Attention CMY/ CHP posters., page-41

Defamation is a hard case to prove. As best i understand it, your (non opinion) comments, ie statements perceived as factual need to be directly attributed to the a person or entities inability to continue operating in a normal manner(ie prior to comments). If these comments are factual, then there is no case and the lots of lawyers get paid... there is of course an option to sue for specious litigation .. and again... the lawyers get paid.....
The defamation be as simple as a position in society gets lost, or it could lead to a company shutting down.. lawyers grt involved if theres money to made by suing rich people or big corporates...
Now, its your right to sue anyone you've come into contact with for anything, but that doesnt mean you'll win... in fact it could cost you plenty... so its your right to threaten legal action against someone for comments you perceive to have cost you in way or another..... doesnt mean you'll win, but the lawyers will... im sure that theres plenty of comments on HC that could be considered defamatory.. and many of them are written purely because people have lost money through poorly run, or poorly timed, or poorly made business decisions executed by someone other than themselves... the likes of company directors, ceo's, cfo's, md's etc etc etc...... these are the people responsible for running companies - that is a fact.. if they run it into the ground- they have either done their job poorly or been the victims of a very unfortunately convoluted set of circumstances - that is also a fact... but threatening legal action against a forum or its members for expressing a grievance for their lost cash could be considered by some as shifting or deflecting blame.. looks like there are plenty of grievances with CHP. Maybe if the focus was shifted to achieving business goals or even due dilligence, the company would be better off... AIMHO.. DYOR
Thanks in advance for not suspending me again J.