|
Red posted:If I remember correctly, the book went back and forth with Davey as a horrible person and as the victim. Jim Neidhart was a terrible person, Bret was a terrible person, Smith/Keith/the rest were all awful people - except for Owen, who was an angel. It's really a loving horrible book. Meltzer says that a portion of it is true, while the vast majority is complete fantasy. All of it is word salad, and I would encourage anyone to read anything else first. It's pretty hard to get a book pulled from shelves on a libel case, but that's what happened. The Dynamite Kid stuff (which is probably the true stuff since Dynamite is insane) is horrible, but the Owen stuff should make people throw up in their mouths a little.
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 20:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 01:32 |
|
|
I love how in Diana Smith's book she couldn't even get people's names right. "Steve 'Mondo' McMichael snorted a huge line before going out to the ring."
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 20:33
|
|
|
As far as I can tell, Bret's book is accurate (as long as you disregard everything he says about himself or his marriage).
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
Cromulent posted:I love how in Diana Smith's book she couldn't even get people's names right. "Steve 'Mondo' McMichael snorted a huge line before going out to the ring." On the other hand, I remember everyone was quick to dismiss Diana's book entirely because of this ("She referred to The Amazing French Canadians as The Quebecers? WHAT AN IDIOT - THE WHOLE THING MUST BE FAKE"). It's more likely she needed a better fact-checker/editor. I enjoyed it for what it was.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 20:57
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:On the other hand, I remember everyone was quick to dismiss Diana's book entirely because of this ("She referred to The Amazing French Canadians as The Quebecers? WHAT AN IDIOT - THE WHOLE THING MUST BE FAKE"). Everyone was quick to dismiss it because it was libelous trash that was pulled from the market for that very reason. If you enjoy libelous trash, good for you I guess?
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 22:16
|
|
|
MassRanTer posted:libelous trash You have just described every shoot interview ever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 22:40
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:You have just described every shoot interview ever. You don't even know what libel is, do you? You also don't know how uncommon it is for a book to be pulled like that. Funny how every shoot interview ever hasn't been pulled. Funny how no one points to libel on those as something they can enjoy in the way you say you can.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 22:50
|
|
|
MassRanTer posted:You don't even know what libel is, do you? You also don't know how uncommon it is for a book to be pulled like that. Funny how every shoot interview ever hasn't been pulled. Funny how no one points to libel on those as something they can enjoy in the way you say you can. Most shoot interviews aren't officially copyrighted works - which is why when someone accuses Tammy Sytch of smoking crack in a shoot interview, she doesn't do the logical thing and sue, she does another interview for the same company trying to argue that she didn't smoke crack. It's a carny industry. Meltzer sides with Bret on everything, so I'd rather see Bret point out what parts of Diana's book were false rather than generalizing that the entire thing as untrue. I think Diana would know whether or not Davey Boy raped her. She would have no reason to make up stuff like that. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 23:02
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:Most shoot interviews aren't officially copyrighted works - which is why when someone accuses Tammy Sytch of smoking crack in a shoot interview, she doesn't do the logical thing and sue, she does another interview for the same company trying to argue that she didn't smoke crack. Hahaha this guy really doesn't know what the word libel means but won't stop arguing about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 23:07
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:Most shoot interviews aren't officially copyrighted works - which is why when someone accuses Tammy Sytch of smoking crack in a shoot interview, she doesn't do the logical thing and sue, she does another interview for the same company trying to argue that she didn't smoke crack. I think what you're trying to say in answer to Rapper is "No."
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 23:09
|
|
|
nothing to do with the wcw thread but whenever i see sarah palin, i immediately think of MRT. thank you MRT for being our resident pro wrestling analyst/historian/5 card stud strategist.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 23:32
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:It's really a loving horrible book. Meltzer says that a portion of it is true, while the vast majority is complete fantasy. All of it is word salad, and I would encourage anyone to read anything else first. It's pretty hard to get a book pulled from shelves on a libel case, but that's what happened. The Dynamite Kid stuff (which is probably the true stuff since Dynamite is insane) is horrible, but the Owen stuff should make people throw up in their mouths a little. I only got to read it when it was posted online just after getting pulled from shelves, and I gave up reading when she hit the early 90s. It just reeked of bitterness. Bret's book is outstanding - at least while he's writing about his youth and the Stampede days. He paints an amazing picture of the Hart household. I wish there was a Mr. Perfect bio. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 23:41
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:Most shoot interviews aren't officially copyrighted works - which is why when someone accuses Tammy Sytch of smoking crack in a shoot interview, she doesn't do the logical thing and sue, she does another interview for the same company trying to argue that she didn't smoke crack. Copyright has nothing to do with libel. The reason Sytch doesn't sue is because statements like that are true (and could theoretically be proven), not because they aren't copyrighted. Defamation (libel/slander) cases are very hard to prove in a court of law (at least in Canada, I believe it's slightly easier in the States as the burden of proof isn't as heavy as it is in Canada, IANAL, though) and the fact that Hart's book was yanked from the shelves is a very uncommon thing, especially considering the people being talked about were prominent public figures (typically it's harder for public figures to win defamation cases.) For what it's worth, I read part of Diane Hart's book during lunch breaks when it was still in stores and there were a lot of inaccuracies (and I'm not talking about simple name errors) and unbelievable poo poo being said. I agree with OneThousandMonkeys, read anything else.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 23:41
|
|
|
LordPants posted:I think what you're trying to say in answer to Rapper is "No." MassRayPer thinks that if something isn't published, it never happened. I disagree with that. For instance, if five people in a wrestling company personally tell me something happened backstage, and MRP counters with "SHOW ME WHERE THAT WAS WRITTEN I CAN NOT FIND AN ARTICLE ON THIS" - well, that's just silly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 23:42
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:MassRayPer thinks that if something isn't published, it never happened. I disagree with that. its less that more that you literally don't know the definition. libel is written. slander is spoken.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 23:44
|
|
|
Libel can include broadcasted statements, though I don't know if that encompasses poo poo like YouTube shoot interviews or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 23:46
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:Most shoot interviews aren't officially copyrighted works - which is why when someone accuses Tammy Sytch of smoking crack in a shoot interview, she doesn't do the logical thing and sue, she does another interview for the same company trying to argue that she didn't smoke crack. Why would she make up things about living people that can be proven wrong? With the rape accusation we have no way of knowing because she lied about so many other things. It is rare for a book to be pulled. This isn't a case of he said, she said, this is a book that is just bullshit. Shoot interviews would be just as prone to suits as books if known damaging lies were told for profit. It is difficult to prove these claims and damages, which is further powerful evidence the book is nonsense. Your post indicates you have little comprehension of the issues involved here or the law.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 23:47
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:MassRayPer thinks that if something isn't published, it never happened. I disagree with that. Strawman doesn't help your argument
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 23:49
|
|
|
Perdido posted:Libel can include broadcasted statements Right - http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1153 quote:Libel is the written or broadcast form of defamation, distinguished from slander, which is oral defamation. Slander would be like if New Jack went in front of a crowd of people and said "Tammy Sytch smokes crack and killed a dude by biting his dick off". If he says that during a shoot interview or on television, it's libel.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 23:51
|
|
|
Defamation of public figures requires an actual malice standard, which is knowledge or reckless disregard of the statement's falsity, which is why libel and slander against public figures are usually junk torts. To see a book get pulled for those reasons means it's complete and total garbage.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 23:52
|
|
|
My memory's foggy, but, What I found most insulting about her book is that she got Stu Hart to write a 'preface' to it. When Stu probably didn't see word one of what was written and was old enough to have no real clue of what the gently caress was going on around him.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 23:53
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:MassRayPer thinks that if something isn't published, it never happened. I disagree with that. Please file for an official copyright so I can sue you for libel. You have damaged my credibility and wasted my 10 bucks with your false statements.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 23:54
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:MassRayPer thinks that if something isn't published, it never happened. I disagree with that. I ain't a fan of MRP, but gently caress sake you're a damned idiot.
|
|
#
?
Mar 21, 2013 23:57
|
|
|
Gonzo McFee posted:I ain't a fan of MRP, but gently caress sake you're a damned idiot. I am a fan of MRP even though we constantly argue, because MRP is generally more informed than anyone else posting here and consequently has shamed me about a hundred times. The only person possibly more informed about anything is jeffersonlives, who is a lawyer who knows everything about politics, football, and wrestling for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 00:01
|
|
|
I'm not actually practicing at the moment, although I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 00:02
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:Right - But New Jack could argue that he was 'performing as a character' and get around a potential lawsuit that way. Alternatively, if he was giving an interview, the burden of proof (I am somewhat misusing this term) would be on him to show that what he said happened, and then Sytch would have to show how her reputation was damaged by those statements. Even partial false statements (killed a dude by biting his dick off) doesn't mean defamation has happened. There was a notable case in the 60s with the New York Times and I think Kent State where they were talking about civil rights infringements of African Americans. Some of the claims in the article the NYT made were false, but not all of them, and that was sufficient to escape a libel ruling because they weren't acting with the aforementioned 'malice' that Jeffersonlives referenced. However, Sytch's substance abuse problems are well known and well documented, so even if she doesn't smoke crack specifically, it's irrelevant. You could also take other shoot comments from other people, like that Nexus guy who was fired and said a bunch of poo poo about John Cena. Taken on the surface, they're potentially defaming comments, but then you have to look at the context -- does anyone seriously believe the guy or think he has any credibility? Has John Cena or WWE's reputation been seriously hurt by these claims? No? Well, then the statements shouldn't be taken as slander/libel. To try and draw this somewhat back to the WCW Thread...Russo's comments about Hogan being a 'bald headed son of a bitch' I think did end up becoming a libel case (and were settled by Time Warner...I think?) and you could make an argument that Russo was acting with malice with his comments (although they were true, haha.) Anyone know anything more about that particular case? Perdido fucked around with this message at 00:07 on Mar 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 00:03
|
|
|
MassRanTer posted:Please file for an official copyright so I can sue you for libel. You have damaged my credibility and wasted my 10 bucks with your false statements. Syd Eick
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 00:04
|
|
|
jeffersonlives posted:I'm not actually practicing at the moment, although I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. If you were practicing I assume no one would ever hear from you again!
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 00:06
|
|
|
OneThousandMonkeys posted:I am a fan of MRP even though we constantly argue, because MRP is generally more informed than anyone else posting here and consequently has shamed me about a hundred times. The only person possibly more informed about anything is jeffersonlives, who is a lawyer who knows everything about politics, football, and wrestling for some reason. He doesn't have to be mean about it. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 00:11
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:Syd Eick Haha you are still mad that I asked you for evidence about a claim that my own personal experience and later evidence cast doubt upon. That is precious. You really are lucky you haven't officially copyrighted your posts, the evidence is out on Mr. Eyck, but you have posted some rather lurid things about Mr. Silk in I believe.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 00:11
|
|
|
Student copy editor checking in. In newspaper writing, the ethics guidelines pretty much say that if three different people say it happened, you can print it. It's hosed up. So if Diana Hart just got two more people to repeat her bullshit...
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 00:47
|
|
|
Whoops, wrong thread. Thought this was the WCW thread, not the legal term information station.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 01:40
|
|
|
Perdido posted:To try and draw this somewhat back to the WCW Thread...Russo's comments about Hogan being a 'bald headed son of a bitch' I think did end up becoming a libel case (and were settled by Time Warner...I think?) and you could make an argument that Russo was acting with malice with his comments (although they were true, haha.) Anyone know anything more about that particular case? A defamation lawsuit did happen between Hogan, Russo, and Time Warner, but was dismissed before trial for basically the same reasons we're discussing here.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 01:55
|
|
|
So how about that WCW Pro eh? What a lovely show!
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 02:31
|
|
|
Phenix Rising posted:Whoops, wrong thread. Thought this was the WCW thread, not the legal term information station. WCW has a proud legal history (of humiliating losses and settlements) so it is important to define these things. Otherwise we might forget the differences in the suits against them from Vince, Heyman, minorities and everyone else! To Gonzo and Monkeys and most people I rattle sabres with on here: I don't mean to come off as much of a jerk as I have the last couple years. I used to give CC poo poo for how abrasive he would be and I've gotten more like that in the past year and a half to two years, especially in cases like this where unsubstantiated things are posted about wrestlers, and probably a bit more defensive of Vince and the WWE as well for related reasons. A couple of friends of mine had their lives ruined (one in the short term, one in the long term with her career destroyed) by Vince's media enemy, the New York Post who reported some incredibly defamatory unfounded rumors about both, as well as personal information. Not just with wrestling but in general I get a bit more pissy about people posting stuff that's (I think is) factually wrong. It's kind of a silly thing to let happen, especially about something as wrasslin' but yeah, sorry for being mean to the people who don't actually deserve it. To get this thread back on track, here is the debut of ZODIAC https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-PfCYXPMdo
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 02:45
|
|
|
MassRanTer posted:WCW has a proud legal history (of humiliating losses and settlements) so it is important to define these things. Otherwise we might forget the differences in the suits against them from Vince, Heyman, minorities and everyone else! I have insinuated that nearly everyone on this board is a shithead at one time or another (and sometimes outright said it) so I am certainly not going to play victim here. I'd like to think most people on here could get along at a goonmeet or something (that might be wishful thinking). MassRanTer posted:To get this thread back on track, here is the debut of ZODIAC WWE may have become lazy and boring in the last twelve years, but at least we have the Dungeon of Doom in HD.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 03:07
|
|
|
Well, that certainly turned out to be one of the Master's less successful plans.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 03:13
|
|
|
My favorite WCW wrestler was Glacier. Who's yours?
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 03:26
|
|
|
Bard Maddox posted:My favorite WCW wrestler was Glacier. Who's yours? Glacier.
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 03:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 01:32 |
|
|
Okay so I've questions about the Dungeon of Doom because goddamnit they make no sense to me. a) Who's the fat old man. b) Whoever he is he's obviously the leader, so who's the stupid little guy in red. c) Who was in it apart from these two? d) What's the deal with that skit where they debut the Giant where Hogan talks like he's reading from a translated Japanese script? e) How high is Brutus in that segment
|
|
#
?
Mar 22, 2013 03:29
|
|
