Yet another way to get in trouble with USFWS!
ROFLOL :worship:
Now that is funny
Sorry, but you are way off the mark here. Any one of those situations you list above would have legal repurcussions. If a newspaper (or any other media) made the mistakes you use as examples they could be sued. When they directly quote someone, they have a legal responsibility to get it right. If they misquote someone or deliberately alter the context to mean something different, they can be held libel. And in today's society every media outlet is fully aware of the potential for lawsuit. I'm not saying they don't make mistakes or slant articles to fit their own agenda - but when they do slant an article they do so by being selective of what they present or by offering interpretations rather than quotations. The "flesh eating bacteria" is an example of this. They do not claim the comments on this as direct quotation, they just include it in the discussion. But anything they directly attribute to Rick West as a direct quotation must legally be his exact words, otherwise he can sue them.
What does Rick owe you?
Rick owes me nothing. I'm disappointed with what he said in a courtroom as an expert witness, and am somewhat concerned with the possibility that his incautious statements could create problems. I'm sure that was not his intention, but in the long run the results will be more important than his intentions. I'm sure he's a nice guy, and I appreciate the work he's done in the past. But I'm not going to get into a "cult of personality" thing over this. I'll credit him with the good things he's done, and hold him accountable for the screw-ups he makes. And unless it is shown that the newspapers are misquoting him, he made some inaccurate and damaging statements. It is very likely that if we saw a transcript of his entire testimony we'd see that the majority of the statements he made contain good, accurate information. But the few bad ones he made are the ones getting quoted (not a surprise, considering the sensationalist bent of modern media coverage). As an "expert" he should not be making such statements.
What do you think where the invitation for the Grand Opening of a tarantula store in Torrance as guest of honor came from? Whose address FWS could have used for sending a pre-paid ticket? Why it was asked to bring spiders in the plane?
And what on Earth makes you think he did not hold up under pressure?? I'm curious. Because anything said in hobby boards is largely conjecture, as is plain for all to see. So, he holds up in court, he was not paid for his deposition, and his facts were supported by referenced and peer reviewed published material. His words are completely irelevant to this thread, that's the real irony. Oh, and ever tired to sue a newspaper?? Good luck. Sure they can cut direct quotes, but that hardly means they are taken in context by media. If you believe that, well, I guess you believe Rick should in some way should justify his comments to you too. Good luck with that too.
Unreal, do you even comprehend what a courtroom deposition even is?? This is fast becoming a joke, no wonder I avoid these boards, the conversation is verging on the insane. What on Earth did Sven prove, what did Rick fail to prove, what the hell are you on??? Bloody hobby lala land, unreal. Go watch Law and Order, and doctored versions of Obama's birth certificate while you're at it. For gods sake, it's like talking to a brick wall.
And the irony is Rick was not even paid for his deposition (yes, he told me), but telling these folk anything becomes an excersize in complete redundancy, what's the point in making the same point over and over......somehow they cross media hype with Rick's opinions on the hobby and how he backstabs the hobby, what a load of complete rubbish.
OK, one last time, if he failed to answer the prosecutions questions, or falsely answered them, he be purging himself. I already said he's annoyed at how the media used tiny portions of his deposition to hype tarantula dangers, it was not his intention and was out of his hands. You place blame on Rick for harsh comments that might hurt your hobby, the reality is it's the case that brought about the bad points used by the media to scare the public. To even consider anything else is stupid and ignorant, about as ignorant as believing the media hype cut and pastes are the be and end all of it for you. And you sit here happily typing away, thinking somehow you're on the right path. Whatever. Continue to buy the morning paper and follow that without question, you'll go a long way.
So if Rick told you! than why is it that he has not come to tell anyone on the boards what was actually said? I guess he only owes you an explaination, and not everyone else right.... Please can someone go back to the nine people involve....
In short, yes, that's exactly right
Go back and read some of the <crap> in this thread about Rick, why should he reply to anything here, he's done nothing wrong, so why would he??? Just because a few of you a kicking up a stink over comments you seem to accept as Rick's bad press on tarantulas, so what? You've hardly presented a topic that would warrant a response to defend himself. Many of the other comments in this thread make sense, if you can't believe me, consider those.Honestly, if I was being vilified like this, I wouldn't feel like posting. The media twisted the man's comments. Nothing new about that. I hope this flap does not turn RW away from the AB community.
Steve, yes I did read all the crap it was said about Rick and as you can see, I not once I brought out Rick's name out until now. People are asking questions why Rick said those things he should answer them if he chooses too, cause it is obviously it is a concern to the public. You shouldn't be THE ONE talking for him. I dont have nothing against Rick at all.@ Sven,
Maybe you could take the time to answer my question, which would put to rest all of this rubbish. If you question Rick's deposition, and thought any part of it false (as you clearly seem to think and have somehow convinced some of the same), why then, did you not question it within court when it really counted??? Forget what is written in the media, that's a waste of time, I'm curous about the actual case and the truth of it. So, I've asked about four times now with no response, yet to me it would seem the most obvious issue to address to really clear your name. Why did you not cross question the deposition, not even one point was questioned by your defense team. If Rick's deposition was as false as you seem to say, why not question it when it counted for you most???
Others can go ahead and say what they like, but really, the crux of this whole topic and your points sit on this question.
Thanks,
Steve
---------- Post added at 03:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:28 PM ----------
In short, yes, that's exactly right
Steve
Sven id advise you not to answer this contradicting person's who belive's everyone ow's him an answer and not his effectionate friend.@ Sven,
Maybe you could take the time to answer my question, which would put to rest all of this rubbish. If you question Rick's deposition, and thought any part of it false (as you clearly seem to think and have somehow convinced some of the same), why then, did you not question it within court when it really counted??? Forget what is written in the media, that's a waste of time, I'm curous about the actual case and the truth of it. So, I've asked about four times now with no response, yet to me it would seem the most obvious issue to address to really clear your name. Why did you not cross question the deposition, not even one point was questioned by your defense team. If Rick's deposition was as false as you seem to say, why not question it when it counted for you most???
Others can go ahead and say what they like, but really, the crux of this whole topic and your points sit on this question.
Thanks,
Steve
---------- Post added at 03:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:28 PM ----------
In short, yes, that's exactly right
Steve