Does libel have statue of limitations? Re: the Eric Francis "Dartmouth Murders" libeling the innocent Archimedes Plutonium
a_plutonium
The Dartmouth Murders By Eric Francis
Summary
Preview this book
Preview this book
By Eric Francis
Published 2002
St. Martin's Press
True Crime / Espionage
244 pages
ISBN 0312982313
ERIC FRANCIS is a freelance reporter and photojournalist whose work
has appeared in dozens of
newspapers and magazines in over 30 countries. A staff correspondent
for People Magazine,
Francis has also covered several notable murder cases for The New York
Times, the Boston
Globe, and Time Magazine. He lives on the Vermont-New Hampshire border
and was one of the
first reporters on the scene of the Zantop double homicide in January,
2001.
--- end quoting Google books ---
I do not know if Eric Francis is the same as
(oF60Hc...@alcyone.darkside.com)
m...@alcyone.darkside.com (Erik Max Francis) who had stalked
Archimedes Plutonium for years
with his spew of hatred and demonization.
Anyway, when people hate other people in the way that Eric Francis
hates Archimedes Plutonium, then
their little minds do a trick on them. That they look for moments of
opportunity to tie and connect innocent
people like AP with a tradegy. Where they mix innocent people up with
a murder. So that innocent people
like AP is forever tangled up with something he had absolutely nothing
to do with.
Anyone who reads this message, how would they feel if a reporter hated
you, and then as soon as that
reporter gets involved with some murder, includes your name in a page
of that murder in a book? I think
most people would be very much angered by the action of Eric Francis.
Because when the Zantop murder occurred, Archimedes Plutonium had
departed Dartmouth about 2years
prior and was living calmly and peaceably in the Midwest some
thousands of miles away from Dartmouth.
Yet AP was called by the Hanover New Hampshire police.
I believe this is libel if ever I have seen libel. In that how in the
world can a news reporter demonize me in a book
about a tragic murder for which I was half the continent away and
which I had nothing to do with.
Does anyone know the statue of limitations for libel? And if a lawyer
is reading this and who knows something
about me as per my love of doing science on the Internet and would
like to help me to "get some justice put
onto Eric Francis, please indicate in a followup post.
I am very busy with science and hate to have to leave it to correct
what I call "people problems", but I feel that
Eric Francis needs to be punished for how he has victimized an
innocent person-- Archimedes Plutonium.
Because if I do not seek justice on Francis, then like Kant's
Categorical Imperative-- Francis will then
victimize some other innocent after having gotten away with
victimizing me.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
Deadrat
news:1174499581....@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
> --- quoting Google books ---
> The Dartmouth Murders By Eric Francis
<snip>
>
> Anyone who reads this message, how would they feel if a reporter hated
> you, and then as soon as that reporter gets involved with some murder,
> includes your name in a page of that murder in a book? I think most
> people would be very much angered by the action of Eric Francis.
Quite possibly. But your being upset doesn't mean that you've been
libeled. Having your name on a page of a book about a murder doesn't
mean that you've been libeled. Does the author accuse you of committing
the murder? *That* may be libel.
If you are sufficiently well known (especially if you've sought
publicity), you may be a public figure. Now the rules tilt to favor the
author.
<snip>
> I believe this is libel if ever I have seen libel. In that how in the
> world can a news reporter demonize me in a book about a tragic murder
> or which I was half the continent away and which I had nothing to do
> with.
I haven't read the offending passage, so I don't know what you mean by
"demonize." The author may insult you all he wishes. Insults are just
opinions and are not actionable. The author must incorrectly allege a
fact. Has he?
> Does anyone know the statue of limitations for libel?
It depends on the state that has jurisdiction. In New York, for example,
it's one year. But under certain conditions, the statute can be tolled
(i.e., the clock doesn't run). You need to talk to a lawyer.
*** Which I am not. So this can't be legal advice. ***
<snip>
a_plutonium
Deadrat wrote:
> "a_plutonium" <a_plu...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:1174499581....@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>
> > --- quoting Google books ---
> > The Dartmouth Murders By Eric Francis
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > Anyone who reads this message, how would they feel if a reporter hated
> > you, and then as soon as that reporter gets involved with some murder,
> > includes your name in a page of that murder in a book? I think most
> > people would be very much angered by the action of Eric Francis.
>
> Quite possibly. But your being upset doesn't mean that you've been
> libeled. Having your name on a page of a book about a murder doesn't
> mean that you've been libeled. Does the author accuse you of committing
> the murder? *That* may be libel.
When the Dartmouth murders happened in 2001, a poster by the moniker
of
Uncle Al posted accusing me of the murders. He made several such posts
to sci. newsgroups. Another poster from Israel told Uncle Al to stop
making
the libelous posts on me (Archimedes Plutonium). Shortly after those
Uncle
Al posts, the Hanover New Hampshire police bothered me on three
occasions
with telephone calls, wasting my time and others.
Whether Uncle Al was Eric Francis is unknown to me. Whether Eric
Francis
contacted Uncle Al which started his chain of libelous posts is
unknown to
me.
What is known to me is that as I start publishing my science work,
that there
is this large tainted background noise of libelous references. So that
when I
talk with a publisher and that publisher then searches for Archimedes
Plutonium,
up comes this slew of references to the Zantop Murders.
It is hindering my ability to publish science.
>
> If you are sufficiently well known (especially if you've sought
> publicity), you may be a public figure. Now the rules tilt to favor the
> author.
>
I understand, but then I feel having been victimized. That Eric
Francis has committed some major rule
of journalism, that in a book on a murder tradegy, that he weaved my
name into this book, when I am
a total innocent outsider of that tradegy event.
So that now, when I have to interface with the media and press about
science and science theories, that
this bogus references to Dartmouth Murders is further victimizing my
ability to further my science
publishing.
> <snip>
>
> > I believe this is libel if ever I have seen libel. In that how in the
> > world can a news reporter demonize me in a book about a tragic murder
> > or which I was half the continent away and which I had nothing to do
> > with.
>
> I haven't read the offending passage, so I don't know what you mean by
> "demonize." The author may insult you all he wishes. Insults are just
> opinions and are not actionable. The author must incorrectly allege a
> fact. Has he?
>
> > Does anyone know the statue of limitations for libel?
>
> It depends on the state that has jurisdiction. In New York, for example,
> it's one year. But under certain conditions, the statute can be tolled
> (i.e., the clock doesn't run). You need to talk to a lawyer.
>
> *** Which I am not. So this can't be legal advice. ***
>
Well maybe I am wrong, but I suspect there is some journalism code of
conduct that St. Martins Press
failed when an author includes an innocent person into a book on
murder. That in the murder investigation
there are many suspects and for Francis to include someone innocent
and give length in his book, is
a form of victimization not journalism. I do not know the relationship
of Uncle Al and Eric Francis, but I do
they have stalked and demonized me for a decade.
a_plutonium
which I
could access from the book itself.
The trouble I see with it is that it is supposed to be about Zantops
and the tradegy and it is only 244
pages, so why is Eric Francis devoting 5 or more pages to some
innocent faraway who had nothing
in the world to do with the tradegy. Who never ever met the Zantops.
So why is Archimedes Plutonium
being victimized and blighted by Eric Francis?
The only reason that I posted about the Zantops was because Uncle Al
accused me of being the murderer
and when the Israeli chemist tried to inform Uncle Al that he was
libeling me, I felt compelled to post about
the Zantop murders to the Internet. Whether Uncle Al is the same
person as Eric Francis, I do not know, or
whether Eric Francis contacted Uncle Al and then the two of them
entangled me into the murder tradegy.
What I know for sure is that Eric Francis and Uncle Al hate my guts,
and because of their incurable hatred of
me, they bend over backwards to victimize me.
I find it really odd that in 244 pages that more than 5 are devoted to
some faraway innocent person-- Archimedes Plutonium
Currently my Wikipedia page is being voted on for deletion. And the
editors of Wikipedia are somewhat basing
their vote on the Eric Francis reference to the Zantop murders. Should
I be the blame for Pandora's box also.
Deadrat
news:1174506170....@n59g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
>
> Deadrat wrote:
>> "a_plutonium" <a_plu...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:1174499581....@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > --- quoting Google books ---
>> > The Dartmouth Murders By Eric Francis
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >
>> > Anyone who reads this message, how would they feel if a reporter
>> > hated you, and then as soon as that reporter gets involved with
>> > some murder, includes your name in a page of that murder in a book?
>> > I think most people would be very much angered by the action of
>> > Eric Francis.
>>
>> Quite possibly. But your being upset doesn't mean that you've been
>> libeled. Having your name on a page of a book about a murder doesn't
>> mean that you've been libeled. Does the author accuse you of
>> committing the murder? *That* may be libel.
>
> When the Dartmouth murders happened in 2001, a poster by the moniker
> of Uncle Al posted accusing me of the murders. He made several such
> posts to sci. newsgroups. Another poster from Israel told Uncle Al to
> stop making the libelous posts on me (Archimedes Plutonium). Shortly
> after those Uncle Al posts, the Hanover New Hampshire police bothered
> me on three occasions with telephone calls, wasting my time and
> others.
If Uncle Al is clearly a clown, then you could well have a problem with
a jury. If the jury decides that no reasonable person would take
Uncle Al seriously, then you could lose your libel action. You'll have
to decide whether the calls from the Hanover police were any indication.
> Whether Uncle Al was Eric Francis is unknown to me. Whether Eric
> Francis contacted Uncle Al which started his chain of libelous posts
> is unknown to me.
How can you sue Eric Francis for what Uncle Al posted if you don't know
whether Eric Francis was posting under the name Uncle Al? If they're
two different people, Francis can libel you in talking to Uncle Al, but
how are you going to show that?
> What is known to me is that as I start publishing my science work,
> that there is this large tainted background noise of libelous
> references. So that when I talk with a publisher and that publisher
> then searches for Archimedes Plutonium, up comes this slew of
> references to the Zantop Murders.
>
> It is hindering my ability to publish science.
This goes to damages, but accusing someone of a crime can be libel per
se, in which damages are assumed. That's why a lawyer is necessary
here.
>> If you are sufficiently well known (especially if you've sought
>> publicity), you may be a public figure. Now the rules tilt to favor
>> the author.
> I understand, but then I feel having been victimized. That Eric
> Francis has committed some major rule of journalism, that in a book on
> a murder tradegy, that he weaved my name into this book, when I am a
> total innocent outsider of that tradegy event.
You mean *violated* some major rule of journalism, but those rules,
whatever they are, don't have legal force. Be aware that "innocent
outsiders" are often sucked into tragedies and have no legal recourse.
<snip>
>> > I believe this is libel if ever I have seen libel. In that how in
>> > the world can a news reporter demonize me in a book about a tragic
>> > murder or which I was half the continent away and which I had
>> > nothing to do with.
>>
>> I haven't read the offending passage, so I don't know what you mean
>> by "demonize." The author may insult you all he wishes. Insults are
>> just opinions and are not actionable. The author must incorrectly
>> allege a fact. Has he?
>>
>> > Does anyone know the statue of limitations for libel?
>>
>> It depends on the state that has jurisdiction. In New York, for
>> example, it's one year. But under certain conditions, the statute
>> can be tolled (i.e., the clock doesn't run). You need to talk to a
>> lawyer.
>>
>> *** Which I am not. So this can't be legal advice. ***
>>
>
> Well maybe I am wrong, but I suspect there is some journalism code of
> conduct that St. Martins Press failed when an author includes an
> innocent person into a book on murder.
You have no legal recourse under any code of journalistic conduct. St.
Martins Press may have contractual arrangements with Francis regarding
this matter, but that's an issue that's entirely between the parties to
the contract.
> That in the murder investigation there are many suspects and for
> Francis to include someone innocent and give length in his book, is a
> form of victimization not journalism.
If there are many murder suspects but only one guilty party, then the
innocent suspects may well feel victimized by being mentioned in a book
about the murder. But that's considered the price of freedom of the
press.
> I do not know the relationship of Uncle Al and Eric Francis, but I do
> they have stalked and demonized me for a decade.
Stalking is a crime. It's definition no doubt varies from state to
state, but it usually requires a pattern of behavior that puts the victim
in fear for his life and safety. You've just accused Uncle Al and Eric
Francis of this crime. Is that what you intended to do? Was it libel?
If it came to trial, would a jury understand if you say you meant
cyberstalking?
If you want to pursue this, talk to a lawyer, one with an understanding
of defamation and cyberlaw. You can't get specific enough and credible
enough advice from this forum. Experts, i.e., real lawyers, won't help
you lest they inadvertently create an attorney-client relationship with
you. And what do you expect from nonexperts like me?
*** I am not a lawyer, so this can't be legal advice. ***
> Archimedes Plutonium
<snip>
Deadrat
news:1174507609.2...@l77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
I read the pages I could get access to. Your questions above may be of
literary or journalistic interest, but I don't see how anything I read
was defamatory. You must have a false, damaging statement. The book
says you posted about the Zantop case. Did you? The book says you
refused to call the police from SD. Is that right? Ask that question
about every mention of you.
You'll need a false statement. Is there one?
>
> The only reason that I posted about the Zantops was because Uncle Al
> accused me of being the murderer
> and when the Israeli chemist tried to inform Uncle Al that he was
> libeling me, I felt compelled to post about
> the Zantop murders to the Internet. Whether Uncle Al is the same
> person as Eric Francis, I do not know, or
> whether Eric Francis contacted Uncle Al and then the two of them
> entangled me into the murder tradegy.
>
> What I know for sure is that Eric Francis and Uncle Al hate my guts,
> and because of their incurable hatred of
> me, they bend over backwards to victimize me.
>
> I find it really odd that in 244 pages that more than 5 are devoted to
> some faraway innocent person-- Archimedes Plutonium
It may be odd, but it needs to be false to be defamatory.
a_plutonium
It was Cyberstalking, as noted by some of these January 2001 posts
by Uncle Al. Apparently Eric Francis used the moniker of Erik max
Francis
when he cyberstalked Archimedes Plutonium.
Plutonium killfiled the two and so begin to never have a reply to
their cyberstalking.
Uncle Al periodically posted to Plutonium's threads with is "Soooo
stupid...." which
are apparent below.
Here is a chronology of the Uncle Al libel accusation that Archimedes
Plutonium
did Zantop. The date time group is specific. And finally when Mr.
Richard Schultz
notified Uncle Al of his libel accusation, and when Uncle Al then put-
down Mr.
Schultz, I felt compelled to stop the fighting between Mr. Schultz and
Uncle Al
by trying to solve a murder mystery from afar. In hindsight I should
not have entered
the fray, but I suspect that the reason Uncle Al got news of the
Zantop was through
contacting Eric Francis. And maybe Eric Francis contacted the Hanover
police and
said words to this effect "Archimedes Plutonium is a suspect"
So maybe, there was nothing I could have done in January of 2001 from
avoiding being
badgered by Hanover Police, no matter if I had been silent on the
Internet throughout 2001.
That there were so many hatemongers of Archimedes Plutonium, that any
and every tradegy
that befalls Dartmouth in that time period was going to be blamed as
first suspect on
Archimedes Plutonium. That the level of hatred of me was so feverishly
pitched high
that nothing I could have done could have saved me from being maligned
and linked
to the Zantop murders.
And now, in 2007, there are books out link me with a tradegy that
should never have
come about. That was a game played on the new technology of the
Internet, where you have
science newsgroup and someone who loves doing science and new ideas
and when a crowd
of hatemongers forms into a lynch mob with Eric Francis and Uncle Al
at the helm, there is
about nothing I could have done to avoided being victimized by them.
--- begin old January 2001 posts where Uncle Al accuses Archimedes
Plutonium of the
Zantop murders ---
Subject:
Archie-Poo Returns?
Date:
Sun, 28 Jan 2001 23:47:32 GMT
From:
Uncle Al (Uncle...@hate.spam.net>
Organization:
The Noble Krell
Newsgroups:
sci.bio.botany, sci.physics.fusion,
sci.physics.particle, sci.environment, alt.sci.physics
References:
1
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/01/28/hanover.deaths.ap/index.html
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal/
(Toxic URLs! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Subject:
Re: Upper Limits for Fusion, Fission,
Chemical
Date:
Mon, 29 Jan 2001 21:11:13 GMT
From:
Uncle Al (Uncle...@hate.spam.net>
Organization:
The Noble Krell
Newsgroups:
sci.physics.fusion,
sci.physics.electromag
References:
1
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> Sun, 28 Jan 2001 02:30:34 -0600 Archimedes Plutonium
wrote:
[snip]
Nothing.
Pull the troll's plug,
Archimedes Plutonium (pluto...@willinet.net>
a...@willinet.net
newsab...@supernews.com
Two Dartmouth homicides occur and the obvious suspect
remains
unsuspected...
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/01/28/hanover.deaths.ap/index.html
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal/
(Toxic URLs! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Subject:
Re: stopping photons and photon rest
mass?
Date:
Wed, 31 Jan 2001 05:29:50 +0000 (UTC)
From:
(schu...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il>
Organization:
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Newsgroups:
sci.physics.fusion, sci.physics.particle
Followup-To:
alt.dev.null
References:
1 , 2
In sci.physics.fusion Uncle Al
(Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
: Pull the troll's plug,
"a...@home.net" has been informed that you are
spamming the physics
groups with your off-topic vendetta.
: Two Dartmouth homicides occur and the obvious
suspect remains
: unsuspected...
They have also been informed that you are using their
resources to libel
someone. Have a nice day.
-----
Richard Schultz
schu...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University,
Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of
Bar-Ilan University
-----
". . .Mr Schutz [sic] acts like a functional
electro-terrorist who
impeads [sic] scientific communications with his too
oft-silliness."
-- Mitchell Swartz, sci.physics.fusion article
(EEI1oz....@world.std.com>
Subject:
Re: stopping photons and photon rest
mass?
Date:
10 Feb 2001 23:23:21 GMT
From:
j...@dirac.csit.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Organization:
Supercomputer Computations Research
Institute
Newsgroups:
sci.physics.fusion, sci.physics.particle
References:
1 , 2 , 3
(schu...@gefen.cc.biu.ac.il> wrote
in message news:9587se$afr$1...@news.huji.ac.il...
}
} In sci.physics.fusion Uncle Al
(Uncle...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
} : Pull the troll's plug,
}
} "a...@home.net" has been informed that you are
spamming the physics
} groups with your off-topic vendetta.
It would take less bandwidth if he just wrote an AP
FAQ and
posted it periodically when AP is active. Someone
has to
tell newbies that they should just appreciate AP's
art for
what it is.
} : Two Dartmouth homicides occur and the obvious
suspect remains
} : unsuspected...
}
} They have also been informed that you are using
their resources to
} libel someone. Have a nice day.
Although I would deduce from his activities (see
Dartmouth campus
paper) and postings that he is likely harmless, the
same has been
said of others who proved to be less than harmless.
With the way
he moves around, he would be a candidate for a
drop-in at that
house in Dartmouth -- if his posting history
suggested he was in
that territory. Uncle Al seems to have failed to
look into that.
In article (elfwKN#iAHA.270@cpmsnbbsa07> in
sci.physics.particle
"Bob Sullivan" (HM_...@hotmail.com> writes:
>Next time around, you might add assault to Al's list
of crimes.
Who did he assault?
>I doubt that Uncle Al, in his psychotic zeal,
appreciates that his posts
>contain all the information necessary for his
favorite Jack-Booted-State
>minions to track him down.
I don't. He is a smart guy.
--
James Carr (j...@scri.fsu.edu>
http://www.scri.fsu.edu/~jac/
"The half of knowledge is knowing where to find
knowledge" - Anon.
Motto over the entrance to Dodd Hall, former
library at FSCW.
Subject:
Is Uncle Al accusing Archimedes
Plutonium of murder?
Date:
Fri, 2 Feb 2001 09:55:13 -0800 (PST)
From:
anonym...@nowhere.edu
Organization:
mail2n...@nym.alias.net
Newsgroups:
sci.physics.fusion
See "Al's" post above
Newsgroups: sci.med, misc.legal, sci.edu
From: Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 00:31:30 GMT
Local: Wed, Feb 14 2001 6:31 pm
Subject: Re: AP's alibi for 27Jan : helping to solve the Dartmouth
Homicide JAN2001
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> From:
> Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium_archime...@yahoo.com> | Block address | Add to
[snip]
Nothing.
Pull the troll's plug,
Archimedes Plutonium <pluto...@willinet.net>
newsab...@supernews.com
a...@willinet.net
Archie-Poo is an epiphany of stupid. Archie-Poo is a swine.
Archie-Poo is a vulgar little maggot. Archie-Poo is a canker, an
ulcerous sore that won't go away.
Archie-Poo was "Ludwig Plutonium" when he started posting in 1993;
previously he was "Ludwig van Ludvig" and before that "Ludwig Hansen"
[adopted name] and "Ludwig Poehlmann" [birth name]. When he posted
about a run-in with some cops it was clear that the "legal" name
changes he effected weren't effective, because the cops looked him up
as "Ludwig Hansen". He is also struts as "The King Of Science And
Logic," a title he awarded himself.
Pull the troll's plug,
Archimedes Plutonium <pluto...@willinet.net>
newsab...@supernews.com
a...@willinet.net
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal/
(Toxic URLs! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
Newsgroups: sci.med, misc.legal, sci.edu
From: Uncle Al <Uncle...@hate.spam.net>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 00:32:10 GMT
Local: Wed, Feb 14 2001 6:32 pm
Subject: Re: attention Hanover Police: Uncle Al (Schwartz) alibi of
27Jan??: helping to solve the Dartmouth Homicide JAN2001
Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show original
| Report this message | Find messages by this author
Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> From:
> Archimedes Plutonium <plutonium_archime...@yahoo.com>
[snip]
Nothing.
Pull the troll's plug,
Archimedes Plutonium <pluto...@willinet.net>
newsab...@supernews.com
a...@willinet.net
Archie-Poo is an epiphany of stupid. Archie-Poo is a swine.
Archie-Poo is a vulgar little maggot. Archie-Poo is a canker, an
ulcerous sore that won't go away.
Archie-Poo was "Ludwig Plutonium" when he started posting in 1993;
previously he was "Ludwig van Ludvig" and before that "Ludwig Hansen"
[adopted name] and "Ludwig Poehlmann" [birth name]. When he posted
about a run-in with some cops it was clear that the "legal" name
changes he effected weren't effective, because the cops looked him up
as "Ludwig Hansen". He is also struts as "The King Of Science And
Logic," a title he awarded himself.
Pull the troll's plug,
Archimedes Plutonium <pluto...@willinet.net>
newsab...@supernews.com
a...@willinet.net
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
http://www.ultra.net.au/~wisby/uncleal/
(Toxic URLs! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
--- end quoting old 2001 posts where Uncle Al libels Archimedes
Plutonium ---
• UltraMan •
So he libeled your usenet pseudonym ?
>
> Whether Uncle Al was Eric Francis is unknown to me. Whether Eric
> Francis
> contacted Uncle Al which started his chain of libelous posts is
> unknown to
> me.
Bet there's lots of things unknown to you, eh?
>
> What is known to me is that as I start publishing my science work,
> that there is this large tainted background noise of libelous references.
Science stands or fails on it's merits, whether you are a murderer or not.
> So that
> when I
> talk with a publisher and that publisher then searches for Archimedes
> Plutonium,
> up comes this slew of references to the Zantop Murders.
Then publish under your real name, fool.
>
> It is hindering my ability to publish science.
Not is isn't. The "science" will stand of fall on it's own.
>
>
>
>>
>> If you are sufficiently well known (especially if you've sought
>> publicity), you may be a public figure. Now the rules tilt to favor
>> the author.
>>
>
> I understand, but then I feel having been victimized. That Eric
> Francis has committed some major rule of journalism, that in a book on a
> murder tradegy, that he weaved my name into this book, when I am
> a total innocent outsider of that tradegy event.
So did he call you a murderer or not?
>
> So that now, when I have to interface with the media and press about
> science and science theories, that this bogus references to Dartmouth
> Murders is further victimizing my ability to further my science
> publishing.
You're an idiot and a nutjob.
a_plutonium
I am sorry I could not read all the pages written about me. It appears
that
there are 3 pages on Francis's low opinion of me. There is some
information
about when the Hanover police became involved. And some of it is
correct, but
what is disturbing is how in the world Francis got that information,
other than
he himself going into the police station and demanding that the police
put me on
their list of suspects. So in other words, Francis and Uncle Al
setting me up, where
Uncle Al accuses me of the murder to the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup
and then
Francis at Dartmouth running to the police and badgering them to put
me as prime
suspect.
This is the post that sparked it off. Uncle Al is a friend of Eric
Francis, both of which cyberstalked me for years. Looking back
at it, this post was designed as bait so that Francis at Dartmouth
would steer the police in my direction.
Some weeks after this post, the Hanover police emailed me and
I emailed them. They wanted an alibi. And I emailed them my alibi
showing them that on the days leading up to the murder and the day
itself and the following days that I posted to the Internet sci
newsgroups.
This is a good alibi because I would have to be superman to fly from
South Dakota
to New Hampshire and make several posts to the Internet while
conducting
some sordidness.
My alibi was what Jim Carr posted to the Internet in that thread
saying that
look at AP's posts during the days of the murder and it is simple to
rule him out.
And that is what Eric Francis should have first and immediately done,
is look
at Archimedes Plutonium's posts to the Interet-- my ISP location to
see if it
rules me out.
So instead of spending 5-10 pages out of 244 pages in a murder book
talking about some innocent
person who had nothing to do with the Dartmouth Murders. I find this
highly unethical journalism
that you stick a long story of someone you hate in a murder book which
is totally irrelevant.
Eric Francis calls himself an investigative journalist. Well where was
the investigation of looking to see
when I posted during the murder event.
Maybe Francis is not guilty of libel but Uncle Al surely committed
libel. And surely, Francis must have violated
many ethical rules of publishing a sensitve book on murder by
involving innocent bystanders and victimizing
them-- namely-- me.
Deadrat
news:56e6aoF...@mid.individual.net:
This wouldn't matter as long as a reasonable person would know whom the
person was talking about.
<snip>
>> What is known to me is that as I start publishing my science work,
>> that there is this large tainted background noise of libelous
>> references.
>
> Science stands or fails on it's merits, whether you are a murderer or
> not.
It would be nice to think so, but the reputation of a person may well
influence whether he or she gets published.
>> So that
>> when I
>> talk with a publisher and that publisher then searches for Archimedes
>> Plutonium,
>> up comes this slew of references to the Zantop Murders.
>
> Then publish under your real name, fool.
It is not incumbent on someone who's defamed to change the name he
prefers to use.
>> It is hindering my ability to publish science.
>
> Not is isn't. The "science" will stand of fall on it's own.
Maybe yes; maybe no. Should things get to trial and it's required that
A.P. show damages, this would be determined by testimony (the ability to
publish; not the science).
>>> If you are sufficiently well known (especially if you've sought
>>> publicity), you may be a public figure. Now the rules tilt to favor
>>> the author.
>>>
>>
>> I understand, but then I feel having been victimized. That Eric
>> Francis has committed some major rule of journalism, that in a book
>> on a murder tradegy, that he weaved my name into this book, when I am
>> a total innocent outsider of that tradegy event.
>
> So did he call you a murderer or not?
From the excerpts given by A.P., I'd say no, not in so many words. Would
a reasonable person think the wording about suspects is close enough? I
don't know, but I doubt it.
>> So that now, when I have to interface with the media and press about
>> science and science theories, that this bogus references to Dartmouth
>> Murders is further victimizing my ability to further my science
>> publishing.
>
> You're an idiot and a nutjob.
Note that while these epithets don't constitute libel, even were they
considered apt, it wouldn't prevent the person from bringing a successful
suit for defamation.
*** Just my opinions, possibly worth what they cost you, and not legal
advice. ***
Deadrat
news:1174531043.1...@o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:
>> > 5fS JndYE7LZwht_JGZvcLV0r68
>> >
>> > The trouble I see with it is that it is supposed to be about
>> > Zantops and the tradegy and it is only 244
>> > pages, so why is Eric Francis devoting 5 or more pages to some
>> > innocent faraway who had nothing
>> > in the world to do with the tradegy. Who never ever met the
>> > Zantops. So why is Archimedes Plutonium
>> > being victimized and blighted by Eric Francis?
The claim is that you posted questions about the murder. And that you
were a well-known person in at least the local cyber-community. One of
those pages notes that the police easily ruled you out as a suspect. In
other words, Francis reports that you were *not* the murderer. Do I have
that right?
>> I read the pages I could get access to. Your questions above may be
>> of literary or journalistic interest, but I don't see how anything I
>> read was defamatory. You must have a false, damaging statement. The
>> book says you posted about the Zantop case. Did you? The book says
>> you refused to call the police from SD. Is that right? Ask that
>> question about every mention of you.
>>
>> You'll need a false statement. Is there one?
> I am sorry I could not read all the pages written about me. It appears
> that there are 3 pages on Francis's low opinion of me. There is some
> information about when the Hanover police became involved. And some of
> it is correct, but what is disturbing is how in the world Francis got
> that information, other than he himself going into the police station
> and demanding that the police put me on their list of suspects. So in
> other words, Francis and Uncle Al setting me up, where Uncle Al
> accuses me of the murder to the sci.physics.fusion newsgroup and then
> Francis at Dartmouth running to the police and badgering them to put
> me as prime suspect.
Do you have evidence that Francis did that? If he went to the police in
good faith, he may well have spoken with some qualified privilege. That
event would probabaly defeat an action for defamation. And you weren't
that prime a suspect. Doesn't Francis report that you were easiliy ruled
out?
<snip>
> So instead of spending 5-10 pages out of 244 pages in a murder book
> talking about some innocent person who had nothing to do with the
> Dartmouth Murders. I find this highly unethical journalism that you
> stick a long story of someone you hate in a murder book which is
> totally irrelevant.
I understand that you're irritated, but you became, as it were, local
color. And you've just accused a journalist of unethical behavior in a
public forum.
> Eric Francis calls himself an investigative journalist. Well where was
> the investigation of looking to see when I posted during the murder
> event.
But Francis is just reporting the events. You were part of the local
scene, the police did ask you for an alibi, and you were ruled out as a
suspect. Why shouldn't that be part of the story?
They got the killers, right? There's nothing to investigate; it's just a
true crime story with an ending.
> Maybe Francis is not guilty of libel but Uncle Al surely committed
> libel. And surely, Francis must have violated many ethical rules of
> publishing a sensitve book on murder by involving innocent bystanders
> and victimizing them-- namely-- me.
Innocent bystanders are often hurt in crime cases. If you haven't been
accused of a crime (and the excerpts of Francis' book seem to me to clearly
document your exoneration), then you'll have to show that a false statement
damaged you. What was false, and what damages have you sustained?
> Subject: Re: Upper Limits for Fusion, Fission, Chemical
> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 21:11:13 GMT
> From: Uncle Al (Uncle...@hate.spam.net>
> Organization: The Noble Krell Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,
> sci.physics.electromag
> References: 1
>
> Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>> Sun, 28 Jan 2001 02:30:34 -0600 Archimedes Plutonium
>
> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Nothing.
>
> Pull the troll's plug,
>
> Archimedes Plutonium (pluto...@willinet.net>
> a...@willinet.net
> newsab...@supernews.com
>
> Two Dartmouth homicides occur and the obvious suspect
> remains unsuspected...
> http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/01/28/hanover.deaths.ap/index.html
>
> --
> Uncle Al
<snip>
Have you taken this to a lawyer?
*** 'Cause I'm not one, so this can't be legal advice. ***
a_plutonium
Deadrat wrote:
>
> I read the pages I could get access to. Your questions above may be of
> literary or journalistic interest, but I don't see how anything I read
> was defamatory. You must have a false, damaging statement. The book
> says you posted about the Zantop case. Did you? The book says you
> refused to call the police from SD. Is that right? Ask that question
> about every mention of you.
>
> You'll need a false statement. Is there one?
Thanks Deadrat, I appreciate your discussion. I wonder if you know
whether
there are some code of conduct of journalists and reporters?
--- quoting Google books caption ---
ERIC FRANCIS is a freelance reporter and photojournalist whose work
has appeared in dozens of
newspapers and magazines in over 30 countries. A staff correspondent
for People Magazine,
Francis has also covered several notable murder cases for The New York
Times, the Boston
Globe, and Time Magazine. He lives on the Vermont-New Hampshire border
and was one of the
first reporters on the scene of the Zantop double homicide in January,
2001.
--- end quoting Google books ---
I suspect the New York Times or Boston Globe or Time Magazine have
some
codes of conduct for journalists and reporters. And whether Francis
broke several of those
codes by steering the Hanover Police to an innocent, by including a
long lengthy story
of an innocent in a murder book, and by failing to look at the posts
to the Internet I made
that would rule me out.
It makes sense to me that if one writes about a murder that 100% of
the pages should focus
on the events surrounding the murder and not some irrelevancies of
Archimedes Plutonium's theories
and his life at Dartmouth and his quarks. To spend so many pages on
Archimedes Plutonium is so
out of place, that I wonder if Francis broke alot of rules of
reporting and journalism.
I sure am not happy with the outcome of this book in that it has
defamed my character.
This proclivity of Francis to weave innocent faraway bystanders into a
ugly subject of a murder
tradegy. So I wonder, Deadrat, has Francis broken reporter and
journalist codes of conduct?
a_plutonium
Deadrat wrote:
>
> The claim is that you posted questions about the murder. And that you
> were a well-known person in at least the local cyber-community. One of
> those pages notes that the police easily ruled you out as a suspect. In
> other words, Francis reports that you were *not* the murderer. Do I have
> that right?
>
I was in South Dakota from 2000 to 2001 to 2002, halfway across the
continent
from Dartmouth. I was accused of murder by Uncle Al in January and
when Richard
Schultz stood up to tell Uncle Al he committed libel, I joined in the
fray in the
middle of February here in South Dakota. I started to post in mid
February that
perhaps I could help the investigation by asking questions. Then in
mid February
the Hanover Police emailed me, and after a delay in responding I did
email them
an alibi by showing them my Internet posts on the day of the murder
and the preceding
days and succeeding days. Proving that I could not have been in New
England and
South Dakota simultaneously.
We can be certain of what Francis wrote in this book. And the fact
that he spends so many
pages on Archimedes Plutonium when I was ruled out so fast and easy.
Leaves us with only one real question. Why spend so many pages on me
when the book is
about a murder. I was no longer a Dartmouth community member for 3
years and was out
in South Dakota.
So I am asking whether this behaviour of spending so many pages about
a person who was ruled
out and why so many pages on irrelavant chatter about my relation to
students, my theories, my
clothing I wear, my firing from the College. This book has only 244
pages and why is there so many
devoted to Archimedes Plutonium?
I believe there has been many codes of journalist reporting broken. I
believe Francis committed misconduct of
journalism reporting and the entire evidence is the fact of weaving
alot of pages of an irrelevant person.
And Francis does not even say in his book what my alibi was. An alibi
that even he could have checked by
looking at my Internet posts at the time of the murders.
I believe Francis has committed reporter journalism misconduct by
writing a book that is disproportionate
in a story of a person that was irrelevant to the events of the book.
> > Francis at Dartmouth running to the police and badgering them to put
> > me as prime suspect.
>
> Do you have evidence that Francis did that? If he went to the police in
> good faith, he may well have spoken with some qualified privilege. That
> event would probabaly defeat an action for defamation. And you weren't
> that prime a suspect. Doesn't Francis report that you were easiliy ruled
> out?
>
I suppose I could ask for the police records of Hanover. But my case
is mostly the fact that Francis wrote a
244 page book and proceeded to fill 5-10 pages out of 244 with a
irrelevant story of a innocent person.
> <snip>
>
> > So instead of spending 5-10 pages out of 244 pages in a murder book
> > talking about some innocent person who had nothing to do with the
> > Dartmouth Murders. I find this highly unethical journalism that you
> > stick a long story of someone you hate in a murder book which is
> > totally irrelevant.
>
> I understand that you're irritated, but you became, as it were, local
> color. And you've just accused a journalist of unethical behavior in a
> public forum.
I concur with you if I had been actually living on the campus during
the time of these murders. But I had
been living in South Dakota during the entire sordid event.
Now, let us say that Francis's book had not just 5-10 pages on
Archimedes Plutonium when the topic
was Dartmouth Murders, but let us suppose Francis had say 100 pages on
Archimedes Plutonium out of
244. I would think such a book is immediately a lawsuit. So I think
that 5-10 pages is also a bona fide lawsuit.
>
> > Eric Francis calls himself an investigative journalist. Well where was
> > the investigation of looking to see when I posted during the murder
> > event.
>
> But Francis is just reporting the events. You were part of the local
> scene, the police did ask you for an alibi, and you were ruled out as a
> suspect. Why shouldn't that be part of the story?
I was not on the campus and had been fired in 1999 and departed. I was
out in
South Dakota. And the police immediately ruled me out as a suspect.
So why is a book on Zantop murders containing 5-10 pages on some
irrelevant person amoung
244 pages. This I believe is the crux of this misdeed of Francis.
Maybe a paragraph in the book saying the police contacted AP and he
gave a alibi of
his computer posts to sci.physics. But to have a full blown story of
5-10 pages out of 244
on a sordid subject means mostly one thing to me-- defamation of my
character.
>
> They got the killers, right? There's nothing to investigate; it's just a
> true crime story with an ending.
Yes, and why not spend 244 pages on the relevant facts of the murder,
not 5-10 pages
on the time I worked at the Inn, my theories, my bicycle stories. Why
all this intimate details of
Archimedes Plutonium when the subject is the Zantop slayings.
A good reporter or journalist would devote 244 pages on the subject of
Zantop, not 5-10 on someone
living out in South Dakota with his science theories.
>
> > Maybe Francis is not guilty of libel but Uncle Al surely committed
> > libel. And surely, Francis must have violated many ethical rules of
> > publishing a sensitve book on murder by involving innocent bystanders
> > and victimizing them-- namely-- me.
>
> Innocent bystanders are often hurt in crime cases. If you haven't been
> accused of a crime (and the excerpts of Francis' book seem to me to clearly
> document your exoneration), then you'll have to show that a false statement
> damaged you. What was false, and what damages have you sustained?
I may be wrong but I think the case of a lawsuit here is the fact that
we have a book about
Zantop murders when 5-10 pages out of 244 pages step out of the
context of that book to defame an
irrelevant person. The length of pages devoted and the details devoted
to someone irrelevant to the
murder is totally out of place, which implies that the reason it was
stuck in there is to defame
Archimedes Plutonium.
>
> > Subject: Re: Upper Limits for Fusion, Fission, Chemical
> > Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 21:11:13 GMT
> > From: Uncle Al (Uncle...@hate.spam.net>
> > Organization: The Noble Krell Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,
> > sci.physics.electromag
> > References: 1
> >
> > Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
> >> Sun, 28 Jan 2001 02:30:34 -0600 Archimedes Plutonium
> >
> > wrote:
> > [snip]
> >
> > Nothing.
> >
> > Pull the troll's plug,
> >
> > Archimedes Plutonium (pluto...@willinet.net>
> > a...@willinet.net
> > newsab...@supernews.com
> >
> > Two Dartmouth homicides occur and the obvious suspect
> > remains unsuspected...
> > http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/01/28/hanover.deaths.ap/index.html
> >
> > --
> > Uncle Al
>
> <snip>
>
> Have you taken this to a lawyer?
>
Not yet.
This entire episode has impacted my Wikipedia page, where they stuck
in a reference to the Zantop murders.
So these chaps of Alan Schwartz (Uncle Al) and Eric Francis are
impinging on my science references as seen by
publishers. It is my opinion these two have just let their hatred go
too far that it has victimized me.
I still think St. Martin's Press is culpable. Surely someone at St.
Martin's must have read the book before published
and seen that it had a mini-story about Archimedes Plutonium that does
not belong.
I believe copyright laws for music are about 3 to 4 notes that are the
same. I believe for written works, that
copyright laws are broken if one quotes more than a paragraph without
"fair use". In keeping to this strain,
a murder book about Zantops with a mini-story of Archimedes Plutonium
of 5-10 pages out of 244
is also some law broken and I suspect defamation of character.
Kent Wills
<a_plu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Deadrat wrote:
>> "a_plutonium" <a_plu...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:1174499581....@l75g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> > --- quoting Google books ---
>> > The Dartmouth Murders By Eric Francis
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> >
>> > Anyone who reads this message, how would they feel if a reporter hated
>> > you, and then as soon as that reporter gets involved with some murder,
>> > includes your name in a page of that murder in a book? I think most
>> > people would be very much angered by the action of Eric Francis.
>>
>> Quite possibly. But your being upset doesn't mean that you've been
>> libeled. Having your name on a page of a book about a murder doesn't
>> mean that you've been libeled. Does the author accuse you of committing
>> the murder? *That* may be libel.
>
>When the Dartmouth murders happened in 2001, a poster by the moniker
>of
>Uncle Al posted accusing me of the murders.
So someone using a fake name accused another person using a
fake name, of murder? I don't see any actionable offence.
>He made several such posts
>to sci. newsgroups. Another poster from Israel told Uncle Al to stop
>making
>the libelous posts on me (Archimedes Plutonium). Shortly after those
>Uncle
>Al posts, the Hanover New Hampshire police bothered me on three
>occasions
>with telephone calls, wasting my time and others.
How would any law enforcement agency know how to find you?
You're using a pseudonym.
>
>Whether Uncle Al was Eric Francis is unknown to me. Whether Eric
>Francis
>contacted Uncle Al which started his chain of libelous posts is
>unknown to
>me.
Then why are you bringing Eric's name into it? You can make
the same claim of any person you care to name.
>
>What is known to me is that as I start publishing my science work,
>that there
>is this large tainted background noise of libelous references. So that
>when I
>talk with a publisher and that publisher then searches for Archimedes
>Plutonium,
>up comes this slew of references to the Zantop Murders.
Why are you using your Usenet pseudonym for publishing?
>
>It is hindering my ability to publish science.
>
I think the bogus nature of the "Plutonium Atom Totality
Theory" is what is causing you problems. It's a perfect example of
junk science.
>
>
>>
>> If you are sufficiently well known (especially if you've sought
>> publicity), you may be a public figure. Now the rules tilt to favor the
>> author.
>>
>
>I understand, but then I feel having been victimized. That Eric
>Francis has committed some major rule
>of journalism, that in a book on a murder tradegy, that he weaved my
>name into this book, when I am
>a total innocent outsider of that tradegy event.
Then file suit. Until you take some sort of action, you're
doing nothing more than wasting time.
>
>So that now, when I have to interface with the media and press about
>science and science theories, that
>this bogus references to Dartmouth Murders is further victimizing my
>ability to further my science
>publishing.
>
No it's not. This is Usenet. Only the most stupid of people
put faith in Usenet without some sort of proof.
Someone may choose to Google your pseudonym and see the
references, but without some sort of evidence to back it up, they
aren't going to believe it.
[...]
>>
>> > Does anyone know the statue of limitations for libel?
>>
>> It depends on the state that has jurisdiction. In New York, for example,
>> it's one year. But under certain conditions, the statute can be tolled
>> (i.e., the clock doesn't run). You need to talk to a lawyer.
>>
>> *** Which I am not. So this can't be legal advice. ***
>>
>
>Well maybe I am wrong, but I suspect there is some journalism code of
>conduct that St. Martins Press
>failed when an author includes an innocent person into a book on
>murder. That in the murder investigation
>there are many suspects and for Francis to include someone innocent
Everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
>and give length in his book, is
>a form of victimization not journalism. I do not know the relationship
>of Uncle Al and Eric Francis, but I do
>they have stalked and demonized me for a decade.
10 years? That's a long time. If true (and to be honest, I
question it), your stalkers are very ill.
>
>Archimedes Plutonium
>www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
>whole entire Universe is just one big atom
>where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
If we live within one big atom, what is that atom a part of?
Another big atom? At what point do we reach the "last" atom?
BTW, the idea you present is very old. Friends and I talked
about such back in the late 70's. We concluded, with the same amount
of science as you (none), that we live in an atom within someone's
left triceps.
--
Kent
Bless me, Father, for I have committed an original sin.
I poked a badger with a spoon.
Deadrat
news:1174535116....@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com:
>
> Deadrat wrote:
>
>>
>> I read the pages I could get access to. Your questions above may be
>> of literary or journalistic interest, but I don't see how anything I
>> read was defamatory. You must have a false, damaging statement. The
>> book says you posted about the Zantop case. Did you? The book says
>> you refused to call the police from SD. Is that right? Ask that
>> question about every mention of you.
>>
>> You'll need a false statement. Is there one?
>
> Thanks Deadrat, I appreciate your discussion. I wonder if you know
> whether there are some code of conduct of journalists and reporters?
Sure. See below.
<Eric Francis c.v.snipped>
> I suspect the New York Times
http://www.nytco.com/pdf/NYT_Ethical_Journalism_0904.pdf
> or Boston Globe
The NYT owns the Globe.
> or Time Magazine have some codes of conduct for journalists and
> reporters. And whether Francis broke several of those codes
These codes mostly cover issues of influence in reporting and writing,
plagiarism, abiding by the law, and so on.
> by steering the Hanover Police to an innocent, by including a long
> lengthy story of an innocent in a murder book, and by failing to look
> at the posts to the Internet I made that would rule me out.
Generally, these codes do not cover what subject matter is appropriate
or what levels of competence a reporter demonstrates.
I don't see how they could help you in any case.
> It makes sense to me that if one writes about a murder that 100% of
> the pages should focus on the events surrounding the murder and not
> some irrelevancies of Archimedes Plutonium's theories and his life at
> Dartmouth and his quarks. To spend so many pages on Archimedes
> Plutonium is so out of place, that I wonder if Francis broke alot of
> rules of reporting and journalism.
Quarks? Do you mean quirks?
If a certain percentage of the book is irrelevant to its thesis, that
just means the author isn't a very good writer, no? What has this to do
with ethics?
> I sure am not happy with the outcome of this book in that it has
> defamed my character.
Remember you'll need a false and damaging statement. Your unhappiness
is not considered damage.
> This proclivity of Francis to weave innocent faraway bystanders into a
> ugly subject of a murder tradegy.
But sometimes bystanders *are* woven into real-life murders. Did you
post theories of the crime that were discussed in Hanover?
> So I wonder, Deadrat, has Francis broken reporter and journalist codes
> of conduct?
I doubt it. Did he break the law in obtaining information? Did he pay
sources and not reveal that? Did he use someone else's work without
attribution? Did he profit in some way by slanting the story? Those are
the ethical questions. journalists deal with.
And even if Francis was unethical, I don't see how that helps with
defamation. You'll still need a false and damaging statement.
*** Insert ususal disclaimer about this not being legal advice here. ***
> Archimedes Plutonium
<snip>
Deadrat
news:1174538911.8...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>
> Deadrat wrote:
>
>>
>> The claim is that you posted questions about the murder. And that
>> you were a well-known person in at least the local cyber-community.
>> One of those pages notes that the police easily ruled you out as a
>> suspect. In other words, Francis reports that you were *not* the
>> murderer. Do I have that right?
>>
>
> I was in South Dakota from 2000 to 2001 to 2002, halfway across the
> continent from Dartmouth. I was accused of murder by Uncle Al in
> January
But you're not sure who Uncle Al is, right?
> and when Richard Schultz stood up to tell Uncle Al he
> committed libel, I joined in the fray in the middle of February here
> in South Dakota. I started to post in mid February that perhaps I
> could help the investigation by asking questions.
Kinda made yourself part of the story, given your cyber-fame.
> Then in mid February the Hanover Police emailed me, and after a delay
> in responding I did email them an alibi by showing them my Internet
> posts on the day of the murder and the preceding days and succeeding
> days. Proving that I could not have been in New England and South
> Dakota simultaneously.
>
> We can be certain of what Francis wrote in this book. And the fact
> that he spends so many pages on Archimedes Plutonium when I was ruled
> out so fast and easy.
>
> Leaves us with only one real question. Why spend so many pages on me
> when the book is about a murder
So many? It's still only at most 4% of the book.
> I was no longer a Dartmouth community
> member for 3 years and was out in South Dakota.
> So I am asking whether this behaviour of spending so many pages about
> a person who was ruled
> out and why so many pages on irrelavant chatter about my relation to
> students, my theories, my
> clothing I wear, my firing from the College. This book has only 244
> pages and why is there so many
> devoted to Archimedes Plutonium?
Maybe you're a more interesting character than the investigators,
victims, or killers. I don't know. If you don't belong in the book,
that would speak to Francis' competence more than anything else,
wouldn't it?
> I believe there has been many codes of journalist reporting broken. I
> believe Francis committed misconduct of journalism reporting and the
> entire evidence is the fact of weaving alot of pages of an irrelevant
> person.
Doesn't it rather mean that he's not that good a story teller?
> And Francis does not even say in his book what my alibi was. An alibi
> that even he could have checked by
> looking at my Internet posts at the time of the murders.
>
> I believe Francis has committed reporter journalism misconduct by
> writing a book that is disproportionate
> in a story of a person that was irrelevant to the events of the book.
You can check the codes. Try here for another:
http://www.newsguild.org/gr/index.php?ID=1574
but I don't see how that gives you any traction in a law suit.
>> > Francis at Dartmouth running to the police and badgering them to
>> > put me as prime suspect.
>>
>> Do you have evidence that Francis did that? If he went to the police
>> in good faith, he may well have spoken with some qualified privilege.
>> That event would probabaly defeat an action for defamation. And you
>> weren't that prime a suspect. Doesn't Francis report that you were
>> easiliy ruled out?
>>
>
> I suppose I could ask for the police records of Hanover. But my case
> is mostly the fact that Francis wrote a
> 244 page book and proceeded to fill 5-10 pages out of 244 with a
> irrelevant story of a innocent person.
But it must be a false and damaging irrelevant story.
>> > So instead of spending 5-10 pages out of 244 pages in a murder book
>> > talking about some innocent person who had nothing to do with the
>> > Dartmouth Murders. I find this highly unethical journalism that you
>> > stick a long story of someone you hate in a murder book which is
>> > totally irrelevant.
>>
>> I understand that you're irritated, but you became, as it were, local
>> color. And you've just accused a journalist of unethical behavior in
>> a public forum.
>
> I concur with you if I had been actually living on the campus during
> the time of these murders. But I had
> been living in South Dakota during the entire sordid event.
OK. Anachronistic local color.
> Now, let us say that Francis's book had not just 5-10 pages on
> Archimedes Plutonium when the topic
> was Dartmouth Murders, but let us suppose Francis had say 100 pages on
> Archimedes Plutonium out of
> 244. I would think such a book is immediately a lawsuit.
Why would you think that? It depends on what the 100 pages said.
> So I think that 5-10 pages is also a bona fide lawsuit.
Same for the fewer number.
>> > Eric Francis calls himself an investigative journalist. Well where
>> > was the investigation of looking to see when I posted during the
>> > murder event.
>>
>> But Francis is just reporting the events. You were part of the local
>> scene, the police did ask you for an alibi, and you were ruled out as
>> a suspect. Why shouldn't that be part of the story?
>
> I was not on the campus and had been fired in 1999 and departed. I was
> out in
> South Dakota. And the police immediately ruled me out as a suspect.
>
> So why is a book on Zantop murders containing 5-10 pages on some
> irrelevant person amoung
> 244 pages. This I believe is the crux of this misdeed of Francis.
>
> Maybe a paragraph in the book saying the police contacted AP and he
> gave a alibi of
> his computer posts to sci.physics. But to have a full blown story of
> 5-10 pages out of 244
> on a sordid subject means mostly one thing to me-- defamation of my
> character.
But to the law you must show a false and damaging statement. You could
ask a lawyer about the tort of false light.
>> They got the killers, right? There's nothing to investigate; it's
>> just a true crime story with an ending.
>
> Yes, and why not spend 244 pages on the relevant facts of the murder,
> not 5-10 pages
> on the time I worked at the Inn, my theories, my bicycle stories. Why
> all this intimate details of
> Archimedes Plutonium when the subject is the Zantop slayings.
At most this shows that 2%-4% of the book is off-topic. There's no tort
for that.
> A good reporter or journalist would devote 244 pages on the subject of
> Zantop, not 5-10 on someone
> living out in South Dakota with his science theories.
There's no tort of bad reporter.
>> > Maybe Francis is not guilty of libel but Uncle Al surely committed
>> > libel. And surely, Francis must have violated many ethical rules of
>> > publishing a sensitve book on murder by involving innocent
>> > bystanders and victimizing them-- namely-- me.
>>
>> Innocent bystanders are often hurt in crime cases. If you haven't
>> been accused of a crime (and the excerpts of Francis' book seem to me
>> to clearly document your exoneration), then you'll have to show that
>> a false statement damaged you. What was false, and what damages have
>> you sustained?
>
> I may be wrong but I think the case of a lawsuit here is the fact that
> we have a book about Zantop murders when 5-10 pages out of 244 pages
> step out of the context of that book to defame an irrelevant person.
> The length of pages devoted and the details devoted to someone
> irrelevant to the murder is totally out of place, which implies that
> the reason it was stuck in there is to defame Archimedes Plutonium.
I'm gonna keep harping on this. Maybe it will save you some time or
money. The amount of information about you and its relevance to the
book's main story is irrelevant to the law of defamation. It's the
falsity and the damage that falsity causes. You could have something
actionable in a five-word sentence that was integral to the book's
story.
>> > Subject: Re: Upper Limits for Fusion, Fission, Chemical
>> > Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 21:11:13 GMT
>> > From: Uncle Al (Uncle...@hate.spam.net>
>> > Organization: The Noble Krell Newsgroups: sci.physics.fusion,
>> > sci.physics.electromag
>> > References: 1
>> >
>> > Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
>> >> Sun, 28 Jan 2001 02:30:34 -0600 Archimedes Plutonium
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> > [snip]
>> >
>> > Nothing.
>> >
>> > Pull the troll's plug,
>> >
>> > Archimedes Plutonium (pluto...@willinet.net>
>> > a...@willinet.net
>> > newsab...@supernews.com
>> >
>> > Two Dartmouth homicides occur and the obvious suspect
>> > remains unsuspected...
>> > http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/01/28/hanover.deaths.ap/index.html
>> >
>> > --
>> > Uncle Al
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> Have you taken this to a lawyer?
>>
>
> Not yet.
>
> This entire episode has impacted my Wikipedia page,
So much for false light.
> where they stuck in a reference to the Zantop murders.
Was the reference false?
> So these chaps of Alan Schwartz (Uncle Al) and Eric Francis are
> impinging on my science references as seen by publishers. It is my
> opinion these two have just let their hatred go too far that it has
> victimized me.
That goes to damages. Do the falsity thing first.
> I still think St. Martin's Press is culpable.
Publishers may be held liable.
> Surely someone at St. Martin's must have read the book before
> published and seen that it had a mini-story about Archimedes Plutonium
> that does not belong.
You'd think so. But just because you don't belong in the book doesn't
mean that you've been defamed. Just annoyed and inconvenienced, maybe.
But you'd also think that St. Martins had an in-house lawyer vet the
manuscript for defamatory statements. That they let it go to press
might give you pause.
> I believe copyright laws for music are about 3 to 4 notes that are the
> same. I believe for written works, that copyright laws are broken if
> one quotes more than a paragraph without "fair use". In keeping to
> this strain, a murder book about Zantops with a mini-story of
> Archimedes Plutonium of 5-10 pages out of 244 is also some law broken
> and I suspect defamation of character.
Here's why you need to talk to a lawyer. Copyright law is about
ownership and use of owned property. The law defines the extent to which
use may be made of copyrighted material without infringing on the owner's
rights. That's why amounts are important. Defamation is about the
characterization of statements, in other words their qualities of
falseness and harm, not the number of words. Make this parallel at your
peril.
(In addition, defamation is not against the law. It's strictly a civil
matter. The loser in a defamation case risks neither jail time nor
fines. Any judgment is monies owed to the plaintiff. On the other hand,
copyright violators, in addition to exposing themselves to civil
penalties, break the law: they've esssentially committed theft.)
A very wise attorney once told me, "Litigation is like a big snake.
Usually, your best course of action is to steer clear of it."
By all accounts, defamation suits are lengthy, exhausting, expensive
affairs without much assurance of satisfaction.
I'm sure you can find a reputable lawyer who'll give you a free initial
consultation. See if he agrees with me.
*** I'll leave it to others to say whether I'm reputable, but I'm no
lawyer. So this can't be legal advice. ***
> Archimedes Plutonium
<snip>
jo...@phred.org
knowing you were innocent?
Or did his book simply include the information that, during their
investigation, the police took an interest in you then exonerated you?
If the latter, then I can hardly see how declaring that the police
cleared you as a suspect is at all defamatory. The police routinely
investigate people who turn out to be innocent, that's part of
investigating a crime.
If someone is writing a book about the investigation of a crime, should
the author leave out all the investigation of leads that don't prove
valid? Wouldn't that mischaracterize the investigation?
Is it or is it not true that the police investigated you and cleared
you?
--
jo...@phred.org is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html>
a_plutonium
Deadrat wrote:
> "a_plutonium" <a_plu...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:1174538911.8...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>
> >
> > Deadrat wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> The claim is that you posted questions about the murder. And that
> >> you were a well-known person in at least the local cyber-community.
> >> One of those pages notes that the police easily ruled you out as a
> >> suspect. In other words, Francis reports that you were *not* the
> >> murderer. Do I have that right?
> >>
> >
> > I was in South Dakota from 2000 to 2001 to 2002, halfway across the
> > continent from Dartmouth. I was accused of murder by Uncle Al in
> > January
>
> But you're not sure who Uncle Al is, right?
Alan Schwartz in Riverside California
Thanks alot, and for the help in distinguishing between libel and
defamation of
character.
So it is the False and Damaging is the key.
I could only read 5 pages from 98 to 102. Apparenty Francis gave me a
whole
entire chapter, not just 5-10 pages.
>From the five pages I read, there are false statements on every page.
Some are
minor. Some are major such as the timeline. But the biggest false
statements
I will not discuss here. I will save that for the days in court. It is
an entire set
of false statements wherein Francis is trying to paint me, such as
this one on
page 99 "Geology Department might be close enough for someone they
thought
wasn't bolted down too tight in the first place."
I am not going to discuss details, here. But thanks, it is FALSEHOODS
and Damaging.
There are falsehoods on every one of the 5 pages I read. I need to
Interlibrary loan the book
to get a full picture, and interlibrary loan so as not to enrich
anyone's pocketbook. Provided
any school here carries it for this book is probably considered
submarginal.
And thanks again to the above for guiding me through this.
I will wait for the right and ripe time to go to court, if I do.
Timing is the key.
Deadrat
news:1174552581.7...@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>
> Deadrat wrote:
>> "a_plutonium" <a_plu...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> news:1174538911.8...@b75g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> >
>> > Deadrat wrote:
<snip>
>
> Thanks alot, and for the help in distinguishing between libel and
> defamation of character.
Defamation is damage through false statements. If the statements are
written, it's libel; if spoken, slander. False light is an invasion of
privacy tort, in which the damaging statements might be true, but the
discloser has no business revealing the subject.
> So it is the False and Damaging is the key.
For defamation, yes. That's US law.
>
> I could only read 5 pages from 98 to 102. Apparenty Francis gave me a
> whole
> entire chapter, not just 5-10 pages.
>
> From the five pages I read, there are false statements on every page.
> Some are minor. Some are major such as the timeline. But the biggest
> false statements I will not discuss here. I will save that for the
> days in court. It is an entire set of false statements wherein Francis
> is trying to paint me, such as this one on page 99 "Geology Department
> might be close enough for someone they thought wasn't bolted down too
> tight in the first place."
Please forgive me for being pedantic, but note how tricky this can get.
Let's assume that a reasonable person would interpret not being "bolted
down too tight" to mean "clinically insane." You have a psychiatrist
testify that you're not insane, so page 99 could be libel per se. But
Francis himself doesn't say you're not bolted down tightly enough. He
reports that the *Geology Department* thinks that. Is that a true
statement, i.e., can Francis get someone in the Geology Department to
confirm that's what they thought?
Now what's Francis' strategy for rebutting your psychiatric testimony?
If I were the defendant, I'd claim that not being bolted down too tight
doesn't mean insane; it simply means noticeably idiosyncratic, and I'd
find every post you'd ever made and every person to whom you'd talked and
I'd present your words in the strangest possible light.
Let's suppose you prevail. How much money would make up for all that
testimony? All of us have made silly statements that we wouldn't want
broadcast out of context. And the chances are the trial will make a
bigger splash than the book. (And in case you're wondering, nothing a
witness says on the stand is actionable.)
> I am not going to discuss details, here. But thanks, it is FALSEHOODS
> and Damaging.
>
> There are falsehoods on every one of the 5 pages I read. I need to
> Interlibrary loan the book
> to get a full picture, and interlibrary loan so as not to enrich
> anyone's pocketbook. Provided
> any school here carries it for this book is probably considered
> submarginal.
>
> And thanks again to the above for guiding me through this.
You're welcome. I hope it's been helpful.
*** Insert standard disclaimer that I'm not a lawyer. ***
Good luck.
>
> I will wait for the right and ripe time to go to court, if I do.
> Timing is the key.
>
> Archimedes Plutonium
<snip>
Kent Wills
<a_plu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Deadrat wrote:
>
>>
>> The claim is that you posted questions about the murder. And that you
>> were a well-known person in at least the local cyber-community. One of
>> those pages notes that the police easily ruled you out as a suspect. In
>> other words, Francis reports that you were *not* the murderer. Do I have
>> that right?
>>
>
>I was in South Dakota from 2000 to 2001 to 2002, halfway across the
>continent
>from Dartmouth. I was accused of murder by Uncle Al in January and
GET OVER IT!
Someone untraceable accused you of a crime. Only the very
stupid would have believed it based on nothing more than an anonymous
claim.
--
Kent
The irony of life is that, by the time
You're old enough to know your way
Around, you're not going anywhere.
a_plutonium
a_plutonium wrote:
> Deadrat wrote:
(snipped)
> >
> > But you're not sure who Uncle Al is, right?
>
> Alan Schwartz in Riverside California
Maybe I am wrong on Riverside, maybe it is Irvine. And maybe I am
wrong on other things
of this matter.
It is the Alan Schwartz who proposed some Physics Unification and
others in physics
pointed out his mistakes. And others have posted the name and address
on many occasion.
Apparently he has pissed off many people in the newsgroups that others
have posted
this name and address for Uncle Al:
--- posted on sci. newsgroups ---
Alan M. Schwartz (che...@uvic.ca) Uncle Al (Uncl...@ix.netcom.com)
Schwartz, Alan SANTA ANA, CA 92705
Alan Schwartz, 49 Fabriano, P.O. Box 005
Irvine, CA 92620
uncl...@ix.netcom.com, Uncl...@ix.netcom.com
--- end quote from sci. newsgroups ---
Some say he is in chemistry and has something to do with diamond
fabrication. Some say he is in
Mensa, but with his posting behaviour of cyberstalking who indicate
that being in Mensa has little
relationship to intelligence.
Some have asked him to stop cyberstalking Archimedes Plutonium with
his constant "so... stupid
rant" but apparently he has continued from 1994 to present, albeit at
a less frequent rate. There was
a time in the years of around 2000-2004 where almost every one of my
posts to sci newsgroups was
interrupted by a Uncle Al ad hominem.
What is definitely positive is that he interrupts my science threads
with his ad hominem and his
moniker is "Uncle Al", as to any of the other details I am not
positive. The information I have gathered
from the Internet referring to Uncle Al as Alan Schwartz would have to
be proven to be one and the same
person before I take legal action. Provided statue of limitations are
still good.
Many have called Uncle Al a curmudgeon (spelling). I think he has a
mental disorder that disqualifies him
from being in science and that the Internet should construct a
newsgroup that in effect does this:
DeCertify those that badly misbehave on the Internet and who have a
degree from College or University
to lose their degree. So that Uncle Al, would lose his degree from
whatever University he had earned it.
I am thinking that people who commit crimes lose their citizenship or
lose something. So, likewise, if
a person is a convicted felon, not saying that Uncle Al is a convicted
felon, but that a convicted felon
automatically loses whatever University degree they may have had.
That when we earn a degree from a University does not mean an end to
proving that we deserve a College
degree and that if we behave in a conduct that throws light on your
College degree, such as the posting
behaviour of Uncle Al. That he be stripped of his College or
University Degree, especially in the light that
these misbehaving people could be actively teaching. Where it is
inappropriate for Uncle Al to ever be
a educator, considering his Internet behaviour.
So a newsgroup call it
Sci.education-decertification
Where this newsgroup is moderated. And has a panel of University
administrators. And where a poster to
the Internet shows such a bad behaviour as Uncle Al from 1994 to
present. That this newsgroup lists the
name of the real person posting as Uncle Al and stripping him of his
earned College or University degree.
It would be a long time running pattern of bad behaviour of posts to
the Internet, that the person could and
would lose his/her degree from College or University. Behaviour such
as Uncle Al.
> >
> > > and when Richard Schultz stood up to tell Uncle Al he
> > > committed libel, I joined in the fray in the middle of February here
> > > in South Dakota. I started to post in mid February that perhaps I
> > > could help the investigation by asking questions.
> Subject:
a_plutonium
* From: Dr. Jai Maharaj
* Subject: ABUSER ALAN SCHWARTZ "Uncle Al"
<uncl...@ix.netcom.com> (Was: Re: MODERN SCIENCE ALIEN TO BRIT)
* Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 00:08:16 -0500
---end quote of a website that shows more of the Uncle Al harrassement
of others on the Internet ---
I have had Uncle Al in my killfile for most of the past 14 years. I
simply do not have the time for
that hatred.
Apparently Uncle Al has harrassed others such as Dr. Jai Maharaj and
that above website gives a name and
address in Irvine, the same as what I seen in the newsgroups.
But I tend to think that Uncle Al is not a person or a chemist or a
Mensa or a diamond maker. I think Uncle
Al is a computer set up at Riverside at that campus where John Baez is
located. I believe that Uncle Al is
like the Johns Hopkins computer that misbehaved for many years
(forgotten its name-- Hunter seems to
come to mind, but my memory is not as sharp.)
There is lack of real evidence of a human on the web of Uncle Al. And
because of the repetitous hatemongering
of his posts indicates not a human but a detestable computer program.
But there have to be humans who are doing the Uncle Al computer and
these humans would be held accountable
if and when I press a libel suit on Uncle Al.
If Uncle Al were a real person, it makes no sense there is lack of
data on the Web.
And as to whether the name and address listed by Jai and others in the
pursuit to track down Uncle Al, well
I think that is another piece of duping.
The Hunter computer resembles the Uncle Al computer, where the
programmers use antisocial tones. There
rarely any interface with Uncle Al and others.
And if I take my case to court, it would be interesting to take to
trial, a group of men who stoked a computer
to libel.
Run a Google search on Schwartz and chemistry and nothing really comes
back. And the choice of name
"Schwartz" is because it is so morphed.
Has anyone actually visited the alleged address? I doubt it.
So I think it is a group of men at a Califorinia and perhaps Canadian
University doing a harrassing computer.
And I think there should be a newsgroup set up where its function is
to decertify misbehaving posters of the
science newsgroups, and in effect strips them of their earned college
and university degree. And that if Uncle
Al is a computer that the programmers be stripped of their University
degrees. News groups of alt are appropriate
for hatemongers, not the sci newsgroups.
a_plutonium
Deadrat wrote:
(snipped)
>
> Please forgive me for being pedantic, but note how tricky this can get.
> Let's assume that a reasonable person would interpret not being "bolted
> down too tight" to mean "clinically insane." You have a psychiatrist
> testify that you're not insane, so page 99 could be libel per se. But
> Francis himself doesn't say you're not bolted down tightly enough. He
> reports that the *Geology Department* thinks that. Is that a true
> statement, i.e., can Francis get someone in the Geology Department to
> confirm that's what they thought?
>
> Now what's Francis' strategy for rebutting your psychiatric testimony?
> If I were the defendant, I'd claim that not being bolted down too tight
> doesn't mean insane; it simply means noticeably idiosyncratic, and I'd
> find every post you'd ever made and every person to whom you'd talked and
> I'd present your words in the strangest possible light.
Well, let me show you some good strategy on my part. I believe,
although I
have no proof that Erik Max Francis is one and the same person as Eric
Francis. Now of course I need to have a proof of this.
And that Erik Max Francis has a website for perhaps a decade where he
calls me and many others as cranks, crackpots, kooks and loons
--- quoting ---
http://www.crank.net/usenet.html
cranks, crackpots, kooks and loons on the net
Last update 2006 Sep 29
[ a 7 sisters production | created by Erik Max Francis | powered by
GNU m4 ]
--- end quoting ---
Now Eric Francis has a bio saying he is an astrologer and Max Francis
said some
long time ago that he was not a scientist by dabbled in it. So the two
look like parallel,
or suggesting that they are one and same. And the website above
defamed me for
a decade or more, anyway for many years.
Now Eric Francis writes a book on the Dartmouth Murders which paints
Archimedes
Plutonium in the very same bad light as the website listed above. Yet
Eric writes a
full chapter on Archimedes Plutonium of more than 10 pages long in a
244 page book.
And Eric knows as he writes this book that AP was questioned by the
police and
immediately exonerated.
So, in court, for libel (defamation of character) how is it that we
have a continuous defaming
website and a book about murders with a whole chapter devoted not to
the murders but to
further defame Archimedes Plutonium.
Deadrat, do you see simplicity of the argument. That Eric Francis,
regardless of whether he is
or is not Erik Max Francis, failed to do what a responsible reporter
must do, in that to write
an objective book, not a full chapter on someone irrelevant to the
Murders. Instead, Francis
used a book title, to further his fanning of hatred of Archimedes
Plutonium.
Now I am considering contacting St. Martins Press and the magazines
that Eric Francis works
for, to start an investigation into Eric Francis himself. That he
failed as a reporter when he wrote
the book Dartmouth Murders.
Deadrat says he maybe a poor writer when he writes a chapter on a
irrelevant bystander. But there is
far more than just being a poor writer, when a journalist fans his
hatred out on a innocent bystander and
forever mixes that person up with a historic murder. It is not only a
defamation of my character but a forever
degradation of my life, to be subjected to a chapter in a book that is
tangential to the purpose of the book.
It is my impression that Eric Francis is so full of hatred of others
and of people who he believes are non
scientists, that his blind hatred victimizes those people, and this is
ironic in the fact that he is not even a
scientist to be able to judge science, for he is far from science as a
astrologer.
So, Deadrat, I believe if I go to court, over this affair, that I need
only present a book for which a full chapter
was devoted to a irrelevant bystander. And if Eric Francis is indeed
Erik Max Francis then all I need to show
the above website that is full of hatred of many people including
Archimedes Plutonium. And that the court
would instantly see that the website and book are libel.
>
> Let's suppose you prevail. How much money would make up for all that
> testimony? All of us have made silly statements that we wouldn't want
> broadcast out of context. And the chances are the trial will make a
> bigger splash than the book. (And in case you're wondering, nothing a
> witness says on the stand is actionable.)
>
Well I am getting on late in life where money means little to me. But
correcting
people who victimize others means more.
Deadrat: I want to ask you a question. Is there an journalism
organization for which I can contact wherein
the organization would hold an investigation of Eric Francis for
violation of conduct of investigative-journalism
and news reporting.
Because I think the most important issue here is the code of conduct
of how much space is given in a book
of a delicate subject of murder history and the space given to an
irrelevant bystander. Regardless of whether I
go to court, regardless of whether I win or lose, but that the issue
of when authors write books of a delicate
issue such as murder, as to the code of conduct of how much space is
devoted in that book that is irrelevant
to the murder.
P.S. please, I hope noone buys this book but interlibrary loan it, for
we should not enrich the pockets of a
victimizer like Eric Francis.
Uncle Al
>
> http://www.newsfeeds.com/archive/sci-astrology-hindu/msg00810.html
> * From: Dr. Jai Maharaj
> * Subject: ABUSER ALAN SCHWARTZ "Uncle Al"
> <uncl...@ix.netcom.com> (Was: Re: MODERN SCIENCE ALIEN TO BRIT)
> * Date: Sat, 18 Jun 2005 00:08:16 -0500
> ---end quote of a website that shows more of the Uncle Al harrassement
> of others on the Internet ---
>
> I have had Uncle Al in my killfile for most of the past 14 years. I
> simply do not have the time for
> that hatred.
> Archimedes Plutonium
> www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
> whole entire Universe is just one big atom
> where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
Archie-Poo is an epiphany of chronic abusive trolling stupidity.
Archie-Poo is a snail-skulled little rabbit. Would that a hawk pick
up Archie-Poo, drive its beak into Archie-Poo's lilliputian brain, and
upon finding it rancid set Archie-Poo loose to fluuter briefly before
spattering the ocean rocks with the frothy pale pink shame of its
ignoble blood. May Archie-Poo choke on the queasy, convulsing nausea
of its own trite, foolish beliefs.
I cannot believe how incredibly stupid Archie-Poo is. I mean
rock-hard stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. Surface
of Venus under 80 atmospheres of red hot carbon dioxide and sulfuric
acid vapor dehydrated for 300 million years rock-hard stupid. Stupid
so stupid that it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole
different sensorium of stupid. Archie-Poo is trans-stupid stupid.
Meta-stupid. Stupid so collapsed upon itself that it is within its
own Schwarzschild radius. Black hole stupid. Stupid gotten so dense
and massive that no intellect can escape. Singularity stupid.
Archie-Poo emits more stupid/second than our entire galaxy otherwise
emits stupid/year. Quasar stupid. Nothing else in the universe can
be this stupid. Archie-Poo is an oozingly putrescent primordial
fragment from the original Big Bang of Stupid, a pure essence of
stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of
physics that define maximally extrapolated hypergeometric
n-dimensional backgroundless stupid as we can imagine it. Archie-Poo
is Planck stupid, a quantum foam of stupid, a vacuum decay of stupid,
a grand unified theory of stupid.
Archie-Poo is the epiphany of stupid. Archie-poo is stooopid.
Archie-Poo is a swine. Archie-Poo is a vulgar little maggot.
Archie-Poo is a worthless bag of filth. As they say in Texas,
Archie-Poo couldn't pour piss out of a boot with instructions printed
on the heel. Archie-Poo is a canker, an ulcerous sore that won't go
away. I would rather watch Affirmative Action lawyers suck-start
Harleys with their bungholes than suffer the troll abominations of
Archie-Poo.
(What follows was cribbed from Kibo, who was here before all.)
Archie-Poo was a cashier and then a dishwasher. He started at
Dartmouth's Hanover Inn about 1990 (his previous employer was a
relative of the manager of the Inn so he got a good reference, he's
said) and about 1993 started posting to various sci.* newsgroups. He
maintains he took the job at Dartmouth (paying $7/hour when the
relationship ended in 1999) to get access to Dartmouth's campus
computers, which is odd because he took the job about three years
before he discovered the the campus computers.
He was "Ludwig Plutonium" when he started posting in 1993; previously
he was "Ludwig van Ludvig" and before that "Ludwig Hansen" [adopted
name] and "Ludwig Poehlmann" [birth name]. When he posted about a
run-in with some cops it was clear that the "legal" name changes he
effected weren't effective, because the cops looked him up as "Ludwig
Hansen". He is also struts as "The King Of Science And Logic," a
title he awarded himself.
Archie-Poo's hot topics include (a) he invented spaghetti, (b) Allen
Greenspan controls OPEC's oil price increases, (c) he's trying to
install three wood stoves in his "homestead", and (d) he likes candy
of various kinds. (d) seems to be the one he comes back to the most.
Around 1998 he explained that the fact that he had a craving for
shredded coconut proved his theory that the Universe was a giant
plutonium atom that was making him superintelligent because the center
of his brain also contains a plutonium atom, unlike the rest of us who
have a carbon atom at the center of our brains.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2
Deadrat
@hate.spam.net:
<contentless rant snipped>
You have treated the newsgroup to a string of insults and a long history of
the object of your apparent obsesssion. This took you over 125 lines
comprising nearly 700 words and requiring nearly 4000 keystrokes.
<just asking>
Have you considered that this says more about you than A.P.?
</just asking>
.-- .- -... -. .. --. @.-----.DOT.-- H. Wabnig
Let him Uncle Al do his work,
and me is here to learn English. From Uncle Al, ya know.
Never seen such a marvelous piece of lyrics, that ode on stupidity,
Thank you, Uncle Al.
Thanks also to Archimedes Plutonium for giving rise to such gems.
w.
a_plutonium
The above is what I mean by saying that Uncle Al is a elaborate and
artificial disguise
for several men (perhaps even women) to hide behind and to then make
harrassing posts.
Most of Uncle Al's posts are a continual repeat.
And a disguise had to be fabricated such as he being a chemist, he
being involved in
synthetic diamonds, he being in Mensa, he being 80 years old,
concocted even to the
point of a fake and crappy address and name of Alan Schwartz in Irvine
California.
The purpose of this scheme parallels the purpose of the Hunter
computer posts by
Johns Hopkins in the 1990s where Hunter was seen as abusive posts. But
the purpose
of Uncle Al is to see what the reaction is by other posters when an
Uncle Al attacks a
poster and where Uncle Al acts as a science cop to a newsgroup. It is
probably monitored
by some sociology department in some California University. Another
minor purpose
of the Uncle Al posts is to see what new and original science this
Uncle Al set up can
do. This explains why so much physics attempts are posted by Uncle Al,
wherein probably
real persons such as John Baez has some inputs, such as the silly
physics posts of
Uncle Al trying to unify gravity with the other forces.
To be sure, there is a chemist in this group calling themselves Uncle
Al, but if you notice
there is never a "series of postings" of a informative nature that
proves Uncle Al is a single
person. Most of the posts are just repeating long time made up ones.
And if you notice,
there really is never a "human interface" of Uncle Al with another
poster. A human interface
that would have told us that Alexander Abian was not a program but a
real person, unlike
Hunter and unlike Uncle Al. Yes there are real people who compose what
Uncle Al spews.
But Uncle Al is a group of people pretending to be one person.
And if I were to waste time in trying to track down the likely real
people are, I would start
with John Baez and the University where he is located in California,
and it is probably tied
to the Victoria Canada University and may even involve some in Florida
as a network of
people posting under the guise of Uncle Al. The reason I say this is
because of the fact that
someone touted as a chemist, and yet all this activity in low-grade
physics with fumbling
and knuckleheaded physics that is about the grade of what John Baez is
capable of, indicates
that Uncle Al is not a single person.
And one could assemble alot of Uncle Al posts and look for what I call
"Grammar and syntax
and word choice Forensic science Analysis" in other words look at the
posts of Uncle Al and the posts
and writings of John Baez and some other candidates and to spot where
they use words and
grammar and punctuation that is "person specific". For example, in
the above, Uncle Al uses
"mid-day" and does Baez ever use mid-day, and that he uses "gotten"
and does Baez use it?
Anyway, one can use a persons writings to indicate, not prove, but
indicate whether they are
the same persons. Only here it is compounded with a group of persons
writing each article.
And that is why most Uncle Al posts are a repeat post.
But that would not stop or prevent me from applying a lawsuit for
libel by Uncle Al that plunged
me into being wrapped up in a Dartmouth murder case of 2001. A
computer program is not
culpable but the people running the program are culpable.
Erik Max Francis
> Now Eric Francis has a bio saying he is an astrologer and Max Francis
> said some
> long time ago that he was not a scientist by dabbled in it. So the two
> look like parallel,
> or suggesting that they are one and same. And the website above
> defamed me for
> a decade or more, anyway for many years.
Someone brought this thread to my attention. This is the first I've
ever heard of this book, or these murders, or any of this nonsense.
I've never even heard of these murders.
I'm only going to say this once and I'm going to say it very clearly:
I am not Eric Francis the astrologer (I know of his site; in fact, it's
been listed in crank.net for years). I am not Eric Francis the
journalist, who wrote the book that is being discussed here. (I don't
have any knowledge whether they're the same Eric Francis, and I don't
particularly care.) I am not Uncle Al. I'm not even John Baez -- which
was another silly claim "Archimedes Plutonium" has made about me in the
past.
Keep me out of your latest paranoid ramblings, please.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && AIM, Y!M erikmaxfrancis
Give me chastity, but not yet.
-- St. Augustine
Uncle Al
The file dates to 1998. One merely copies, pastes, posts each
business quarter to keep the pot boiling. You counted the bytes?
"Archie-Poo is Planck stupid, a quantum foam of stupid, a vacuum decay
of stupid, a grand unified theory of stupid."
Isn't that special?
Deadrat
> Deadrat wrote:
>>
>> Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote in news:4605557A.5704D240
>> @hate.spam.net:
>>
>> <contentless rant snipped>
>>
>> You have treated the newsgroup to a string of insults and a long
>> history of the object of your apparent obsesssion. This took you
>> over 125 lines comprising nearly 700 words and requiring nearly 4000
>> keystrokes.
>>
>> <just asking>
>> Have you considered that this says more about you than A.P.?
>> </just asking>
>
> The file dates to 1998. One merely copies, pastes, posts each
> business quarter to keep the pot boiling.
You've run a nine-year campaign against someone you think is stupid?
Doesn't that strike you as, mmm, ironic?
> You counted the bytes?
You think you're the only one who can copy and paste?
> "Archie-Poo is Planck stupid, a quantum foam of stupid, a vacuum decay
> of stupid, a grand unified theory of stupid."
>
> Isn't that special?
This whole thing is special. But you didn't answer my just-asking
question.
Thomas Johnson
> The file dates to 1998. One merely copies, pastes, posts each
> business quarter to keep the pot boiling. You counted the bytes?
>
> "Archie-Poo is Planck stupid, a quantum foam of stupid, a vacuum decay
> of stupid, a grand unified theory of stupid."
>
> Isn't that special?
If you had ever demonstrated that you actually understood physics to
this level it would be special. Instead it is just ironic or sad,
depending on where you sit.
Thomas.