Re: [BOBPARKS-WHATSNEW] What's New Friday, 18 Dec 09
Anthony Walls
> high-minded purpose. It has the smell of goons hired by an Exxon or a
> Peabody Coal.
>
>
Really Bob? D o you have evidence of this or are you just continuing
your practice of slinging libel around?
_______________________________________________
Skeptix mailing list
Ske...@lists.opn.org
http://www.lists.opn.org/mailman/listinfo/skeptix_lists.opn.org
ric carter
>> It has the smell of goons hired by an Exxon or a Peabody Coal.
>>
>>
> Really Bob? D o you have evidence of this or are you just continuing
> your practice of slinging libel around?
From my trusty Random House College Dictionary (1973):
LIBEL, 1. A defamation... 2. Anything that is defamatory or that
maliciously or damagingly misrepresents...
SLANDER, 1. Defamation; calumny. 2. A malicious, false, and defamatory
statement or report.
DEFAMATION, 1. The act of defaming; false or unjustified injury of the
good character of another...
Legally, a libel may be written or spoke, while a slander is spoken, not
written. In either case, the statement or whatever must be FALSE and
MALICIOUS. Prof Parks didn't accuse Exxon nor Peabody Coal of being
behind the email piracy (a criminal act), just used them as examples of
energy firms who COULD be involved. Have major energy firms previously
engaged in dirty tricks aka ratfucking? Yup, so the intimation is
justified. Thus Prof Parks has committed no libel -- but apparently YOU
have, with your unjustified accusation. Tsk.
Rick Moen
> From my trusty Random House College Dictionary (1973):
It's possible that even a tatty college dictionary might somewhere help
you understand the phrase 'term of art'. That might be useful, and
help you avoid committing the blunder of believing that words with
professional/technical meanings can be usefully mastered from a college
dictionary.
> Prof Parks didn't accuse Exxon nor Peabody Coal of being behind the
> email piracy (a criminal act), just used them as examples of energy
> firms who COULD be involved.
Bob Parks's suggestion seems not specific enough to risk a finding
of 'libel per se', where actual damages are presumed[1], but skeptics need
to be really careful about getting too close to that edge on topics
where a finding of libel per se is possible: criminal activity, adultery,
"contagious distemper" (communicable disease), or dishonesty, as well as
any charge which injures the plaintiff in his or her trade, business, or
profession.
In any discussion where you're making serious allegations of fact, if
you find yourself tipping into impugning motives -- in which category
either 'your practice of slinging libel around' and 'has the smell of
goons hired by an Exxon or a Peabody Coal' would seem to qualify -- it's
probably time to put down the beer and step back from the keyboard until
you've had time to re-read
http://linuxmafia.com/pub/skeptic/files-to-classify/proper.txt.
[1] The general case is called 'libel per quod', in which actual damage
cannot be presumbed, but rater extrinsic evidence must be introduced to
establish the defamatory character of the statement.
ric carter
>
>ric carter wrote:
>
>> From my trusty Random House College Dictionary (1973):
>
>It's possible that even a tatty college dictionary might somewhere help
>you understand the phrase 'term of art'. That might be useful, and
>help you avoid committing the blunder of believing that words with
>professional/technical meanings can be usefully mastered from a college
>dictionary.
>
>> Prof Parks didn't accuse Exxon nor Peabody Coal of being behind the
>> email piracy (a criminal act), just used them as examples of energy
>> firms who COULD be involved.
>
>Bob Parks's suggestion seems not specific enough to risk a finding
>of 'libel per se', where actual damages are presumed[1], but skeptics need
>to be really careful about getting too close to that edge on topics
>where a finding of libel per se is possible: criminal activity, adultery,
>"contagious distemper" (communicable disease), or dishonesty, as well as
>any charge which injures the plaintiff in his or her trade, business, or
>profession.
>
>In any discussion where you're making serious allegations of fact, if
>you find yourself tipping into impugning motives -- in which category
>either 'your practice of slinging libel around' and 'has the smell of
>goons hired by an Exxon or a Peabody Coal' would seem to qualify -- it's
>probably time to put down the beer and step back from the keyboard until
>you've had time to re-read
>
>
>[1] The general case is called 'libel per quod', in which actual damage
>cannot be presumbed, but rater extrinsic evidence must be introduced to
>establish the defamatory character of the statement.
Some responses emerge:
1- OMFG! An attorney! We're doomed, DOOMED! Everyone here must
anonymize immediately!
2- That dictionary, 1.6 kilos of nearly 1600 dense pages, is rather
decent. You have maliciously impugned my dictionary!
3- I wrote under the influence of finely-ground Arabica coffee, not
alcohol. You have maliciously impugned my sobriety!
4- The subject isn't legalistic language, but rather, are one or more
major energy companies (in)directly engaged in ratfucking (dirty tricks)
re: climate change? Is this email-piracy incident an example of
ratfucking? When do organized disinformation campaigns reach the level
of ratfucking? Are professional climate-change deniers funded by major
energy companies or their agents? Does advocacy trump truth?
Rick Moen
> Some responses emerge:
>
> 1- OMFG! An attorney! We're doomed, DOOMED! Everyone here must
> anonymize immediately!
> 2- That dictionary, 1.6 kilos of nearly 1600 dense pages, is rather
> decent. You have maliciously impugned my dictionary!
> 3- I wrote under the influence of finely-ground Arabica coffee, not
> alcohol. You have maliciously impugned my sobriety!
> 4- The subject isn't legalistic language, but rather, are one or more
> major energy companies (in)directly engaged in ratfucking (dirty tricks)
> re: climate change? Is this email-piracy incident an example of
> ratfucking? When do organized disinformation campaigns reach the level
> of ratfucking? Are professional climate-change deniers funded by major
> energy companies or their agents? Does advocacy trump truth?
Ric, I like it. ;->
(Apologies for the typos in the prior post.)
Small quibble: The guy I shave is no lawyer, even if I did spend a
significant part of my youth in Federal court watching my mother
terrorise Boeing Company over their negligence concerning the wrongful
death of one Pan American World Airways Captain Arthur Moen -- and even
if I did study business law (and then spend a lot of time studying
defamation law while helping run Bay Area Skeptics).
I really do encourage skeptics to be really careful about skirting the
edges of defamation. Just don't. It's not safe, and it's not even
convincing rhetoric, anyway.
Wade T. Smith
> I really do encourage skeptics to be really careful about skirting the
> edges of defamation. Just don't. It's not safe, and it's not even
> convincing rhetoric, anyway.
But some laws just need _testing_....
- Wade
ric carter
A side note: the old meaning of 'prove' is 'to test', as in a printer's
proof (a test print), N-proof booze (tested to assure it contains the
desired proportion of alcohol), and an arithmetic proof (testing a
calculation). The old phrase "the exception proves the rule" doesn't
mean that the rule is validated, rather that its validity is tested.
Just another example of an English word with contradictory meanings.
Aargh.
Rick Moen
> A side note: the old meaning of 'prove' is 'to test', as in a printer's
> proof (a test print), N-proof booze (tested to assure it contains the
> desired proportion of alcohol), and an arithmetic proof (testing a
> calculation). The old phrase "the exception proves the rule" doesn't
> mean that the rule is validated, rather that its validity is tested.
Plausible-sounding but not quite right. It's subtle. The sense of
the Latin 'probat', rendered into English as 'prove' in its lesser-known
sense of 'test', in the original legal maxim (Exceptio probat regulam in
casibus non exceptis) means, as Snopes puts it, '"The exception proves
the rule exists" -- the fact that certain exceptions are made in a legal
document or announcement confirms the rule is in force at all other
times.'
http://www.snopes.com/language/notthink/exception.asp
Rick Moen
ric carter
>
> Ric, I like it. ;->
>
>
>