Bruce,

I had confrontation this evening with a guy concerning a very bad joke
he has done here one RAO.
This is not the problem...
During our hard discussion he systematicaly bring and bring again the
subject on pedophily, pederasty, pornography and more generally sexual
crimes.
I'm afraid that this man has been subject of sexual cruelty during his
childhood in this case I must apology, in other case I don't understand.

I know that this problem doesn't really concern audio but if you have
any interesting advise please let me know.

Thanks in advance,
Lionel

I had confrontation this evening with a guy concerning a very bad joke
he has done here one RAO.
This is not the problem...
During our hard discussion he systematicaly bring and bring again the
subject on pedophily, pederasty, pornography and more generally sexual
crimes.
I'm afraid that this man has been subject of sexual cruelty during his
childhood in this case I must apology, in other case I don't understand.

I know that this problem doesn't really concern audio but if you have
any interesting advise please let me know.



Lionelle -

On you I feel bad. So much anger, frustration and disappointment you have.
No friends or loved ones. Sadness. Rejection. Also, you have many trouble
with our language yes. Do with your pedophily, pederasty and pornography.
Then sleep.

tor

tor b a écrit :

[...]Also, you have many trouble with our language yes.

That's why I practise so hardly !

Lionel

"Lionel Chapuis" lionel{dot}chapuis{at}free{dot}fr wrote in message


I had confrontation this evening with a guy concerning a very bad joke
he has done here one RAO.
This is not the problem...
During our hard discussion he systematically bring and bring again the
subject on pedophilia, pederasty, pornography and more generally sexual
crimes.
I'm afraid that this man has been subject of sexual cruelty during his
childhood in this case I must apology, in other case I don't
understand.

I know that this problem doesn't really concern audio but if you have
any interesting advise please let me know.

Please don't expect Richman to criticize his team-mates. He's part of the
scam.

Marc Phillips *concerns* about sex crimes are about as real as the *man*
himself. He's a typical RAO sockpuppet. He works out of a difficult-to-trace
AOL account. He has no publicly-known home address or phone. He gives no
personal information that can be scrutinized. Try to trace his phone calls.
A person has been presented to the world as being him, but that is easy to
falsify if nobody does too much checking.

This pedophilia gambit on RAO is at least 6 years old. It's what radical
subjectivists do when they are chopped to ribbons in online debates too many
times. In their twisted value system childish crap like this is fair play
because the essence of radical subjectivism is belief that one is
essentially error-free. I think the first time this gambit was played with
me, the perp was a sockpuppet named Derrida, and this was over 6 years ago.

Arny Krueger a écrit :

Please don't expect Richman to criticize his team-mates. He's part of the
scam.

Marc Phillips *concerns* about sex crimes are about as real as the *man*
himself. He's a typical RAO sockpuppet. He works out of a difficult-to-trace
AOL account. He has no publicly-known home address or phone. He gives no
personal information that can be scrutinized. Try to trace his phone calls.
A person has been presented to the world as being him, but that is easy to
falsify if nobody does too much checking.

This pedophilia gambit on RAO is at least 6 years old. It's what radical
subjectivists do when they are chopped to ribbons in online debates too many
times. In their twisted value system childish crap like this is fair play
because the essence of radical subjectivism is belief that one is
essentially error-free. I think the first time this gambit was played with
me, the perp was a sockpuppet named Derrida, and this was over 6 years ago.


"It's what radical subjectivists do when they are chopped to ribbons in
online debates too many times. In their twisted value system childish
crap like this is fair play because the essence of radical subjectivism
is belief that one is essentially error-free."

Agree.

I think you're wrong/rigth Arnold.

I sincerely think that in the group Bruce Richman is the "toy of
circumstances", a "victim of the history" (litteraly translate from
french, sorry).

In his normal social life he wouldn't have choosen such stinky coward as
a friend !

Lionel

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 07:48:02 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

In his normal social life he wouldn't have chosen such stinky coward
as a friend !

Nor would he choose to be the pompous ass he projects here.

So, why have *you* chosen to be one. What's *your* reason?

Arny Krueger gives further evidence of his paranoia-based conspiracy theories:

"Lionel Chapuis" lionel{dot}chapuis{at}free{dot}fr wrote in message


I had confrontation this evening with a guy concerning a very bad joke
he has done here one RAO.
This is not the problem...
During our hard discussion he systematically bring and bring again the
subject on pedophilia, pederasty, pornography and more generally sexual
crimes.
I'm afraid that this man has been subject of sexual cruelty during his
childhood in this case I must apology, in other case I don't
understand.

I know that this problem doesn't really concern audio but if you have
any interesting advise please let me know.

Please don't expect Richman to criticize his team-mates. He's part of the
scam.


Compulsive liar Krueger, as is his despicable custom, is lying through his
teeth and simply displaying his ignorance.

(1) There is no "team" except in the delusional, paranoid fantasies that
Krueger has created.

(2) Krueger has provided no evidence whatsoever to support his latest set of
lies about an alleged "scam":.

(3) Even the most intellectually challenged readers such as Krueger & McKelvy
can not find any RAO postings to indicate that I am part of any ongoing
pedophilia discussions concerning compulisve liar Krueger.

(4) Krueger has a documented history of libel and false accusations -
especially concerning assorted conspiracy theories
about his many enemies.



Marc Phillips *concerns* about sex crimes are about as real as the *man*
himself. He's a typical RAO sockpuppet. He works out of a difficult-to-trace
AOL account. He has no publicly-known home address or phone. He gives no
personal information that can be scrutinized. Try to trace his phone calls.
A person has been presented to the world as being him, but that is easy to
falsify if nobody does too much checking.


Prove it!

This pedophilia gambit on RAO is at least 6 years old. It's what radical
subjectivists do when they are chopped to ribbons in online debates too many
times. In their twisted value system childish crap like this is fair play
because the essence of radical subjectivism is belief that one is
essentially error-free. I think the first time this gambit was played with
me, the perp was a sockpuppet named Derrida, and this was over 6 years ago.










Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist


(signed this way because of pending libel suit against Krueger, and probable
necessity to supply supportive documentary evidence).

Arny said:

Marc Phillips *concerns* about sex crimes are about as real as the *man*
himself.

That would be a true statement.

He's a typical RAO sockpuppet.

That would be a false statement.

He works out of a difficult-to-trace
AOL account.

Do you mean AOL, the largest ISP in the country?

Do you think everyone chooses AOL because it allows them protection to troll on
Usenet? No, I think that applies to friends of your like Richard Malesweski.
Oh, and it applies to you, too, because you've been monitored using your AOL
account on RAO.

He has no publicly-known home address or phone.

That would be a false statement, considering that a few people here have met me
in person, and some of those have even been to my house. The correct statement
would be that my home phone and address are not known to you.

He gives no
personal information that can be scrutinized.

That would be a false statement. I'm constantly talking about things in my
personal life. Just because you always manage to get them wrong when you
repeat them doesn't mean they're unknown. In fact, the third or fourth post I
made here I gave my whole name, occupation, and where I lived. That's
certainly more information than we know about the majority of RAO posters.

Try to trace his phone calls.

My phone calls? Who's tracing phone calls, other than law enforcement?

A person has been presented to the world as being him, but that is easy to
falsify if nobody does too much checking.

So start checking, Arny! Obviously you haven't, or you wouldn't be able to
make such ridiculous claims.


This pedophilia gambit on RAO is at least 6 years old. It's what radical
subjectivists do when they are chopped to ribbons in online debates too many
times. In their twisted value system childish crap like this is fair play
because the essence of radical subjectivism is belief that one is
essentially error-free. I think the first time this gambit was played with
me, the perp was a sockpuppet named Derrida, and this was over 6 years ago.

Gee, if different people have accused you at different times of doing the same
thing, maybe there's something to it! At least that's what the police would
think.

Boon

Lionel Chapuis said:

Marc Phillips a écrit :
[snip stupid garbage]
Boony-boy you are really an idiot but I will put parsley in my ears and
a tape on your mouth.

Remember :
Before (__.__)
After (__o__)


In other words, you can't refute what I say, so you'll be happy with
surrendering, running away, and thumbing your nose at me from down the street.

Sounds typically French to me.

Boon

Marc Phillips a écrit :

Any time someone dies because their body cannot tolerate the natural elements
around them, then it is death by natural causes. The weather is NATURAL.


I am agree with you Boon !
3,000 Americans died of natural cause in the WTC because their body
cannot tolerate the brutal modification of the natural elements :
temperature, suffocation, brutal slowdown...
It's really a pity, a shame, to be obliged to go up to there with you
but you are really to stupid.

Many apologies to the others

Lionel

Lionel Chapuis said:

Marc Phillips a écrit :

Any time someone dies because their body cannot tolerate the natural
elements
around them, then it is death by natural causes. The weather is NATURAL.


I am agree with you Boon !
3,000 Americans died of natural cause in the WTC because their body
cannot tolerate the brutal modification of the natural elements :
temperature, suffocation, brutal slowdown...
It's really a pity, a shame, to be obliged to go up to there with you
but you are really to stupid.

Many apologies to the others

Again you're foolishly mixing up premeditated murder by another human being
with death by hot weather.

Let me explain this to you one more time. Here, where I live, the temperature
has been much warmer than in France, yet no one has died from the heat (that
has been reported by the news, anyway). Why is this? Because we are
acclimated to the heat. We either build dwellings with this in mind, or
reschedule our activities accordingly. Every weekend of every summer, the
freeways are crowded with people going out to the Colorado River, which is in
the middle of one of the hottest deserts on earth, and almost no one dies from
the heat, which can exceed 120 degrees.

Palm Springs, again one of the hottest places on earth, is heavily populated by
people over 65. Rarely do any of them die from the heat.

Now, in France, which is unused to temperatures over 100 (in some cases people
were dying in temps well below 100), all those deaths occured because people
were not used to that kind of heat. They did not employ the kind of
architecture that repels the heat. People did not alter their activities to
combat the heat, such as going to public buildings, or checking on their
elderly neighbors and relatives.

Dying of stress from the heat because your body is not able to deal with it is
NATURAL SELECTION. It's no different than the periodic droughts in Africa.
Sure, it's sad that people have to die like that, but it's been happening for
millions of years. If the land cannot sustain life, that is nature adapting.
It's very simple stuff.

My joke did not make fun of the deaths, but rather the gaffe that Chirac made
by saying they'd solve the problem by October. In fact, it really wasn't a
joke, because I didn't editorialize that much. There was no difference between
what I said about Chirac and what millions of your countrymen have been saying
about Bush over the last year or more.

Frankly, Lionel, you have become so foolish that I'm running out of things to
say to you. We don't need any more lying, hypocritical, bone-numbingly stupid
pedophiles on RAO. Quit while you're behind.

Boon

Marc Phillips a écrit :

Dying of stress from the heat because your body is not able to deal with it is
NATURAL SELECTION.

Euthanasia apologist ?

My joke did not make fun of the deaths, but rather the gaffe that Chirac made
by saying they'd solve the problem by October. In fact, it really wasn't a
joke, because I didn't editorialize that much.

Chirac didn't make such gaffe, this is surely a pernicious translation
of one of your favorite racist tabloïd.


There was no difference between
what I said about Chirac and what millions of your countrymen have been saying
about Bush over the last year or more.


Once you confirm, you really have a problem with french people.

You are a liar. The subject of your message was clearly written at the
plural form.

Marc Phillips a écrit :

Lionel Chapuis said:

You are a liar. The subject of your message was clearly written at the
plural form.


Oh, so suddenly you're an expert in English, eh, sockpuppet?

Actually, you're not, so that's why you're having this problem. "Those crazy
French!...for example, look at what Chirac said!" That's one way an
English-speaking person could interpret my post. "Yes, we've certainly been
hearing crazy things about the French this year, first their refusal to support
us in our war against terrorism, and now they're dying by the thousands because
it's 98 degrees in Paris!" That's another way to take it. You, who cannot
speak (or pretends not to speak) decent English, took it to mean "I, Marc
Phillips, hate the French, and I think it's funny that over 11,000 of them are
dead!"

Now, do you think there's a problem with the way you read it, or do you want to
keep looking like a hysterical little trollop?

Boon



No Mr. Phillips I just pretend that you are an idiot ready to any nasty
joke to be popular on a newgroup. Full point !
All doubts I had concerning the misinterpretation have been washed by
your delirious arguments.

Lionel Chapuis

"Lionel Chapuis" lionel{dot}chapuis{at}free{dot}fr wrote in message
...
Bruce,

I had confrontation this evening with a guy concerning a very bad joke
he has done here one RAO.
This is not the problem...
During our hard discussion he systematicaly bring and bring again the
subject on pedophily, pederasty, pornography and more generally sexual
crimes.
I'm afraid that this man has been subject of sexual cruelty during his
childhood in this case I must apology, in other case I don't understand.

I know that this problem doesn't really concern audio but if you have
any interesting advise please let me know.

Thanks in advance,
Lionel


Other than drawing on some personal expierience from his own childhood, or
books in the inmate library, it's hard to know what use Quakenbush could be
in such a matter.

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
Compulsive liar Krueger once again displays his total inability to
comprehend
or evaluate normal human behavior:



"Lionel Chapuis" lionel{dot}chapuis{at}free{dot}fr wrote in message

Arny Krueger a écrit :

Please don't expect Richman to criticize his team-mates. He's part
of the scam.

Marc Phillips *concerns* about sex crimes are about as real as the
*man* himself. He's a typical RAO sockpuppet. He works out of a
difficult-to-trace AOL account. He has no publicly-known home
address or phone. He gives no personal information that can be
scrutinized. Try to trace his phone calls. A person has been
presented to the world as being him, but that is easy to falsify if
nobody does too much checking.

This pedophilia gambit on RAO is at least 6 years old. It's what
radical subjectivists do when they are chopped to ribbons in online
debates too many times. In their twisted value system childish crap
like this is fair play because the essence of radical subjectivism
is belief that one is essentially error-free. I think the first time
this gambit was played with me, the perp was a sockpuppet named
Derrida, and this was over 6 years ago.


"It's what radical subjectivists do when they are chopped to ribbons
in online debates too many times. In their twisted value system
childish crap like this is fair play because the essence of radical
subjectivism is belief that one is essentially error-free."

Agree.

I think you're wrong/rigth Arnold.

I sincerely think that in the group Bruce Richman is the "toy of
circumstances", a "victim of the history" (literally translate from
French, sorry).

Hey, you could be right. Much of what we see here is contrived by/for the
online environment.

In his normal social life he wouldn't have chosen such stinky coward
as a friend !

Nor would he choose to be the pompous ass he projects here.










This assessment, coming from RAO's resident compulsive liar and paranoid
sociopath, has the same total absence of validity as the rest of my
libelous, delusional and false statements.

When it comes to arrogance, almost total unwillingness to ever admit to
any
type of human error (especially on RAO), and a demonstrated lengthy
history of
falsely trying to present himself as an "eggspert" on audio matters,
nobody
even comes close to the snotty, pompous, and totally self-absorbed,
compulsive
liar Krueger.

All one has to do is look at his current dialogue with Scott Wheeler for
an
example of his latest attempts to con the RAO readers. This arrogant liar
and
blowhard is now pretending to be a legal expert - LOL! Of course, as
Scott has
correctly pointed out, there are attornies and judges to take care of
that.


Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist


(signed this way because of pending libel suit against Krueger, and
probably
need to provide supportive documentary evidence).
Bruce J. Richman


It well documented you are an idiot and a liar.

Marc Phillips said:

You know, Usenet has plenty of French-speaking newsgroups. Go visit them.

And take Mcinturd with you.

Weren't you the guy who was begging me to publish something nasty about
outside of USENET because posting on USENET couln't be used for libel suits?




If Bruce believed that at one time he was mistaken. Nothing wrong with making
mistaken assumptions about the laws of libel unless you have libeled someone.
Posts on USENET can be libel.

S888Wheel wrote:

Posts on USENET can be libel.

Got any proof, like a specific link to an authoritative finding
that someone won a lawsuit claiming to have been libelled
on a Usenet newsgroup?


GeoSynch

I said



Posts on USENET can be libel.



Geosynch said



Got any proof, like a specific link to an authoritative finding
that someone won a lawsuit claiming to have been libelled
on a Usenet newsgroup?



The proof is in the law itself. California civil code 45. Two cases involving
libel on the internet lawsuits would be Young v. New Haven Advocate and Gutnick
v. Dow Jones & co. Inc. They were not USENET postings but if you can cite any
facts that would make posts on USENET exempt from California civil code 45 but
not the two cited cases of internet libel I would be interested in hearing it.

S888Wheel wrote:

Posts on USENET can be libel.

Got any proof, like a specific link to an authoritative finding
that someone won a lawsuit claiming to have been libelled
on a Usenet newsgroup?

The proof is in the law itself. California civil code 45. Two cases involving
libel on the internet lawsuits would be Young v. New Haven Advocate and Gutnick
v. Dow Jones & co. Inc. They were not USENET postings but if you can cite any
facts that would make posts on USENET exempt from California civil code 45 but
not the two cited cases of internet libel I would be interested in hearing it.

IOW, no, nobody has ever won a lawsuit for being libelled on a Usenet newsgroup.


GeoSynch

Geosync said


Got any proof, like a specific link to an authoritative finding
that someone won a lawsuit claiming to have been libelled
on a Usenet newsgroup?



I said


The proof is in the law itself. California civil code 45. Two cases
involving
libel on the internet lawsuits would be Young v. New Haven Advocate and
Gutnick
v. Dow Jones & co. Inc. They were not USENET postings but if you can cite any
facts that would make posts on USENET exempt from California civil code 45
but
not the two cited cases of internet libel I would be interested in hearing
it.



No that is not what I said in other words. I don't know if anyone has won a
libel lawsuit for being libeled on a Usenet group. I don't know if anyone has
ever filed a suit for libel on a Usenet group. I have read other cases of
lawsuits being filed over libel on other forums similar to Usenet groups. Those
cases were not dismissed at all. OTOH can you cite any lawsuits for libel being
dismissed because the libel was on a Usenet group?

"S888Wheel" wrote in message


No that is not what I said in other words. I don't know if anyone has
won a libel lawsuit for being libeled on a Usenet group. I don't know
if anyone has ever filed a suit for libel on a Usenet group.

You're probably the first person to be stupid enough to try that, sockpuppet
Wheel. This is especially difficult given that the name of the forum
contains the word "opinion".

Sorry, I'm not here to prove a negative, but do let us
know if your libel suit against Arny makes it beyond the
summary dismissal stage or is otherwise not laughed out
of the courtroom. TIA.



Prove a negative?????

Could you possibly be any dumber???????

How often do you **** your pants in public like that???????

You're probably the first person to be stupid enough to try that, sockpuppet
Wheel. This is especially difficult given that the name of the forum
contains the word "opinion".






So everything you post here is nothing more than the opinion of a nutcase?

Good point.

I said


No that is not what I said in other words. I don't know if anyone has
won a libel lawsuit for being libeled on a Usenet group. I don't know
if anyone has ever filed a suit for libel on a Usenet group.



Arny said


You're probably the first person to be stupid enough to try that, sockpuppet
Wheel. This is especially difficult given that the name of the forum
contains the word "opinion".


This is rich. Are you now contending that it is your "opinion" that I am a
pedophile and you are just exercising your rights of free speech? Think before
you answer. You have already falsely accused me of being a pedophile once on
RAO.

tor b said:

Sorry, I'm not here to prove a negative, but do let us
know if your libel suit against Arny makes it beyond the
summary dismissal stage or is otherwise not laughed out
of the courtroom. TIA.

Prove a negative?????

Could you possibly be any dumber???????

Indeed yes, it can. For example, it's been saying that Senator
Joseph McCarthy was a "great American".

How often do you **** your pants in public like that???????

I think it's batting over .900 in that regard.

Girth said:

Hatemongering AOL posters may wish to consider this:
Judge Rules ISP, Server Location May Determine Jurisdiction
http://www.isp-planet.com/politics/0...sidiction.html

That one is juicy. Here's the meat of it:

"According to the court papers, [Virginia resident Steve N.] Bochan
alleged that in some of their messages, [Texas residents Ray and
Mary La Fontaine] accused him of being a pedophile. A lawsuit for
defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress ensued.
....
"Because the La Fontaines posted their comments to the newsgroup
using a Texas-based ISP and their AOL account, the judge determined
that the defamatory messages were transmitted first to AOL's Usenet
server in Loudoun County, Va. There the message was both stored
temporarily and transmitted to other Usenet servers around the
world.

"Judge Ellis ruled that because publication is a required element of
defamation, and evidence showed that the use of a Usenet server in
Virginia was integral to that publication, there was sufficient
activity in the state of Virginia to allow for jurisdiction over the
La Fontaines."


Too bad Krooger will be unable to comprehend this decision.

George M. Middius wrote:


Girth said:

Hatemongering AOL posters may wish to consider this:
Judge Rules ISP, Server Location May Determine Jurisdiction
http://www.isp-planet.com/politics/0...sidiction.html

That one is juicy. Here's the meat of it:

"According to the court papers, [Virginia resident Steve N.] Bochan
alleged that in some of their messages, [Texas residents Ray and
Mary La Fontaine] accused him of being a pedophile. A lawsuit for
defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress ensued.
...
"Because the La Fontaines posted their comments to the newsgroup
using a Texas-based ISP and their AOL account, the judge determined
that the defamatory messages were transmitted first to AOL's Usenet
server in Loudoun County, Va. There the message was both stored
temporarily and transmitted to other Usenet servers around the
world.

"Judge Ellis ruled that because publication is a required element of
defamation, and evidence showed that the use of a Usenet server in
Virginia was integral to that publication, there was sufficient
activity in the state of Virginia to allow for jurisdiction over the
La Fontaines."


Too bad Krooger will be unable to comprehend this decision.










His lack of contact with reality will no doubt interfere with any
comprehension of this decision. However, should the many people he has defamed
over the years on RAO via use of the Internet take advantage of this ruling and
pursue similar cases against him, any attempt at an insanity defense will not
help him, since such defenses can only be used in criminal cases, but not civil
cases.


Bruce J. Richman, Ph.D.
Licensed Psychologist


(signed this way because of pending libel suit against Krueger for defamation,
and probable need to supply supportive documentary evidence).

"GeoSynch" wrote

OTOH can you cite any lawsuits for libel
being dismissed because the libel was
on a Usenet group?

Sorry, I'm not here to prove a negative,

Agreed. Perhaps Scott should do due some
research before continuing to prosecute his
case on USEnet. He also has not demonstrated
that he has suffered actual financial damage.

Can we say “no cause of action” .


but do let us know if your libel suit against
Arny makes it beyond the summary
dismissal stage or is otherwise not laughed
out of the courtroom. TIA.

Yup, and what about the laughing and
harassment to follow by not following through
after all this feather-ruffling. Arny already
has a on-going four year old vendetta against
Atkinson.

Scott case can’t stand muster nor does he
have the financial depth for such an
undertaking. Arny’s inappropriate behavior
extends across this board... Scott is not
special (litigious material). Imagine Scott's
difficulty trying to demonstrate that Arny’s
opinion has weight/influence on r.a.o..

I said


OTOH can you cite any lawsuits for libel
being dismissed because the libel was
on a Usenet group


Geosynch said


Sorry, I'm not here to prove a negative,



Powell said


Agreed.


You agree that Geosynch isn't here to prove a negative. That's nice but quite
irrelevant. I didn't ask him to prove anything only to cite an example of a
libel case being dismissed because the libel took place on Usenet.

Powell said


Perhaps Scott should do due some
research before continuing to prosecute his
case on USEnet.


I have done plenty of research on this issue. I have carefully reviewed all the
California civil codes that apply and all the forms for pleadings and
practices.

Powell said

He also has not demonstrated
that he has suffered actual financial damage.

Can we say €œno cause of action€? .




Of course you can say it just like Arny can say i'm not a real person. Of
course saying it doesn't make it so. Maybe if you would review California civil
code 45a and then review the forms for pleadings and practices regarding libel,
page 30.6 under the heading of general damages you will see that you are wrong.


Geosynch said


but do let us know if your libel suit against
Arny makes it beyond the summary
dismissal stage or is otherwise not laughed
out of the courtroom. TIA.



Powell said



Yup, and what about the laughing and
harassment to follow by not following through
after all this feather-ruffling.


It won't be an issue. You are just making assumptions about what will
transpire.

Powell said

Arny already
has a on-going four year old vendetta against
Atkinson.


So?

Powell said



Scott case cant stand muster nor does he
have the financial depth for such an
undertaking.


Can't stand muster? What do you know about my "financial depth?" You are just
blowing hot air.


Powell said


Arnys inappropriate behavior
extends across this board... Scott is not
special (litigious material).

I never claimed to be special. Everyone who is libeled is free to deal with it
in whatever lawful way they choose. just because I may be the first to choose a
libel lawsuit does not infer that my claim is special.

Powell said


Imagine Scott's
difficulty trying to demonstrate that Arnys
opinion has weight/influence on r.a.o..


Perhaps you can point to any part of the California civil code that requires
the plaintiff in a libel suit to prove weight of an opinion/influence. I think
you need to familiarize yourself with the civil codes before making comments on
them. Arny did not express an opinion, he wrecklessly made a false accusation
that I am a pedophile. The civil codes are very clear on this matter. Check
them out.

"S888Wheel" wrote

snip quacking

Hehehe... Scott, you have no case and no
attorney of record, mr. Do-it-yourself.

S888Wheel wrote:

OTOH can you cite any lawsuits for libel being
dismissed because the libel was on a Usenet group?

Sorry, I'm not here to prove a negative,

I didn't ask you to prove a negative. i asked you to cite an example. Guess you
couldn't do it.

Guess again, slick:

" In July 2001, the judge ruled that defendant Rosenthal, who had republished
messages from Bolen to several news groups, was shielded from liability by the
Internet Decency Act, which the judge believed was intended to protect anyone
posting messages to newsgroups."

You'll find that passage somewhere in the middle of this link:
http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/bolen.html


GeoSynch

Geosynch said


Sorry, I'm not here to prove a negative,



I said



Guess again, slick:

" In July 2001, the judge ruled that defendant Rosenthal, who had republished
messages from Bolen to several news groups, was shielded from liability by the
Internet Decency Act, which the judge believed was intended to protect anyone
posting messages to newsgroups."



Which has what to do with this issue of an original post? At least come up with
something relevant to the issue.

Powell said




Hehehe... Scott, you have no case and no
attorney of record, mr. Do-it-yourself.


OK so you aren't familiar with the california civil codes and have nothing of
merit to say on the matter. At least it would seem so given you failed to
respond with any legal points. I have no case until I file a lawsuit. Then I
have a case. I have no lawyer unless I hire one. One does not need a lawyer to
file a lawsuit and win.

Powell wrote

OTOH can you cite any lawsuits for libel
being dismissed because the libel was
on a Usenet group?

Sorry, I'm not here to prove a negative,

Agreed. Perhaps Scott should do due some
research before continuing to prosecute his
case on USEnet. He also has not demonstrated
that he has suffered actual financial damage.

Correct. Though he may have suffered emotional
distress, unless he gives music lessons to little kiddies
whose parents surf this group, there is no demonstrable
cause for having suffered actual financial damage.

but do let us know if your libel suit against
Arny makes it beyond the summary
dismissal stage or is otherwise not laughed
out of the courtroom. TIA.

Yup, and what about the laughing and
harassment to follow by not following through
after all this feather-ruffling. Arny already
has a on-going four year old vendetta against
Atkinson.

If anybody had just reason to sue Arny ... :-)

Scott case can't stand muster nor does he
have the financial depth for such an
undertaking. Arny's inappropriate behavior
extends across this board... Scott is not
special (litigious material). Imagine Scott's
difficulty trying to demonstrate that Arny's
opinion has weight/influence on r.a.o..

Even his fellow brethren engineers don't take him seriously.


GeoSynch

S888Wheel said:

Hehehe... Scott, you have no case and no
attorney of record, mr. Do-it-yourself.

OK so you aren't familiar with the california civil codes and have nothing of
merit to say on the matter. At least it would seem so given you failed to
respond with any legal points. I have no case until I file a lawsuit. Then I
have a case. I have no lawyer unless I hire one. One does not need a lawyer to
file a lawsuit and win.

Don't waste a lot of time on Powell. He (she? whatever) takes pride in
leaving people scratching their heads at the random collections of
words he deposits on Usenet.

I've finally discovered the truth about why Powell harassed Phoebe
Johnston at work. It was because he was envious of Phoebe's inability
to make sense. She seemed to do it so effortlessly, while Powell had
to scramble his brian by inhaling nasty stuff like airplane glue in
order to turn himself into a Babble Box.

S888Wheel wrote:

" In July 2001, the judge ruled that defendant Rosenthal, who had republished
messages from Bolen to several news groups, was shielded from liability by the
Internet Decency Act, which the judge believed was intended to protect anyone
posting messages to newsgroups."

Which has what to do with this issue of an original post? At least come up with
something relevant to the issue.

What part of the statement "defendant ... was shielded from liability by the Internet
Decency Act .... intended to protect anyone posting messages to newsgroups"
eludes you?

Nitpicking between "original post" and "republished messages" is a bit specious, no?


GeoSynch

S888Wheel said:

Hehehe... Scott, you have no case and no
attorney of record, mr. Do-it-yourself.

OK so you aren't familiar with the california civil codes and have nothing of
merit to say on the matter. At least it would seem so given you failed to
respond with any legal points. I have no case until I file a lawsuit. Then I
have a case. I have no lawyer unless I hire one. One does not need a lawyer to
file a lawsuit and win.

Don't waste a lot of time on Powell. He (she? whatever) takes pride in
leaving people scratching their heads at the random collections of
words he deposits on Usenet.

I've finally discovered the truth about why Powell harassed Phoebe
Johnston at work. It was because he was envious of Phoebe's inability
to make sense. She seemed to do it so effortlessly, while Powell had
to scramble his brain by inhaling nasty stuff like airplane glue in
order to turn himself into a Babble Box.

Nitpicking between "original post" and "republished messages" is a bit
specious, no?


No.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message


Arny did not express an
opinion, he wrecklessly made a false accusation that I am a
pedophile.

I think you need to go back and check the post in question:

(1) You've only partially represented what it said.

(2) You've overlooked the fact it was posted in a newsgroup where all posts
are labeled "opinion", as in rec.audio.opinion.

(3) You've overlooked the fact that the entity the post was directed to was
and is an anonymous fictitious name.

BTW sockpuppet Whell, I've asked you repeatedly to prove your true identity
which you've repeatedly declined to do. Therefore, it is quite clear that
you have no intent of ever being anything but an anonymous fictitious name.
That makes you a non-entity in the eyes of any legal institution, including
any court of law.