News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Pork's Dirty Secret (2006) by mmaunder on Wednesday March 03, 2010 @06:42AM (#1163881)
If the article is incorrect then Smithfield can and should sue Rolling Stone for libel. But they're not going to because it's true.
Re:Pork's Dirty Secret (2006) by toothcomb on Wednesday March 03, 2010 @08:18AM (#1164000)
It's what they don't deny that still worries me. I was hoping that the family being consumed by the lagoon was a non truth. I read it as tragic comedy (shame on me)
Re:Pork's Dirty Secret (2006) by astine on Wednesday March 03, 2010 @08:50AM (#1164051)
It's weirdly like that scene out of the Jungle where the guy falls in the lard pit and becomes part of the product.
Re:Pork's Dirty Secret (2006) by viggity on Wednesday March 03, 2010 @02:21PM (#1164863)
They contest 29 different assertions made by the rolling stones author. What didn't they deny?
Re:Pork's Dirty Secret (2006) by Confusion on Thursday March 04, 2010 @04:48AM (#1166545)
What kind of position is that?! Someone accused you of wrongdoing and the only valid defense is suing the other? What happened to correcting each other? Accepting that misinterpretations and mistakes are human?
Re:Pork's Dirty Secret (2006) by viggity on Wednesday March 03, 2010 @02:04PM (#1164812)
The want the whole thing to go away, even if you're in the right, a lot of times it isn't worth suing. Look at Barbra Streisand - some dude took pictures of her beach house, she was upset and sued him over it. So instead of the handful of people seeing the photos, the law suit hit all the news stations and tens of thousands of people saw the pictures.