Speaking of Beaver Creek's Drinking Water...

[The Invisible Man]

First topic message reminder :

Last October, the people of Beaver Creek voted 73% in favour of converting the Beaver Creek Improvement District (BCID) into a service area of the Alberni-Clayoquot Regional District (ACRD).

Five months have passed and BCID has not shown much movement towards the conversion.

The ACRD has committed $800,000 to infrastructure upgrades in 2012 and more recently applied for an additional $810,000 grant for a total of $1.61 million in water system improvements for Beaver Creek.

It was proposed that June 1st be a target date for conversion to enable work to commence in 2012 as these funds cannot be used for works that are not the responsibility of the ACRD.

BCID was supposed to make a decision to move forward with the conversion at last night's regular monthly meeting however the meeting was cancelled. The note on the door did not specify why it was cancelled however said the next meeting will be held on April 16th.

Rarely do leopards change their spots. Chances are high that BCID trustees are up to the same game that they have been playing all along trying to maintain the status quo. Is it time to rally the troops AGAIN? Doesn't the voice of the people mean anything to them? ACRD has put their best foot forward and now its time for BCID to do the same.

[Jeckle]

Perhaps someone is spreading misinformation around about you? It wouldn't surprise me.

Say it ain't so!
Someone spreading misinformation? *gasp*
Do as I do and believe NOTHING said about others.

[Admin]

Just a friendly reminder, this is an anonymous forum and I wish to keep it that way. If someone wishes to voluntarily provide their name, so be it.

In The Future:

Please refrain from legal threats. If you have a legitimate problem PM me and we will look into it.With the sad fact that we are now becoming a society of "ambulance chasers" it would be nice to have some degree of comfort within the forum.

Do you understand a little better now as to why Jack made this topic off limits?
lol
The players love all of this, don't be fooled.
Anyone could have ignored this topic and it would have died a quiet little death.
They keep coming back for more....and I love reading it.

Sure I understand why he censored the topic (and others), I just don't agree with it.

[Chef]

That's laughable Admin.

You deleted my post from this thread.

So much for free speech.

[The Invisible Man]

Perhaps someone is spreading misinformation around about you? It wouldn't surprise me.

Say it ain't so!
Someone spreading misinformation? *gasp*
Do as I do and believe NOTHING said about others.

You're right Jeckle. Usually I don't believe much. But in this case the information came from what I thought was a reliable source...turns out it wasn't good information.

[Admin]

That's laughable Admin.

You deleted my post from this thread.

So much for free speech.

Putting into question a persons mental health brings nothing to the conversation.

[The Invisible Man]

That's laughable Admin.

You deleted my post from this thread.

So much for free speech.

If you make false or harmful statements about someone, and they seek a legal remedy, the courts will not allow you to claim your constitutional right to freedom of expression as a defence. "Free speech" does not give you the right to say anything that comes to your mind. Would it be okay for someone to make a death threat against another person? Obviously not. There are limits to free speech.

[Possum]

If I say I think you're an idiot what would you do with that? I am free to express what I think n'est ce pas?

[Chef]

That's laughable Admin.

You deleted my post from this thread.

So much for free speech.

If you make false or harmful statements about someone, and they seek a legal remedy, the courts will not allow you to claim your constitutional right to freedom of expression as a defence. "Free speech" does not give you the right to say anything that comes to your mind. Would it be okay for someone to make a death threat against another person? Obviously not. There are limits to free speech.

I didn't make a false or harmful statement about you, so don't bother making veiled or direct threats about legal action to me again, thanks. I consider it harassment. I know perfectly well what I can and cannot say LEGALLY. My freedom of speech in fact DOES allow me to make the kind of comment I made in the post that was removed.

Therefore I stand by my statement. Free speech does not exist on this site.

[The Invisible Man]

Possum: You are not free to libel a person. Comments that are designed to insult a person can be viewed as libellous.

[The Invisible Man]

That's laughable Admin.

You deleted my post from this thread.

So much for free speech.

If you make false or harmful statements about someone, and they seek a legal remedy, the courts will not allow you to claim your constitutional right to freedom of expression as a defence. "Free speech" does not give you the right to say anything that comes to your mind. Would it be okay for someone to make a death threat against another person? Obviously not. There are limits to free speech.

I didn't make a false or harmful statement about you, so don't bother making veiled or direct threats about legal action to me again, thanks. I consider it harassment. I know perfectly well what I can and cannot say LEGALLY. My freedom of speech in fact DOES allow me to make the kind of comment I made in the post that was removed.

Therefore I stand by my statement. Free speech does not exist on this site.

I know what you said. Clearly you do not know what you can and can not say legally. The Criminal Code (sections 297 to 300 to be exact) outlaws publishing a "defamatory libel" – material published, without lawful justification or excuse, likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing them to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or designed to insult the person. I don't know how you can turn anything that I said in my response to you into a threat against you?

[The Invisible Man]

A good description of libel and defamation of character laws can be found on THIS LINK.

I thought that this part was interesting: If one can prove that one has been libelled, and there is no defence for the loss of reputation, the law assumes damages and fixes an amount as compensation. The plaintiff does not have to prove damages for actual financial loss. However, in cases of slander, the plaintiff must prove actual financial loss before damages can be awarded.

[lionking]

If I say I think you're an idiot what would you do with that? I am free to express what I think n'est ce pas?

This is my first reply on this new bog.I believe you said about four posts ago, that you were bored and not going to bother with this topic any more??? Why are you still coming back??? You know nothing of what you talk about.

[booboo]

Hmmmm..it tis getting kinda silly fer sure...

So why is the BCID still having a say and pissing around if 73% of Creekers have voted to move on to ACRD...
If nothing happens by the June 1 date some shit better start hitting the old fan......that means you 73% Creekers.....

[CanAbyss]

So if I say Possum is a fat old homo, is that Slander? Technically he is old, he may be over weight, and in this day and age it is acceptable to pack fudge, so does he have any grounds for legal action? Can a person be hurt for being described factually? I remember when Donald Trump and Rosey Odonnel (sp? ) got in to it. He called her a fat disgusting lesbian, and she had no grounds for libel as he was speaking factually and with opinion ( the disgusting part was his personal view )

[lionking]

Hmmmm..it tis getting kinda silly fer sure...

So why is the BCID still having a say and pissing around if 73% of Creekers have voted to move on to ACRD...
If nothing happens by the June 1 date some shit better start hitting the old fan......that means you 73% Creekers.....

What you can't forget is the Beaver Creek Improvement District board has never had any accountability to anyone, so they continually did as they wanted. And it cost the tax payers hundreds of thousands of dollars! It has just been recent that people started to come to the meetings, going on four years. I know it will be out of that boards hands on June 1,2012. It's just a shame that everything always is a fight always!
When Mr. Hassler said I don't like the outcome but, it has been decided and I will do everything in my power to get what needs to be done finished. Now that was really kind.
People have to get over it and, IMO going in with the Alberni Clayquot Regional District is the safest thing to do.

[Guest]

I didn't make a false or harmful statement about you, so don't bother making veiled or direct threats about legal action to me again, thanks. I consider it harassment. I know perfectly well what I can and cannot say LEGALLY. My freedom of speech in fact DOES allow me to make the kind of comment I made in the post that was removed.

Therefore I stand by my statement. Free speech does not exist on this site.

It would be an infringement of a person's constitutional right to freedom of expression if discussions on libel were disallowed. It is not "harassment" for someone to explain libel.

[The Invisible Man]

So if I say Possum is a fat old homo, is that Slander? Technically he is old, he may be over weight, and in this day and age it is acceptable to pack fudge, so does he have any grounds for legal action? Can a person be hurt for being described factually? I remember when Donald Trump and Rosey Odonnel (sp? ) got in to it. He called her a fat disgusting lesbian, and she had no grounds for libel as he was speaking factually and with opinion ( the disgusting part was his personal view )

A person can not be hurt for describing someone else factually. The only thing I would consider that may be a problem is that Possum is an individual and not a public figure.

The link I provided earlier says this about the do's and don'ts:

Bad: "My neighbour John Smith is a stinking lush." This is defamatory: an unproven, malicious ("stinking" and "lush" instead of "alcoholic") statement about a private individual.

Better: "My Member of Parliament, John Smith drank 10 glasses of whiskey last night at The Local Pub. In my opinion he's an alcoholic." The proof is a bit hazy – getting drunk once does not prove alcoholism – but an MP is a public figure with less protection than John Smith. You have clearly separated fact from opinion, and there is no particular evidence of malice.

Best: "My Member of Parliament, John Smith, drank 10 glasses of whiskey last night at The Local Pub. I wouldn't be surprised to learn he's an alcoholic." This is entirely fact, with no clear evidence of malice, about a public figure

The link I provided earlier says this about defence:

Truth - A statement may have hurt your reputation, but if it was true then anyone can say it and have a good defence against a lawsuit.

When I talk about BCID I always keep this in mind (from the link):

Fair comment - We all are free to comment, even harshly, about issues of public interest, as long as our comments are honest, not malicious, and based on fact.

The difference between slander (spoken words) and libel (written words) is blurred when discussions take place on line. The courts define it further in that libel is something that leaves a permanent record.

[Possum]

I would suggest that someone change their moniker to Lionessking. Or to keep from being accused of being crossgendered how about Lionessqueen?

The whole thing is a tempest in a teapot and is being prolonged by a bunch of dipshits; myself included. But what the fuck, it is fun to torment morons. Bwahahahaha

I also am starting to believe that there's a moderator at large on this board which could bring about its early demise. Too bad.

canabyss, why you trying to out me? I thought I had a great act going.

[Chef]

That's laughable Admin.

You deleted my post from this thread.

So much for free speech.

Putting into question a persons mental health brings nothing to the conversation.

I didn't 'put into question a persons mental health'. Can you read?

Regardless - how many other posts in this thread brings nothing to the conversation?

What a load of hooey.

And then INVISIBLE MAN goes on ad-nauseum spouting bullshit and tries to claim they're not being threatening? Even after I specifically told them I already know the law and am willing to take my lumps if I am wrong.

They don't stop at one post. Post after post. And then they have the audacity to make a thread about Cyberbullying??

While I wasn't questioning their mental health in the post that was removed, I am now. Either they're fucking nuts, or they know EXACTLY what they are doing.... LEADING YOU BY THE NOSE.

So, I've had enough of the threats. Here's one for you.

I'm going to give you 24 hours to restore the post to this thread, so others can make their own conclusions what my post represented.

If you do not, here is what I can guarantee will happen. You will be busy talking to your own legal team - because I'm quite well aware of what steps I can take next. There will be no further communication from me until that post is restored.

If the post is restored, all will be well and I will continue to visit this site. If it is not restored, delete my account because I won't be returning to post here. But I will take further steps, and I guarantee you - it will end up costing you money, EVEN if you win.

Chef -out-

[The Invisible Man]

Your post offended me. It was removed. It's not up to "others" to decide if the post was offensive. What law has been broken by removing a post?

Do you actually believe that you are so valuable that your wishes should be adhered to? No one is forcing you to be here.

[Guest]

That's laughable Admin.

You deleted my post from this thread.

So much for free speech.

Putting into question a persons mental health brings nothing to the conversation.

I didn't 'put into question a persons mental health'. Can you read?

Regardless - how many other posts in this thread brings nothing to the conversation?

What a load of hooey.

And then INVISIBLE MAN goes on ad-nauseum spouting bullshit and tries to claim they're not being threatening? Even after I specifically told them I already know the law and am willing to take my lumps if I am wrong.

They don't stop at one post. Post after post. And then they have the audacity to make a thread about Cyberbullying??

While I wasn't questioning their mental health in the post that was removed, I am now. Either they're fucking nuts, or they know EXACTLY what they are doing.... LEADING YOU BY THE NOSE.

So, I've had enough of the threats. Here's one for you.

I'm going to give you 24 hours to restore the post to this thread, so others can make their own conclusions what my post represented.

If you do not, here is what I can guarantee will happen. You will be busy talking to your own legal team - because I'm quite well aware of what steps I can take next. There will be no further communication from me until that post is restored.

If the post is restored, all will be well and I will continue to visit this site. If it is not restored, delete my account because I won't be returning to post here. But I will take further steps, and I guarantee you - it will end up costing you money, EVEN if you win.

Chef -out-

Did it cross your mind that your post could be interpreted more than one way?

[Chef]

Your post offended me. It was removed. It's not up to "others" to decide if the post was offensive. What law has been broken by removing a post?

Do you actually believe that you are so valuable that your wishes should be adhered to? No one is forcing you to be here.

Let me get this straight. You claim you were offended and asked the admin to remove it?

And then you went on to post about slander and libel. And the criminal code. And you attempted to make it appear as if the post slandered you in some way, and that there could be legal ramifications as a result.

And you were insistent and harassing. And you cleverly made a new thread, to give your threats more punch and called it "Speaking of Cyberbullying", linking it to this topic.

http://www.albernitalk.com/t124-speaking-of-cyberbullying

I see perfectly what you are attempting to do.

Let me be real precise. I find you disturbingly threatening and harassing. I don't like control freaks and when I went looking around the Web for more information about people with fragile self-esteem and who cannot handle criticism well, I got this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

To Admin - I recant the demand to restore the post. No further action will be taken.

[Admin]

Has everyone got it out of their system yet? I was told once that in order to curb child like actions one should ignore....to a point I suppose

[The Invisible Man]

Your post offended me. It was removed. It's not up to "others" to decide if the post was offensive. What law has been broken by removing a post?

Do you actually believe that you are so valuable that your wishes should be adhered to? No one is forcing you to be here.

Let me get this straight. You claim you were offended and asked the admin to remove it?

And then you went on to post about slander and libel. And the criminal code. And you attempted to make it appear as if the post slandered you in some way, and that there could be legal ramifications as a result.

And you were insistent and harassing. And you cleverly made a new thread, to give your threats more punch and called it "Speaking of Cyberbullying", linking it to this topic.

http://www.albernitalk.com/t124-speaking-of-cyberbullying

I see perfectly what you are attempting to do.

Let me be real precise. I find you disturbingly threatening and harassing. I don't like control freaks and when I went looking around the Web for more information about people with fragile self-esteem and who cannot handle criticism well, I got this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disorder

To Admin - I recant the demand to restore the post. No further action will be taken.

I have taken considerable criticism during the past couple of years over the water issue and most of it hasn't bothered me. I listened closely to the criticism and learned from it. I may have become overly sensitive but I don't think it's fair for you to put a "narcissitic personality disorder" label on it. I looked it up and found a list of the traits. I do not have the disorder. This battle hasn't been easy. There isn't anyone that wants this issue to be over with more than I do.

Maybe this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black? You appear to have "fragile self-esteem."

Like RGM said maybe there is more than one way to look at your comment? People look at things in different ways based on their experiences in life.

Like Admin says maybe we should all grow up and not take things so seriously?

[Admin]

This topic is locked until tomorrow, it's giving me a headache

[Sponsored content]