FAQ abt Bernice

[Gravemaid]

reading these posts, i cant help but recall that saying... a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.

wailenong, i dont know where you picked up this knowledge from, but frankly, no one is interested, nor impressed, and secondly, your views on what the "law" is are in any event riddled with inaccuracies..

the most ironic thing is, you never even went on this shoot. and i havent heard a single complaint from anyone who did, that they felt they did not get their money's worth.

so why don't you go back to your law books and leave us to enjoy our shoots..

Thanks for the support chap! I'm always concerned whether everyone enjoyed my shoots or if there's anyway I can improve on it. So keep your comments coming guys!

 

[waileong]

If you had read the history of the questions raised, which lies beyond this thread, you'd be aware that those who raised such questions originally didn't go for the shoot either...

So you are not happy that I might have put up some "inaccuracies". Fine. A bit more politeness would go a long way, see eg Syl's post.

the most ironic thing is, you never even went on this shoot. and i havent heard a single complaint from anyone who did, that they felt they did not get their money's worth.

so why don't you go back to your law books and leave us to enjoy our shoots..

 

[gerald15388]

errr..... great job gravemaid! it's so unbelievable to see bernice wong in clubsnap so i think u did a freakin gd job..

espn is right.. someone should shoot gravemaid.. lol!

 

[syl]

errr..... great job gravemaid! it's so unbelievable to see bernice wong in clubsnap so i think u did a freakin gd job..

espn is right.. someone should shoot gravemaid.. lol!

I tried quite a few times but she so shy lah..... always give many reasons (I won't post them at all) why she doesn't want to be shot...not that I didn't try!!!! Next time I must try harder. OK Lydia can or not....;p Can shoot you?:think:

 

[gerald15388]

really? lol!

hey gravemaid. post a pic of ur self la. haha. i wanna be ur backup model. lol! just kidding..

 

[Gravemaid]

I tried quite a few times but she so shy lah..... always give many reasons (I won't post them at all) why she doesn't want to be shot...not that I didn't try!!!! Next time I must try harder. OK Lydia can or not....;p Can shoot you?:think:

Haha!! You sneaky ahh.. ;p I used to model some years back, but I think I'm too pudgy for that now. :embrass:

 

[Gravemaid]

really? lol!

hey gravemaid. post a pic of ur self la. haha. i wanna be ur backup model. lol! just kidding..

That's me in my avatar

 

[sehsuan]

Easiest way to take photos of ladies in bikinis for free, go to the beach. And get a heck of a workout when you get chased. So much firefight, what for? One other unrelated thread had big trouble brewing; this model shoot also "tio shot".

I don't shoot portraits, and I won't go for such shoots, but seriously, what's the fuss about? Throwing out law terms that most people end up scratching heads over means the language is too abstract. Speak in the lowest common denominator please, for the lawheads out there.

 

[gerald15388]

That's me in my avatar

really? u look great wad..

tat's me in my avator too.

 

[Cheesecake]

really? u look great wad..

tat's me in my avator too.

don't try to be funny hor... :bsmilie: u trying to hong gravemaid right...
take a QUEUE number ok! from punggol to Jurong!

cheers! upz for gravemaid!:thumbsup:

 

[gerald15388]

lol!! hahaha... no la.. just kidding around... dun take me seriously dude. haha

 

[Cheesecake]

lol!! hahaha... no la.. just kidding around... dun take me seriously dude. haha

dude who? that cut no ice!:bsmilie:

u mux take QUEUE no.!

oh, its the school holidays!:bsmilie:

 

[gerald15388]

hahaa.. alrite alrite.. i'll take the queue number.. #99...

yeap.. it's the sch holidays.. but poly holidays ends tml..

 

[Gravemaid]

don't try to be funny hor... :bsmilie: u trying to hong gravemaid right...
take a QUEUE number ok! from punggol to Jurong!

cheers! upz for gravemaid!:thumbsup:

Hahaha! You know I stay at Punggol? :bsmilie: Is there a queue? :think:

 

[Cheesecake]

Hahaha! You know I stay at Punggol? :bsmilie: Is there a queue? :think:

u shud be asking ur fan, gerald15388. he seems to haf the 'hots' for u. :bsmilie:

 

[Gravemaid]

really? u look great wad..

tat's me in my avator too.

Nice bod :thumbsup: When I need male model i'll ask you.

 

[JSNG]

There are a group of photographers (DP is certainly one of them) who have some problems with Gravemaid.

I don't know the reasons, but seems like you guys are claiming that GM lack professional integrity but don't have enuff support to bring your unhappiness to see her eye on eye or bring the issue to court. So you guys decided to gang up and vandalise the thread of people who have participated in GM's event and bring up such issues time and again which always ended up in war.

I am very very utterly sick of such attitude to handle things. If u got a problem, solve it yourself, don't go around crying for sympathy and ask for support from pple who are not interested in your side of story. And worse of all, you guys gang up and attack like piranhas on those who are happy with GM and tried to force them into submission. I have seen this happened many times in the "Portrait & poses" section of the forum. Such behaviour has turned that part of the forum into a hostile place.

If pple said they are happy with the service they received, then that's it. Don't go around imposing your opinion on others. Listen, DP and friends. :angry:

You wanted to raise the issue of unfair insinuation and "passing slur on the professional intergrity of another member". If you take this to a natural conclusion, it would mean that you are saying someone has defamed or slandered the member (gravemaid, in this case).

If gravemaid honestly feels she has been slandered or defamed, she can sue. But you can't, since you're not the one being slandered or defamed.

Just be aware that to sue for slander or defamation, the plaintiff has to be quite sure of his own case, since losing means also paying the other party's legal costs.

First, the plaintiff would have to prove that ZC uttered the words in public, and that the words used were actually libellous. That's not easy in this case, given that what ZC said was, "if XXX did not deliver, then XXX did not fulfil her obligations". Note the "if". In my view, ZC made a comment, not a statement of fact.

Second, she'd have to prove that the words actually hurt her reputation and standing, and caused her to be subject to ridicule, odium and public contempt.

Also, remember that "fair comment" is a common defence for slander/defamation suits. Fair comment means that, under the circumstances, it would be a reasonable conclusion that could be drawn by a reasonable man. Whether the comment is right or wrong is unimportant. What is important is whether there was a reasonable basis for the comments.

In this case, having seen no photos of anyone in full bikini, even after making repeated requests to post such photos, it would appear that "fair comment" could be a viable defence.

Anyway, all this is legal theory. I could be right, I could be wrong, it depends on the facts of the case, whether I interpreted the law correctly, how well it is argued in court, etc.

Morally, it's a separate matter. You feel he was out of line. I don't, but I doubt anyone can change your feelings.

But life goes on.
===
PS In law, it's not about "fair" or "unfair". There is only "guilty" or "not guilty", "true" or "untrue", and "proven" or "unproven".

 

[Deadpoet]

There are a group of photographers (DP is certainly one of them) who have some problems with Gravemaid.

....

If pple said they are happy with the service they received, then that's it. Don't go around imposing your opinion on others. Listen, DP and friends. :angry:

Lydia, sorry, I am highjacking your thread for one post,

I really hate it if someone drags me into "things" I have nothing to do with.

JSNG, trolls are out in force again? Maybe we should push up the trolls season?

What makes you think I have a problem with Lydia? And how was I dragged into this "who have some problems with Gravemaid" comment? All I said was,

I really don't believe you owe anyone any explanations. It is really none of our business why Bernice Wong works with Lydia, nor how much Lydia pays Bernice.
The key here is Lydia managed to get Bernice, and that is the coup. Good work and good luck!

 

[student]

I am not a lawyer and I do not proclaim to know much about law. But I do know how to read, and I do have friends who are qualified to talk about law. I had waited for my friend to return from his trip, and asked his opinion on this issue.

This friend of mine has a masters in law. And had written a monograph on litigation issues in certain professions.

These are his opinions and you are free to disgree with him. I do not know you and what your credentials are. But others had raised issues with some of the things you had mentioned thus far. But you justify your inaccuracies by saying that you did so because you are talking to non-lawyers.

So, talking to non-lawyers justifies inaccuracies? Wonderful piece of legal concepts! (see syl's comments and your reply)

You wanted to raise the issue of unfair insinuation and "passing slur on the professional intergrity of another member". If you take this to a natural conclusion, it would mean that you are saying someone has defamed or slandered the member (gravemaid, in this case).

Yes you are right. Taking what ZC said to its natural conclusion means that he had passed defamatory remarks on Gravemaid.

If gravemaid honestly feels she has been slandered or defamed, she can sue. But you can't, since you're not the one being slandered or defamed.

I like to use certain words on you, but for now, I restrain myself. Who can sue is not the issue here. In fact, even if I were Gravemaid, I would not bother to sue. Just not worth the trouble. However, the fact that I won't sue does not mean that I accept ZC's comments as innocuous.

There is such a thing called self-policing in my profession. I have no idea what kind of things you do. But in my profession, we practise self-regulation. We do not sue deviant "members" on behalf of "clients", but when we see wrong doings, we will take action to report to relevant authorities, after giving due warnings to the deviant member.

Just be aware that to sue for slander or defamation, the plaintiff has to be quite sure of his own case, since losing means also paying the other party's legal costs.

Stick to the issue and decide whether unjust slur had been cast on Gravemaid. But of course you do not think so.

First, the plaintiff would have to prove that ZC uttered the words in public, and that the words used were actually libellous. That's not easy in this case, given that what ZC said was, "if XXX did not deliver, then XXX did not fulfil her obligations". Note the "if". In my view, ZC made a comment, not a statement of fact.

For someone who "professes"to know the law (or write like you know the law), you have an awful inability to read properly.

1 ZC "uttered" his infamous words in public. Right here in CS. You have any problem with that? You will contest that?

2 Was what ZC said "libellous".

You either can't read, can't quote, or can't ......... (add in the words yourself)

ZC did not say "If XXX did not deliver, then XXX did not fulfil her obligations". Go read that again. Or do you need reading glasses?

For your convenience I will write what ZC said. And I will make sure you can see properly.

ZC wrote: " If this is an greed (sic) bikini shoot, then other photographers and you are getting is not what you are paying for"

Can you read and see the difference? Or shall I take you through word by word?

Of course based on your erroneous quotation of ZC's words, ZC's words were not libellious, and can constitue "fair comments".

Unfortunately, you quoted ZC completely wrongly!

This is what my friend who has a masters in law told me about ZC's original words (not the erroneous quote you ascribed to him)

The simple interpretation of ZC's words says that since the agreement is a bikini shoot, (it is), then according to ZC, Gravemaid did not deliver.

The word "if" is not hypothetical. There is a presupposition-consequence relationship. To my friend, ZC's statement was out of line.

He also gave me some interesting insights into such contractual agreements. But given your er, "ability" to read, I better not confuse issue firther.

Second, she'd have to prove that the words actually hurt her reputation and standing, and caused her to be subject to ridicule, odium and public contempt.

Thankfully, unlike certain people here who can't read and think and quote others properly, most members are able to see the nonsense spewed by ZC, and will ignore what he said.

Also, remember that "fair comment" is a common defence for slander/defamation suits. Fair comment means that, under the circumstances, it would be a reasonable conclusion that could be drawn by a reasonable man. Whether the comment is right or wrong is unimportant. What is important is whether there was a reasonable basis for the comments.

???? You can have "fair" comment? (joking!)

In this case, having seen no photos of anyone in full bikini, even after making repeated requests to post such photos, it would appear that "fair comment" could be a viable defence.

Totally irrelevant. Even if not a single image of any model in "full' bikini is ahown, it is still irrelevant. The issue is not whether any picture is shown. I hope even you can understand that now.

Anyway, all this is legal theory. I could be right, I could be wrong, it depends on the facts of the case, whether I interpreted the law correctly, how well it is argued in court, etc.

Morally, it's a separate matter. You feel he was out of line. I don't, but I doubt anyone can change your feelings.

So now, you can be right, and you can also be wrong. And of course it "depends on the facts of the case". I think you have a great talent. Given your excellent ability to meander here and there, you might have a future in certain professions!

In any case the facts here are clear. You want me to repeat that?

PS In law, it's not about "fair" or "unfair". There is only "guilty" or "not guilty", "true" or "untrue", and "proven" or "unproven".

Now, if you can be right and you can be wrong, then when are you really right or wrong?

And no such thing as "fair" or "unfair"? But there is "fair" comment. But what do I know? I am not a lawyer. Or should there be "true or untrue" comments? Or "proven or unproven" comments"

 

[waileong]

Why are you digging this up? I am not ZC, I'm not protecting ZC, I have no idea what he looks like even, what I did was offer my view about whether there was a basis to sue.

If you or your friend think that the words are defamatory, then go ahead and advise gravemaid to sue.

The facts are clear? Your friends should know that facts are not always "clear". Everyone has his own version of the "facts". If you have been in a traffic accident, for instance, you'll know what I mean. Every time there is a dispute, it is because the parties couldn't agree on the "facts" and frankly, much time in court is spent establishing the "facts" and getting your version of the facts accepted by the courts.

But notwithstanding this, even if the facts are clear, opinions may still differ, ie you may think it's defamatory and others may not. So?

Given your ability to argue night and day with everyone who crosses paths with you, I think you would also have a future in certain professions.

Anyway, please don't reply in this thread, if you want to reply, start a new thread and we can argue from there. Leave the TS in peace.

Given your excellent ability to meander here and there, you might have a future in certain professions!

In any case the facts here are clear. You want me to repeat that?
And no such thing as "fair" or "unfair"? But there is "fair" comment. But what do I know? I am not a lawyer. Or should there be "true or untrue" comments? Or "proven or unproven" comments"