Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utcsrgv.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!dave From: dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) Newsgroups: net.legal Subject: Re: restaurant comment from ihuxu!ducha Message-ID: <3512@utcsrgv.UUCP> Date: Mon, 12-Mar-84 19:13:40 EST Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.3512 Posted: Mon Mar 12 19:13:40 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 12-Mar-84 20:18:11 EST Organization: The Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto Lines: 28 Telling the story is quite OK. It's a true story, and you are speaking about your personal experience. There is nothing wrong with relating facts. However, I become a little more concerned when you say: ~| I have gone in length to tell this story mainly because I got ~| really disgusted with ~~~~~~~~~, and their food is not in any way ~| authentic and even oriental. ~~~~~~~~~ is only better than ------ and ~| ///////////. Besides there is no chinese restaurants in the whole ~| Chicagoland worth eating at anyway. Statements of opinion as to which is better are probably OK, but a statement that ~~~~~~~'s food is not "authentic" purports to be a statement of fact which, if false, might be libellous. I would recommend you not make such statements to the public. It's not clear, of course. One would have to determine whether being "authentic" and "oriental" are things which can be determined factually (one suspects they may well be) or simply expressions of the writer's opinion (as, for example, "tasty" would be). I know you were upset about what happened. Telling the story is enough. People can draw their own conclusions. Dave Sherman Toronto -- {allegra,cornell,decvax,ihnp4,linus,utzoo}!utcsrgv!dave