Landshark wrote:

BINGO!!!!!!!


So what is the moral to this story? If someone puts up a web site about
you that isn't true, should you:

A. Deny the accusations, and then be accused of "protesting too much",
thereby lending some implied credibility to the accusers?


If "Aaron" was a real person, he could then
make a claim of defamation, but since he isn't
real, no defamation.

I'm not sure that a legal case would be winnable, given the relative
anonymity of the internet.


B. Ignore it, and then have it implied that it must be true since no one
ever denied it?


Really? I thought it was inocent until proven
guilty, if it's not true, why worry.


That only applies in a court of law, not the court of public opinion.

But your point is well taken. It would seem that the people who complain
the loudest must be bothered by something, or had a nerve struck. In
this case, silence really is golden. Leave them guess.


Dave
"Sandbagger"