Libel and Somersoft

[always_learning]

I am interested in peoples view in regard to libel and somersoft.

I am just an average guy with a computer typing into a forum. What I do for a living and the company I work for has nothing to do with property investing and my personal actions. However this is not true of all users on this forum, some run investment advisories, mortgage brokerages, property development services.

IMHO what is robust dialog between two individuals is fine, and understanding opposite views adds to your own learning and understanding.

However but if one individual is not a "person" but a representive of a company and decides that the "robust" dialog is in some way wrong/incorrect/misleading and may frightening away the chickens (damages, financial loss) then its a problem for individuals (even negative ones).

You obviously DO NOT UNDERSTAND the xxxx concept

As such, you statement above is totally incorrect and is LIBELOUS.
....
EVEN when you do not have a clue.

I will NOT ignore you legally beyond this point.

What I propose is stronger guidelines for those posting who are represent companies particularly in regard to those companies who service the investor community.

If I can post "Wow this is great stuff a light really went on for me" then I should also be able to post "This is cr*p because ....", even if I am 100% wrong!

 

[see_change]

I am interested in peoples view in regard to libel and somersoft.

I am just an average guy with a computer typing into a forum. What I do for a living and the company I work for has nothing to do with property investing and my personal actions. However this is not true of all users on this forum, some run investment advisories, mortgage brokerages, property development services.

IMHO what is robust dialog between two individuals is fine, and understanding opposite views adds to your own learning and understanding.

However but if one individual is not a "person" but a representive of a company and decides that the "robust" dialog is in some way wrong/incorrect/misleading and may frightening away the chickens (damages, financial loss) then its a problem for individuals (even negative ones).



What I propose is stronger guidelines for those posting who are represent companies particularly in regard to those companies who service the investor community.

If I can post "Wow this is great stuff a light really went on for me" then I should also be able to post "This is cr*p because ....", even if I am 100% wrong!

Agree 100 %.

If someone is generating ( possibly significant ) income from the forum ( even if they a contributing significantly to the forum ... I hope someone has thick skin ... ) then surely they should except a greater degree of scrutiny than joe blow who is an average member of the community and has no specific qualifications relating to investing.

There has been one such member who has been subject to various fairly specific negative comments about people dealings with them , and to the best of my knowledge has not resorted to threats of libel. He keeps on posting helpfull posts and has to be admired for his persistence.

See Change

 

[Steve Navra]

If I can post "Wow this is great stuff a light really went on for me" then I should also be able to post "This is cr*p because ....", even if I am 100% wrong!

Hi always_learning,

I don't agree

When you say "Wow this is great stuff a light really went on for me", this is a personal observation and isn't reflective on the product.


BUT when you say "This is cr*p because . . . MISREPRESENT THE PRODUCT, that is NOT okay. See a subjective opinion is fine but rather don't offer objective opinions if you do not have the knowlege to make them.

It would have been far better to ASK a question like:
"What would happen if the market went down 20% . . . and what effect will this have on the risk?"

That is different to having stated that If the market goes down 20% then . . . a particular fund will NOT be able to perform. (Which is untrue and is a false representation.) Irrespective of whether you think you are 100% correct.

The reverse applies where a person acting on behalf of a company cannot falsely represent what a fund or product will do.

It works both ways (In the civilised world anyway)

The alternative is that nobody (Myself included) will offer any objective knowledge if there is open slather to misrepresent their efforts.

Sincerely,

Steve

 

[Sim]

It is for similar reasons that Steve mentions above that we had to ban discussion on the "D" company - comments being made here about the company were not based on fact and were misrepresenting the product and company.

I was more than happy to accomodate discussion about the concepts, but certain parties didn't seem to be able to discuss the concepts without referring to the company as well.

And lawyers did get involved in that case (as has happened in the past) - so it's really a moot point about what we "should" be allowed to do on the forum. You can say what you like until some lawyer lobs a "cease and desist" letter on you - and then you'd better start paying attention, lest they decide to take it further and you find yourself defending a court case. Sad, but true.

 

[always_learning]

mis·rep·re·sent (mĭs-rĕp'rĭ-zĕnt')
tr.v., -sent·ed, -sent·ing, -sents.

• To give an incorrect or misleading representation of.
• To serve incorrectly or dishonestly as an official representative of.

The reverse applies where a person acting on behalf of a company cannot falsely represent what a fund or product will do.

It works both ways (In the civilised world anyway)

My point is a little different, false is that you know it to be false (telling lies basically). Stupid because you dont know any better is different. Both may be misrepresentations, but holy-cow if we all got in trouble if we made misinformed mistakes about a companies products when we discuss them.

Type A) Person to Person

Always Learning posts
------
I personally invest in the city of Wigglesham on the North side of the railway downwind of the abattoir, the foul smell of drainage pit is a real top dollar turn on for the tenants.
------

Reply from MrNegative
------
Always Learning....you must be drinking the contents of the drainage pit if you believe that a place close to the Wiggleshams abittors is a great place to invest...I have lived and invested in Wigglesham for 20 years and I think you have zero chance of making a cent on your investments.


Type B) Person to Company Representative

Always Learning Posts
--------------------
I personally invest in my own "Always Learning Lifestyle Development Fund" projections show a potential of return 100% in 2005~2006.
--------------

MrNegative replies
-------------------
Always Learning...you are full of it, if your projections are showing 100% return next year by investing our money on your lifestyle, then your projections must be wrong, it simply is not reasonable to expect/project 100% if the plan is to spend all the invested captial on having a good time in Thailand! And if anyone knows the truth about sitting around in Thailand getting drunk it is ME."
------------------


For me on a forum Mr Negative's response in regard to both A) and B) are about the same. But legally very different, and as a forum member it is difficult or impossible to know the difference.

MrNegative is not telling lies he has simply misunderstood the product/idea and "robustly" indicated why he things it wont work!

 

[Aceyducey]

I agree that the guidelines should be stronger as well.

Not because people don't follow them, but to help professionals understand what type of posts put them at risk of libel.

It's great that we have so many investment/property pros (in the nicest possible way) on here, but they may not always understand Australian libel laws & this could be a disincentive to them posting.

Cheers,

Aceyducey

 

[austini]

Hi,

The threat of legal action against Bill has made me very reluctant to post any personal viewpoints on the Sommersoft forum from now on. A lot of us are not experts in law and speak or express our thoughts openly and honestly as if we were having a conversation. It now seems that everytime one types a sentence he/she needs to go back and carefully re-read it, analyse it and think of possible legal ramifications etc.

It's all just now become too hard - very dissappointing I must say.

Gordon

 

[Sim]

I think the point Steve is trying to make - is that a continual attack on the same subject by someone who claims to understand the situation, but does not actually know the facts, has caused the problem here. There are plenty of other people who disagree, or have negative feelings towards Steve's approach, but Steve is more than happy to hold a conversation with them and debate the issue - much more so than many people who have posted on this forum.

It's the pattern of behaviour that is the problem, not the isolated incidents.

One or two topics on the "D" company wouldn't have caused problems. I made the topic taboo after the 10th or 20th such thread that said the same troublesome things by the same troublesome people.

So don't overreact to this issue - Steve is not implying that anyone other than Bill was the problem in this case - and I'm sure if you went back and read the thread carefully, you can see the reason why Steve has concerns.

 

[Steve Navra]

Dear Forum Members,

On the 5th of March I sent the following PM to Bill,L:

Hi Bill,

Originally Posted by Bill.L
Because of the nature of the fund, when the index is down 23%, the fund is down 29%

This statement is libelous!!

It is NOT true and you just can't say this on an open forum.

Don't stress, I am not about to sue you or anything like that. I am rather just requesting (Please) that you are more careful with expressing such unresearched opinions.

Sincerely
Steve

I have tried everything I know to ask Bill,L NOT to make blatantly false statements about the share fund.

Yet he continues to do so.
I am not one who seeks conflict, but I feel that this member goes out of his way to misrepresent what the system is about.

Bill is entitled to his opinion, I have no problems with that at all.

I find his purposefully INCORRECT statements unacceptable, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT TRUE.

I welcome questions; these I can answer.

Regards,

Steve

 

[Bill.L]

Hi all,

Yes Bill is the problem.

Thanks for sharing the pm (doesn't pm stand for "private message"?) Steve, you could have added that I then changed the statement, but that did not suit your purpose. You could also have added that it was in response to a question/idea that someone had of selling their asset and dumping all their assets in the fund using margin. I was trying to alert them that they should think carefully and look at the what ifs.

I'll try and ask a question or two of Steve here, I've asked before without an answer.

Is it possible for the Navra fund to be down further than the all ords, during a market pull back?? Simple question, yes or no will suffice.

Is it possible for the Navra fund to be down by 20% or more during a market pullback??


bye

 

[Alan H]

I think this type of issue can in part depend on where you're currently sitting.

For example, at one time when I had a bank account and paid what I thought were large bank fees, I would sometimes think the 'massive' profits that some of the banks made was 'a bit on the nose'. Later when I actually invested some of my hard earned capital into some of these banks my attitude changed. When I looked at the 'massive' profits the banks made, divided this by the number of shareholders and took into account the risks involved, I didn't think the profits were that 'massive' at all.

Similarly, when we start to discuss 'detailed' strategies of a very specific company, I think we have to realise that while there may be two sides to an argument ,there is sometimes a 'fineline' as to how far we can go in a public forum without potentially impacting on the Company in either a financial or reputation sense.

For example, I may be involved with a Company that at any one point in time may have 1/2 dozen potential investors who are looking at investing 6-figure sums in the Company. If someone were to make comments about the Company that I believed to be untrue, and as a result of this, potential investments were compromised, I think I would have a very clear responsibility to both my shareholders and staff to defend the Company in whatever way I saw fit. This is no longer a theoretical discussion, but may very well have actual financial/reputation implications to the Company.

I would hope the first actions I would take would be to fully explain my actual position, however if this did not work then I may need to explore other avenues.

The flipside to this of course is the individual who believes that any comments/questions they make are only done for purely altruistic reasons and that any comments, even if potentially not 100% correct can't hurt anyone, and can only lead to a greater understanding of the topic at hand.

I think the latter is fine when discussing most situations, but may be a bit naive when we start to get into the specifics of individual companies.

As we delve closer into specific companies in a public forum I think we have to realise that there may well be financial/reputation implications to that Company based on our comments. Therefore, possibly the 'rules of engagement' may need to be tempered accordingly to ensure 'rigorous debate' can continue without having unintended adverse affects on the Company.

This is a great place for good rigorous debate about a variety of topics. However I think we should be able to do this by having a degree of respect for each other and a realisation that if we do go too far, individuals can have legal actions bought against them, and similarly, individuals can unnecessarily have financial/reputation impacts on legitimate companies.

Personally I don't think this is what The Forum is about. We can all play the ball - WITHOUT playing the Man or Company.

 

[Steve Navra]

Yes Bill is the problem.


I'll try and ask a question or two of Steve here, I've asked before without an answer.

Which of these 4 words do you not understand?
1) I
2) AM
3) IGNORING
4) YOU

Please do not ask any more questions of me.

I will answer these questions for any other reasonable forum member.

I have offered you a free course.
I have offered you a free consultation.

I did this so that you could get an understanding of who I am and of what I do and of how my structure and DCT work.

Yet from an uneducated point of view you continue to bag everything I do.

Enough is enough:
I sincerely try to give value to this forum, but have to say as I have said often before, it is a person like you who takes all the joy out of it.

If you understood DCT you would understand how ridiculously stupid your two questions are.



The forum is about discussing investment ideas; it is not about the ego of any individual who is trying to prove they are right or wrong about a particular view.



I do not impose my methods on anyone; I offer different scenarios and choices and allow the individual to choose what makes them comfortable.



Sadly, I regret posting the 5 Chapters on the forum.

The joy I had in writing it and offering it to forum members is far outdone by the horrible outcome of having to put up with your continual negative abuse.



As such, I have to say that my ongoing participation on this forum is under serious personal review as a result of these continuous and unpleasant episodes.

 

[duncan_m]

As such, I have to say that my ongoing participation on this forum is under serious personal review as a result of these continuous and unpleasant episodes.

I KNEW you just HAD to be Human after all.. Congrats for putting up with Bill this far.. herculean, superb effort!

 

[always_learning]

Actually I didn't want a discussion about this specific case.
My point was to raise geneal discussion, in particular the world of investment, with millions at stake riding up integrity, we as individuals seem to be running a high risk/highly exposed to libel attacks simply by taking a negative/cynical/"prove it" view point.

Also how on a forum how do we tell that a poster is not a "individual" but a representive of a company and has an obligation to "circle the wagons" and fight (legally) the unfriendly/unwelcome/unreaonsonable attacts of the natives.

Just my opinion, but like politians everywhere (except maybe Singapore, where the they use the legal route) they "smile, ignore the comment and answer the question they really wanted to be asked and keep on smiling" ...the "I AM IGNORING YOU" approach is best.

 

[Sim]

That's what I love about real estate as an investment - no vested interests, no shareholders, no employees, just you and a bunch of bricks (and some tenants if you please).

 

[Keen]

Hi,

The threat of legal action against Bill has made me very reluctant to post any personal viewpoints on the Sommersoft forum from now on. A lot of us are not experts in law and speak or express our thoughts openly and honestly as if we were having a conversation. It now seems that everytime one types a sentence he/she needs to go back and carefully re-read it, analyse it and think of possible legal ramifications etc.

It's all just now become too hard - very dissappointing I must say.

Gordon

I must sadly agree with Gordon.

While not a property guru - I try to help others with what I believe and have read. Perhaps a 3 page clause attached to my messages protecting me any willful neglect is required

Keen

 

[D.T.]

Hiya Steve:

As such, I have to say that my ongoing participation on this forum is under serious personal review as a result of these continuous and unpleasant episodes.

Just keep in mind that the majority of us are very appreciative of your expertise, persistance, and explanitory posts. You've poured out millions of dollars worth of intellectual property time and time again. Thankyou.

 

[Alan H]

Just my opinion, but like politians everywhere (except maybe Singapore) they "smile, ignore the comment and answer the question you wanted you asked and keep on smiling" ....

Hi AL.

You've actually seen politicians answer the question you wanted!!???

Oh excuse me........I got distracted..........a large pig just flew past my window.

 

[DaleGG]

HI

I personally think that the issue is a little deeper....

I used to love the forum and the way that everyone was helpful, respectful and keen to see positive contributions from everyone and for everyone. Now, there seems to be a lot more politics, cliques and bickering which does make it such an enjoyable read as it was.

No, we will not always agree with each other. It would not be helpful to anyone if we did, BUT, we can all make a bigger contribution by playing nice.

Lawsuits and legal action do not help any of us and I must admit that I too would be reluctant to stay on the forum if that sought of thing crept in here.


Have fun

Dale

 

[bawley]

As such, I have to say that my ongoing participation on this forum is under serious personal review as a result of these continuous and unpleasant episodes.

IMHO the forum would be the loser, Steve if you withdrew

I personally have very much appreciated (and learnt from) your contribution, and keenly anticipated each of the 5 Chapters.

So after due consideration I sincerely hope you decide to continue to participate.


Regards
Bawley