Re: What is "local time"?

On Fri, 1 Nov 2024 7:23:02 +0000, Thomas Heger wrote:

>
Am Donnerstag000031, 31.10.2024 um 14:15 schrieb gharnagel:

>
On Thu, 31 Oct 2024 7:16:45 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>
W dniu 31.10.2024 o 01:00, gharnagel pisze:

>
On Wed, 30 Oct 2024 15:24:29 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:

>
Just a slander there.

>
"You keep using that word, I do not think it means what
you think It means” -- Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride

>
I think it means
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/pl/dictionary/english-polish/
slander#google_vignette
the crime of saying bad things about someone that are not true

>
Nobody cares what a sloppy Polish dictionary says.  I gave a
link to a LEGAL definition, which Devious Wozniak failed to
include in his fake response.  It is restored here to cover
Wozniak's baloney with truth:
>
https://legaldictionary.net/slander/
>
"Slander is a legal term that refers to a false, ORAL
statement about an individual that harms his reputation
or standing within the community."

>
The anglo-american 'Common law' is total crap.

European law is even worse.

But here we have to stress on the intentions of the 'slanderer',
because in the part of the law, which is dealing with crimes,
it is important, that the perpetraitor has or should have
knowledge about doing something wrong.
>
This requires at least, that the offender does know, that his
statements were wrong and that he used false accusations, to
harm somebody.
>
But 'common low' does not 'think' this way.
>
It is therefore irrelevant in that system, whether the
perpetraitor knows whether or not that statement was false.
>
Instead the important part is 'harm his reputation...'.

Indeed, and Wozniak has nothing to harm.  Any "reputation" he
may have once had, he has frittered away by his own behavior.
He himself has lied, libeled and written despicably for years.
No one believes anything he says.

If I would, for instance, accuse a bank robber of robbing a
bank, this would certainly harm his reputation.
>
But it is not 'slander', because the statement was not false.
>
But even if it were false and I would believe, it would be true, it
wouldn't be slander.
>
It would be 'false accusation', what is also illegal, but not
'slander'.
>
TH

Consider, however, when one calls a statement a "pink elephant,"
as Wozniak did, he is trying to say that the statement is an
illusion when, in fact, any rational person would say it was
perfectly true.  Is he not "harming the reputation" of the one
making the statement?  Thus Wozniak is the one "slandering."
And if his "pink elephant" accusation is turned around and bites
him in the butt, it is just karma.  So Wozniak screaming "slander"
is exposed as the childish ranting of a mendacious hypocrite.