Maybe if you offer to make a wedding cake for a couple of lesbians they will back off.

Quote: (02-16-2016 09:15 AM)naughtynomad Wrote:  

Well I'm in this fight now whether I like it not. This has seriously affected my family now at home.
There's a lot of shit they could have taken me down for, but a blatant lie?

I fear our enemy is much stronger than we are.

Have they targeted your family business?

Quote: (02-16-2016 08:24 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote: (02-16-2016 08:01 AM)Gmac Wrote:  

Might as well come out and tell the world it was all fiction.

It won't make a difference, people will believe what they want.


As for suing, I keep seeing everyone say we should sue the media with all the rape-slander, but I don't think anyone understands how courts work.

There are criminal and civil courts.

Lying about someone is not a crime, because it is protected as free-speech. So it does not go to criminal court.

In civil courts, you sue FOR DAMAGES. There must be damage to your income or person. Reputation, as slander, definitely counts.

The problem here, is unless NN has lost his 6-figure job, what exactly is he suing for? If anything his book sales will go up and he is going to make more money. You cannot sue for making more money because there are no damages. Same thing goes for Roosh.

The press KNOWS they cannot be sued in most cases of slander, which is why they do it!

Conversely, if you ran a business of being wholesome (like a Christian business), rape-slander would cost you $$$ and you could easily sue for huge cash.

But in order to sue, DAMAGES NEED TO BE IDENTIFIED. So if people want to stop the rape-slander, we need to identify damages incurred if we want to bring successful suits. I personally cannot see any.

Tort libel.

Quote:Quote:

Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession.

Quote:Quote:

Traditionally, there have been four general categories of untrue statements presumed to be harmful to one's reputation and therefore defamatory per se. Typically, if the statements do not fall into one of these categories the plaintiff is required to prove his damages. If it does fall into one of these categories, damages are usually presumed. The four general categories are:

Indications that a person was involved in criminal activity
Indications that a person had a "loathsome," contagious or infectious disease
Indications that a person was unchaste or engaged in sexual misconduct
Indications that a person was involved in behavior incompatible with the proper conduct of his business, trade or profession

- See more at: http://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-pers...urZJL.dpuf

Quote:Quote:

Damages

Depending on the circumstances of the case, the following damages may be awarded in defamation per se actions:

General damages: The compensation for the past and future harm sustained to reputation in the community as well as mental or emotional anguish and personal humiliation.
Special damages: The compensation for specific economic loss caused by the defamation. This can include things like loss of profits and loss of a job.
Nominal damages: A nominal sum that can be awarded when defamation per se has occurred but no serious harm to reputation was done.
Punitive or exemplary damages: Additional sums meant to punish or set an example when the defendant's actions were willful or malicious.

- See more at: http://injury.findlaw.com/torts-and-pers...urZJL.dpuf

I say this is a clear cut case of defamation through libel which is elligble for damages.

NN, you need to contact an attorney in Ireland. There could well be a case for libel; Irish libel laws are notoriously favorable to the plaintiff (indeed, Ireland attracts "libel tourism" for that reason, where international plaintiffs sue for libel in Ireland because they can get a far more favorable hearing). The Americans posting here are used to very different libel laws (since US law tends to lean towards protecting freedom of speech based on the First Amendment), so take their advice with a grain of salt.

What the publication of this story illustrates is that although witch hunts often originate in ideological/SJW publications (as was the case with the articles published about Roosh and the "pro-rape" meetups), eventually tabloids (such as the Sunday World for example) will pick up the scent and do follow-up stories for purely opportunistic reasons. Their only agenda is to make money by publishing sensational stories, and in the wake of an ideologically inspired witch hunt they will look for stories that perpetuate it simply because they know that such stories will attract more attention. One can think of the tabloids as hyenas that follow in the trail of the SJW lions (such as they are, LOL) and feed on the carcass. This has happened during the McMartin "child sex abuse" witch hunt in the '80s, and in many other cases.

I am absolutely certain this would give a favorable verdict in any European country, they're calling him a criminal pro-rapist pedophile, if that is not libel then what is?

Consider the argument of artistic expression in particular. If NN does not win here, you could argue that any writer who writes in a self biographic style or gonzo style, could be prosecuted for fictional portrayal.

We have to remember that in Europe, you typically do even complex contracts in a few pages, not hundreds or thousands. That's because the law operates from a common sense perspective. NN does not need to write 'this is fiction' in order for a judge to deem that it is a type of writing that is akin to bragging or telling a tall tale.

Quote: (02-15-2016 08:05 PM)el mechanico Wrote:  

Quote: (02-15-2016 07:30 PM)naughtynomad Wrote:  

I'm already consulting with an attorney.

They should ask for you if they have a case to make $

Didn't you write a story about having sex with a hiv + girl in Africa? How exactly are you worried about your reputation?

I'm wondering now.. Maybe you like the article?

Do you want to ride the rape train to Cashville?

Aloha guys, hows everyone?

This whole thing reads to me like the Naughty Nomad is trying to ride Roosh's coat tails.

Did anybody read the actual article or just look at the blurry and unreadable picture of it?

Here it is: http://www.sundayworld.com/news/crimedes...rape-group

Maybe the laws in Ireland are crazy, but it sounds to me like any claims of slander or libel because of this article are just blarney. It's all things the Naughty Nomad said himself.

I'm sure the reason he only passed around the blurry picture was to keep the screwball tabloid from getting more click revenue, right!

The only person who's being slandered there is Roosh.

Bullshit goes both ways sometimes, brothers.

Aloha!

Kona comes back after like two years to shit on NN.

This is history in the making.

Quote: (02-16-2016 10:21 PM)Sourcecode Wrote:  

Kona comes back after like two years to shit on NN.

This is history in the making.

Yeah I had to come from the woodwork over this one.

I never cared for that guy or his little scam artist gypsy crew.

He's outraged over being associated with Roosh, so he comes on the Roosh forum to complain.

Aloha!

I'm just sitting here clicking F5 and going:

Too many people in this thread who clearly prefer we all "hang separately."

Hackers have just taken down my site.

They left me a message on my index.html script saying "Silence is golden".

Now is not a good time to bring up any errors NN may have made in the past. It's a crappy thing to do to hit a man when he's down.

As for the hack, ask your host to do a security scan of your site. Then update all the software you use on it before bringing it back online. They probably used an old exploit to an out dated installation. Also set up your site with Cloudflare since it protects the IP address of your server. Google "hide IP address with Cloudflare".

Thanks Roosh. Will do.

@Kona: There's nothing desirable about coat-tails when you're the victim of lies and falsely branded a rapist in your home down and that ruins your family rep. There's even talk of boycotts to the family business. Shits getting out of control.

PM me if you want the basics of how to prevent your website from getting hacked. I've never been hacked due to my own failings. If you have a good web host, they should have automated backups so you can restore old versions of the website. Never choose a web host that doesn't. Also some web hosts are pricks who will lock your account and not give it you back if you get hacked. These pricks expect you to create a new account even if someone injected viagra adverts into your website and your website is clean apart from that.

Quote: (02-17-2016 06:32 AM)naughtynomad Wrote:  

Thanks Roosh. Will do.

@Kona: There's nothing desirable about coat-tails when you're the victim of lies and falsely branded a rapist in your home down and that ruins your family rep. There's even talk of boycotts to the family business. Shits getting out of control.

What specifically did the article lie about?

Here are the two authors of the article:

Martin B Grant


https://twitter.com/martinbgrant
https://www.linkedin.com/in/martin-grant-a5baa46a



Colin C. Cortbus


https://www.facebook.com/colin.c.cortbus
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/colin-cortbus/

The article stuck two independent quotes from two separate articles together with a "..." to imply I had illegal sex. I clearly stated the girl was a legally constantly adult, but the journalist then added "...it's just not as fun when it's legal" onto the story... a quote that that I put in a comment from a different article WEEKS later!

It's a breathtaking deception. I had a full breakdown on my site but they hacked it.

These hack journalists are shameless.

Quote: (02-17-2016 08:09 AM)naughtynomad Wrote:  

These hack journalists are shameless.

So post your rebuttal on Medium. They have high PageRank and they allow offensive hate speech content. They refused to take down a trolling post calling feminists ugly LOL.

Quote: (02-17-2016 08:09 AM)naughtynomad Wrote:  

The article stuck two independent quotes from two separate articles together with a "..." to imply I had illegal sex. I clearly stated the girl was a legally constantly adult, but the journalist then added "...it's just not as fun when it's legal" onto the story... a quote that that I put in a comment from a different article WEEKS later!

It's a breathtaking deception. I had a full breakdown on my site but they hacked it.

These hack journalists are shameless.

The article also states that you thought the girl was over 18. Honestly, they could have gone a lot harder on you. I don't really see what you have to sue for here? If they were making it look like you said things that you didn't say or do, then you could maybe sue for libel, but where is the libelous statement that they made? Or do you mean the headline? I am trying to be sympathetic but you aren't making it easy.

That said, you shouldn't be getting your site hacked, that is just shitty of whoever did it.

I think we can expect more of this sort of agenda-driven content-twisting as the manosphere is thrust in the limelight. Unfortunately this is the world we live in now... Hopefully other men who have published works are able to protect their reputation, identities, and any related income.

NN: Are your sales up?

@Gmac: How can they be? All my sites are hacked.

@Eradicator: The print version had a headline saying, "They schoolkid was the best sex i had all year. She likes to call me Daddy and slapping...It's just not as fun when it's legal."

Note the "..."

You would think I said these things in the same paragraph, or that were at least related to each other. However, these were two independent statements said in completely different articles written WEEKS apart, yet the author has pasted them together with all-powerful, time-travelling elipsis to make me look like a monster, despite the fact that I clearly stated the girl was of legal age in the original post.

It's really quite remarkable.

There is plenty a journalist could attack me on, but is just lazy sensationalism and woefully misleading. More importantly, they've spread a lie that has put me on the front page of their "crimewatch" section on their website.

Reporters are rarely, very rarely interested in the truth. They are looking for dirt. Talk to a couple of lawyers. If you have a case (can win $$$) they'll take you on contingency. If not, it won't cost you anything to talk.

The good news: This rag ain't the Times (London or New York) but the type that publishes articles like "Obama is a Space Alien."
So people take things with a (big) grain of salt. Better news: There's a couple new sensationalized stories every day. You'll be forgotten in 24 hours when the next issue comes out. Good news for Roosh: Typically publicity (even negative) results in a spike in sales for a day or two.

Quote: (02-17-2016 01:26 PM)naughtynomad Wrote:  

How can they be? All my sites are hacked.

Did you lose control of your NN domain?

Otherwise do this: 1) As mentioned above move the DNS to Cloudflare. 2) Get a new host 3) Republish as many articles as you have 4) Point Cloudflare at your new host. 5) Remove any DNS entries that bypass Cloudflare.

If you need help PM me and I can help you get it done quickly and for free.

Edit: Also backup/download any data you still have access to.

One thing to be aware of though is 'The Sunday World' is only a couple of steps above 'The Daily Sport' in terms of how serious a newspaper it is.
They have a few half decent sports writers and it sometimes comes up with a crime exposé but generally speaking, the paper is regarded as a bit of a joke, hardly anybody takes it seriously.
It's mostly read by taxi drivers and the type of lads that spend most of their lives going between the pub, the bookies and the social welfare office.
Not in anyway condoning what they've done though, it's a rag through and through and I would like to see NN take them to the cleaners, however the chances are this story will die down soon.
Most people in Ireland know that half the stuff they read in the Sunday World is at the very least exaggerated if not indeed outright fabricated just to try and sell a few hundred more copies.