Originally posted by rmannstaedt
Actually, posting rumours and non-credible information and passing it off as factual in a way which is financially damaging, is illegal under most western laws and as such subject to libel and defamation lawsuits. But, that is not what the Inquirer is doing. I don't recall reading a single article (though with so many I could be wrong here) where they did not clearly mark the source and its credibility, and sometimes in the byline as well as in the article itself.
And speaking of the relative merits of your site and the Inquirer, I would have to say that as far as I can see the Inquirer scores rather higher on the ethics and morals scale than your site do. At least they do link to your site when they refer to it (as eg. in http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=5327). You don't. When I read a debate on the Net, I far prefer to be able to read both sides of the issue. But you prefer me not to be able to do that (ref. http://www.3dgpu.com/comments.php?id=895&category=1). Or what?
I wasn't talking about libel or defamation, or anything of that sort. I'm talking about people believing rumors as facts, due to either ignorance or they didn't notice small words like "may" or "indicates" or "perhaps". People tend to overlook little things like that, and take things seriously on the net. Then stock prices go down, investors get jitterish, the competition can use the info as a weapon, customers-to-be get a bad taste in their mouth, and so on. That's the kind of damage I'm referring to in regards to rumors.
While I do like to link my sources of information(and that is the first time Inquirer has linked to us), I am not going to link to the Inquirer for reasons I've made perfectly obvious.
But using your preferations and logic that you've stated above, it seems The Inquirer is low on the ethics and morals scale according to you as well, since they didn't link to my site when they posted a debate (see http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=4801
). Bet that won't change your perspective on them though.
I also don't believe in linking to a site for a debate on the front page to "build an army", so to speak. Then the site ends up getting emails like I did when the Inquirer links to me - for example:
My opinion -
Not only do you and your pathetic site suck a fat coloured ass, but you are personally a pimple-faced ignorant moron pretending to be human.
Just my (and many others) opinion.
Do the world a favour; eat ****te and die.
Essentially, if I linked to a site announcing my dislike for them, stupid people will try to defend me and issue death threats similiar to the one you see above. Or vice versa. I did however posted about it in my forums
, just to get opinions on the matter.