Peats

[Joshuatheeel]

the lurker is rarely if ever right and rumours like that from a nuffy like him can't be posted

Thanks , fair enough

 

[Maroubra Eel]

Just a question to the mods - I had a post deleted as it was an " unacceptable rumour" however it was a direct quote from the lurker with a link - I thought we could do this ? Or is stuff from the lurker now unacceptable for this forum?

If we made some shit up it'd be ok but. Just look at any thread on here.

 

[strider]

but if he was lurking about some player at another club we probably wouldn't give a shit hey :roll:

 

[Gronk]

Lurker is a knob. Anyone can say shit like - I know stuff but can't really tell you. Yawn

 

[El Diablo]

i'd love to know if the lurker has ever been right about anything

i doubt it

 

[Someone]

i'd love to know if the lurker has ever been right about anything

i doubt it

which means you cant post his links or theories?

why is bunniesman still f**king posting then?

 

[El Diablo]

depends what it is

Crikey had an article up about Parra couple of years ago and later had remove it as it was complete bullshit

 

[Joshuatheeel]

I thought the issue was if we posted unsourced rumours the owners of this site could get sued. Surely they would be fine if the rumour was from another source such as the sportal site ( which is a fairly large site)

I gather we should also be careful posting stuff from the mole , danny wielder or rothfield as well.

 

[El Diablo]

i'm pretty sure they can get in the shit for reproducing things

i recall reading about some site being sued for something even though they didn't write the story

 

[strider]

i'm pretty sure they can get in the shit for reproducing things

i recall reading about some site being sued for something even though they didn't write the story

sounds about as confident as a lurker rumour :lol:

 

[born an eel]

so it's OK to post, but you can't mention anything about anyone or the site might get sued

 

[El Diablo]

well there was this http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...isgraceful-online-rumours-20110529-1fay8.html

the rumour was started by a radio dj on twitter

normally rumours from the DJ woud be ok but not the one that he posted on that occasion

 

[born an eel]

well there was this http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...isgraceful-online-rumours-20110529-1fay8.html

the rumour was started by a radio dj on twitter

normally rumours from the DJ woud be ok but not the one that he posted on that occasion

so that means the site would be fine

While it is unlikely the club could take on social media networks including Twitter, which went viral with the rumour late last week,

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...ine-rumours-20110529-1fay8.html#ixzz2vi6m6cvR
​

 

[El Diablo]

so that means the site would be fine

no

and when it was posted here it was deleted

 

[born an eel]

no

and when it was posted here it was deleted

did you read the article or just the headline.

I could imagine the site taking it down when requested but unless they ignored this the article itself points out that "it is unlikely the club could take on social media networks"

 

[El Diablo]

i read it

unlikely doesn't mean shit

it is not a guarantee

 

[born an eel]

so why isn't every rumour treated the same way.

and only acted on when requested by the target

 

[Twizzle]

it depends what the rumour is about, some rumours are defamatory/libel and some are not

If some one posted "Sandow is a great player" although its hogwash, its not defamatory

what some of you guys dont seem to understand, what we do, we do for the benefit and survival of LU

some of you guys seem to think we delete your posts just to piss you off so you and bitch and moan about mods

 

[Maroubra Eel]

Keep up the good work mods. We appreciate it.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

did you read the article or just the headline.

I could imagine the site taking it down when requested but unless they ignored this the article itself points out that "it is unlikely the club could take on social media networks"

Think of it this way mate. If I set up a webpage, on which I falsely accused you of doing really bad stuff. Then I came on here, and posted a link to that site, and maybe described the general nature of the unsubstantiated allegations, how happy would you be? Do you think that only the external webpage should be taken down?