[Foundation-l] Future board meeting (5-7 april 08)

[Thomas Dalton]

On 12/04/2008, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester at gmail.com> wrote:
>  From Black's Law Dictionary:
>
>  Disparagement n. 1. A derogatory comparison of one thing with another
>  <the disparagement consisted in comparing the acknowledged liar to a
>  murderer>. 2. The act or an instance of castigating or detracting from
>  the reputation of, esp. unfairly or untruthfully <when she told the
>  press the details of her husband's philandering, her statements
>  amounted to disparagement>. 3. A false and injurious statement that
>  discredits or detracts from the reputation of another's property,
>  product or business. To recover in tort for disparagement. the
>  plaintiff must prove that the statement caused a third party to take
>  some action resulting in specific pecuniary loss to the plaintiff. --
>  Also termed injurious falsehood. -- More narrowly termed slander of
>  title; trade libel; slander of goods. See TRADE DISPARAGEMENT. Cf.
>  commercial defamation under DEFAMATION. [Cases: Libel and Slander
>  KeyCite 130, 133. C.J.S. Libel and Slander; Injurious Falsehood
>  §§204-206, 209.]  4. Reproach, disgrace, or indignity <self-importance
>  is a disparagement of greatness>.  5. Hist. The act or an instance of
>  pairing an heir in marriage with someone of an inferior social rank
>  <the guardian's arranging for the heir's marriage to a chimney sweep
>  amounted to disparagement>. -- disparage, vb.

Thank you. If the statement is untrue, then it's clearly unacceptable.
I wouldn't consider it just being injurious (which appears to mean
something that causes injury) as unacceptable. If it's said purely to
cause injury, then fair enough, but if it's said with another aim in
mind (improving the foundation, say) and the injury is just a
side-effect, then I have no problem with it. (Of course, it would be
good to try and avoid the injury if possible, but it isn't always.)