So community needs participants, and sometime you are not going to like what another person in the community may think or believe, and if this is enough for you to say that you feel so strongly about hating a persons thoughts or beliefs to the point that you can no longer participate in the Round Table Sessions, then our Community is at a loss.
Wes
What is Community???????????
In biological terms, a community is a group of interacting organisms (or different species) sharing an environment. In human communities, intent, belief, resources, preferences, needs, risks, and a number of other conditions may be present and common, affecting the identity of the participants and their degree of cohesiveness. "SEE THAT WORD PARTICIPANTS........"
In sociology, the concept of community has led to significant debate, and sociologists are yet to reach agreement on a definition of the term. There were ninety-four discrete definitions of the term by the mid-1950s.[1] Traditionally a "community" has been defined as a group of interacting people living in a common location. The word is often used to refer to a group that is organized around common values and social cohesion within a shared geographical location, generally in social units larger than a household. The word can also refer to the national community or global community.
The word "community" is derived from the Old French communité which is derived from the Latin communitas (cum, "with/together" + munus, "gift"), a broad term for fellowship or organized society.[2] "HA-HA HE SAID CUM"
Since the advent of the Internet, the concept of community no longer has geographical limitations, as people can now virtually gather in an online community and share common interests regardless of physical location.
round-table conference - a meeting of peers for discussion and exchange of views;
round table A conference or discussion involving several participants
session - a meeting for execution of a group's functions
------------------------------
---------
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
A tanning company that comes you you
Sunless Services
http://www.agotan.com/ provides not only single visits, but group rates, repeat client packages and party packages. General rates for single visits are as follows:
***1-4 person(s) Full Body Tan - $30.00 per person
(this price is our Grand Opening Special)
***Group Discounts - consultation required
** It is also available to tan just certain areas of the body that interest you particularly. A single visit to your location will still be the base price, but if there are more than 1 person, one would be charged as a full body, then pricing will be as follows:
Face only: $5.00
Arms and legs only: $15.00
Arms only:$10.00
Legs only:$10.00
Any combination of those listed above (pricing negotiable)
***Party Packages - having a special event and would like to have a tanning booth set up for you? Just give us a call or e-mail with details of the event and the circumstances in which you would like us involved and we would be happy to negotiate a price!
***1-4 person(s) Full Body Tan - $30.00 per person
(this price is our Grand Opening Special)
***Group Discounts - consultation required
** It is also available to tan just certain areas of the body that interest you particularly. A single visit to your location will still be the base price, but if there are more than 1 person, one would be charged as a full body, then pricing will be as follows:
Face only: $5.00
Arms and legs only: $15.00
Arms only:$10.00
Legs only:$10.00
Any combination of those listed above (pricing negotiable)
***Party Packages - having a special event and would like to have a tanning booth set up for you? Just give us a call or e-mail with details of the event and the circumstances in which you would like us involved and we would be happy to negotiate a price!
Each individual airbrush tanning session is catered to your personal likes, dislikes and end result desired from our services. Whether you would like a natural sun-kissed glow for wedding portraits, or a more dark tan that looks as if you just came back from the islands, we are able and happy to comply. All airbrush services begin with a consultation to find out just what you want and more importantly, what you do not want, as a result from the tan. http://www.agotan.com/ is happy to conform to the needs of each client on an individual basis!
http://www.agotan.com/
-------------------------------
---------
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Irish for a day
An aging man lived alone in Ireland. His only son was in Long Kesh Prison, and he didn't know anyone who would spade his potato garden. The old man wrote to his son about it, and received this reply: "For HEAVENS SAKE, don't dig up that garden. That's where I buried the GUNS!!!!!" At 4 A.M. the next morning, a dozen policemen showed up and dug up the entire garden, but didn't find any guns. Confused, the man wrote to his son telling him what happened and asking him what to do next. His son's reply was: "Now, you can plant your potatoes."
Here's another:
A man stumbles up to the only other patron in a bar and asks if he can buy him a drink."Why, of course," comes the reply. The first man then asks: "Where are you from?"
"I'm from Ireland," replies the second man.
The first man responds: "You don't say, I'm from Ireland, too! Let's have another round to Ireland."
"Of course," replies the second man.
"Of course," replies the second man.
Curious, the first man then asks: "Where in Ireland are you from?"
"Dublin," comes the reply.
"I can't believe it," says the first man.
"I'm from Dublin, too! Let's have another drink to Dublin."
"Of course," replies the second man.
"Dublin," comes the reply.
"I can't believe it," says the first man.
"I'm from Dublin, too! Let's have another drink to Dublin."
"Of course," replies the second man.
Curiosity again strikes and the first man asks:
"What school did you go to?"
"Saint Mary's," replies the second man.
"I graduated in '62."
"What school did you go to?"
"Saint Mary's," replies the second man.
"I graduated in '62."
"This is unbelievable!" the first man says.
"I went to Saint Mary's and I graduated in '62, too!"
"I went to Saint Mary's and I graduated in '62, too!"
About that time, in comes one of the regulars and sits down at the bar.
"What's been going on?" he asks the bartender.
"What's been going on?" he asks the bartender.
"Nothing much," replies the bartender. "The O'Malley twins are drunk again."
----------------------------------------
Giveaways
Some Giveaways
-------------------------------
---------
- The Watermark Hotel & Spa, San Antonio, Texas Getaway Giveaway Valued at $1,500.00
- The 'Aloha from Maui' Sweepstakes begins February 1, 2010, and ends March 22, 2010
- Chicken Fried in Margaritaville Take home a piece of CMT Crossroads: Zac Brown Band & Jimmy Buffett. We have a custom made Taylor guitar autographed by Zac Brown Band, and it could be yours.
- Take a look around USA.gov and then show us in a creative, entertaining and informative 30 to 90 second video how you use the information you find there to make your life better. The creator of the winning video will receive $2,500. Videos can be uploaded to YouTube for judging beginning Feb. 22, 2010. The deadline for submission is 1 p.m. EST on April 2, 2010.
- All discretionary grants offered by the 26 federal grant-making agencies can be found on Grants.gov.
-------------------------------
---------
Saturday, March 13, 2010
i love coffee
--Coffee for Less is a great place to buy coffee--5% off Coupon Code: CFLESS
---------------------------
---------
---------
Thursday, March 11, 2010
Did the Chilean Quake Shift Earth's Axis?
-Widespread press reports have noted that February's Chilean earthquake might have shortened Earth's day by a small amount. Today's story from Science@NASA explores a more significant effect---how the quake might have shifted Earth's axis.
FULL STORY at
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2010/11mar_figureaxis.htm?list197085------------------------------
---------
FULL STORY at
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2010/11mar_figureaxis.htm?list197085------------------------------
---------
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
Tuesday, March 02, 2010
Slander and libel
What is Slander
if i say "He is a big fat bastard and no one likes him" or what about " He is a dumb head" or " Look at him he is sooo fat he cant walk in a straight line" or " he is such a liar and everyone sees him for what he is"....Well if the preceding statements are true well then its not slander........and we all know they are
slan·der
/ˈslændər/ Show Spelled[slan-der] Show IPA
–noun
1.
defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander.
2.
a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.
3.
Law. defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures, etc.
–verb (used with object)
4.
to utter slander against; defame.
–verb (used without object)
5.
to utter or circulate slander.
Use slander in a Sentence
See images of slander
Search slander on the Web
Origin:
1250–1300; (n.) ME s(c)laundre < AF esclaundre, OF esclandre, alter. of escandle < LL scandalum cause of offense, snare (see scandal); (v.) ME s(c)laundren to cause to lapse morally, bring to disgrace, discredit, defame < OF esclandrer, deriv. of esclandre —Related forms slan·der·er, noun slan·der·ing·ly, adverb slan·der·ous, adjective slan·der·ous·ly, adverb slan·der·ous·ness, noun non·slan·der·ous, adjective outslander, verb (used with object) qua·si-slan·der·ous, adjective qua·si-slan·der·ous·ly, adverb re·slan·der, verb (used with object) un·slan·dered, adjective un·slan·der·ous, adjective un·slan·der·ous·ly, adverb un·slan·der·ous·ness, noun —Can be confused: 1. defamation, liable, libel, slander (see usage note at liable); 2. defame, libel, slander; 3. libel, slander. —Synonyms 4. malign, vilify, revile. Dictionary.com Unabridged
------
It is not unusual for attorneys to receive inquiries about defamation actions from people who are in conflicts with neighbors or other members of their communities, and have become the subjects of vicious lies. The area of law most implicated by that type of conduct is "defamation of character", a cause of action which is generally defined to include "libel" and slander".
What Are Defamation, Libel and Slander?
Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation. Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a magazine or newspaper.
Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:
1. A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
2. The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
3. If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
4. Damage to the plaintiff.
In the context of defamation law, a statement is "published" when it is made to the third party. That term does not mean that the statement has to be in print.
Damages are typically to the reputation of the plaintiff, but depending upon the laws of the jurisdiction it may be enough to establish mental anguish.
Most jurisdictions also recognize "per se" defamation, where the allegations are presumed to cause damage to the plaintiff. Typically, the following may consititute defamation per se:
* Attacks on a person's professional character or standing;
* Allegations that an unmarried person is unchaste;
* Allegations that a person is infected with a sexually transmitted disease;
* Allegations that the person has committed a crime of moral turpitude;
While actions for defamation have their roots in common law, most jurisdictions have now enacted statutes which modify the common law. They may change the elements of the cause of action, limit when an action may be filed, or modify the defenses to an action for defamation. Some may even require that the defendant be given an opportunity to apologize before the plaintiff can seek non-economic damages.
What Defenses Are Available To People Accused of Defamation?
The most important defense to an action for defamation is "truth", which is an absolute defense to an action for defamation.
Another defense to defamation actions is "privilege". For example, statements made by witnesses in court, arguments made in court by lawyers, statements by legislators on the floor of the legislature, or by judges while sitting on the bench, are ordinarily privileged, and cannot support a cause of action for defamation, no matter how false or outrageous.
A defense recognized in most jurisdictions is "opinion". If the person makes a statement of opinion as opposed to fact, the statement may not support a cause of action for defamation. Whether a statement is viewed as an expression of fact or opinion can depend upon context - that is, whether or not the person making the statement would be perceived by the community as being in a position to know whether or not it is true. If your employer calls you a pathological liar, it is far less likely to be regarded as opinion than if such a statement is made by somebody you just met. Some jurisdictions have eliminated the distinction between fact and opinion, and instead hold that any statement that suggests a factual basis can support a cause of action for defamation.
A defense similar to opinion is "fair comment on a matter of public interest". If the mayor of a town is involved in a corruption scandal, expressing the opinion that you believe the allegations are true is not likely to support a cause of action for defamation.
A defendant may also attempt to illustrate that the plaintiff had a poor reputation in the community, in order to diminish any claim for damages resulting from the defamatory statements.
A defendant who transmitted a message without awareness of its content may raise the defense of "innocent dissemination". For example, the post office is not liable for delivering a letter which has defamatory content, as it is not aware of the contents of the letter.
An uncommon defense is that the plaintiff consented to the dissemination of the statement.
Public Figures
Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and did not award any damages.
The concept of the "public figure" is broader than celebrities and politicians. A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established, on the basis that the notoriety associated with the case and the accusations against them turned them into involuntary public figures.
A person can also become a "limited public figure" by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, a woman named Terry Rakolta was offended by the Fox Television show, Married With Children, and wrote letters to the show's advertisers to try to get them to stop their support for the show. As a result of her actions, Ms. Rakolta became the target of jokes in a wide variety of settings. As these jokes remained within the confines of her public conduct, typically making fun of her as being prudish or censorious, they were protected by Ms. Rakolta's status as a "limited public figure".
Why Commencing A Defamation Action Is Not Aways A Good Idea
While people who are targeted by lies may well be angry enough to file a lawsuit, there are some very good reasons why actions for defamation may not be a good idea.
The publicity that results from a defamation lawsuit can create a greater audience for the false statements than they previously enjoyed. For example, if a newspaper or news show picks up the story of the lawsuit, false accusations that were previously known to only a small number of people may suddenly become known to the entire community, nation, or even to the world. As the media is much more apt to cover a lawsuit than to cover its ultimate resolution, the net effect may be that large numbers of people hear the false allegations, but never learn how the litigation was resolved.
Another big issue is that defamation cases tend to be difficult to win, and damage awards tend to be small. As a result, it is unusual for attorneys to be willing to take defamation cases on a contingent fee basis, and the fees expended in litigating even a successful defamation action can exceed the total recovery.
Another significant concern is that, even where the statements made by the defendant are entirely false, it may not be possible for a plaintiff to prove all of the elements of defamation. Most people will respond to news that a plaintiff lost a defamation lawsuit by concluding that the allegations were true.
In other words, the plaintiff in a defamation action may be required to expend a considerable amount of money to bring the action, may experience significant negative publicity which repeats the false accusations, and if unsuccessful in the litigation may cement into the public consciousness the belief that the defamatory accusations were true. While many plaintiffs will be able to successfully prosecute defamation actions, the possible downside should be considered when deciding whether or not such litigation should be attempted. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/slander
American Psychological Association (APA):
slander. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved March 02, 2010, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/slander
Chicago Manual Style (CMS):
slander. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/slander (accessed: March 02, 2010).
Modern Language Association (MLA):
"slander." Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 02 Mar. 2010. .
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE):
Dictionary.com, "slander," in Dictionary.com Unabridged. Source location: Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/slander. Available: http://dictionary.reference.com. Accessed: March 02, 2010.
-------------------------------
---------
if i say "He is a big fat bastard and no one likes him" or what about " He is a dumb head" or " Look at him he is sooo fat he cant walk in a straight line" or " he is such a liar and everyone sees him for what he is"....Well if the preceding statements are true well then its not slander........and we all know they are
slan·der
/ˈslændər/ Show Spelled[slan-der] Show IPA
–noun
1.
defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander.
2.
a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander against his good name.
3.
Law. defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures, etc.
–verb (used with object)
4.
to utter slander against; defame.
–verb (used without object)
5.
to utter or circulate slander.
Use slander in a Sentence
See images of slander
Search slander on the Web
Origin:
1250–1300; (n.) ME s(c)laundre < AF esclaundre, OF esclandre, alter. of escandle < LL scandalum cause of offense, snare (see scandal); (v.) ME s(c)laundren to cause to lapse morally, bring to disgrace, discredit, defame < OF esclandrer, deriv. of esclandre —Related forms slan·der·er, noun slan·der·ing·ly, adverb slan·der·ous, adjective slan·der·ous·ly, adverb slan·der·ous·ness, noun non·slan·der·ous, adjective outslander, verb (used with object) qua·si-slan·der·ous, adjective qua·si-slan·der·ous·ly, adverb re·slan·der, verb (used with object) un·slan·dered, adjective un·slan·der·ous, adjective un·slan·der·ous·ly, adverb un·slan·der·ous·ness, noun —Can be confused: 1. defamation, liable, libel, slander (see usage note at liable); 2. defame, libel, slander; 3. libel, slander. —Synonyms 4. malign, vilify, revile. Dictionary.com Unabridged
------
It is not unusual for attorneys to receive inquiries about defamation actions from people who are in conflicts with neighbors or other members of their communities, and have become the subjects of vicious lies. The area of law most implicated by that type of conduct is "defamation of character", a cause of action which is generally defined to include "libel" and slander".
What Are Defamation, Libel and Slander?
Generally speaking, defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation. Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a magazine or newspaper.
Typically, the elements of a cause of action for defamation include:
1. A false and defamatory statement concerning another;
2. The unprivileged publication of the statement to a third party (that is, somebody other than the person defamed by the statement);
3. If the defamatory matter is of public concern, fault amounting at least to negligence on the part of the publisher; and
4. Damage to the plaintiff.
In the context of defamation law, a statement is "published" when it is made to the third party. That term does not mean that the statement has to be in print.
Damages are typically to the reputation of the plaintiff, but depending upon the laws of the jurisdiction it may be enough to establish mental anguish.
Most jurisdictions also recognize "per se" defamation, where the allegations are presumed to cause damage to the plaintiff. Typically, the following may consititute defamation per se:
* Attacks on a person's professional character or standing;
* Allegations that an unmarried person is unchaste;
* Allegations that a person is infected with a sexually transmitted disease;
* Allegations that the person has committed a crime of moral turpitude;
While actions for defamation have their roots in common law, most jurisdictions have now enacted statutes which modify the common law. They may change the elements of the cause of action, limit when an action may be filed, or modify the defenses to an action for defamation. Some may even require that the defendant be given an opportunity to apologize before the plaintiff can seek non-economic damages.
What Defenses Are Available To People Accused of Defamation?
The most important defense to an action for defamation is "truth", which is an absolute defense to an action for defamation.
Another defense to defamation actions is "privilege". For example, statements made by witnesses in court, arguments made in court by lawyers, statements by legislators on the floor of the legislature, or by judges while sitting on the bench, are ordinarily privileged, and cannot support a cause of action for defamation, no matter how false or outrageous.
A defense recognized in most jurisdictions is "opinion". If the person makes a statement of opinion as opposed to fact, the statement may not support a cause of action for defamation. Whether a statement is viewed as an expression of fact or opinion can depend upon context - that is, whether or not the person making the statement would be perceived by the community as being in a position to know whether or not it is true. If your employer calls you a pathological liar, it is far less likely to be regarded as opinion than if such a statement is made by somebody you just met. Some jurisdictions have eliminated the distinction between fact and opinion, and instead hold that any statement that suggests a factual basis can support a cause of action for defamation.
A defense similar to opinion is "fair comment on a matter of public interest". If the mayor of a town is involved in a corruption scandal, expressing the opinion that you believe the allegations are true is not likely to support a cause of action for defamation.
A defendant may also attempt to illustrate that the plaintiff had a poor reputation in the community, in order to diminish any claim for damages resulting from the defamatory statements.
A defendant who transmitted a message without awareness of its content may raise the defense of "innocent dissemination". For example, the post office is not liable for delivering a letter which has defamatory content, as it is not aware of the contents of the letter.
An uncommon defense is that the plaintiff consented to the dissemination of the statement.
Public Figures
Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and did not award any damages.
The concept of the "public figure" is broader than celebrities and politicians. A person can become an "involuntary public figure" as the result of publicity, even though that person did not want or invite the public attention. For example, people accused of high profile crimes may be unable to pursue actions for defamation even after their innocence is established, on the basis that the notoriety associated with the case and the accusations against them turned them into involuntary public figures.
A person can also become a "limited public figure" by engaging in actions which generate publicity within a narrow area of interest. For example, a woman named Terry Rakolta was offended by the Fox Television show, Married With Children, and wrote letters to the show's advertisers to try to get them to stop their support for the show. As a result of her actions, Ms. Rakolta became the target of jokes in a wide variety of settings. As these jokes remained within the confines of her public conduct, typically making fun of her as being prudish or censorious, they were protected by Ms. Rakolta's status as a "limited public figure".
Why Commencing A Defamation Action Is Not Aways A Good Idea
While people who are targeted by lies may well be angry enough to file a lawsuit, there are some very good reasons why actions for defamation may not be a good idea.
The publicity that results from a defamation lawsuit can create a greater audience for the false statements than they previously enjoyed. For example, if a newspaper or news show picks up the story of the lawsuit, false accusations that were previously known to only a small number of people may suddenly become known to the entire community, nation, or even to the world. As the media is much more apt to cover a lawsuit than to cover its ultimate resolution, the net effect may be that large numbers of people hear the false allegations, but never learn how the litigation was resolved.
Another big issue is that defamation cases tend to be difficult to win, and damage awards tend to be small. As a result, it is unusual for attorneys to be willing to take defamation cases on a contingent fee basis, and the fees expended in litigating even a successful defamation action can exceed the total recovery.
Another significant concern is that, even where the statements made by the defendant are entirely false, it may not be possible for a plaintiff to prove all of the elements of defamation. Most people will respond to news that a plaintiff lost a defamation lawsuit by concluding that the allegations were true.
In other words, the plaintiff in a defamation action may be required to expend a considerable amount of money to bring the action, may experience significant negative publicity which repeats the false accusations, and if unsuccessful in the litigation may cement into the public consciousness the belief that the defamatory accusations were true. While many plaintiffs will be able to successfully prosecute defamation actions, the possible downside should be considered when deciding whether or not such litigation should be attempted. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/slander
American Psychological Association (APA):
slander. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved March 02, 2010, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/slander
Chicago Manual Style (CMS):
slander. Dictionary.com. Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/slander (accessed: March 02, 2010).
Modern Language Association (MLA):
"slander." Dictionary.com Unabridged. Random House, Inc. 02 Mar. 2010. .
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE):
Dictionary.com, "slander," in Dictionary.com Unabridged. Source location: Random House, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/slander. Available: http://dictionary.reference.com. Accessed: March 02, 2010.
-------------------------------
---------
all-natural Heirloom seeds
Well with me buying a house on an acre or so of land i plan to have a garden here are some seed sources to grow you own plants from seed.....
And if you are lookin for Heirloom Seeds well here ya go GenericSeeds.com carries all-natural Heirloom seeds. Packets starting at $1.39.
and this is a great place to grow your own...
-------------------------------
---------
And if you are lookin for Heirloom Seeds well here ya go GenericSeeds.com carries all-natural Heirloom seeds. Packets starting at $1.39.
and this is a great place to grow your own...
-------------------------------
---------
Monday, March 01, 2010
Go to DC
Washington, D.C. is the Place to Be! See the Nation's Capital from $89!
-------------------------------
---------
---------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)