Re: STINK-BEETLE ALAN HOPE STILL ON LIBEL RAMPAGE!


Dr Zen wrote:
On 12 Sep 2006 21:09:36 -0700, "Bill" <palmer.william@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:


Ray Haddad wrote:
On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 01:39:01 +0200, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
and Alan Hope <not.alan.hope@xxxxxxxx> instead replied:

Ray Haddad goes:

To be perfectly frank, Bill, I have to be the one to choose if it is
something I consider libelous or not. After that, it would be up to
a convening authority to either determine I am correct or wrong.

A convening authority?

Yes, Alan. For it to be truly libel, it has to be adjudged so.

That it is not correct, Ray. If you
think about your phrasing, it is akin
to saying that though you may have
seen someone drive off in your car
without your permission, they have
not committed theft until it is
"adjudged so." Do you truly believe
that by some strange twist it is wrong
in the above case to say,
"Hey, I just saw a thief drive off in
my car!"?


You can guarantee that he will say it is.

What Raymond cannot quite grasp is the difference between a theft and
a finding of guilt of theft.

Basically, if I witness
someone stealing from me, I will
very correctly call him a thief.
If I witness someone's malicious
publication of false and defamatory
statements about me made with the
intent to injure, I am going to call
the person a libelist, and a dirty,
slimy one at that.. In fact, I am on
far stronger ground with my allegations
in that regard than if I had simply
seen someone stealing from me,
because in the case of Stink-Beetle
Alan Hope's vicious libels, they are
right there in Google.

It would have to be untrue that you're a child molester for him to
have libelled you though.

Of course it would, and that is exactly
why I call Stink Beetle Alan Hope a
particularly slimy type of libel artist:
the sort who glibly cuts the vilest
of defamations from whole cloth
simply to avenge his being stung
to the quick by some well-deserved
satirical barbs.


And by the way, I hope no one is so
utterly ignorant of both English and
American jurisprudence as to fail
to grasp that if the matter should
come to trial, either in Great Britain
or in the United States, then
it is up to the person charged
with publishing the defamatory
statements to prove that the
statements are true.

They are true by your own admission.

And you are a vile, venom-spittiung, cowardly
liar, Dr. Zen. That is exactly what disgusts
me about low-life scum like you --
somehow you have concluded that
utterly wrong behavior, defaming,
bearing false witness, etc. --
becomes okay when it is done in
a newsgroup. Such behavior has
always been wrong, and it is as
wrong here as anyplace else.
Plainly, you have lost your moral
and ethical bearings, if you ever had
any to begin with. There is nothing at
all funny about condoning the ugliest
sort of defamatory behavior, Zen. But
since you have decided to slilther
into the net-sewer and have a swim
with Stink Beetle Alan Hope, so be it.
Like the pair of cockroaches you are,
it is easy to imagine your vomiting
your libels over one another and
enjoying it. Sad.

Also, in Great Britain -- by which one takes it you mean England and
Wales -- you would need to prove you had a reputation that could be
damaged.

Charged with damaging someone's
reputation with the vilest sort of
libels you have cut from cut from
whole cloth, your defense would
be that since you have damaged
your victims reputation so badly,
you are not liable. As usual,
Zen, your glib lies prove devoid of
logic. Being targeted by net satire
does not damage a person's
reputation -- being targeted by
the ugliest and most vicious
sort of defamations certainly
might, though.


That would
be quite the task for libel artist and
misc.writing Stink-Beetle Alan Hope,
since he cuts his defamations from
whole cloth.

Do
you not agree? Or would you have me aping Bill Palmer and deciding
that you had libeled me?

I certainly have not read all of
Alan's comments about you, but
I will point that there is all the
difference in world between
satirizing someone and publishing
false and defamatory statements
about them aimed at presenting anyone
who uses Google with a malicious and
untrue characterization about the
libel target And, needless to say,
the true libelist, like Stink Beetle
Alan Hope, will pick libels of the
vilest nature, defamations chosen
to cause the greatest harm.
It is not like he is calling me a
jaywalker or something.

Have you jaywalked? You have made a full confession of your past as a
rapist. I didn't know you had jaywalked too.

No
way. Hope slithers in and out
of the net libel sewer as if he
was born in it, and chooses
utterly heinous libels aimed at
causing maximum harm.

Your reputation is probably improved by being considered a rapist,

Zen's parting shot: Another vile libel
from the net sewer where he is cavorting
in the slime with Stink-Beetle Alan Hope!


[From the Bill Palmer Blogosphere]

Bill, since that is a notch above Uselessnet bore in social standing.

--

Dr Zen
King of the wild pixels.
http://gollyg.blogspot.com

.