Topic: [ANN] Infinitecoin - IFC | V1.8 Released! *Mandatory Upgrade, upgrade ASAP* - page 38. (Read 199669 times)

I just replied to your pm fisheater

Absolutely, guys we have a great community, zack/snaz, you guys did great jobs to help the community, let's continue and work together, we are one community, we are all for the purpose of the success of IFC. Nothing personal here, no need to look back for details of misunderstanding, let's move forward! 

Ok)) Good luck, again
Just, stop spam here

removed

Ok, stay here... But you episode of the game... is over...

removed

Be cool , Zack. Game over

snaz I have done everything I possible can to fix this and all you have done is taken the website and software and left me to pay the devs

this is the uk law on slander we are both residence of the uk  so this is the law so please remember that before you post lies >


Defamation - Elements of a Claim


Under Article 10(2) of the Convention, the protection of the reputation of others is a legitimate ground for restricting the right to freedom of expression. Libel and slander are legal claims that protect an individual’s reputation against defamation. An individual is defamed when a person publishes to a third party words or matter containing an untrue imputation against his or her reputation.

Libel and Slander

 If the publication is in a permanent form (for example in a book, magazine or film), then the defamation is libel. It is slander if the publication is in a transient form (speech). Signs, gestures, photographs, pictures, statues, cartoons etc. can also give rise to a claim for defamation, but the most obvious types of defamatory statements are written or spoken words.

 The principal practical difference between claims for libel and claims for slander is what a claimant must prove to succeed in his or her claim. In libel claims, the claimant does not have to prove that he or she has suffered loss or damage as a result of the publication. In contrast, in claims for slander, the claimant must prove actual damage. There are however several exceptions to the rule that actual damage must be proved in claims for slander.

 For example, if the spoken words accuse the claimant of committing a crime; of having a contagious disease; of being unfit for his or her office, business or profession; or if the communication is an attack of the credit of trades people; or an accusation of being unchaste or adulterous against a woman or girl. In these cases damage is presumed and need not be proved.

Meaning of Defamation

 There is no single comprehensive definition of what is defamatory. Various suggestions have been made before the courts, including any material which:

•Is to a person’s discredit.
•Tends to lower him or her in the estimation of others.
•Causes him or her to be shunned or avoided.
•Causes him or her to be exposed to hatred, ridicule or contempt.
For a statement to be defamatory the imputation must tend to lower the claimant in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally. Even if the words damage a person in the eyes of a section of society or the community, they are not defamatory unless they amount to a disparagement of the reputation in the eyes of right-thinking people generally.

 A statement that amounts to an insult or is mere vulgar abuse is not defamatory. This is because the words do not convey a defamatory meaning to those who heard them (simple abuse is unlikely to cause real damage to a reputation). It is arguable that the defence of vulgar abuse is not available if the statement is a libel. The reason for this distinction is that it is more likely that written words will be taken seriously and understood to have a defamatory meaning.

 In contrast to most civil cases, juries usually hear defamation claims. Once the judge has decided that the words - or other material - could possibly have a meaning that is damaging to the claimant’s reputation, the jury’s role is twofold. First, it must determine what the words mean in their natural and ordinary sense. Second, the jury must decide whether that meaning is defamatory. When deciding what the words mean the intention and knowledge of the person who published the words are irrelevant.

 The law of defamation recognises two types of meanings. The first type of meaning is the natural and ordinary meaning of the words. This is not limited to the obvious and literal meaning, but includes any inference which the ordinary, reasonable reader would draw from the words. The second type of meaning is the innuendo meaning:

False Innuendo: An alternative meaning which the ordinary, reasonable person who can read between the lines would infer from the words is known as the ‘false innuendo’ meaning.

True Innuendo: True innuendo arises when words that appear to be innocent to some people appear as defamatory to others because they possess special knowledge or extra information (for example, reading about someone getting married wouldn’t seem damaging to their reputation - unless you knew that they were already married!).

 A claimant can ask that the court consider a statement’s false or true innuendo meaning.

Publication

The words complained of must have been published by the person sued to a third party. Publication includes any means of communication even if only to one other person. Due to the breadth of the term publication, many individuals with only a slight connection to the work can find themselves ensnared in defamation proceedings.

 However, the Defamation Act 1996 provides a defence to persons who are not authors, editors or commercial publishers of the statement if they took reasonable care in relation to its publication and they did not know and had no reason to believe that what they did caused or contributed to the publication of a defamatory statement. This is intended to cover printers, distributors, on-line service providers and live broadcasters.

 The High Court has held for the purposes of the Defamation Act 1996 that an Internet Service Provider (ISP) which transmits a posting from its news server to subscribers who want to use it, is not the publisher of the posting, although at common law it would be considered to be. However, the court held that because the ISP had not removed the offending material as soon as it was notified of its existence, it had not acted reasonably and the defence under the Defamation Act 1996 was not available.

Identification

A claimant must prove that the defamatory statement refers to him or her. In most cases this can be done without difficulty, as the claimant will be named. However, a claimant who has not been referred to by name must prove that the words complained of were understood by some readers as referring to him or her.

 The claimant can rely on the fact that he or she was referred to by a nickname or initials or that he or she was a member of a class or group of people included in the defamatory statement.

 The fact that a publisher did not intend to refer to the claimant is irrelevant to the question of whether or not that person has been defamed. A person whose name is the same or similar to that of a fictitious character can sue for defamation if the words complained of would be understood to refer to the claimant by reasonable people who knew him or her.

 Similarly, a member of a group or class of people can sue in relation to a defamatory allegation referring to the group as a whole, if the group is sufficiently small that the allegation would be understood to refer to him or her personally.

it has not calmed down and will not do so until snaz actualy grows the bulls to talk to me about this

It seems he calmed down. Congratulations,SNAZ

Absolute rubbish yet again zack! You wanted to take money out so you could get back the 500 million donation! I guess you don't know what a donation is ay zack? Zack, you are a bare faced liar, plain and simple... You were not even deleted on skype! Such a joke!

You still don't mention about the money you LIED about sending... Or the files you LIED about giving me!

Why would I want to talk to a liar?

You tell me i am not welcome on your forum and so I stay away! What do you do? Follow me round bitcointalk like a lost dog! Shoooo now, go on!

EDIT: Zack you have been ignored now, we have gone over everything, you even said in here it is my project now etc... So just get lost... Wherever I see you I will just hit ignore... So have at it. Goodbye

I have been over what my "problem" was... I know full well you didn't steal anything off fisheater but the point is you THOUGHT you had! I wasn't going to post this here but now I will...


This is the PM you sent to me zack, say what you like now but this is pretty clear...


Absolute total rubbish, there are pages and pages on here starting at page 37 where I discussed and fleshed out my idea! You make out like the idea is nothing but that is the whole point! Without the idea there was nothing!

And zack, I can do this on my own very happily thank you very much... But there are people waiting in the wings to help out anyway! Zack I will ask you again, what part of the website did you do? You did nothing, what a joke! You chatted some and went off all the time lol... That is not work...


Then you will be very happy, we both got what we wanted...


Zack, I am fully aware it is a business opportunity, why do you think I want to do it? Where we disagree fully is in the strategy, you wanted to be super tight and take out money from the advertising for yourself and that is totally NOT what I wanted! In essence the advertising would go towards sustaining  the website and future project/developments... It was to help to grow the community and give the coin value! Then and only then would I see any financial gain!

To me it is a far better way to provide great services as I have a huge interest in seeing it succeed...

The things that come out of your mouth are quite ridiculous zack... If you were going to leave anyway then why all the fuss when I asked you to go?

How come I have not received the money from the domain name zack? Like you promised! How come ahmed seems to think you have the text files zack? Why are you still holding onto my work? Why do you want to keep the domain names etc? All when you wanted to leave...

This is the last comment I will be writing to you... Please don't bother to contact me unless it is to give me back what you still owe me, thanks

I agree with you, however, I had to stop working with zack... I can't trust or be involved with someone like that. He was devious... I respect your comment here and it is a nice sentiment, I share it with you. But sometimes tough decisions have to be made... I'm sure you read my original comments regarding project infinite. I wanted it to be fun (still do), I wanted to do something different and something that will benefit both the community and myself... If I add value to infinitecoin then I get paid, if I don't add value then I don't... So the incentive is their to do the best job I can.

Zack's philosophy was somewhat different however and we were incompatible...

I'm not here to argue on your thread, just thought I would tell you where I stand. Right now I'm looking forward and starting to put things back together. Project Infinite still lives and will continue to do so.

Guys, we are a great community, let's work together. The IFC is everyone's, those who own it are on the same boat and in the same community. So no arguments

Infinitecoins, Infinite Possibilities, and Infinite Opportunities!

Nothing is ending, the only thing that will change is the website name.

Project Infinite is alive and well.

I will update here and on the beta test thread in due time.

Thanks jdwi31, I updated the OP.

coin is a creeper for sure. cant wait till next year

Forum sockpuppet court proceedings are now in order !  

Our couple divorced


Snaz,it was a great attempt. Maybe another time ...

Zack,focus on the development of your site and stop fussing and spamming here)))))

Good luck to both)

Time to halves to 131,072 coins per block:
3 Days, 21 hours, 59 minutes