OT: The Casanova-Jillery-Oxyaena Axis

[Peter Nyikos]

The Subject line is, of course, reminiscent of the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis
and the "Axis of Evil" which included North Korea and Iran. The Axis in the
Subject line could be called "The Axis of Pretending That Truth Is Falsehood,
And Falsehood Is Truth."

Bob Casanova in particular has had lots of fun acting the role.
The incident which sparked an orgy of it was initiated by
the following pretense by Oxyaena, repeatedly supported by Bob.

Oxyaena pretended that the following was true:

In short, another demonstration of your
dishonesty, blatant distorting of the facts, and outright slander.
I could sue you for libel, Peter, but unlike you I`m a decent person so
I won't.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/Xub9hqEyM0A/l7gpBG1zCAAJ


The "demonstration" consisted exclusively of the following statement by myself:

you *also* showed your ignorance about when life
could reasonably be expected to arise and evolve in our universe.

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/jI6KRtcqX30/0E97QgICBwAJ


That ignorance was exemplified by the following statement, which Oxyaena
kept pretending to be true:

Considering that the universe is only 13.8 billion years old, and the
universe only settled down enough for life to develop some 4.5 Ga, ala
when our Solar System formed, this makes sense.

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/jI6KRtcqX30/AFA8Mn3LBQAJ


While the opening clause is as close to the truth as any estimate of
the age of the universe, the rest is, to put it mildly, way lower
than all respectable estimates. I gave a rather lengthy explanation
of that here, where all of the above were analyzed:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/Xub9hqEyM0A/l7gpBG1zCAAJ
Subject: Re: The evolution of the bacterial flagellum: For Peter
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 10:08:39 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <8174902f-492c-4d99...@googlegroups.com>

Jillery actually concurred with the bulk of my analysis, and
Oxyaena went along with that, inasmuch as jillery gave no
clue whatsoever that she was elaaborating on something I had
written. Perhaps she didn't even realize she was doing it.

But both of them stuck tenaciously to the claim
that I had libeled Oxyaena.


Since then, there has been a veritable orgy of pretending that
truth is falsehood, and falsehood truth, most of it going
back to Oxyaena's pretense described above on the "...bacterial
flagellum... thread, and most of the rest to be found in the
"More Dawkins" thread.


All of which goes to demonstrate what a hellhole talk.origins
could become if most participants were as vocally unscrupulous as this "Axis."
Fortunately, only a very small minority are.


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Department of Math. -- standard disclaimer --
U. of South Carolina

[Peter Nyikos]

There is a species of Internet Hellion, who, on seeing something
like the OP of this thread, reacts as automatically as the salivating
Pavlov's dog with the words "conspiracy theory" and/or "paranoid"
and/or their derivatives.

These are actually talismans designed to ward off legitimate
accusations of dishonesty, hypocrisy, cowardice, and
either playing "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil"
or actively supporting the ignoble behavior of the accused party.
I devoted a whole thread to this a while back:

Subject: Two Talismans: "Paranoid" and "Conspiracy Theorist"
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/talk.origins/72ORRQeol6M/CC4Af8uhLQAJ

The dynamic at work is not one of previously agreed-upon collusion,
as the word "conspiracy" implies, but the capitalization on targets
of opportunity. This is illustrated by a borderline case, which
could be construed either way, a scene acted out in "Cool Hand Luke".

In it "the Captain" -- the warden who immortalized the line
"What we have here is failure to communicate"
"informs" Luke that his (Luke's) dirt is filling up a hole approximately
two yards long and a yard wide, and of at least that depth,
and tells Luke to remove it.

Luke is well along the way to completing this task, when "Boss Paul"
comes along and demands to know what Luke is doing. On being informed
by Luke on what the Captain -- who, of course, is nowhere to be seen --
had told Luke to do, Boss Paul sees a perfect way to continue the
torment, and tells Luke "indignantly" that he doesn't want Luke's
dirt "on MY yard." Having nowhere else to put the dirt, Luke starts
to put it back in the hole. Boss Paul disappears and the Captain
returns as the hole is almost filled, and...any person savvy enough
to survive in talk.origins can guess what happens next, and what
happens after Luke almost gets done emptying the hole of dirt.

Was this premeditated collusion between the Captain and Boss Paul?
Perhaps, but everything could also be explained by Boss Paul
guessing that the hole had no purpose but to punish Luke for
escaping twice, and then it was a no-brainer to figure out
how to continue the punishment.

And all the behavior of this trio can be explained by the
fact that I have caught each of them in flagrant displays
of dishonesty, cowardice, and hypocrisy. The actual form
these displays was very different, but when each sees one of
the others "punishing" me for daring to expose him/her,
then it is the most natural thing in the world to continue
meting out "punishment" to me.


Peter Nyikos

[Bill Rogers]

On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 10:55:03 AM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> The Subject line is, of course, reminiscent of the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis
> and the "Axis of Evil" which included North Korea and Iran.

The subject line is, of course, a real eye roll inducer. Good grief.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 11:20:03 AM UTC-4, Bill Rogers wrote:
> On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 10:55:03 AM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > The Subject line is, of course, reminiscent of the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis
> > and the "Axis of Evil" which included North Korea and Iran.
>
> The subject line is, of course, a real eye roll inducer. Good grief.

Bill, if you saw even half of the orgy that has taken place since
the events documented in the OP, you could perhaps understand why
I thought drastic action was called for. But there are far
weightier reasons, explained below.

>
> >The Axis in the
> > Subject line could be called "The Axis of Pretending That Truth Is Falsehood,
> > And Falsehood Is Truth."
> >
> > Bob Casanova in particular has had lots of fun acting the role.
> > The incident which sparked an orgy of it was initiated by
> > the following pretense by Oxyaena, repeatedly supported by Bob.

Here, I've snipped the description, to get around to the real
reason why I thought drastic action needed to be taken.

> > All of which goes to demonstrate what a hellhole talk.origins
> > could become if most participants were as vocally unscrupulous as this "Axis."
> > Fortunately, only a very small minority are.

That could easily change. You see, before I came to talk.origins
in 1995, I had spent three years in a newsgroup which was, by
that time, at roughly the stage where talk.origins is now.

That was talk.abortion. Back in the summer of 1992, when I first
came across it, there was a reasonably healthy mix of abortion rights
fanatics, reasonable pro-choicers, doctrinaire but still rational
right-to-lifers, and at least one pro-life loose cannon.


I stopped following talk.abortion in the middle of 1996. By the time
I returned in 2008, the group had degenerated into a ghastly mess,
where there was only one pro-life regular, "Osprey." He was a
reasonable person set upon by half a dozen or more highly
dishonest fanatics, with thoroughly dishonest tactics like
those I have recounted in the OP.


I have seen a steady attrition in talk.origins of some of the
best people here. With this attrition has come increasingly
over-the-top and increasingly voluminous behavior like
the "Axis" has been indulging in. I think it is about time for
at least some regulars to wake up to what is going really going on.


I'm not recommending any course of action to you, Bill. You
have done an exemplary job of exposing the weaknesses of
Alan Kleinman, in the way no one else can. In return,
Alan has hit you with crap as bad, though not as voluminous
as that with which I've been hit. For instance:

You are a stupid lying snake who has done nothing but wasted money
on a study of failed treatment for malaria and you learn nothing
from your errors. And then 9,000,000 more die because of your incompetence.
This is the kind of morality you get from the twisted mind of an atheist.
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/4eB2fTKtKKE/IqCvz1R4AwAJ

I do believe part of the reason Alan utters such over-the-top crap
is that he sees people like the "Axis" getting off scot-free doing it.


And I wish some people reading this, who aren't doing an
indispensable job like you are doing against Alan, would try to do
something about this.


Peter Nyikos

[Edna Freon]

I didn't know I had taken sides. I mostly disagree with
everyone eventually. I avoid the flame wars and name calling
simply because they are irrelevant to any point I'm
interested in. Those who are sensitive to personal attacks
should post elsewhere.

Bill

[Oxyaena]

On 9/13/2018 10:54 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> The Subject line is, of course, reminiscent of the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis
> and the "Axis of Evil" which included North Korea and Iran. The Axis in the
> Subject line could be called "The Axis of Pretending That Truth Is Falsehood,
> And Falsehood Is Truth."

All of this bilge here could get you sued, if I was so inclined.

>
> Bob Casanova in particular has had lots of fun acting the role.
> The incident which sparked an orgy of it was initiated by
> the following pretense by Oxyaena, repeatedly supported by Bob.
>
> Oxyaena pretended that the following was true:
>
> In short, another demonstration of your
> dishonesty, blatant distorting of the facts, and outright slander.
> I could sue you for libel, Peter, but unlike you I`m a decent person so
> I won't.
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/Xub9hqEyM0A/l7gpBG1zCAAJ
>
>
> The "demonstration" consisted exclusively of the following statement by myself:
>
> you *also* showed your ignorance about when life
> could reasonably be expected to arise and evolve in our universe.
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/jI6KRtcqX30/0E97QgICBwAJ
>
>
> That ignorance was exemplified by the following statement, which Oxyaena
> kept pretending to be true:
>
> Considering that the universe is only 13.8 billion years old, and the
> universe only settled down enough for life to develop some 4.5 Ga, ala
> when our Solar System formed, this makes sense.
>

You libel me once aain, and misrepresent what actually took place.

> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/jI6KRtcqX30/AFA8Mn3LBQAJ
>
>
> While the opening clause is as close to the truth as any estimate of
> the age of the universe, the rest is, to put it mildly, way lower
> than all respectable estimates. I gave a rather lengthy explanation
> of that here, where all of the above were analyzed:

And yet we still haven't discovered evidence of any alien civilizations.

>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/Xub9hqEyM0A/l7gpBG1zCAAJ
> Subject: Re: The evolution of the bacterial flagellum: For Peter
> Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 10:08:39 -0700 (PDT)
> Message-ID: <8174902f-492c-4d99...@googlegroups.com>
>
> Jillery actually concurred with the bulk of my analysis, and
> Oxyaena went along with that, inasmuch as jillery gave no
> clue whatsoever that she was elaaborating on something I had
> written. Perhaps she didn't even realize she was doing it.






>
> But both of them stuck tenaciously to the claim
> that I had libeled Oxyaena.
>

Because you have, you always quote those passages out of context to give
the false impression that I had libeled you when in fact the exact
opposite had taken place.

>
> Since then, there has been a veritable orgy of pretending that
> truth is falsehood, and falsehood truth, most of it going
> back to Oxyaena's pretense described above on the "...bacterial
> flagellum... thread, and most of the rest to be found in the
> "More Dawkins" thread.

You're a libelous piece of shit and this post only exists to demonstrate
how much of a lying coward you really are.

>
>
> All of which goes to demonstrate what a hellhole talk.origins
> could become if most participants were as vocally unscrupulous as this "Axis."
> Fortunately, only a very small minority are.
>

All of this is demonstrably false, a la "libel", and complete spam.


--
"The last Christian died on the Cross." - Friedrich Nietzschie

[Oxyaena]

On 9/13/2018 10:57 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
[snip pure libel]

Whenever you ask for documentation of you libeling me, I will point to
this piece of kindling as proof.

[Peter Nyikos]

I think it is very appropriate that Bill Rogers was the first
person replying to me on this thread. I am reposting something from Sep 10
below which does double duty: it shows how mindlessly persistent
Oxyaena has been in perpetuating falsehoods, and it also shows
how nicely I talk about people like Bill Rogers "behind their backs".

On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 12:35:02 PM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 9/13/2018 10:54 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > The Subject line is, of course, reminiscent of the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis
> > and the "Axis of Evil" which included North Korea and Iran. The Axis in the
> > Subject line could be called "The Axis of Pretending That Truth Is Falsehood,
> > And Falsehood Is Truth."
>
> All of this bilge here could get you sued, if I was so inclined.

And of course, not even YOU are so self-destructive as to try
such a stunt.

The rest of your sorry performance here is just a continuation of
pretending that truth is falsehood, and falsehood truth. Only those
who do not click on the urls I provided will fail to see that.

I'm leaving in your bilge at the end, while reposting something
where I catch you going so completely over the top, you haven't
mustered the chutzpah to reply in three days:

______________repost of excerpt____________

On Monday, September 10, 2018 at 11:15:03 AM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 9/10/2018 10:49 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Friday, September 7, 2018 at 9:20:02 PM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
> >> On 9/7/2018 8:30 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >> [snip mindless bullshit and libel]
> >
> > The mindless bullshit and libel was all by yourself
>
> Baseless assertion asserted as fact without any convincing evidence to
> back your horseshit up.

The convincing evidence was right in the post about which you are
now lying, and from which you snipped it in your reply:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/vh_5qLZ_2y0/t4i8osjMAwAJ
Subject: Re: More Dawkins
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2018 17:30:35 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <a7683df1-790d-4da6...@googlegroups.com>

> > and deleted my thorough documentation of that fact, along with
> > that mindless bullshit.
>
>
> Translation: "thorough documentation" translated from Nyikosese into
> English means "complete and utter garbage".

You are continuing to pretend that truth is falsehood, and falsehood
truth. Are you doing it because it is fun for you to do so,
or out of pure spite and malice?

>
> >
> >> You write all of this, I wonder, as a substitute for having nothing
> >> intelligent to say?
> >
> > For once, you ask a sensible question, although I suspect it
> > is worded very differently from the way you would have worded it,
> > had you stopped to reflect on what you were actually asking.
>
> You don't consider "Why do you consider to post here if you hate this
> newsgroup so much?" a sensible question?

I consider it to be a loaded question, like the following intensification
of a well known example:

Why do you keep living with your wife if you hate her so much
that you can't stop beating her?

I love this newsgroup, for all its flaws. Your obsession with libeling
me, and the incompetence of your OP and subsequent discussion on that
Aquinas thread are among its flaws. So is most of the behavior
of jillery and Casanova on this "More Dawkins" thread.


> Is it because it's something
> you can't easily answer, as you tend to ignore questions asked to you
> that you cannot easily answer, being the cowardly jackass you are.

I've very easily answered it, after stripping away the
dishonest loading of the question. And I've gone into details
of my love of talk.origins in reply to Bill Rogers. I am
not reposting it here because I would be in violation of
the advice not to cast pearls before swine.

Bill Rogers is part of a whole horde of people who make
talk.origins worth preserving, unlike yourself and a tiny
handful of people who prostitute their integrity in
supporting you, probably because you make them look good in comparison.

============================= end of excerpt from ======================

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/vh_5qLZ_2y0/1KnwA2ycBAAJ
Subject: Re: More Dawkins
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 08:57:15 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <983b7fa9-f6ff-44b5...@googlegroups.com>

Note what I wrote about Bill Rogers "behind his back." I have posted
a list of ca. 25 talk.origins regulars whom I would treat, and
have (in many cases) treated in a similar way. It is a list which
you and jillery and Casanova have MAJOR reasons for wishing it shoved down
the internet equivalent of a memory hole.


Peter Nyikos

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 07:54:40 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

>The Subject line is...

....pure unadulterated BS, and further proof of the
conspiracy theories to which you adhere, the existence of
which you repeatedly deny.

<snip of you spin-doctoring and nitpicking in your usual
inconsequential manner to avoid confronting your own
dishonesty>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 08:16:38 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Bill Rogers
<broger...@gmail.com>:

>On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 10:55:03 AM UTC-4, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> The Subject line is, of course, reminiscent of the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis
>> and the "Axis of Evil" which included North Korea and Iran.
>
>The subject line is, of course, a real eye roll inducer. Good grief.

Yep. And Peter repeatedly asserts he holds no conspiracy
theories about all the "meanies" here...

[Peter Nyikos]

Note to people with threaded newsreaders: Oxyaena posted a reply to my OP, changing the Subject line to OT: Pure bullshit

If Oxyaena were the sort who indulges in self-deprecating humor, one might think
that her whole reply was playfully meant to be an example of "pure bullshit."
However, that kind of behavior seems totally alien to her, although
Casanova might indulge in it for all I know, because of the fun
he often has in pretending that truth is falsehood, and falsehood truth.
A very instructive example is reposted below.

On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 1:45:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 07:54:40 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>
> >The Subject line is...
>
> ....pure unadulterated BS, and further proof of the
> conspiracy theories to which you adhere, the existence of
> which you repeatedly deny.

I presume you are saying this in the full knowledge of what I
wrote in my second post to this thread about that very topic, and so I presume
you are just having more fun pretending that truth is falsehood
and falsehood truth.

Here is a far more cunning and spectacular example of you doing that,
thoroughly analyzed by me earlier today:

______________________ repost of excerpt ________________________

On Thursday, September 6, 2018 at 1:40:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 14:22:39 -0700 (PDT), the following

> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
>

> >On Wednesday, September 5, 2018 at 1:20:03 PM UTC-4, Bob Casanova wrote:
> >> On Wed, 5 Sep 2018 09:17:29 -0700 (PDT), the following

> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
> >> <nyi...@bellsouth.net>:
> >>

> >> >...Casanova...

> >>
> >> <snip of you spin-doctoring and nitpicking in your usual
> >> inconsequential manner to avoid confronting your own
> >> dishonesty>
> >>

> >> I *love* that quote of yours!
> >
> >It's YOUR words you are quoting, not mine.[1]


>>[1] They constitute
>>a near-plagiarism of a truthful statement I once made as a
>>prelude to a long demonstration of how you were prostituting
>>your integrity for an undeserving blackguard


> Nope,

You are indulging in the following dirty debating trick:

The Broken.Usenet.Promise

This is a special case of what is commonly called
"a bait and switch". It usually consists of an opening salvo
like "False."or "What an idiot.", etc. followed by something
that might fool a complete ignoramus into thinking that the
opening salvo is being justified, whereas it is either
irrelevant, or obviously incompetent, or actually supports
the claims of the opponent.



And here comes that "something that might fool...":

> it was copied *directly* from one of your posts.

It was something YOU had posted, still preserved in my reply to
the post where you did it. So you are telling the literal truth, but
are being highly misleading.


> Stop lying.

You really know how to lay the Broken.Usenet.Promise on thickly,
Casanova. You know damn well there is no lying by me anywhere
in this post.

Did you hope to trap me in an accusation that YOU are lying?
As they said in the comic books of the 1950's, "I wasn't born
yesterday."

However, you do an excellent job of implicitly pretending
that truth is falsehood, and falsehood truth.

You had lots of fun doing it, I'm sure. The fun was increased
by you making an unmarked snip of [1], which I've restored above.

>
> <snip of you spin-doctoring and nitpicking in your usual
> inconsequential manner to avoid confronting your own
> dishonesty>

Your near-plagiarism has been a falsehood each time you've
applied it to me, but who's to stop you from having fun?

====================== end of excerpt =========================
from
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/vh_5qLZ_2y0/403BXAk5CAAJ
Subject: Re: More Dawkins
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 08:31:46 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <38a46a14-5fe6-41ac...@googlegroups.com>


The rest of your post here consisted of a repetition of that
near-plagiarism, and of your .sig with which I had fun in the
rest of the post that I've linked here.


Peter Nyikos

[Oxyaena]

On 9/13/2018 1:29 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> I think it is very appropriate that Bill Rogers was the first
> person replying to me on this thread. I am reposting something from Sep 10
> below which does double duty: it shows how mindlessly persistent
> Oxyaena has been in perpetuating falsehoods, and it also shows
> how nicely I talk about people like Bill Rogers "behind their backs".
>
>
> On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 12:35:02 PM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
>> On 9/13/2018 10:54 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> The Subject line is, of course, reminiscent of the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis
>>> and the "Axis of Evil" which included North Korea and Iran. The Axis in the
>>> Subject line could be called "The Axis of Pretending That Truth Is Falsehood,
>>> And Falsehood Is Truth."
>>
>> All of this bilge here could get you sued, if I was so inclined.
>
> And of course, not even YOU are so self-destructive as to try
> such a stunt.

Really? You make me laugh. I`m honestly not surprised that you've
stooped so low as to compare three Usenet posters to war criminals,
you're pathetic. In fact, given that you compared us to the Axis I can
invoke Godwin's law, therefore you've automatically forfeit the argument
by doing so:

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law



[snip bilge]

[Oxyaena]

On 9/13/2018 2:09 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> Note to people with threaded newsreaders: Oxyaena posted a reply to my OP, changing the Subject line to OT: Pure bullshit
>
> If Oxyaena were the sort who indulges in self-deprecating humor, one might think
> that her whole reply was playfully meant to be an example of "pure bullshit."

Comparing me to Nazis pure bullshit, and is the sort of thing that can
get you sued, you shining exemplar of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

> However, that kind of behavior seems totally alien to her, although

IRL I do have a *very* self-deprecatory style of humor, but what I wrote
wasn't bullshit. What you wrote was.

> Casanova might indulge in it for all I know, because of the fun
> he often has in pretending that truth is falsehood, and falsehood truth.
> A very instructive example is reposted below.

Your understanding of "instructive" must be very warped, then.





>[snip horseshit]

[Mark Isaak]

On 9/13/18 7:57 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> [...]

> And all the behavior of this trio can be explained by the
> fact that I have caught each of them in flagrant displays

> of dishonesty, cowardice, and hypocrisy. [...]

It should go without saying at this point that Peter cannot use the word
"hypocrisy" without exemplifying it.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Omnia disce. Videbis postea nihil esse superfluum."
- Hugh of St. Victor

[Oxyaena]

On 9/13/2018 3:34 PM, Mark Isaak wrote:
> On 9/13/18 7:57 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> [...]
>> And all the behavior of this trio can be explained by the
>> fact that I have caught each of them in flagrant displays
>> of dishonesty, cowardice, and hypocrisy. [...]
>
> It should go without saying at this point that Peter cannot use the word
> "hypocrisy" without exemplifying it.
>

Truer words have never been spoken.

[Oxyaena]

On 9/13/2018 11:16 AM, Bill Rogers wrote:
[snip idiocy]

>
> The subject line is, of course, a real eye roll inducer. Good grief.

For a person who repeatedly wails against me for supposedly causing
talk.origins to become a cesspit, this screed of his is the very epitome
of what, in his opinion, talk.origins has become. Apparently he isn't
aware (or refuses to take part in) the numerous on-topic threads going
on in which I have participated in.

I only ask that he cut the shit out and stop spamming this newsgroup
with his garbage, it wastes space that could go to actual *on-topic* posts.

[snip idiocy]

[jillery]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 12:34:53 -0700, Mark Isaak
<eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net> wrote:

>On 9/13/18 7:57 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> [...]
>> And all the behavior of this trio can be explained by the
>> fact that I have caught each of them in flagrant displays
>> of dishonesty, cowardice, and hypocrisy. [...]
>
>It should go without saying at this point that Peter cannot use the word
>"hypocrisy" without exemplifying it.

It's even worse than that. Nyikos the peter's "flagrant displays" and
his "caughts" are at best anthills which he inflates to illusory
mountains, but are more often than not complete figments of his
overwrought imagination, created from whole cloth, which I have
repeatedly noted and documented for years.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[jillery]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 10:29:19 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:

>I love this newsgroup, for all its flaws. Your obsession with libeling
>me, and the incompetence of your OP and subsequent discussion on that
>Aquinas thread are among its flaws. So is most of the behavior
>of jillery and Casanova on this "More Dawkins" thread.

The above is just more of your bizarre Big Lies, which you post when
you know you have nothing intelligent to say.

[jillery]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 07:54:40 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

<nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:

>Jillery actually concurred with the bulk of my analysis, and
>Oxyaena went along with that, inasmuch as jillery gave no
>clue whatsoever that she was elaaborating on something I had
>written. Perhaps she didn't even realize she was doing it.

That's not it. Instead, Jillery couldn't care less what you had
written.

>But both of them stuck tenaciously to the claim
>that I had libeled Oxyaena.

Of course, Jillery said nothing about anybody libeling anybody,
tenaciously or otherwise. This is just another one of your baseless

[Bill Rogers]

You hadn't. Bill is a common name.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 17:26:24 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Thu, 13 Sep 2018 10:29:19 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
><nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
>irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:
>
>
>>I love this newsgroup, for all its flaws. Your obsession with libeling
>>me, and the incompetence of your OP and subsequent discussion on that
>>Aquinas thread are among its flaws. So is most of the behavior
>>of jillery and Casanova on this "More Dawkins" thread.
>
>
>The above is just more of your bizarre Big Lies, which you post when
>you know you have nothing intelligent to say.

So, continually?

Oh, wait; you said when he *knows* it...

[jonathan]

On 9/13/2018 12:32 PM, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 9/13/2018 10:54 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> The Subject line is, of course, reminiscent of the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis
>> and the "Axis of Evil" which included North Korea and Iran. The Axis
>> in the
>> Subject line could be called "The Axis of Pretending That Truth Is
>> Falsehood,
>> And Falsehood Is Truth."
>
> All of this bilge here could get you sued, if I was so inclined.
>

Sue for slander? Not a chance you could sue anyone in here
for slander. You'd have to prove how it harmed you.
Did it cause you to lose your job, get demoted or banned
from K-Mart etc.

If you can't do that, there's no suit.

This is not publishing, this is speech so libel
laws do not apply.

Besides Peter's posts are so wacked if his bosses
saw them he'd have to sue himself for slander
and pay himself damages after his Dean relegates him
to teaching freshmen trig.

Oh wait, that's already happened.
Never mind.

Yes Peter I looked at the courses you teach.




s

[Wolffan]

On 13 Sep 2018, Peter Nyikos wrote
(in article<212c87c3-3d38-4f30...@googlegroups.com>):

> But both of them stuck tenaciously to the claim
> that I had libeled Oxyaena.

that would be because you have done exactly that, Petey-me-lad.

[jillery]

On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 10:18:03 -0400, Wolffan <akwo...@gmail.com>
wrote:

That's not it. Jillery made no such claim, tenaciously or otherwise.
OTOH Nyikos the peter seems determined to prove your claim for you.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 09:18:20 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jonathan
<WriteI...@gmail.com>:

>On 9/13/2018 12:32 PM, Oxyaena wrote:
>> On 9/13/2018 10:54 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> The Subject line is, of course, reminiscent of the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis
>>> and the "Axis of Evil" which included North Korea and Iran. The Axis
>>> in the
>>> Subject line could be called "The Axis of Pretending That Truth Is
>>> Falsehood,
>>> And Falsehood Is Truth."
>>
>> All of this bilge here could get you sued, if I was so inclined.
>>
>
>
>
>Sue for slander? Not a chance you could sue anyone in here
>for slander. You'd have to prove how it harmed you.

That's not why, as has been noted many times here. i'll
leave it as an exercise for the student to find out why.

<snip irrelevancies>

[Wolffan]

On 16 Sep 2018, jillery wrote
(in article<8i4tpdpm28klo8qd9...@4ax.com>):

> On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 10:18:03 -0400, Wolffan<akwo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On 13 Sep 2018, Peter Nyikos wrote
> > (in article<212c87c3-3d38-4f30...@googlegroups.com>):
> >
> > > But both of them stuck tenaciously to the claim
> > > that I had libeled Oxyaena.
> >
> > that would be because you have done exactly that, Petey-me-lad.
>
> That's not it. Jillery made no such claim, tenaciously or otherwise.
> OTOH Nyikos the peter seems determined to prove your claim for you.

Hmm. My error. _You_ may not have stated that, but it’s certain that Petey
did commit libel. He has continued to do so. He’s being even more of a sad
sack of shit than he normally is. In times past he’d have run for the hills
long since. One wonders just what Oxy did to piss poor Petey off, one really
does. I want to know so that I can do it too.

Come on, Petey, elaborate further and give me ammunition.

[Oxyaena]

On 9/16/2018 3:29 PM, Wolffan wrote:

Behold! The face and voice of the most tenacious troll in talk.origins
history (besides Ted Holden):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIwXdm_O7e8


--
"He who fights monsters shall see to it that he does not become a
monster, for he who gazes into the abyss often finds that the abyss
gazes back also." - Friedrich Nietzche

[jonathan]

On 9/16/2018 1:58 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 09:18:20 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by jonathan
> <WriteI...@gmail.com>:
>
>> On 9/13/2018 12:32 PM, Oxyaena wrote:
>>> On 9/13/2018 10:54 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>> The Subject line is, of course, reminiscent of the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis
>>>> and the "Axis of Evil" which included North Korea and Iran. The Axis
>>>> in the
>>>> Subject line could be called "The Axis of Pretending That Truth Is
>>>> Falsehood,
>>>> And Falsehood Is Truth."
>>>
>>> All of this bilge here could get you sued, if I was so inclined.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Sue for slander? Not a chance you could sue anyone in here
>> for slander. You'd have to prove how it harmed you.
>
> That's not why,

Yes it is.

[vtand...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 9:35:02 AM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 9/13/2018 10:54 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > The Subject line is, of course, reminiscent of the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis
> > and the "Axis of Evil" which included North Korea and Iran. The Axis in the
> > Subject line could be called "The Axis of Pretending That Truth Is Falsehood,
> > And Falsehood Is Truth."
>
> All of this bilge here could get you sued, if I was so inclined.

If you sued him, you would have to prove(1) his statement caused you a financial loss,(2) the exact amount of the loss and (3) the statements are factually false and he knows they are false.

You cannot sue someone merely on the basis of his opinion just because he insulted you.

The purpose of a civil suit is reimbursement for damages.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 3:05:03 PM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 9/13/2018 2:09 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > Note to people with threaded newsreaders: Oxyaena posted a reply to my OP, changing the Subject line to OT: Pure bullshit
> >
> > If Oxyaena were the sort who indulges in self-deprecating humor, one might think
> > that her whole reply was playfully meant to be an example of "pure bullshit."
>
> Comparing me to Nazis pure bullshit,

Watch me compare you to Donald Trump.

I am sure you both exist.


<snip pure bullshit by Oxyaena>


Peter Nyikos

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 20:33:49 -0400, the following appeared

Nope; sorry.

Hint: Try looking up the definition of "slander".

(Yes, I'm being pedantic. But I figured you wouldn't bother
to check for possible reasons *why* I wrote that no one
posting in Usenet can be sued for slander; thanks for once
again proving me right.)

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 01:17:25 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by vtand...@gmail.com:

>On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 9:35:02 AM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
>> On 9/13/2018 10:54 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> > The Subject line is, of course, reminiscent of the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis
>> > and the "Axis of Evil" which included North Korea and Iran. The Axis in the
>> > Subject line could be called "The Axis of Pretending That Truth Is Falsehood,
>> > And Falsehood Is Truth."
>>
>> All of this bilge here could get you sued, if I was so inclined.
>
>If you sued him, you would have to prove(1) his statement caused you a financial loss,(2) the exact amount of the loss and (3) the statements are factually false and he knows they are false.

IIRC, although that *may* have been the original
requirement, currently no monetary issues are required to be
proven, or even estimated.

>You cannot sue someone merely on the basis of his opinion just because he insulted you.
>
>The purpose of a civil suit is reimbursement for damages.

Legally, damages need not be financial to be actionable.

[Peter Nyikos]

Congratulations, jonathan! You have made yourself look like a sage
in comparison to Oxyaena for at least the second time this month.

The first time was far more spectacular, though. It took place on
the thread where Oxyaena made an utter fool of herself discussing
what she thought were Aquinas's five "proofs" [*sic*] for the
existence of God. I think they were taken from a webpage
consisting of atheistic boilerplate, and I think that to
this day, Oxyaena has never looked at the place in the *Summa Theologica*
where the five *arguments* appeared.

You were so effective that Oxyaena hasn't dared to reply
to the post where you demolished some claims of hers using
one of her favorite sources: Wikipedia. Here is where you
did it:


https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/9P8DJdp5ryw/TZKzuko7AwAJ
Subject: Re: Problems with the Aquinasian "proofs" of God.
Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2018 00:02:27 -0400
Message-ID: <4vWdnQfued93_RbG...@giganews.com>


Oxyaena loves to accuse others of exemplifying the Dunning-Kruger
effect, but if there is only ONE person in talk.origins who
exemplifies it, then Oxyaena is the one.

You are demoted to an "also-ran" in that case. ;-)


Peter Nyikos

[Oxyaena]

On 9/17/2018 12:45 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 3:05:03 PM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
>> On 9/13/2018 2:09 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> Note to people with threaded newsreaders: Oxyaena posted a reply to my OP, changing the Subject line to OT: Pure bullshit
>>>
>>> If Oxyaena were the sort who indulges in self-deprecating humor, one might think
>>> that her whole reply was playfully meant to be an example of "pure bullshit."
>>
>> Comparing me to Nazis pure bullshit,
>
>
> Watch me compare you to Donald Trump.

Psychological projection noted.

>
> I am sure you both exist.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law

You've just forfeited the argument by calling me a Nazi.


[snip more projection]

[Oxyaena]

On 9/17/2018 1:37 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
[snip mindless bullshit]

> what she thought were Aquinas's five "proofs" [*sic*] for the
> existence of God. I think they were taken from a webpage
> consisting of atheistic boilerplate, and I think that to
> this day, Oxyaena has never looked at the place in the *Summa Theologica*
> where the five *arguments* appeared.

If you noticed Burkhard said you had the same problem I did, you
hypocritical fuckwad. You snipped that part of his post to in your reply
to him.

>
> You were so effective that Oxyaena hasn't dared to reply
> to the post where you demolished some claims of hers using
> one of her favorite sources: Wikipedia. Here is where you
> did it:

He didn't do a damn thing.

>
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/9P8DJdp5ryw/TZKzuko7AwAJ
> Subject: Re: Problems with the Aquinasian "proofs" of God.
> Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2018 00:02:27 -0400
> Message-ID: <4vWdnQfued93_RbG...@giganews.com>
>
>
> Oxyaena loves to accuse others of exemplifying the Dunning-Kruger
> effect, but if there is only ONE person in talk.origins who
> exemplifies it, then Oxyaena is the one.

It's typical for people who suffer from Dunning-Kruger to accuse others
of suffering from it, like what you do.

[vtand...@gmail.com]

On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 10:00:03 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 01:17:25 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by vtand...@gmail.com:
>
> >On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 9:35:02 AM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
> >> On 9/13/2018 10:54 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >> > The Subject line is, of course, reminiscent of the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis
> >> > and the "Axis of Evil" which included North Korea and Iran. The Axis in the
> >> > Subject line could be called "The Axis of Pretending That Truth Is Falsehood,
> >> > And Falsehood Is Truth."
> >>
> >> All of this bilge here could get you sued, if I was so inclined.
> >
> >If you sued him, you would have to prove(1) his statement caused you a financial loss,(2) the exact amount of the loss and (3) the statements are factually false and he knows they are false.
>
> IIRC, although that *may* have been the original
> requirement, currently no monetary issues are required to be
> proven, or even estimated.

Source?
>

[vtand...@gmail.com]

On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 10:00:03 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:

> On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 01:17:25 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by vtand...@gmail.com:
>
> >On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 9:35:02 AM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
> >> On 9/13/2018 10:54 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> >> > The Subject line is, of course, reminiscent of the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis
> >> > and the "Axis of Evil" which included North Korea and Iran. The Axis in the
> >> > Subject line could be called "The Axis of Pretending That Truth Is Falsehood,
> >> > And Falsehood Is Truth."
> >>
> >> All of this bilge here could get you sued, if I was so inclined.
> >
> >If you sued him, you would have to prove(1) his statement caused you a financial loss,(2) the exact amount of the loss and (3) the statements are factually false and he knows they are false.
>
> IIRC, although that *may* have been the original
> requirement, currently no monetary issues are required to be
> proven, or even estimated.
>
> >You cannot sue someone merely on the basis of his opinion just because he insulted you.
> >
> >The purpose of a civil suit is reimbursement for damages.
>
> Legally, damages need not be financial to be actionable.
> --

Source?

[jonathan]

On 9/17/2018 12:55 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 20:33:49 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by jonathan
> <WriteI...@gmail.com>:
>
>> On 9/16/2018 1:58 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 09:18:20 -0400, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by jonathan
>>> <WriteI...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> On 9/13/2018 12:32 PM, Oxyaena wrote:
>>>>> On 9/13/2018 10:54 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>> The Subject line is, of course, reminiscent of the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis
>>>>>> and the "Axis of Evil" which included North Korea and Iran. The Axis
>>>>>> in the
>>>>>> Subject line could be called "The Axis of Pretending That Truth Is
>>>>>> Falsehood,
>>>>>> And Falsehood Is Truth."
>>>>>
>>>>> All of this bilge here could get you sued, if I was so inclined.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sue for slander? Not a chance you could sue anyone in here
>>>> for slander. You'd have to prove how it harmed you.
>>>
>>> That's not why,
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes it is.


>
> Nope; sorry.
>

Yes it is.



s

[jonathan]

On 9/17/2018 1:37 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

> On Sunday, September 16, 2018 at 8:40:02 PM UTC-4, jonathan wrote:
>> On 9/16/2018 1:58 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 09:18:20 -0400, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by jonathan
>>> <WriteI...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> On 9/13/2018 12:32 PM, Oxyaena wrote:
>>>>> On 9/13/2018 10:54 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>> The Subject line is, of course, reminiscent of the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis
>>>>>> and the "Axis of Evil" which included North Korea and Iran. The Axis
>>>>>> in the
>>>>>> Subject line could be called "The Axis of Pretending That Truth Is
>>>>>> Falsehood,
>>>>>> And Falsehood Is Truth."
>>>>>
>>>>> All of this bilge here could get you sued, if I was so inclined.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sue for slander? Not a chance you could sue anyone in here
>>>> for slander. You'd have to prove how it harmed you.
>>>
>>> That's not why,
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes it is.
>
> Congratulations, jonathan! You have made yourself look like a sage
> in comparison to Oxyaena for at least the second time this month.
>

Anyone is deluded to think a judge will allow
the courts precious time to be wasted over
some Usenet bickering unless it rises to
some provable harm like a job loss etc.

[jillery]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 20:35:43 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Is it your intent to so often prove that you're a infantile ass?

<https://injury-law.freeadvice.com/injury-law/libel_and_slander/defamatory_statements.htm>
**********************************
Defamation can take two forms, which are generally referred to as
libel and slander. Libel is defined as a defamation of a person,
group, organization, product, government, or country that was made in
written or printed words or in pictures. Slander is the same thing,
except the defamatory statement was made in the form of spoken words,
sounds, sign language, or gestures.
***********************************

Also, given how trivial it is to spoof Usenet headers, my impression
is anyone would have trouble proving beyond a reasonable doubt the
actual identity of the alleged libeler or defamer.

[Oxyaena]

Exactly! Even if Peter wanted to sue me for (admittedly non-existent)
libel, he would first have to find out who I am, which he has no clue of
and neither does anybody else here, and I have gone out of my way to
ensure it stays that way.

> --
> I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
>
> Evelyn Beatrice Hall
> Attributed to Voltaire
>

--
"The great thing about science is that it's true whether you believe in
it or not." - Niel Degrasse Tyson

[vtand...@gmail.com]

Google knows who you are. Anyone who wants it can get your IP address and find your location.Law enforcement has access to that information and a court order can force Google to disclose it.

Incidentally, posts on the internet are not considered published material, so the civil action would be for Slander, not Libel.

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <2f4bd691-0885-4983...@googlegroups.com>,

Google has absolutely no relation to talk.origins or to albasani.net
(the news server from which Oxyaena appears to be posting). How is it
supposed to know anything about him?

Andre

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.

[jillery]

Even assuming an IP isn't part of a VPN, or spoofed, the IP identifies
a device, nowadays typically a router, with multiple computers
connected to it, and those local IPs are invisible on the internet
side. In any case, IPs don't identify the persons who use said
computers.

>Law enforcement has access to that information and a court order can force Google to disclose it.

Law enforcement doesn't involve itself in civil actions like
defamation suits. So no court order.

>Incidentally, posts on the internet are not considered published material, so the civil action would be for Slander, not Libel.

Posts on the internet are no more spoken material than are handwritten
letters, which also are not published.


You must enjoy proving your willful stupidity, you do it so often.

[vtand...@gmail.com]

WRONG.. I found this with my search engine:

talk.origins - Google Groups
https://groups.google.com/d/forum/talk.origins
Who is the senior Trump official who wrote the New York Times op-ed article titled: "I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration."? D

[vtand...@gmail.com]

WRONG. Everyone has been able to find my IP, including me.
One website kept me off it by banning my IP.
Not everyone uses a router.

In any case, IPs don't identify the persons who use said
> computers.

No, but they pinpoint the house it came from.Unless you posted from a public building, they can identify you.

>
>
> >Law enforcement has access to that information and a court order can force Google to disclose it.
>
>
> Law enforcement doesn't involve itself in civil actions like
> defamation suits. So no court order.

WRONG. If a lawsuit is filed, the local Sheriff serves the summons.
Sheriff's deputies act as bailiffs at civil court proceedings.
If a court order is issued, the sheriff enforces it.

>
>
> >Incidentally, posts on the internet are not considered published material, so the civil action would be for Slander, not Libel.
>
>
> Posts on the internet are no more spoken material than are handwritten
> letters, which also are not published.

The distinction is between published and unpublished material, published material being potentially libelous and unpublished material being potentially slanderous. If you are ignorant of the law, you can do research on the internet.

>
>
> You must enjoy proving your willful stupidity, you do it so often.

LOL! You are apparently too ignorant to know that you connected 2 sentences with a comma, which is poor grammar. Did you drop out of school after the 3rd grade?

[jillery]

WRONG. That you don't do anything to mask your IP says nothing about
the rest of the world. Unlike you, everything I posted above is
factually correct and relevant to the point.

> In any case, IPs don't identify the persons who use said
>> computers.
>
>No, but they pinpoint the house it came from.Unless you posted from a public building, they can identify you.

WRONG. Even if you're the only resident, most people I know have
guests, and allow said guests to use their computer. A plaintiff
would have to show nobody else had access to your computer.

>> >Law enforcement has access to that information and a court order can force Google to disclose it.
>>
>>
>> Law enforcement doesn't involve itself in civil actions like
>> defamation suits. So no court order.
>
>WRONG. If a lawsuit is filed, the local Sheriff serves the summons.
>Sheriff's deputies act as bailiffs at civil court proceedings.
>If a court order is issued, the sheriff enforces it.

WRONG. Sheriffs serve summons and act as bailiffs because that's part
of their job, not because they are directly involved in civil
lawsuits. In either case, a court would not issue a court order to
collect evidence for a civil suit. Each party is responsible for
collecting evidence on their own behalf.

>> >Incidentally, posts on the internet are not considered published material, so the civil action would be for Slander, not Libel.
>>
>>
>> Posts on the internet are no more spoken material than are handwritten
>> letters, which also are not published.
>
>The distinction is between published and unpublished material, published material being potentially libelous and unpublished material being potentially slanderous.

Not according to my cite. Prove it wrong.

>If you are ignorant of the law, you can do research on the internet.

Since you're wilfully stupid, you should use this moment as a good
time to learn how to back up your bald assertions. Or don't, and
continue to prove your willful stupidity.

>> You must enjoy proving your willful stupidity, you do it so often.
>
>LOL! You are apparently too ignorant to know that you connected 2 sentences with a comma, which is poor grammar. Did you drop out of school after the 3rd grade?

Your Momma called, time to change your nappies.

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <58aa6402-173a-49a3...@googlegroups.com>,

That’s google groups that you're looking at, which is google’s very poor
attempt at implementing news posting on the web.

Usenet exists entirely independently of google or the world-wide web,
and, unless you're accessing it via google groups, google is completely
uninvolved. Unless you are a masochist, it's probably best not to access
it via google groups since their interface is horrible.

[Burkhard]

Eh, no? Of course material on the Internet is published (and anyhow the
libel/slander distinction is between verbal was written) - it is in
fixed form and everyone can at any time look it up, which is the key
difference to slander, which only is communicated to a fixed audience.

Certain types of chatroom apps might be closer to slander because the
communication is immediately deleted, (in those jurisdictions that
actually make the distinction) but even this is debatable as long as the
communication is in writing. Usenet posts are unquestionably "published"
for the purpose of defamation law see e.g. M Collins: Law of Defamation
and the Internet, Oxford University Press 2006, specially p. 45ff:
"Libel or Slander."

Or here an easier to find expert practitioner's website:
https://www.traverselegal.com/defamation-libel-slander/

"Libel: Defamation which is written such as on a web site. Most on-line
defamation occurs through libel by posting a web page, comment, bulletin
board post, review, rating or blog post."

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 10:37:34 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

>On Sunday, September 16, 2018 at 8:40:02 PM UTC-4, jonathan wrote:

>> On 9/16/2018 1:58 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:

>> > On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 09:18:20 -0400, the following appeared
>> > in talk.origins, posted by jonathan
>> > <WriteI...@gmail.com>:

>> >> On 9/13/2018 12:32 PM, Oxyaena wrote:

>> >>> On 9/13/2018 10:54 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

>> >>>> The Subject line is, of course, reminiscent of the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis
>> >>>> and the "Axis of Evil" which included North Korea and Iran. The Axis
>> >>>> in the
>> >>>> Subject line could be called "The Axis of Pretending That Truth Is
>> >>>> Falsehood,
>> >>>> And Falsehood Is Truth."

>> >>> All of this bilge here could get you sued, if I was so inclined.

>> >> Sue for slander? Not a chance you could sue anyone in here
>> >> for slander. You'd have to prove how it harmed you.

>> > That's not why,

>> Yes it is.

>Congratulations, jonathan! You have made yourself look like a sage
>in comparison to Oxyaena for at least the second time this month.

I have sage growing in both the front and back yards; is
that the sort you meant, since his answer is so wrong that
he appears to have the knowledge of a plant?

<snip>

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 12:32:47 -0700 (PDT), the following

>Source?

https://injury-law.freeadvice.com/injury-law/libel_and_slander/defamatory_statements.htm
https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/how-to-sue-for-emotional-distress.html

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 12:33:57 -0700 (PDT), the following

https://injury-law.freeadvice.com/injury-law/libel_and_slander/defamatory_statements.htm
https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/how-to-sue-for-emotional-distress.html

That's twice for the same question regarding the same
subject in the same thread in one day. You might want to
bookmark the pages.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Sunday, September 16, 2018 at 5:05:03 PM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
> On 9/16/2018 3:29 PM, Wolffan wrote:
>
> Behold! The face and voice of the most tenacious troll in talk.origins
> history (besides Ted Holden):

I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you are
calling me a troll *sensu* jillery: "someone who frequently makes
provocative statements designed to yank another's chain"
or words to that effect.

Now, I do often make provocative statements, because I am what
a lot of people here would call a "goddamn moralizer."

IOW, I often make justifiable accusations that reflect badly on people
on account of their lack of adherence to traditional moral standards [1].

And, talk.origins being the godforsaken venue that it is,
these are far more apt to provoke massive retaliation
than false accusations, i.e., libels.

But I do not desire retaliation; and so I am not a troll *sensu* jillery,
let alone a troll in the more common sense, which is someone who
makes provocative statements without caring how much truth there
is to them, in order to yank others' chains.


[1] These values include honesty, sincerity, courage, and a
commitment to truth, justice, and fair play. All of which
I try to adhere to as best I can.

In that last trio, jillery sneeringly substitutes "the American way,"
and in the past I've felt that America has become so polarized that
there is no such thing any more.

But a missionary priest visiting us told us something interesting.
He said that in the Caribbean where he lived and worked many years,
citizens from there, after long visits to the USA, usually were
impressed by one quality of American people: by and large, they
are the "show me" people.

So something that we Americans typically associate with The "Show Me" State,
Missouri, is widely seen as being more typical of us Americans than
it is with the folks back home.

And so, from now on, I will let my accusations of despicable behavior
slowly taper off [2], and increasingly adopt more of a "show the rest of the readers" attitude towards accusation that I know to be unjust.

[2] except when I see what I looks like despicable behavior towards
someone ELSE; in such cases I will continue to be a "goddamn moralizer."




>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIwXdm_O7e8

Thank you, Oxyaena, for this link to a YouTube video that I
never knew about: a video where I contribute my bit to an
evening of reminiscing to an after-dinner audience in appreciation
of Mary Ellen Rudin. She was loved for many reasons, and was
arguably the best set-theoretic topologist of the last half century,
if not of all time.

It is a shame that many such evenings are only held when the
celebrated person -- in this case, Mary Ellen -- is no longer alive.
Fortunately, there were some nice talks given at a conference
in honor of her retirement, and I gave one there too, but those
talks were not recorded for posterity.


Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
Specialty: set-theoretic topology

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 20:35:43 -0400, the following appeared

Couldn't take a hint, even after I made it explicit? Here's
the part you snipped:

"Hint: Try looking up the definition of 'slander'.

(Yes, I'm being pedantic. But I figured you wouldn't bother
to check for possible reasons *why* I wrote that no one
posting in Usenet can be sued for slander; thanks for once
again proving me right.)"

And here's *why* you can't sue for slander for something
posted in Usenet (or for that matter, in the newspaper, in
an email, or anywhere else):

slander
noun
mass nounLaw

1The action or crime of making a false spoken statement
damaging to a person's reputation.
‘he is suing the TV company for slander’
Compare with libel

1.1count noun A false and malicious spoken statement.
‘I've had just about all I can stomach of your slanders’

See the part about "spoken"? What do you, O self-proclaimed
greatest mind of the 21st century, think that word might
signify?

And *that* is why he can't sue anyone here for slander.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 03:40:37 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by vtand...@gmail.com:

Assuming, of course, that he's not using a public computer.

>Incidentally, posts on the internet are not considered published material, so the civil action would be for Slander, not Libel.

Wrong again. Libel is written, whether formal or not. (And
you are also wrong regarding posts on the Internet,
including Usenet; anything written is considered "published"
*and* copyrighted for legal purposes.) Slander applies only
to *spoken* statements. And since you seem fond of asking
for "source", here are the definitions from
oxforddictionaries.com:

[begin defs]

slander
noun
mass nounLaw

1The action or crime of making a false spoken statement
damaging to a person's reputation.
‘he is suing the TV company for slander’
Compare with libel

1.1count noun A false and malicious spoken statement.
‘I've had just about all I can stomach of your slanders’

libel
noun

1Law
A published false statement that is damaging to a
person's reputation; a written defamation.
‘he was found guilty of a libel on a Liverpool inspector
of taxes’

publish
verb
[with object]

1Prepare and issue (a book, journal, or piece of music)
for public sale.
‘we publish practical reference books’
no object ‘the pressures on researchers to publish’

1.1 Print (something) in a book or journal so as to make
it generally known.
‘we pay £5 for every letter we publish’

1.2 Make (content) available online.
‘a few hours after publishing the post I received a response
from the founder of the company’
‘the photo has not been published on her Instagram account’

[end defs]

See specifically "publish" def 1.2.

[vtand...@gmail.com]

LOL!Here is a quote from your link

However, you must be able to prove the necessary elements of a defamation suit if you wish to collect damages.

Understanding Defamation, Libel, and Slander

Defamation can take two forms, which are generally referred to as libel and slander. Libel is defined as a defamation of a person, group, organization, product, government, or country that was made in written or printed words or in pictures. Slander is the same thing, except the defamatory statement was made in the form of spoken words, sounds, sign language, or gestures.

Reasons for a Defamation Lawsuit

You may be able to sue for defamation if:

False statements were made as if they were true.
The defamation caused damages.

If you get damages, it will be in the form of money.

[vtand...@gmail.com]

No. You made 2 different statements in 2 different posts.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 4:20:02 AM UTC-4, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 9:35:02 AM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
> > On 9/13/2018 10:54 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > The Subject line is, of course, reminiscent of the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis
> > > and the "Axis of Evil" which included North Korea and Iran. The Axis in the
> > > Subject line could be called "The Axis of Pretending That Truth Is Falsehood,
> > > And Falsehood Is Truth."
> >
> > All of this bilge here could get you sued, if I was so inclined.
>
> If you sued him, you would have to prove(1) his statement caused you a financial loss,(2) the exact amount of the loss and (3) the statements are factually false and he knows they are false.

Casanova self-servingly and Oxyaena-servingly focused on (1) and (2)
and made no effort to address (3). He's been told, and Oxyaena's been
told, that if Oxyaena were so self-destructive as to sue me for libel,
one of the best lawyers in South Carolina would take my case *pro bono*,
and would win hands-down.

Not only that, but HE could sue for monetary damages via a "frivolous
lawsuit" tort against Oxyaena, for money lost due to court costs,
and through loss of what he could have gotten, had I paid him to
take my case.

And I'm sure Oxyaena's spouse would know, even if Oxaena's mental condition
is so bad that she does not know it, that such a counter-suit would
win hands down. And if Oxyaena gets off being "not guilty by reason
of insanity," any lawyer foolish enough to take her case would
suffer the consequences, up to and including possible disbarment.


And so you see, Oxyaena was pretending that truth is falsehood
with her "...bilge here could get you sued...".

And Casanova was pretending that falsehood is truth
when he alleged that the difference between slander and libel
is "the" reason why Oxyaena couldn't sue me for slander.
Oxyaena couldn't successfully sue me for libel
because of (3); specifically, because the things I say about her
are highly justifiable.

>
> You cannot sue someone merely on the basis of his opinion just because he insulted you.
>
> The purpose of a civil suit is reimbursement for damages.

Yes, but those damages could include mental distress, as Casanova
has indicated.


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

Having experienced both "nn" and New Google Groups, I still
prefer the latter by and large because (1) it is in html, so
I can use my "Find" facility to locate words or phrases and
(2) the webpage shows you up to 25 (and up to a hundred if
there are fewer than 100 posts to a thread) posts at a time,
even while you are typing a reply and (3) it doesn't change
the thread even if someone changes the Subject line.

And it has another advantage over Giganews: it's free.

Can you find me a way of participating in talk.origins that
has all these advantages?

>
> Usenet exists entirely independently of google or the world-wide web,
> and, unless you're accessing it via google groups, google is completely
> uninvolved.

That's a bit like saying, "unless you are outside, you are uninvolved
in rain or snow or sleet or shine."

> Unless you are a masochist, it's probably best not to access
> it via google groups since their interface is horrible.

In what way?


Peter Nyikos

[Oxyaena]

On 9/18/2018 1:42 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
[snip unrepentant self-righteous bullshit]
Just to let you know Burkhard doesn't think I`m ignorant about Aquinas.
And if any of what you wrote was even remotely true, you wouldn't be
calling me an ignoramus either. Go fuck yourself.

[Oxyaena]

[snip empty threats and complete horseshit]

I said "if I had the inclination of suing", and yes, comparing me to
Nazis and alleging me to be a part of a conspiracy does count as "libel".

[vtand...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 11:25:03 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 4:20:02 AM UTC-4, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 9:35:02 AM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
> > > On 9/13/2018 10:54 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > > The Subject line is, of course, reminiscent of the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis
> > > > and the "Axis of Evil" which included North Korea and Iran. The Axis in the
> > > > Subject line could be called "The Axis of Pretending That Truth Is Falsehood,
> > > > And Falsehood Is Truth."
> > >
> > > All of this bilge here could get you sued, if I was so inclined.
> >
> > If you sued him, you would have to prove(1) his statement caused you a financial loss,(2) the exact amount of the loss and (3) the statements are factually false and he knows they are false.
>
> Casanova self-servingly and Oxyaena-servingly focused on (1) and (2)
> and made no effort to address (3). He's been told, and Oxyaena's been
> told, that if Oxyaena were so self-destructive as to sue me for libel,
> one of the best lawyers in South Carolina would take my case *pro bono*,
> and would win hands-down.

I don't think you would need a lawyer. Before the case could ever get to court, a judge would screen it and decide they simply have not met the legal requirements for a defamation suit.(1) It would be very difficult to prove a
post on USENET caused her a financial loss because only a few people actually read this newsgroup and none of those is in a position to hurt you financially. Even if what you said hurt her reputation, only a few people would know about it, so the actual damage to her rep would be very small.
(2)Successful action for Defamation requires a false statement of fact. What you said about her is your opinion, which is not actionable.(3)Since what you said is opinion and not fact, ya can't prove you knew it was false.

>
> Not only that, but HE could sue for monetary damages via a "frivolous
> lawsuit" tort against Oxyaena, for money lost due to court costs,
> and through loss of what he could have gotten, had I paid him to
> take my case.

I suggest you research S. Carolina law. It may be one of those states which requires the loser in a civil suit to pay court costs. If it is, you would not have to pay anything at all.

>
> And I'm sure Oxyaena's spouse would know, even if Oxaena's mental condition
> is so bad that she does not know it, that such a counter-suit would
> win hands down. And if Oxyaena gets off being "not guilty by reason
> of insanity," any lawyer foolish enough to take her case would
> suffer the consequences, up to and including possible disbarment.
>
>
> And so you see, Oxyaena was pretending that truth is falsehood
> with her "...bilge here could get you sued...".
>
> And Casanova was pretending that falsehood is truth
> when he alleged that the difference between slander and libel
> is "the" reason why Oxyaena couldn't sue me for slander.
> Oxyaena couldn't successfully sue me for libel
> because of (3); specifically, because the things I say about her
> are highly justifiable.
>
> >
> > You cannot sue someone merely on the basis of his opinion just because he insulted you.
> >
> > The purpose of a civil suit is reimbursement for damages.
>
> Yes, but those damages could include mental distress, as Casanova
> has indicated.

Some of the states have been cracking down on mental distress claims and
awarding very little for it. The amount of damage awards is guided by awards in similar prior cases. Usually, damages for Mental distress will only be awarded in cases where the basic award is very large.
The Supreme Ct struck down an award for mental distress granted by a lower court in a case where someone sued Larry Flynt.

[Peter Nyikos]

On Sunday, September 16, 2018 at 3:35:02 PM UTC-4, Wolffan wrote:
> On 16 Sep 2018, jillery wrote
> (in article<8i4tpdpm28klo8qd9...@4ax.com>):
>
> > On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 10:18:03 -0400, Wolffan<akwo...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On 13 Sep 2018, Peter Nyikos wrote
> > > (in article<212c87c3-3d38-4f30...@googlegroups.com>):
> > >
> > > > But both of them stuck tenaciously to the claim
> > > > that I had libeled Oxyaena.
> > >
> > > that would be because you have done exactly that, Petey-me-lad.
> >
> > That's not it. Jillery made no such claim, tenaciously or otherwise.

Jillery did make such a claim, but you'll have to wait until
I tell her, Wolfie, if you want to find out what it was.


> > OTOH Nyikos the peter seems determined to prove your claim for you.

Jillery sure knows how to pretend that truth is falsehood,
and falsehood truth.

> Hmm. My error. _You_ may not have stated that, but it's certain that Petey
> did commit libel. He has continued to do so. He's being even more of a sad
> sack of shit than he normally is. In times past he'd have run for the hills
> long since. One wonders just what Oxy did to piss poor Petey off, one really
> does. I want to know so that I can do it too.

> Come on, Petey, elaborate further and give me ammunition.

Sorry, Wolfie, I concluded long ago that you simply haven't got
what it takes to be in the same league as jillery or Oxyaena or Casanova.

Your *modus operandi*, with only one exception I can recall,
is to spew generic insults, like you are doing in that multi-line
paragraph up there.


Generic insults convey no information directly,
only indirectly.

And all they convey indirectly is a dislike
by the insulter for the insultee, and an
inability or unwillingness to express
that dislike in a responsible manner.
As the old "nursery rhyme" puts it:

"I do not like thee, Dr. Fell.
Why this is, I cannot tell.
But I know, and know full well,
I do not like thee, Dr. Fell."


The one exception was paraphrased by me something like the following,
with me calling myself "Dr. Fell" and you spewing the
lines which you would spew, were you sincere about
this particular non-generic insult:

I wrote that thou wast outed as a creationist, Dr. Fell.
How or when or where this might have happened, I cannot tell.
But I know, and know full well,
I wrote that thou wast outed as a creationist, Dr. Fell.


Peter Nyikos

[Oxyaena]

Nyikos has invariably besmirched the title "mathematician" on Usenet,
and now whenever anyone hears the word "mathematician" they think of
"self-righteous asshole who isn't nearly as eloquent or as smart as he
(it?) thinks it is".

What a travesty.

[Oxyaena]

Back-handed compliment noted.

>
> Your *modus operandi*, with only one exception I can recall,
> is to spew generic insults, like you are doing in that multi-line
> paragraph up there.

That appears to be correct, but at least Wolffan isn't a cowardly liar
such as the likes of you. Remember when you compared me to Trump?
Honestly he far more resembles you than me. You can't say the word
"hypocrisy" without being the literal personification of "hypocrisy".
Wolffan tends to be pretty blunt, but at least he's able to recognize
bullshit when he sees it. For the record his opinion of you is spot on,
IMHO.


[snip poetics]

[vtand...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 12:40:02 PM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
> Nyikos has invariably besmirched the title "mathematician" on Usenet,
> and now whenever anyone hears the word "mathematician" they think of
> "self-righteous asshole who isn't nearly as eloquent or as smart as he
> (it?) thinks it is".

That's wrong. I don't think that.

If you want to know what people think, you must take an opinion poll.
Any speculation without that is fraudulent presumptuous nonsense..

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 3:35:03 PM UTC-4, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 11:25:03 AM UTC-7, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 4:20:02 AM UTC-4, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 9:35:02 AM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
> > > > On 9/13/2018 10:54 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > > > The Subject line is, of course, reminiscent of the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis
> > > > > and the "Axis of Evil" which included North Korea and Iran. The Axis in the
> > > > > Subject line could be called "The Axis of Pretending That Truth Is Falsehood,
> > > > > And Falsehood Is Truth."
> > > >
> > > > All of this bilge here could get you sued, if I was so inclined.
> > >
> > > If you sued him, you would have to prove(1) his statement caused you a financial loss,(2) the exact amount of the loss and (3) the statements are factually false and he knows they are false.
> >
> > Casanova self-servingly and Oxyaena-servingly focused on (1) and (2)
> > and made no effort to address (3). He's been told, and Oxyaena's been
> > told, that if Oxyaena were so self-destructive as to sue me for libel,
> > one of the best lawyers in South Carolina would take my case *pro bono*,
> > and would win hands-down.
>
> I don't think you would need a lawyer. Before the case could ever get to court, a judge would screen it and decide they simply have not met the legal requirements for a defamation suit.(1) It would be very difficult to prove a
> post on USENET caused her a financial loss because only a few people actually read this newsgroup and none of those is in a position to hurt you financially. Even if what you said hurt her reputation, only a few people would know about it, so the actual damage to her rep would be very small.

> (2)Successful action for Defamation requires a false statement of fact. What you said about her is your opinion, which is not actionable.

Both Oxyaena and Casanova conveniently deleted factual statements,
complete with links documenting their truth, from their replies
to my OP (Opening/Original Post of this thread). Hence what I wrote there
was not mere opinion.

The one exception was where Oxyaena made such stupid comments
in "refutation" that I saw no reason to try and point out
their stupidity. Instead I posted another example where
she had brazenly pretended that truth is falsehood, and
falsehood truth.

She had lied that I had not shown what I had amply shown,
and I linked the post to which she was replying. She
had cravenly snipped everything whose existence she was denying.

Here is where I did that:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/vh_5qLZ_2y0/1KnwA2ycBAAJ
Subject: Re: More Dawkins
Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2018 08:57:15 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <983b7fa9-f6ff-44b5...@googlegroups.com>


And here is where I reposted it to this very thread:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/zFfUhJZG1dk/kYREDlA_CAAJ
Subject: Re: OT: Pure bullshit
Lines: 217
Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2018 10:29:19 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <d5818832-46af-48d7...@googlegroups.com>

3)Since what you said is opinion and not fact, ya can't prove you knew it was false.

In fact, a great deal of what I say when I accuse Oxyaena of various
forms of dishonesty, stupidity, cowardice, and hypocrisy is highly
documentable and specific, as the links show.

>
> >
> > Not only that, but HE could sue for monetary damages via a "frivolous
> > lawsuit" tort against Oxyaena, for money lost due to court costs,
> > and through loss of what he could have gotten, had I paid him to
> > take my case.
>
> I suggest you research S. Carolina law. It may be one of those states which requires the loser in a civil suit to pay court costs. If it is, you would not have to pay anything at all.

That may be, but it does not address my second point.

> > And I'm sure Oxyaena's spouse would know, even if Oxaena's mental condition
> > is so bad that she does not know it, that such a counter-suit would
> > win hands down. And if Oxyaena gets off being "not guilty by reason
> > of insanity," any lawyer foolish enough to take her case would
> > suffer the consequences, up to and including possible disbarment.
> >
> >
> > And so you see, Oxyaena was pretending that truth is falsehood
> > with her "...bilge here could get you sued...".
> >
> > And Casanova was pretending that falsehood is truth
> > when he alleged that the difference between slander and libel
> > is "the" reason why Oxyaena couldn't sue me for slander.
> > Oxyaena couldn't successfully sue me for libel
> > because of (3); specifically, because the things I say about her
> > are highly justifiable.
> >
> > >
> > > You cannot sue someone merely on the basis of his opinion just because he insulted you.
> > >
> > > The purpose of a civil suit is reimbursement for damages.
> >
> > Yes, but those damages could include mental distress, as Casanova
> > has indicated.
>
> Some of the states have been cracking down on mental distress claims and
> awarding very little for it. The amount of damage awards is guided by awards in similar prior cases. Usually, damages for Mental distress will only be awarded in cases where the basic award is very large.

I know of glaring exceptions: bakers being sued for refusing to
make cakes celebrating same-sex civil unions which their religion
tells them are not marriages. One successful lawsuit that has
NOT been overturned AFAIK is was for over $100,000.

> The Supreme Ct struck down an award for mental distress granted by a lower court in a case where someone sued Larry Flynt.

The one baker who won his case at SCOTUS did so because the
State of Colorado had blundered by showing bias against the
baker's religion. Cases where such mistakes were NOT made
did not fall under the ruling that was crafted by retiring
Judge Anthony Kennedy.


Peter Nyikos

[vtand...@gmail.com]

That's not what I meant. I was referring to what you called her when you insulted her..That is opinion. Are you stupid?

>
>
> >
> > >
> > > Not only that, but HE could sue for monetary damages via a "frivolous
> > > lawsuit" tort against Oxyaena, for money lost due to court costs,
> > > and through loss of what he could have gotten, had I paid him to
> > > take my case.
> >
> > I suggest you research S. Carolina law. It may be one of those states which requires the loser in a civil suit to pay court costs. If it is, you would not have to pay anything at all.
>
> That may be, but it does not address my second point.

If you say it is not relevant, I'd be forced to call you stupid.

>
>
> > > And I'm sure Oxyaena's spouse would know, even if Oxaena's mental condition
> > > is so bad that she does not know it, that such a counter-suit would
> > > win hands down. And if Oxyaena gets off being "not guilty by reason
> > > of insanity," any lawyer foolish enough to take her case would
> > > suffer the consequences, up to and including possible disbarment.
> > >
> > >
> > > And so you see, Oxyaena was pretending that truth is falsehood
> > > with her "...bilge here could get you sued...".

That's just an idle threat and is not actionable.

> > >
> > > And Casanova was pretending that falsehood is truth
> > > when he alleged that the difference between slander and libel
> > > is "the" reason why Oxyaena couldn't sue me for slander.
> > > Oxyaena couldn't successfully sue me for libel
> > > because of (3); specifically, because the things I say about her
> > > are highly justifiable.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > You cannot sue someone merely on the basis of his opinion just because he insulted you.
> > > >
> > > > The purpose of a civil suit is reimbursement for damages.
> > >
> > > Yes, but those damages could include mental distress, as Casanova
> > > has indicated.
> >
> > Some of the states have been cracking down on mental distress claims and
> > awarding very little for it. The amount of damage awards is guided by awards in similar prior cases. Usually, damages for Mental distress will only be awarded in cases where the basic award is very large.
>
> I know of glaring exceptions: bakers being sued for refusing to
> make cakes celebrating same-sex civil unions which their religion
> tells them are not marriages. One successful lawsuit that has
> NOT been overturned AFAIK is was for over $100,000.

Cite the case.

We are discussing only awards for mental distress.

>
> > The Supreme Ct struck down an award for mental distress granted by a lower court in a case where someone sued Larry Flynt.
>
> The one baker who won his case at SCOTUS did so because the
> State of Colorado had blundered by showing bias against the
> baker's religion. Cases where such mistakes were NOT made
> did not fall under the ruling that was crafted by retiring
> Judge Anthony Kennedy.

... and that is relevant how?
>

[Oxyaena]

[snip horseshit]


You cannot say the word "hypocrisy" without being the utter embodiment
of that word.

HAND.



[snip horseshit]

[jillery]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 12:31:47 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:

>On Sunday, September 16, 2018 at 3:35:02 PM UTC-4, Wolffan wrote:
>> On 16 Sep 2018, jillery wrote
>> (in article<8i4tpdpm28klo8qd9...@4ax.com>):
>>
>> > On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 10:18:03 -0400, Wolffan<akwo...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > On 13 Sep 2018, Peter Nyikos wrote
>> > > (in article<212c87c3-3d38-4f30...@googlegroups.com>):
>> > >
>> > > > But both of them stuck tenaciously to the claim
>> > > > that I had libeled Oxyaena.
>> > >
>> > > that would be because you have done exactly that, Petey-me-lad.
>> >
>> > That's not it. Jillery made no such claim, tenaciously or otherwise.
>
>Jillery did make such a claim, but you'll have to wait until
>I tell her, Wolfie, if you want to find out what it was.

Liar. That you posted no evidence of your Big Lie shows you know you
have none, and are just making up crap because you have nothing
intelligent to say.

>> > OTOH Nyikos the peter seems determined to prove your claim for you.
>
>Jillery sure knows how to pretend that truth is falsehood,
>and falsehood truth.

Your nonsense non-sequiturs are just one of many troll tactics you
share with the good DrDr.


<snip remaining irrelevant spew>

[jillery]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 11:48:18 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>Having experienced both "nn" and New Google Groups, I still
>prefer the latter by and large because (1) it is in html, so
>I can use my "Find" facility to locate words or phrases and
>(2) the webpage shows you up to 25 (and up to a hundred if
>there are fewer than 100 posts to a thread) posts at a time,
>even while you are typing a reply and (3) it doesn't change
>the thread even if someone changes the Subject line.
>
>And it has another advantage over Giganews: it's free.
>
>Can you find me a way of participating in talk.origins that
>has all these advantages?

You have been told several times of ways to do for free AOTA with the
singular exception of being in HTML. But every time you're told, you
pull your 3monkeys routine and ignore it, or worse, blame me for your
problems.

[jillery]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 11:04:20 -0700 (PDT), vtand...@gmail.com wrote:


>> https://injury-law.freeadvice.com/injury-law/libel_and_slander/defamatory_statements.htm
>> https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/how-to-sue-for-emotional-distress.html
>> --
>>
>LOL!Here is a quote from your link
>
>However, you must be able to prove the necessary elements of a defamation suit if you wish to collect damages.
>
>Understanding Defamation, Libel, and Slander
>
>
>Defamation can take two forms, which are generally referred to as libel and slander. Libel is defined as a defamation of a person, group, organization, product, government, or country that was made in written or printed words or in pictures. Slander is the same thing, except the defamatory statement was made in the form of spoken words, sounds, sign language, or gestures.
>
>Reasons for a Defamation Lawsuit
>
>You may be able to sue for defamation if:
>
>False statements were made as if they were true.
>The defamation caused damages.
>
>If you get damages, it will be in the form of money.

Apparently you don't understand the difference between damages which
precipitate defamatory suits, and damages which are awarded as a
result of successful defamatory suits. Is anybody surprised.

[jillery]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 10:42:53 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

<nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:

<snip irrelevant spew>

>[1] These values include honesty, sincerity, courage, and a
>commitment to truth, justice, and fair play. All of which
>I try to adhere to as best I can.
>
>In that last trio, jillery sneeringly substitutes "the American way,"
>and in the past I've felt that America has become so polarized that
>there is no such thing any more.

Liar. Jillery substitutes nothing and I know you know it.

And your concepts of truth, justice and fair play are too blatantly
self-serving to be comparable to their dictionary definitions.


<snip more irrelevant spew>

>Peter Nyikos
>Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
>University of South Carolina
>Specialty: set-theoretic topology

Apparently your specialty includes posting repetitive Big Lies. Not
sure what diploma mill gave you credit for that.

[jillery]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 11:23:27 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

<nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:

>And Casanova was pretending that falsehood is truth
>when he alleged that the difference between slander and libel
>is "the" reason why Oxyaena couldn't sue me for slander.
>Oxyaena couldn't successfully sue me for libel
>because of (3); specifically, because the things I say about her
>are highly justifiable.

Of course, that's *exactly* why Oxyaena can't sue you for slander.
It's the same problem as trying to make a 5-cornered square, a simple
matter of definition. Not sure why you *still* argue otherwise.

Of course, you *might* be sued for libel or defamation for your Usenet
posts. IMO such a suit would be unsuccessful, but not because of the
reasons you gave above.

[Mark Isaak]

Thunderbird and EternalSeptember.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Omnia disce. Videbis postea nihil esse superfluum."
- Hugh of St. Victor

[Wolffan]

On 18 Sep 2018, Peter Nyikos wrote
(in article<eb56a3f2-d8e2-4dec...@googlegroups.com>):

> On Sunday, September 16, 2018 at 3:35:02 PM UTC-4, Wolffan wrote:
> > On 16 Sep 2018, jillery wrote
> > (in article<8i4tpdpm28klo8qd9...@4ax.com>):
> >
> > > On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 10:18:03 -0400, Wolffan<akwo...@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 13 Sep 2018, Peter Nyikos wrote
> > > > (in article<212c87c3-3d38-4f30...@googlegroups.com>):
> > > >
> > > > > But both of them stuck tenaciously to the claim
> > > > > that I had libeled Oxyaena.
> > > >
> > > > that would be because you have done exactly that, Petey-me-lad.
> > >
> > > That's not it. Jillery made no such claim, tenaciously or otherwise.
>
> Jillery did make such a claim, but you'll have to wait until
> I tell her, Wolfie, if you want to find out what it was.
>
> > > OTOH Nyikos the peter seems determined to prove your claim for you.
>
> Jillery sure knows how to pretend that truth is falsehood,
> and falsehood truth.

damn, but you’re an unrepentant liar.

>
> > Hmm. My error. _You_ may not have stated that, but it's certain that Petey
> > did commit libel. He has continued to do so. He's being even more of a sad
> > sack of shit than he normally is. In times past he'd have run for the hills
> > long since. One wonders just what Oxy did to piss poor Petey off, one really
> > does. I want to know so that I can do it too.
>
> > Come on, Petey, elaborate further and give me ammunition.
>
> Sorry, Wolfie, I concluded long ago that you simply haven't got
> what it takes to be in the same league as jillery or Oxyaena or Casanova.

Petey, you’re a bottom-feeding troll of the worst sort.

>
>
> Your *modus operandi*, with only one exception I can recall,
> is to spew generic insults, like you are doing in that multi-line
> paragraph up there.

I stated truth, Petey. Of course, as you would know truth if it bent you over
a barrel and butt-fucked you (though you might enjoy that) well..

>
>
> Generic insults convey no information directly,
> only indirectly.

You’d be the expert on that, Petey.

>
>
> And all they convey indirectly is a dislike
> by the insulter for the insultee,

oh, much more than that, Petey, thou sad sack of shit.

> and an
> inability or unwillingness to express
> that dislike in a responsible manner.
> As the old "nursery rhyme" puts it:
>
> "I do not like thee, Dr. Fell.
> Why this is, I cannot tell.
> But I know, and know full well,
> I do not like thee, Dr. Fell."

Damn, boy, I’ve made the reasons why I think that you’re a sub-human
collection of animated feacal matter sufficiently clear that even you
couldn’t possibly miss it.

>
>
> The one exception was paraphrased by me something like the following,
> with me calling myself "Dr. Fell" and you spewing the
> lines which you would spew, were you sincere about
> this particular non-generic insult:
>
> I wrote that thou wast outed as a creationist, Dr. Fell.
> How or when or where this might have happened, I cannot tell.
> But I know, and know full well,
> I wrote that thou wast outed as a creationist, Dr. Fell.

You _are_ a creationist, Petey. And a scummy one.
>
>
> Peter Nyikos

[Wolffan]

On 17 Sep 2018, Oxyaena wrote
(in article <pnopvq$3p4$2...@news.albasani.net>):

> On 9/17/2018 12:45 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 3:05:03 PM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:
> > > On 9/13/2018 2:09 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> > > > Note to people with threaded newsreaders: Oxyaena posted a reply to my
> > > > OP, changing the Subject line to OT: Pure bullshit
> > > >
> > > > If Oxyaena were the sort who indulges in self-deprecating humor, one
> > > > might think
> > > > that her whole reply was playfully meant to be an example of "pure
> > > > bullshit."
> > >
> > > Comparing me to Nazis pure bullshit,
> >
> >
> > Watch me compare you to Donald Trump.
>
> Psychological projection noted.
>
> >
> > I am sure you both exist.
>
> https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law
>
> You've just forfeited the argument by calling me a Nazi.
>
> [snip more projection]

Petey’s not rational. He never was particularly tightly wrapped, and has
got steadily worse over the years.

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <813bd6eb-da2d-466a...@googlegroups.com>,

I haven't used nn or other text-based newsreaders (rn, tin, slrn) in
over three decades and my memory generally doesn't work reliably for
anything that happened before breakfast, so I can't comment specifically
on these, but searching for text doesn't normally depend on it being
html.

> and
> (2) the webpage shows you up to 25 (and up to a hundred if
> there are fewer than 100 posts to a thread) posts at a time,
> even while you are typing a reply and (3) it doesn't change
> the thread even if someone changes the Subject line.

I still use mt-newswatcher, which allows all of the things you mention
above, though I probably wouldn't recommend that to someone trying to
switch from google groups to a newsreader for the first time since it is
(AFAIK) mac-only and it won't run on recent versions of macOS [I run it
in virtual snow leopard; I think it also runs on on Mac OS X 10.7 and
maybe 10.8]

> And it has another advantage over Giganews: it's free.

Both eternal september and albasani are free.

> Can you find me a way of participating in talk.origins that
> has all these advantages?

Any free news server (I use eternal september) + pretty much any
GUI-based newsreader.

>
> >
> > Usenet exists entirely independently of google or the world-wide web,
> > and, unless you're accessing it via google groups, google is completely
> > uninvolved.
>
> That's a bit like saying, "unless you are outside, you are uninvolved
> in rain or snow or sleet or shine."
>
>
> > Unless you are a masochist, it's probably best not to access
> > it via google groups since their interface is horrible.
>
> In what way?

The ones which immediately jump to mind are (1) the fact that google
groups 'threading' simply displays messages in chronological order
instead of grouping replies together with the post being replied to
(only the latter actually constitutes threading as I use the term) and
(2) the fact that google groups arbitrarily decides to hide large chunks
of quoted text which makes reading replies extremely annoying.

The last time I made extensive use of google groups was around three
years ago when I was hospitalized and had to use one of the public
computers there for internet access. At the time I developed a much
lengthier list of grievances against google groups, but as I said my
memory doesn't go back that far. But the experience was painful enough
that I'm not willing to spend any time on google groups now just for the
purpose of reconstructing my list of its failings.

Andre

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.

[Burkhard]

Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 01:17:25 -0700 (PDT), the following

> appeared in talk.origins, posted by vtand...@gmail.com:
>

>> On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 9:35:02 AM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
>>> On 9/13/2018 10:54 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>> The Subject line is, of course, reminiscent of the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis
>>>> and the "Axis of Evil" which included North Korea and Iran. The Axis in the
>>>> Subject line could be called "The Axis of Pretending That Truth Is Falsehood,
>>>> And Falsehood Is Truth."
>>>
>>> All of this bilge here could get you sued, if I was so inclined.
>>
>> If you sued him, you would have to prove(1) his statement caused you a financial loss,(2) the exact amount of the loss and (3) the statements are factually false and he knows they are false.
>

> IIRC, although that *may* have been the original
> requirement, currently no monetary issues are required to be
> proven, or even estimated.
>

No, you were right first time round :o) Defamation was always an odd one
out in the law of torts in that it did not require the financial loss
(one of the reasons it was called an "oddity" by the court in Gertz v.
Robert Welch, Inc.)

Rather, you look for any “impairment of reputation and standing in the
community, personal humiliation, and mental anguish and suffering”. This
can be as little as a subtle change in behaviour towards you by others,
as the court in Dun & Bradstreet, Inc. v.
Greenmoss Builders, Inc., 472 U.S. 749, 760–61 (1985)ruled:
"The rationale of the common-law rules has been the experience and
judgment of history that proof of actual damage will be impossible in a
great many cases where, from the character of the defamatory words and
the circumstances of publication, it is all but certain that serious
harm has resulted in fact. . . . As a result, courts for centuries have
allowed juries to presume that some damage occurred from many defamatory
utterances and publications.[these can be] “subtle differences in the
conduct of the recipients toward the plaintiff”

What exactly you have to prove depends, and that's when things get
complicated, at least in the US. There is a historical distinction
between "defamation per se" and defamation per quod. Per se defamation
include false accusations of having committed a crime of moral
turpitude, suffering from a STD and a closed list of other such
"obvious" defamatory issues.Historically, you have to prove next to
nothing to get damages in such a case, there is a default assumption
that this type of accusation damages your reputation - the sum to be
determined without much guidance by a jury. Appeal courts and SCOTUS
don't like it, and have over the years nibbled at it (some states gave
up the concept altogether). So there have been cases of per se
defamation where juries awarded massive damages, but appeal courts
reduced them to nominal damages because the claimant couldn't show that
anyone whatsoever had believed the original comment, and no reasonable
person would. A case in point is Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp v.
Jacobson.

In per quod defamation cases, you do have to prove harm - but again this
needs not be financial loss, loss of reputation and mental anguish over
it suffices. Of course, if you can show also a financial loss, that has
a double advantage - it raises a claim for compensation on its own, and
is also evidence that your reputation did indeed suffer etc. But
compelling witness evidence that tou were distraught, plus verifiable
observations of how people reacted to you (e.g. if you suddenly get lots
of threatening letters, or dis-invitation to parties)

If you can show in addition that the defamer acted with malice, you can
also get punitive damages - they are obviously unconnected to any loss
you suffered, and meant as a deterrent.

Finally, depending on jurisdiction there are non-monetary sanctions the
court can award to you, such as "discursive" sanction: apologies,
publish a retraction, or an injunction against future repetition of the
defamatory content.

So vtandofsky is definitely wrong on this

>> You cannot sue someone merely on the basis of his opinion just because he insulted you.
>>
>> The purpose of a civil suit is reimbursement for damages.
>

[Peter Nyikos]

On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 4:10:03 PM UTC-4, vtand...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 12:40:02 PM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:

> > Nyikos has invariably besmirched the title "mathematician" on Usenet,

Here, Oxyaena is posting in "le Usenet, c'est jillery, Casanova, Kleinman,
jonathan et moi" mode.

> > and now whenever anyone hears the word "mathematician" they think of
> > "self-righteous asshole who isn't nearly as eloquent or as smart as he
> > (it?) thinks it is".
>
> That's wrong. I don't think that.

Of course not. Oxyaena is just preying on the huge weaknesses
of talk.origins that exist side by side with its great strengths.
One huge weakness is that people can post utter crap, like the
stuff that comes out of Oxyaena's computer, and get off scot-free
as long as they don't rock the boat of the whole membership too badly.

You seem to have joined talk.origins just this month, and it is such
a unique venue that impossible for anyone to learn about its ins
and outs in just a month.

> If you want to know what people think, you must take an opinion poll.
> Any speculation without that is fraudulent presumptuous nonsense..

One reason Oxyaena and about a dozen people (including the ones
listed in "Le talk.origins, c'est...") get off scot-free
despite perennial despicable behavior is that almost
all the rest of the readership don't respond to opinion polls.

With complete disregard of the concept of QUORUM, these hellions
consider themselves vindicated if half a dozen vote at all, and
they get a majority.


Ochlocracy in action.


Alas, all too many talk.origins regulars fail to heed the following saying:

All that is needed for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing.
--loose paraphrase of statements by Edmund Burke


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

I don't see anything in Thunderbird except what I am working on, one-line
references to other items, and individual things I put in overlapping
windows by clicking on those one-line references. That's a huge
disadvantage compared to what I get in NGG.

Can you fix your Thunderbird display to act differently?


Andre Isaak, who is a far, far better person than you despite the coincidence
of your surnames, didn't like NGG for two somewhat minor reasons.
They certainly do not outweigh the disadvantages of Thunderbird
I mentioned.

Andre uses a MAC, and I don't have ready access to a MAC.


Peter Nyikos

[Peter Nyikos]

On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 2:00:03 PM UTC-4, Oxyaena wrote:

...something that was replied to by me here:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/Rm4t6MoUezE/Qt1PncvHCQAJ
Subject: OT: Below-50-IQ Simulator of the Month (Nomination)
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2018 09:18:32 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <52fdea54-5b9a-4ccf...@googlegroups.com>

The nominee only dug herself in deeper in two rapid-fire replies.

Peter Nyikos

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 11:04:20 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by vtand...@gmail.com:

>On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 10:35:02 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 12:32:47 -0700 (PDT), the following

>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by vtand...@gmail.com:
>>

>> >On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 10:00:03 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 01:17:25 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by vtand...@gmail.com:
>> >>
>> >> >On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 9:35:02 AM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
>> >> >> On 9/13/2018 10:54 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> >> >> > The Subject line is, of course, reminiscent of the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis
>> >> >> > and the "Axis of Evil" which included North Korea and Iran. The Axis in the
>> >> >> > Subject line could be called "The Axis of Pretending That Truth Is Falsehood,
>> >> >> > And Falsehood Is Truth."
>> >> >>
>> >> >> All of this bilge here could get you sued, if I was so inclined.
>> >> >
>> >> >If you sued him, you would have to prove(1) his statement caused you a financial loss,(2) the exact amount of the loss and (3) the statements are factually false and he knows they are false.
>> >>
>> >> IIRC, although that *may* have been the original
>> >> requirement, currently no monetary issues are required to be
>> >> proven, or even estimated.
>> >>

>> >> >You cannot sue someone merely on the basis of his opinion just because he insulted you.
>> >> >
>> >> >The purpose of a civil suit is reimbursement for damages.
>> >>
>> >> Legally, damages need not be financial to be actionable.
>>

>> >Source?

>>
>> https://injury-law.freeadvice.com/injury-law/libel_and_slander/defamatory_statements.htm
>> https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/how-to-sue-for-emotional-distress.html
>> --
>>
>LOL!Here is a quote from your link
>
>However, you must be able to prove the necessary elements of a defamation suit if you wish to collect damages.
>
>Understanding Defamation, Libel, and Slander
>
>
>Defamation can take two forms, which are generally referred to as libel and slander. Libel is defined as a defamation of a person, group, organization, product, government, or country that was made in written or printed words or in pictures. Slander is the same thing, except the defamatory statement was made in the form of spoken words, sounds, sign language, or gestures.
>
>Reasons for a Defamation Lawsuit
>
>You may be able to sue for defamation if:
>
>False statements were made as if they were true.
>The defamation caused damages.

Correct in all particulars.

>If you get damages, it will be in the form of money.

Of course, since "damages" is money awarded to the
plaintiff.

"Damage", OTOH, is defamation *of*, or other harm *to*, the
plaintiff.

Your assertion was that the plaintiff must suffer monetary
damage in order to be awarded damages; the second reference
makes it clear that other forms of damage are actionable.
Learn to read, and to stop quote mining.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 14:34:40 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk>:

OK; thanks. The references I provided him made most of that
clear. Of course, he then quotemined one of them in order to
use "damages" out of context.

>So vtandofsky is definitely wrong on this

Yep. He will, of course, deny that. Vehemently.

>>> You cannot sue someone merely on the basis of his opinion just because he insulted you.
>>>
>>> The purpose of a civil suit is reimbursement for damages.
>>
>> Legally, damages need not be financial to be actionable.
>>

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 10:52:16 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 03:40:37 -0700 (PDT), the following

>appeared in talk.origins, posted by vtand...@gmail.com:
>

>>On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 1:45:02 AM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
>>> On 9/17/2018 9:49 PM, jillery wrote:
>>> > On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 20:35:43 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On 9/17/2018 12:55 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> >>> On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 20:33:49 -0400, the following appeared
>>> >>> in talk.origins, posted by jonathan
>>> >>> <WriteI...@gmail.com>:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> On 9/16/2018 1:58 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> >>>>> On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 09:18:20 -0400, the following appeared
>>> >>>>> in talk.origins, posted by jonathan
>>> >>>>> <WriteI...@gmail.com>:

>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>> On 9/13/2018 12:32 PM, Oxyaena wrote:
>>> >>>>>>> On 9/13/2018 10:54 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>> The Subject line is, of course, reminiscent of the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis
>>> >>>>>>>> and the "Axis of Evil" which included North Korea and Iran. The Axis
>>> >>>>>>>> in the
>>> >>>>>>>> Subject line could be called "The Axis of Pretending That Truth Is
>>> >>>>>>>> Falsehood,
>>> >>>>>>>> And Falsehood Is Truth."
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> All of this bilge here could get you sued, if I was so inclined.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>

>>> >>>>>> Sue for slander? Not a chance you could sue anyone in here
>>> >>>>>> for slander. You'd have to prove how it harmed you.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> That's not why,
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Yes it is.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Nope; sorry.
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> Yes it is.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Is it your intent to so often prove that you're a infantile ass?
>>> >
>>> > <https://injury-law.freeadvice.com/injury-law/libel_and_slander/defamatory_statements.htm>
>>> > **********************************

>>> > Defamation can take two forms, which are generally referred to as
>>> > libel and slander. Libel is defined as a defamation of a person,
>>> > group, organization, product, government, or country that was made in
>>> > written or printed words or in pictures. Slander is the same thing,
>>> > except the defamatory statement was made in the form of spoken words,
>>> > sounds, sign language, or gestures.

>>> > ***********************************
>>> >
>>> > Also, given how trivial it is to spoof Usenet headers, my impression
>>> > is anyone would have trouble proving beyond a reasonable doubt the
>>> > actual identity of the alleged libeler or defamer.
>>> >
>>>
>>> Exactly! Even if Peter wanted to sue me for (admittedly non-existent)
>>> libel, he would first have to find out who I am, which he has no clue of
>>> and neither does anybody else here, and I have gone out of my way to
>>> ensure it stays that way.

>>
>>Google knows who you are. Anyone who wants it can get your IP address and find your location.Law enforcement has access to that information and a court order can force Google to disclose it.
>

>Assuming, of course, that he's not using a public computer.
>
>>Incidentally, posts on the internet are not considered published material, so the civil action would be for Slander, not Libel.
>
>Wrong again. Libel is written, whether formal or not. (And
>you are also wrong regarding posts on the Internet,
>including Usenet; anything written is considered "published"
>*and* copyrighted for legal purposes.) Slander applies only
>to *spoken* statements. And since you seem fond of asking
>for "source", here are the definitions from
>oxforddictionaries.com:
>
>[begin defs]
>
>slander
>noun
>mass nounLaw
>
> 1The action or crime of making a false spoken statement
>damaging to a person's reputation.
> ‘he is suing the TV company for slander’
> Compare with libel
>
> 1.1count noun A false and malicious spoken statement.
> ‘I've had just about all I can stomach of your slanders’
>
>libel
>noun
>
> 1Law
> A published false statement that is damaging to a
>person's reputation; a written defamation.
> ‘he was found guilty of a libel on a Liverpool inspector
>of taxes’
>
>publish
>verb
>[with object]
>
> 1Prepare and issue (a book, journal, or piece of music)
>for public sale.
> ‘we publish practical reference books’
> no object ‘the pressures on researchers to publish’
>
> 1.1 Print (something) in a book or journal so as to make
>it generally known.
> ‘we pay £5 for every letter we publish’
>
>1.2 Make (content) available online.
>‘a few hours after publishing the post I received a response
>from the founder of the company’
>‘the photo has not been published on her Instagram account’
>
>[end defs]
>
>See specifically "publish" def 1.2.

[Crickets...]

I agree that silence is your wisest course, since it would
be difficult for you to quotemine any of the above defs in
support of your erroneous assertions.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 08:18:07 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Peter Nyikos
<nyi...@bellsouth.net>:

><Blah, blah, blah>...Casanova...<blah, blah, blah>

Just can't help yourself, can you?

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 11:07:09 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by vtand...@gmail.com:

>On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 10:40:02 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 12:33:57 -0700 (PDT), the following

>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by vtand...@gmail.com:
>>

>> >On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 10:00:03 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 01:17:25 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by vtand...@gmail.com:
>> >>

>> >> >On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 9:35:02 AM UTC-7, Oxyaena wrote:
>> >> >> On 9/13/2018 10:54 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>> >> >> > The Subject line is, of course, reminiscent of the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis
>> >> >> > and the "Axis of Evil" which included North Korea and Iran. The Axis in the
>> >> >> > Subject line could be called "The Axis of Pretending That Truth Is Falsehood,
>> >> >> > And Falsehood Is Truth."
>> >> >>
>> >> >> All of this bilge here could get you sued, if I was so inclined.
>> >> >

>> >> >If you sued him, you would have to prove(1) his statement caused you a financial loss,(2) the exact amount of the loss and (3) the statements are factually false and he knows they are false.
>> >>
>> >> IIRC, although that *may* have been the original
>> >> requirement, currently no monetary issues are required to be
>> >> proven, or even estimated.
>> >

>> >Source?
>>
>> https://injury-law.freeadvice.com/injury-law/libel_and_slander/defamatory_statements.htm
>> https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/how-to-sue-for-emotional-distress.html
>>

>> That's twice for the same question regarding the same
>> subject in the same thread in one day. You might want to
>> bookmark the pages.

>No. You made 2 different statements in 2 different posts.

Did I? Let's see...

Above I wrote:

"currently no monetary issues are required to be proven, or
even estimated."

In the other post I wrote:

"Legally, damages need not be financial to be actionable."

So those are so different that two responses were required?
I think they're essentially identical, but then I can
understand English; for instance, I understand that
"financial" and "monetary" both indicate money. YMMV.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2018 10:42:34 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 20:35:43 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jonathan
><WriteI...@gmail.com>:

>
>>On 9/17/2018 12:55 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 20:33:49 -0400, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by jonathan
>>> <WriteI...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> On 9/16/2018 1:58 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 09:18:20 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by jonathan
>>>>> <WriteI...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>

>>>>>> On 9/13/2018 12:32 PM, Oxyaena wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/13/2018 10:54 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
>>>>>>>> The Subject line is, of course, reminiscent of the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis
>>>>>>>> and the "Axis of Evil" which included North Korea and Iran. The Axis
>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>> Subject line could be called "The Axis of Pretending That Truth Is
>>>>>>>> Falsehood,
>>>>>>>> And Falsehood Is Truth."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All of this bilge here could get you sued, if I was so inclined.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>

>>>>>> Sue for slander? Not a chance you could sue anyone in here
>>>>>> for slander. You'd have to prove how it harmed you.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not why,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes it is.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Nope; sorry.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Yes it is.
>

>Couldn't take a hint, even after I made it explicit? Here's
>the part you snipped:
>
>"Hint: Try looking up the definition of 'slander'.
>
>(Yes, I'm being pedantic. But I figured you wouldn't bother
>to check for possible reasons *why* I wrote that no one
>posting in Usenet can be sued for slander; thanks for once
>again proving me right.)"
>
>And here's *why* you can't sue for slander for something
>posted in Usenet (or for that matter, in the newspaper, in
>an email, or anywhere else):

>
>slander
>noun
>mass nounLaw
>
> 1The action or crime of making a false spoken statement
>damaging to a person's reputation.
> ‘he is suing the TV company for slander’
> Compare with libel
>
> 1.1count noun A false and malicious spoken statement.
> ‘I've had just about all I can stomach of your slanders’
>

>See the part about "spoken"? What do you, O self-proclaimed
>greatest mind of the 21st century, think that word might
>signify?
>
>And *that* is why he can't sue anyone here for slander.

[Crickets...]

Yeah, I'd probably slink away, too, especially after months
of crowing about my supposed superior intelligence.

[Oxyaena]

Content of original post by douche bag:

"This is an award similar to Chez Watt in spirit, but requiring more
background information than is allowed for Chez Watt nominations.

I only use it in months where I come across something that really
exemplifies it, and I believe the post I am nominating qualifies.
Other well-thought-out nominations are very welcome.

The nominated post:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/zFfUhJZG1dk/DzvlbkV7CQAJ
Subject: Re: OT: The Casanova-Jillery-Oxyaena Axis
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2018 13:58:26 -0400
Message-ID: <pnopvq$3p4$2...@news.albasani.net>

Unfortunately, this 27-line post is not self-contained, so I
am replying to it here with some necessary additional information.

On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 2:00:03 PM UTC-4, the nominee wrote:
> On 9/17/2018 12:45 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

>> On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 3:05:03 PM UTC-4, the nominee wrote:

>>> Comparing me to Nazis pure bullshit,
>>
>>
>> Watch me compare you to Donald Trump.
>
> Psychological projection noted.

Here, the nominee simulated a low-IQ misunderstanding
of the following one-line comparison:

>> I am sure you both exist.

The point I was making here was how utterly ridiculous
the nominee's use of the word "comparing" was.

>
> https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law
>
> You've just forfeited the argument by calling me a Nazi.

Here, the nominee simulated a low-IQ misuse of "calling me a ______",
inasmuch as my only mention of anything connected
to Nazis in the whole thread was at the beginning of the OP:

The Subject line is, of course, reminiscent of the
Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis and the "Axis of Evil" which
included North Korea and Iran. The Axis in the
Subject line could be called "The Axis of Pretending
That Truth Is Falsehood, And Falsehood Is Truth."

I wonder whether the nominee thinks North Korea and
Iran are run by Nazis.


Peter Nyikos"

Content of response by me: "On 9/19/2018 12:18 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:
> This is an award similar to Chez Watt in spirit, but requiring more
> background information than is allowed for Chez Watt nominations.
>
> I only use it in months where I come across something that really
> exemplifies it, and I believe the post I am nominating qualifies.
> Other well-thought-out nominations are very welcome.
>
> The nominated post:
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/talk.origins/zFfUhJZG1dk/DzvlbkV7CQAJ
> Subject: Re: OT: The Casanova-Jillery-Oxyaena Axis
> Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2018 13:58:26 -0400
> Message-ID: <pnopvq$3p4$2...@news.albasani.net>
>
> Unfortunately, this 27-line post is not self-contained, so I
> am replying to it here with some necessary additional information.

>
>
> On Monday, September 17, 2018 at 2:00:03 PM UTC-4, the nominee wrote:
>> On 9/17/2018 12:45 PM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

>>> On Thursday, September 13, 2018 at 3:05:03 PM UTC-4, the nominee wrote:
>
>>>> Comparing me to Nazis pure bullshit,
>>>
>>>
>>> Watch me compare you to Donald Trump.
>>
>> Psychological projection noted.
>

> Here, the nominee simulated a low-IQ misunderstanding
> of the following one-line comparison:

>
>>> I am sure you both exist.
>

> The point I was making here was how utterly ridiculous
> the nominee's use of the word "comparing" was.

>
>>
>> https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law
>>
>> You've just forfeited the argument by calling me a Nazi.
>

> Here, the nominee simulated a low-IQ misuse of "calling me a ______",
> inasmuch as my only mention of anything connected
> to Nazis in the whole thread was at the beginning of the OP:

>
> The Subject line is, of course, reminiscent of the
> Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis and the "Axis of Evil" which
> included North Korea and Iran. The Axis in the
> Subject line could be called "The Axis of Pretending
> That Truth Is Falsehood, And Falsehood Is Truth."
>

> I wonder whether the nominee thinks North Korea and
> Iran are run by Nazis.


This post is complete spam. Go fuck yourself, troll. BTW, the Nazis were
part of the Axis, and therefore Godwin's Law still applies.

The entire purpose of this sham "award" is to piss me off. You're a pig.

>
>
> Peter Nyikos

>


--
"The great thing about science is that it's true whether you believe in
it or not." - Niel Degrasse Tyson"

Based off of the content of these two posts, who *really* is the
lying, hypocritical, cowardly and libelous son of a bitch here? Hint:
Not I.


"





>
> Peter Nyikos

[Paul J Gans]

Andre G. Isaak <agi...@gm.invalid> wrote:
>In article <813bd6eb-da2d-466a...@googlegroups.com>,
> Peter Nyikos <nyi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

>> On Tuesday, September 18, 2018 at 8:35:02 AM UTC-4, Andre G. Isaak wrote:

[large cut]

>> Having experienced both "nn" and New Google Groups, I still
>> prefer the latter by and large because (1) it is in html, so
>> I can use my "Find" facility to locate words or phrases


>I haven't used nn or other text-based newsreaders (rn, tin, slrn) in
>over three decades and my memory generally doesn't work reliably for
>anything that happened before breakfast, so I can't comment specifically
>on these, but searching for text doesn't normally depend on it being
>html.

I'm still uing tin to read news. I read it in cronological order which
gives a very different perspective on who answers what.

I know that my use of tin marks me as an old fuddy-duddy, but that's
fine with me.

[another big snip]

>The last time I made extensive use of google groups was around three
>years ago when I was hospitalized and had to use one of the public
>computers there for internet access. At the time I developed a much
>lengthier list of grievances against google groups, but as I said my
>memory doesn't go back that far. But the experience was painful enough
>that I'm not willing to spend any time on google groups now just for the
>purpose of reconstructing my list of its failings.

>Andre

Might you have healed faster had you not used google groups? :)

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[jonathan]

On 9/18/2018 1:42 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2018 20:35:43 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by jonathan
> <WriteI...@gmail.com>:
>
>> On 9/17/2018 12:55 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 20:33:49 -0400, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by jonathan
>>> <WriteI...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> On 9/16/2018 1:58 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 16 Sep 2018 09:18:20 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>> in talk.origins, posted by jonathan
>>>>> <WriteI...@gmail.com>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/13/2018 12:32 PM, Oxyaena wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/13/2018 10:54 AM, Peter Nyikos wrote:

>>>>>>>> The Subject line is, of course, reminiscent of the Rome-Berlin-Tokyo Axis
>>>>>>>> and the "Axis of Evil" which included North Korea and Iran. The Axis
>>>>>>>> in the
>>>>>>>> Subject line could be called "The Axis of Pretending That Truth Is
>>>>>>>> Falsehood,
>>>>>>>> And Falsehood Is Truth."
>>>>>>>

Umm, you big dummy, Usenet is speech, not publishing.
See the Supreme Court decision in Revo v ACLU
Which gave Internet...speech...the highest level
of First Amendment protection.



Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union
From Wikipedia

This was the first major Supreme Court ruling on the
regulation of materials distributed via the Internet.

Through the use of chat rooms, any person with a phone line can
become a town crier with a voice that resonates farther
than it could from any soapbox. Through the use of Web pages,
mail exploders, and newsgroups, the same individual can
become a pamphleteer.

— Opinion of the court, 58¶ 5-6, [5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberties_Union


Slander applies here, libel in the press.





--

[vtand...@gmail.com]

ROTFL! You just contradicted yourself.

>

[vtand...@gmail.com]

ROTFL! You guys have lots of excuses for being full of shit.
First you claim I "implied" things I never said.
Then you accuse me of "quote mining" to try to hide where I proved you wrong.
Then you try to put words in my mouth.

People are not as gullible as you seem to think. You will fool nobody.

[Burkhard]

That would only be true if I were you. As I'm not, I contradicted you,
but my post is internally perfectly consistent.

[jillery]

On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 18:50:28 -0400, jonathan <WriteI...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>—?Opinion of the court, 58¶ 5-6, [5]

>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reno_v._American_Civil_Liberties_Union
>
>
>Slander applies here, libel in the press.

AIUI SCOTUS says that the First Amendment applies equally to speech
and written material. If so, there is no distinction, and your
expressed argument is moot.

Also AIUI SCOTUS says defamation (both slander and libel) is exempt
from First Amendment protection, as are a number of other types of
speech.

[jillery]

On Wed, 19 Sep 2018 08:18:07 -0700 (PDT), Peter Nyikos

<nyi...@bellsouth.net> continued to ejaculate his repetitive
irrelevant spew from his puckered sphincter:

The above are examples of how Nyikos the peter's personal definitions
are too self-serving to be meaningful. Based entirely on his posting
behavior in T.O., he fits his own definition of Internet Hellion so
well, he should be the first on his list as the type specimen. Instead
he doesn't even appear in it. Is anybody surprised.

[vtand...@gmail.com]

Bullshit.We are discussing US law in which the appeal courts and SCOTUS have the final say. First you make a claim about defamation awards by courts and then you admit that those awards were reduced to almost nothing on appeal and some states "gave up the concept altogether."

Here is the bullshit:

"Historically, you have to prove next to
> nothing to get damages in such a case, there is a default assumption
> that this type of accusation damages your reputation - the sum to be
> determined without much guidance by a jury.

Appeal courts and SCOTUS
> don't like it, and have over the years nibbled at it (some states gave
> up the concept altogether). So there have been cases of per se
> defamation where juries awarded massive damages, but appeal courts
> reduced them to nominal damages because the claimant couldn't show that
> anyone whatsoever had believed the original comment, and no reasonable
> person would. A case in point is Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp v.
> Jacobson."

There seems to be a universal problem with the posters here. You post lots of verbiage, but you are totally unable to get to the central point.
I suspect you are trying to snow us in order to hide that you cannot explain your position or provide succinct evidence to prove it.




>

[Burkhard]

says who, by the way?

> in which the appeal courts and SCOTUS have the final say. First you make a claim about defamation awards by courts and then you admit that those awards were reduced to almost nothing on appeal and some states "gave up the concept altogether."

Sigh, did I use too many technical terms? First, defamation law is state
law, so you get a degree of variation. Second, in the cases that I
cited, plaintiff failed to show that they actually suffered “impairment

of reputation and standing in the community, personal humiliation, and

mental anguish and suffering” None of these is the financial loss that
you claimed was required for damages to be awarded.

That is an emerging (and by far not settled) divergence from the
traditional concept of per se defamation, where not even these harms had
to be proven, they were assumed.

> Here is the bullshit:
>
> "Historically, you have to prove next to
>> nothing to get damages in such a case, there is a default assumption
>> that this type of accusation damages your reputation - the sum to be
>> determined without much guidance by a jury.
>
> Appeal courts and SCOTUS
>> don't like it, and have over the years nibbled at it (some states gave
>> up the concept altogether). So there have been cases of per se
>> defamation where juries awarded massive damages, but appeal courts
>> reduced them to nominal damages because the claimant couldn't show that
>> anyone whatsoever had believed the original comment, and no reasonable
>> person would. A case in point is Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp v.
>> Jacobson."
>
> There seems to be a universal problem with the posters here. You post lots of verbiage,

a.k.a. authoritative court decisions

but you are totally unable to get to the central point.

the central point is that contrary to your assertion, financial loss
needs not be shown in defamation cases in the US. At most, in defamation
per quod cases, “impairment of reputation and standing in the
community, personal humiliation, and mental anguish and suffering” has
to be shown. In defamation per se cases, historically not even that yhad
to be proven, but was assumed

> I suspect you are trying to snow us in order to hide that you cannot explain your position or provide succinct evidence to prove it.

I've cited you two landmark cases Even a first year law drop out should
be able to get from these the general rule.
>
>
>
>
>>
>

[jillery]

Not as far as I can tell. How has Burkhard "contradicted" himself?

[jillery]

Before you prove your stupidity again, look up the definition of
"implied"...

>Then you accuse me of "quote mining" to try to hide where I proved you wrong.

... and the definition of "quote mine"...

... and the definition of "prove"...

>Then you try to put words in my mouth.

Perhaps, but you did in fact deny it, which makes it more of an
obvious prediction.

>People are not as gullible as you seem to think. You will fool nobody.

Neither will you.