Difference between revisions of "Talk:US/NC/Durham/landlords"
m (moved Talk:landlords of questionable repute (Durham, NC) to Talk:US/NC/Durham/landlords: making page more general, and using subpages) |
|||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
=={{anonuser|158.143.161.26}} said== | =={{anonuser|158.143.161.26}} said== | ||
I do not think it is right to specifically place someone down as a slumlord. I believe that this is slandering. | I do not think it is right to specifically place someone down as a slumlord. I believe that this is slandering. | ||
| + | =={{woozle}} replied== | ||
| + | Perhaps... but as regards the particular landlord whose name you deleted from the list (Bill Fields), the allegation of slumlordly behavior is substantiated by another web site. I have similar substantiation for Ronnie Sturdivant, although (oddly) you chose not to remove his name despite the lack of substantiation in the listing. Either way, HTYP strives to serve the community by bringing such descriptions to the attention of both the described (Mr. Fields and Mr. Sturdivant, in this case) and the describers. You are welcome to use this page as a forum for further discussion, including (if you wish) defense of Mr. Fields's actions as a property owner. --[[User:Woozle|Woozle]] 21:09, 1 April 2007 (EDT) | ||
| + | =={{anonuser|158.143.161.26}} added== | ||
| + | Regardless of whether allegations of slumlord behavior is warranted you are still defaming two individuals on this website which will be pursued by legal actions. This site is to give information coming into the city of Durham, am I right? What good does it do to defame the names of these two individuals? The actions of this website are leading to the defamation of character and I wish you to take down these descriptions. | ||
| + | =={{woozle}} replies== | ||
| + | You said: "''What good does it do to defame the names of these two individuals?''" I'm not defaming anyone; see below... but if you re-word the question as "what good does it do to post this information?" then the answer is obviously that it informs people of the reputation those two individuals have locally. It also potentially warns those two individuals that they have a bad reputation to overcome (and might want to change their practices or perhaps get out of the property rental business if they find that perhaps they are not suited to it). Seems to me everyone should be happy, unless those two individuals are basically dishonest in their intentions. | ||
| + | From Wikipedia, in the article on [[wikipedia:slander and libel|slander and libel]]: "...defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim..." It's only actionable if the charges are false. All that has been said on this site regarding these individuals (whom I don't understand why you are protecting) is that they "have been identified as having questionable attitudes towards their tenants and the value of the properties they own or rent." and that the word "[[wikipedia:slumlord|slumlord]]" comes to mind when thinking of their past actions, which is certainly true given the postings on Endangered Durham and elsewhere. I don't think they would have a case for defamation. | ||
| − | + | You said: "''I wish you to take down these descriptions.''" Why? And who are you, anyway? | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | + | Any further deletion of information on the main article page, by the way, will be counted as vandalism, and you will be banned. --[[User:Woozle|Woozle]] 19:05, 2 April 2007 (EDT) | |
Latest revision as of 15:00, 3 September 2009
anonymous user 158.143.161.26 said
I do not think it is right to specifically place someone down as a slumlord. I believe that this is slandering.
Woozle replied
Perhaps... but as regards the particular landlord whose name you deleted from the list (Bill Fields), the allegation of slumlordly behavior is substantiated by another web site. I have similar substantiation for Ronnie Sturdivant, although (oddly) you chose not to remove his name despite the lack of substantiation in the listing. Either way, HTYP strives to serve the community by bringing such descriptions to the attention of both the described (Mr. Fields and Mr. Sturdivant, in this case) and the describers. You are welcome to use this page as a forum for further discussion, including (if you wish) defense of Mr. Fields's actions as a property owner. --Woozle 21:09, 1 April 2007 (EDT)
anonymous user 158.143.161.26 added
Regardless of whether allegations of slumlord behavior is warranted you are still defaming two individuals on this website which will be pursued by legal actions. This site is to give information coming into the city of Durham, am I right? What good does it do to defame the names of these two individuals? The actions of this website are leading to the defamation of character and I wish you to take down these descriptions.
Woozle replies
You said: "What good does it do to defame the names of these two individuals?" I'm not defaming anyone; see below... but if you re-word the question as "what good does it do to post this information?" then the answer is obviously that it informs people of the reputation those two individuals have locally. It also potentially warns those two individuals that they have a bad reputation to overcome (and might want to change their practices or perhaps get out of the property rental business if they find that perhaps they are not suited to it). Seems to me everyone should be happy, unless those two individuals are basically dishonest in their intentions.
From Wikipedia, in the article on slander and libel: "...defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim..." It's only actionable if the charges are false. All that has been said on this site regarding these individuals (whom I don't understand why you are protecting) is that they "have been identified as having questionable attitudes towards their tenants and the value of the properties they own or rent." and that the word "slumlord" comes to mind when thinking of their past actions, which is certainly true given the postings on Endangered Durham and elsewhere. I don't think they would have a case for defamation.
You said: "I wish you to take down these descriptions." Why? And who are you, anyway?
Any further deletion of information on the main article page, by the way, will be counted as vandalism, and you will be banned. --Woozle 19:05, 2 April 2007 (EDT)