Question for Kroopologist "Powell"

[George M. Middius]

Why are you so eager to dissuade Mister Wheeler from filing his
lawsuit against the Krooborg, or, in the alternative, for the clerk of
the court to "reject" the filing, or, in the alternative alternative,
for a judge to dismiss the case?

[Bob Morein]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Why are you so eager to dissuade Mister Wheeler from filing his
> lawsuit against the Krooborg, or, in the alternative, for the clerk of
> the court to "reject" the filing, or, in the alternative alternative,
> for a judge to dismiss the case?
>
Not to get in the way of the answer, but having done this sort of thing
myself, I laugh when one of the participants in r.a.o. threatens legal
action.

Most people have no idea how expensive, cumbersome, difficult, unprovable,
and unrewarding legal action is, especially for libel. One thing a
"plaintiff" might not be aware of is that it's necessary to prove both libel
and consequent damages. I know of only one utterance which is prima facie
libel, and that is of sexual molestation. In other words, if someone makes a
libelous comment, and you can't prove you lost money as a result of damage
to your reputation, you receive nothing.

There seems also to be confusion between the terms "libel" and "slander",
and when they apply. Although r.a.o. might appear to be a print medium, it
is not established to be so. Under current precedent, usenet "chat rooms",
"discussion groups", etc., are regarded as mediums of speech.

Furthermore, "informal speech", as in the yelling of epithets in a crowd, is
a protected form upon which charges of slander cannot be based.

And if one were to bring one's childish spat to court, be aware that after
spending all that money on a lawyer, pretrial preparations, and a brief, the
judge can still throw out the case if he/she believes it is meritless.
Unlike a criminal offense, civil plaintiffs are not guaranteed a court
hearing. You're lucky if you get one, and the judge can force you to settle
at any time he/she tires of the proceedings. The courts are overloaded, and
the judiciary would rather devote the limited space on their dockets to
cases which really do involve human suffering or substantial sums of money.
The public is generally unaware of the vast discretionary powers with which
the judiciary is endowed.

No one is to be regarded as a child for ignorance of the above. However, if
a "plaintiff" does not take the above commentary at face value, it behooves
him to use Findlaw to acquaint himself with the facts of defamation law.

And having done so, r.a.o.'ers should take off their plates the ridiculous
notion that they can obtain redress in the courts. They cannot. They are on
their own here.

[Lionel]

Bob Morein a écrit :

> "George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
[snip interesting bob's comments]
>
> And having done so, r.a.o.'ers should take off their plates the ridiculous
> notion that they can obtain redress in the courts. They cannot. They are on
> their own here.
>
>

Once again Bob you put the honesty to give the most intelligent comment
about this matter.

But I am sure you lost your time.
I think that Wheeler is like a little kid : the more you ask him if it's
painful the more he cries louder.

But first of all I am also sure he is a coward this should rescue
Wheeler's family's money from these vicissitudes.

[Lionel]

George M. Middius a écrit :
>
> Bobo said:
>
>
>>Thanks, Lionel.
>
>
> First you pontificate, then you grovel before an ass-sucking
> sockpuppet. Not a good performance, Bobo.
>
>
>>Now which one is Wheeler?
>>I don't follow closely enough :).
>
>
> He's the one whom Krooger called a pedophile.
>
> Any more questions, nimrod?
>
>
Please NostraMiddius how do you call an ass-sucking sockpuppet's
ass-sucking ?

--
Lionel J. M. Chapuis
Unemployed Clown

(signed this way because of pending libel suit against Krueger scheduled
to begin on 9/20/03 per Mr. Wheeler - and the need to possibly provide
supportive documentary evidence that Mr. George M. Middius' daily
incitement to hatred, suicide, slandering, insults, murder is the real
guilty of Mr.Wheeler's grievances.)

[Bob Morein]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Bobo said:
>
> > Thanks, Lionel.
>
> First you pontificate, then you grovel before an ass-sucking
> sockpuppet. Not a good performance, Bobo.
>
> > Now which one is Wheeler?
> > I don't follow closely enough :).
>
> He's the one whom Krooger called a pedophile.
>
> Any more questions, nimrod?
>
George,
Thanks for the specifics of the case, of which I was unaware. My post
was intended to be informative, and in no way condones the giving of
grevious insult, or any other aspect of Krueger's generally obnoxious
behavior.

The legal backgrounder is just that, and no inferences should be drawn
as to the social nature of the dispute itself. I do not deny the grevious
nature of the insult. However, it is still not a practical case to bring. It
would have novelty, which is not good for the plaintiff, it would be
extraordinarily expensive, and there is one particular argument which would
contribute to a strong defense. It goes as follows:

1. Participants in r.a.o. are constantly in dispute
2. Their credibility is low
3. Hence Krueger's statement is not believed
4. In the absence of belief, no damages exist.

Furthermore, it would be necessary to find a judge who would be willing to
consider Krueger's speech as other than the protected "shout in a crowd."

The legal backgrounder tends to trivialize what we do here.
We have to find importance somewhere else.

[dave weil]

On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 12:42:02 -0400, "Bob Morein" >
wrote:

>
>"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>> Bobo said:
>>
>> > Thanks, Lionel.
>>
>> First you pontificate, then you grovel before an ass-sucking
>> sockpuppet. Not a good performance, Bobo.
>>
>> > Now which one is Wheeler?
>> > I don't follow closely enough :).
>>
>> He's the one whom Krooger called a pedophile.
>>
>> Any more questions, nimrod?
>>
>George,
> Thanks for the specifics of the case, of which I was unaware. My post
>was intended to be informative, and in no way condones the giving of
>grevious insult, or any other aspect of Krueger's generally obnoxious
>behavior.
>
> The legal backgrounder is just that, and no inferences should be drawn
>as to the social nature of the dispute itself. I do not deny the grevious
>nature of the insult. However, it is still not a practical case to bring. It
>would have novelty, which is not good for the plaintiff, it would be
>extraordinarily expensive, and there is one particular argument which would
>contribute to a strong defense. It goes as follows:
>
>1. Participants in r.a.o. are constantly in dispute
>2. Their credibility is low
>3. Hence Krueger's statement is not believed
>4. In the absence of belief, no damages exist.
>
>Furthermore, it would be necessary to find a judge who would be willing to
>consider Krueger's speech as other than the protected "shout in a crowd."
>
>The legal backgrounder tends to trivialize what we do here.
>We have to find importance somewhere else.

The problem wouldn't come from those *inside* RAO. It would come from
someone doing a google search on pedophiles in California for
instance. There is definitely a potential for damage when it comes to
that. Or, let's ssay that a potential employer wanted to do a google
search on Mr. Wheeler. Would they know anything about the history of
RAO. What about if he wanted to start dating someone and they took the
conventional advice of doing some internet research before really
committing?

No, I think that there are serious issues that could be contended in
the courts. You might not need *actual* damages in the future as the
power of the internet becomes more and more invasive in peoples'
lives.

[George M. Middius]

Bobo backpedals.

> > > Now which one is Wheeler?

> > He's the one whom Krooger called a pedophile.
> > Any more questions, nimrod?

> Thanks for the specifics of the case, of which I was unaware. My post
> was intended to be informative, and in no way condones the giving of
> grevious insult, or any other aspect of Krueger's generally obnoxious
> behavior.

I'll bet you're wondering why Mister Wheeler did not reply to your
post even though it was replete with assertions that he has addressed
previously. I'll bet he didn't reply because he's busy elsewhere.

[Bob Morein]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 12:42:02 -0400, "Bob Morein" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>
> >> Bobo said:
> >>
> >> > Thanks, Lionel.
> >>
> >> First you pontificate, then you grovel before an ass-sucking
> >> sockpuppet. Not a good performance, Bobo.
> >>
> >> > Now which one is Wheeler?
> >> > I don't follow closely enough :).
> >>
> >> He's the one whom Krooger called a pedophile.
> >>
> >> Any more questions, nimrod?
> >>
> >George,
> > Thanks for the specifics of the case, of which I was unaware. My post
> >was intended to be informative, and in no way condones the giving of
> >grevious insult, or any other aspect of Krueger's generally obnoxious
> >behavior.
> >
> > The legal backgrounder is just that, and no inferences should be
drawn
> >as to the social nature of the dispute itself. I do not deny the grevious
> >nature of the insult. However, it is still not a practical case to bring.
It
> >would have novelty, which is not good for the plaintiff, it would be
> >extraordinarily expensive, and there is one particular argument which
would
> >contribute to a strong defense. It goes as follows:
> >
> >1. Participants in r.a.o. are constantly in dispute
> >2. Their credibility is low
> >3. Hence Krueger's statement is not believed
> >4. In the absence of belief, no damages exist.
> >
> >Furthermore, it would be necessary to find a judge who would be willing
to
> >consider Krueger's speech as other than the protected "shout in a crowd."
> >
> >The legal backgrounder tends to trivialize what we do here.
> >We have to find importance somewhere else.
>
> The problem wouldn't come from those *inside* RAO. It would come from
> someone doing a google search on pedophiles in California for
> instance. There is definitely a potential for damage when it comes to
> that. Or, let's ssay that a potential employer wanted to do a google
> search on Mr. Wheeler. Would they know anything about the history of
> RAO. What about if he wanted to start dating someone and they took the
> conventional advice of doing some internet research before really
> committing?
>
Your statement is very logical, but it derives from "common sense."
Unfortunately, common law does not mirror common sense in this instance.

> No, I think that there are serious issues that could be contended in
> the courts.

Not now. It would be very hard to quantify the damages.

You might not need *actual* damages in the future as the
> power of the internet becomes more and more invasive in peoples'
> lives.
>
True. Common law is in a constant state of evolution. No one can tell what
the future may bring.

[Bob Morein]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Bobo backpedals.
>
> > > > Now which one is Wheeler?
>
> > > He's the one whom Krooger called a pedophile.
> > > Any more questions, nimrod?
>
> > Thanks for the specifics of the case, of which I was unaware. My
post
> > was intended to be informative, and in no way condones the giving of
> > grevious insult, or any other aspect of Krueger's generally obnoxious
> > behavior.
>
> I'll bet you're wondering why Mister Wheeler did not reply to your
> post even though it was replete with assertions that he has addressed
> previously. I'll bet he didn't reply because he's busy elsewhere.
>
No, because the characters of r.a.o. do not "live" as much for me as for
you.
I'm on the fringe of this community.
I don't have knowledge of the post, nor am I very aware of Wheeler, though I
accept as fact that the insult occurred in some form and was in bad taste.

My commentary was about the law, not about the personalities.

[Lionel]

dave weil a écrit :


> The problem wouldn't come from those *inside* RAO. It would come from
> someone doing a google search on pedophiles in California for
> instance. There is definitely a potential for damage when it comes to
> that. Or, let's ssay that a potential employer wanted to do a google
> search on Mr. Wheeler. Would they know anything about the history of
> RAO. What about if he wanted to start dating someone and they took the
> conventional advice of doing some internet research before really
> committing?
>
> No, I think that there are serious issues that could be contended in
> the courts. You might not need *actual* damages in the future as the
> power of the internet becomes more and more invasive in peoples'
> lives.
>

You are dominated by the passion Dave. I just want to remember you that
Mr. Krueger said :
"So sockpuppet Wheel, you're a well-known pedophile like Marc Phillips
and George Middius?"
1. The phrase has an interrogative form
2. Krueger wrote to an improbable entity call "Sockpuppet Wheel"

You above comments are very logical (yes Bob) but you forget to say that
*S888WheelChair* has done the free choice, on RAO, to identify himself
as a guy call S...t W.....r ! So *he* is the only coupable of the
possible combined Google search : "His name" AND "pedophile".

I propose S888WheelChair to stay on civilized roads in the futur.

--
Lionel J. M. Chapuis
Unemployed Clown

(signed this way because of pending libel suit against Krueger scheduled
to begin on 9/20/03 per Mr. Wheeler - and the need to possibly provide
supportive documentary evidence that Mr. George M. Middius' daily
incitement to hatred, suicide, slandering, insults, murder is the real
guilty of Mr.Wheeler's grievances.)

[Powell]

"Bob Morein" wrote

> Most people have no idea how expensive,
> cumbersome, difficult, unprovable, and unrewarding
> legal action is, especially for libel.
>
Robert, good words but the audience is wants meat
(Arny) on the menu.

Most cannot understand the gravity of your comments
unless they have experienced (litigious action) it for
themselves. As by dear departed grand-pappy said
“the best experiences in life are the ones you pay for
out of your back pocket. How true :)!


<snip other thoughtful words of wisdom>

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Powell" > wrote in message
...
> >
> Robert, good words but the audience is wants meat
> (Arny) on the menu.
>

Yes, we want some road kill.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Arny Krueger]

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Powell" > wrote in message
> ...
> > >
> > Robert, good words but the audience is wants meat
> > (Arny) on the menu.
> >
>
> Yes, we want some road kill.

Road kill must be some kind of a gourmet treat for you, sockpuppet Yustabe.

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Powell" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > >
> > > Robert, good words but the audience is wants meat
> > > (Arny) on the menu.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, we want some road kill.
>
> Road kill must be some kind of a gourmet treat for you, sockpuppet
Yustabe.
>
>

Not till that bus gets you.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---