead of writing to me and demanding I change it? Games. Games.

 

[HomeGuru]

Again, this is the post I was referencing that implied that perhaps I didn't have the money for an attorney.

Your point has been made, as well as the attorney for former employer - they demanded that I *change* the review or they would sue. I did JUST THAT, but yet they are still claiming my remaining review is defamatory. If they wanted to sue me for the original review, why didn't they just do that instead of writing to me and demanding I change it? Games. Games.

**A: because they know gargoyles have no money. They just sit on top of old buildings and look bored.

 

[imjustagoyle]

**A: because they know gargoyles have no money. They just sit on top of old buildings and look bored.

Hardee har har.