+- Carlton Supporters Club (http://new.carltonsc.com)
+-- Forum: Social Club (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-6.html)
+--- Forum: Blah-Blah Bar (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-23.html)
+--- Thread: When Actors claim Defamation! (/thread-4045.html)
Re: When Actors claim Defamation! - LP - 10-30-2018
(10-30-2018, 05:35 AM)PaulP link Wrote:Still waiting LP. It's ok, no need to rush (tee hee.) I intend being on this forum for years, so I've got all the time in the world.
Then given all the time in the world I'm sure some cases will pop up, at least some cases visible to those without the agenda, be patient!
It's odd for you to be arguing in the black and white!
Re: When Actors claim Defamation! - LP - 10-30-2018
btw., Final update today.
Affronted by an emoji it seems!
I did a quick pop quiz here in the office, not many people but I showed a few different age groups of people asking them what the alleged emoji means. I basically got a three main categories, drunken wink, raspberry wink, nudge nudge wink, not one person thought it meant some weird licking wink or panting tongue lapping wink.
I suppose I now have to assume Rush is devilishly clever, picked just the right emoji to send an suggestive and offensive yet ambiguous message! Alternative is the girl a moron or a gold digger, could they both be in it for profit!
Maybe Rush wins his defamation case, then makes quiet restitution with the girl as an apology for an unfortunate yet otherwise simple misunderstanding, must I be so cynical! If I hadn't worked for so long at the newspapers, with the connected behind the scenes insights, I'd look at this whole episode far more innocently.
They are all potentially profiting, even the newspaper, they are probably making more additional money right now than they will ever have to pay out, and it's a very uncomfortable feeling!
Bye ...................... no alternate meaning intended!
Re: When Actors claim Defamation! - dodge - 10-30-2018
(10-30-2018, 05:43 AM)LP link Wrote:A sensible response that is free of political, social or moral agenda.
I have one associate who works in a similar area of the arts, projects they get involved in are like those of Rush and they are not developed overnight. They are planned years out, it's surprising to know how far out some of these endeavors start, not months but years! I find it an uncomfortable assertion from the Rush camp, and the Wilson camp before that, and the claims by their supporters, that opportunities dried up effectively overnight. Because if they were busy they would have been working on projects 2 or 3 years out from completion with a lot of money already invested. Not something that investors will generally throw out with the bathwater, or when a court date is not yet even set in a such civil case!
Yes, the forward planning works - so he would currently be working on projects or not, his choice or not, but then the offers come in for films, plays etc for a couple of years time and his name is no longer on the contact list. If he is working currently, he could be pulled from that work, as the company doesn't want the association. The company would work with investors to suggest alternatives. He would be well sought after (much more than Wilson, I would think) so his agent would know about the volume of offers coming in.
Re: When Actors claim Defamation! - dodge - 10-31-2018
This from Crikey...
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/comment-rush-trial-will-leave-behind-nothing-but-wreckage/ar-BBP8ltD?ocid=spartandhp
Re: When Actors claim Defamation! - Gointocarlton - 10-31-2018
Actors, pffft, wouldn't feed em.
Re: When Actors claim Defamation! - LP - 10-31-2018
(10-31-2018, 10:11 AM)dodge link Wrote:This from Crikey...
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/comment-rush-trial-will-leave-behind-nothing-but-wreckage/ar-BBP8ltD?ocid=spartandhp
The following line in the article caught my eye.
Quote:The law demands that there be an objective truth at the bottom of this. Either Norvill is lying, or Rush is lying.
In intent perhaps, in practice in cases like this hardly, they are often far more subjective than objective!
Re: When Actors claim Defamation! - DJC - 10-31-2018
(10-31-2018, 12:01 PM)LP link Wrote:The following line in the article caught my eye.
In intent perhaps, in practice in cases like this hardly, they are often far more subjective than objective!
It's a civil case so the burden of proof is lower but it's still based on a subjective judgement. "Objective truth" is probably not a thing, particularly when you're dealing with the perceptions of folk who are over 40 years apart in age.