JANET DAHL SUES MANCOW
jc
husband gets for abusing countless souls on the radio, Janet Dahl, wife
of Steve Dahl, has sued Mancow for libel because he accused her of being
unfaithful in her marriage. Wow, Janet, you have done very well over
the years because your husband has gotten paid quite handsomely for
doing the same thing Mancow did to you. In fact, it was Steve Dahl
making similar accusations about Garry Meirer's wife which ended their
long-time relationship. Too bad the statute of limitations has run on
Meirer's wife's claim against Dahl. Grow up Steve and Janet!! Steve
started abusing, ridiculing, and destroying people's lives on the radio
when Mancow was a teenager, and he hasn't stopped enjoying the paycheck
since. No one says what Mancow did was justified or fair, but for the
Dahl's -- of all people in this City -- to complain is ludicrous. Hope
I whined up on your jury, Janet.
NotMyA...@home.com
jc wrote:
> ...Hope I whined up on your jury, Janet.
Not likely. There is a spelling clause that would
remove you from the jury box!
Paul Tomko
If people felt that Steve was attacking them, they could certainly take
recourse. Janet felt that Mancow was attacking her so she took recourse.
Why should she be targeted for attack? What has she done? If you have
ever heard her talking to Steve on the air, she is usually trying to tone
him down, and stop him from complaining about people. Not that he is
really all that bad now. Certainly not like in the 70's. I feel she was
unjustly attacked and deserves some kind of recompense. Though $110 million
certainly isn't going to make her feel any better. Instead, he should
have just have to apologize on the air and take back the lies he said.
Paul
--
Paul Tomko pa...@tomkoinc.com http://www.tomkoinc.com
8000+ Humorous Quotes http://www.tomkoinc.com/quotes.html
"Invent a clever saying, and the world will remember your name forever."
- Anonymous
ciak
--ciak
========================================
Jude Crouch
> If people felt that Steve was attacking them, they could certainly take
> recourse. Janet felt that Mancow was attacking her so she took recourse.
> Why should she be targeted for attack? What has she done? If you have
> ever heard her talking to Steve on the air, she is usually trying to tone
> him down, and stop him from complaining about people. Not that he is
> really all that bad now. Certainly not like in the 70's. I feel she was
> unjustly attacked and deserves some kind of recompense. Though $110 million
> certainly isn't going to make her feel any better. Instead, he should
> have just have to apologize on the air and take back the lies he said.
It's an interesting case because she may be considered a "public figure".
She wasn't just any `ol caller, she is Steve's wife, publically identified,
and there were multiple calls. It could be argued that she injected
herself into the controversy.
If she is ruled to be a public figure, she needs to prove *actual* malice,
not negligent defamation. This is a much higher burden on her.
Given the nature of the slanderous statements, she should still win
the case, tho. No one has the right to say such things about another
person (unless they can prove them).
[Standard disclaimer, I'm not a lawyer and this posting is not to
be construed as legal advice. Hi, Janet!]
Jude
--
Jude Crouch (jcr...@pobox.com) - Computing since 1967!
Crouch Enterprises - Telecom, Internet & Unix Consulting
Oak Park, IL 708-848-0134 URL: http://www.pobox.com/~jcrouch
WamBoyIL
Then he'd also have to sue Brandmeier, Kevin Matthews, and Howard Stern for the
same thing! But don't get me started...
;)
Sir
> recourse. Janet felt that Mancow was attacking her so she took recourse.
You make it sound like a physical attack. It was only words on a boring
radio show. (remember "sticks & Stones?)
This lawsuit is no better than that bitch that sued McDonalds because
she spilled hot coffee on herself. People are suing for everything just
to see if they can get any free money. If courts would not award people
with those ridiculous million dollar amounts for silly stuff like this,
no one would sue or pretend to be so "injured and hurt" from simple name
calling like this. Man, if I sued for everytime someone called me names
on newsgroups alone I would never have time to have a life outside of
the courthouse.
Dan Barnes
Now does anybody remember the day Uncle Lar stayed late to kick Steve's
ASS. Dahl didn't do his show. That was funny!
Regards,
Dan
jc
and my grandmother on national television. Trust me, the Dahl's will laugh all
the way to the bank if they make $100,000 off of this suit. In reality, I
wonder what the real motivation is here. The libel, or the fact the Mancow is
not more popular than Dahl. Steve has been a big cry baby ever since he took
to the airwaves. It is amazing how he is totally incapable of seeing how he
hurts others, but wants his wife to get $110 Million because she was called an
adulterer. I mean shit, in my book, any decent looking woman married to a fat,
gross, obnoxious pig like Dahl, is presumed to be getting the good thing on the
side.
jc
ripped off a lot of other people's work over the years. None of these radio jocks
is "original". I mean, it is talk radio for Christ's sake. There are only so many
ways you can do it. Dahl immediately accuses anyone else who is funny of ripping
him off.
Gilbert Sebenste
> This lawsuit is no better than that bitch that sued McDonalds because
> she spilled hot coffee on herself. People are suing for everything just
> to see if they can get any free money. If courts would not award people
> with those ridiculous million dollar amounts for silly stuff like this,
> no one would sue or pretend to be so "injured and hurt" from simple name
> calling like this.
Thank you!
> Man, if I sued for everytime someone called me names
> on newsgroups alone I would never have time to have a life outside of
> the courthouse.
I'm a meteorologist. Hmmm. Sue everyone who has called me a bad
name? Wow! If I won each case I'd clean house... :-)
Gilbert
*******************************************************************************
Gilbert Sebenste ********
Internet: gil...@niu.edu (My opinions only!) ******
Staff Meteorologist, Northern Illinois University ****
*******************************************************************************
Weber4u
actually making him pay for like 25 percent of it.
Perhaps Steve is ready to retire and they want a bigger nest egg.
Something tells me though.......Even though the suit is filed by Janet Dahl, my
guess is that Steve was the one really pushing the issue.
Just my opinion Janet.......For God's sake....don't sue me.
INWOsuxRED
>family,
>and my grandmother on national television. Trust me, the Dahl's will laugh
>all
>the way to the bank if they make $100,000 off of this suit.
She won't win. She has no case at all.
In reality, I
>wonder what the real motivation is here. The libel, or the fact the Mancow
>is
>not more popular than Dahl.
Part B, combined with the fact that Dahl has no money because he blew it all on
coke and had some of it taken by the government.
Steve has been a big cry baby ever since he
>took
>to the airwaves. It is amazing how he is totally incapable of seeing how he
>hurts others, but wants his wife to get $110 Million because she was called
>an
>adulterer.
I mean shit, in my book, any decent looking woman married to a
>fat,
>gross, obnoxious pig like Dahl, is presumed to be getting the good thing on
>the
>side.
She isn't decent looking though.
Paul Tomko
>> If people felt that Steve was attacking them, they could certainly take
>> recourse. Janet felt that Mancow was attacking her so she took recourse.
>
>You make it sound like a physical attack. It was only words on a boring
>radio show. (remember "sticks & Stones?)
If he had called her names face to face and given her a chance to defend
herself, she wouldn't have a case. As it is, he broadcast this slander to
thousands of listeners with the intent of causing emotional damage.
>This lawsuit is no better than that bitch that sued McDonalds because
>she spilled hot coffee on herself.
No. That was different. There was no intent to harm on the part of
McDonald's. The fault lay entirely with the "Victim", and the case was a
travesty of justice.
>People are suing for everything just
>to see if they can get any free money. If courts would not award people
>with those ridiculous million dollar amounts for silly stuff like this,
>no one would sue or pretend to be so "injured and hurt" from simple name
>calling like this. Man, if I sued for everytime someone called me names
>on newsgroups alone I would never have time to have a life outside of
>the courthouse.
I agree there are a lot of BS cases out there, but I don't think this is one
of them. It is definitely a BS amount to ask for in recompense. I figure he
should just have to take it all back. If he does it again, then we start
hitting him in the wallet.
Dana Kuhar
>> Man, if I sued for everytime someone called me names
>> on newsgroups alone I would never have time to have a life outside of
>> the courthouse.
>
>name? Wow! If I won each case I'd clean house... :-)
>
Do you all fail to see a difference between vague "calling someone
names" and terms with specific allegations embedded in them,
like "adulterer"?
And don't get me started on the abuse of the so-called "actual
malice" standard in the argument so far.
Jesu Christo!, what does it take for some of you people to acknowledge
the legitimacy of a lawsuit? How far can A do things to B before you'll
regard it as okay for B to bring suit (or press charges through the gov't)?
Danasteamed
JJMoney62
things in front of a bunch of 14-year-old boys, has allowed us to examine the
issue at hand and repeat the "slander" over and over to a wider audience. this
wouldn't be about publicity, would it?
Jerome Jahnke
<dan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Man, if I sued for everytime someone called me names
> >> on newsgroups alone I would never have time to have a life outside of
> >> the courthouse.
> >
> >I'm a meteorologist. Hmmm. Sue everyone who has called me a bad
> >name? Wow! If I won each case I'd clean house... :-)
> >
>
> Do you all fail to see a difference between vague "calling someone
> names" and terms with specific allegations embedded in them,
> like "adulterer"?
>
> And don't get me started on the abuse of the so-called "actual
> malice" standard in the argument so far.
To begin with she and her husband are both public figures. As you well
know they don't get the same protection in the courts (nor should they the
sword cuts both ways.)
Second, truth is a defense in these cases, and if it goes to trial it
seems to me the pain of having their lives investigated to the nth detail
isn't worth the money they might or might not get from it.
Jer,
Paul Tomko
>In article <ed7a3.202$EE4...@news.megsinet.net>, Dana Kuhar
><dan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Man, if I sued for everytime someone called me names
>> >> on newsgroups alone I would never have time to have a life outside of
>> >> the courthouse.
>> >
>> >I'm a meteorologist. Hmmm. Sue everyone who has called me a bad
>> >name? Wow! If I won each case I'd clean house... :-)
>> >
>>
>> Do you all fail to see a difference between vague "calling someone
>> names" and terms with specific allegations embedded in them,
>> like "adulterer"?
>>
>> And don't get me started on the abuse of the so-called "actual
>> malice" standard in the argument so far.
>
>To begin with she and her husband are both public figures. As you well
>know they don't get the same protection in the courts (nor should they the
>sword cuts both ways.)
I don't see how Mrs. Dahl is a public figure. She is married to one, and
he does occassionally mention her on the air, but I don't believe she
needs to be declared a public figure unless she is publicly recognizable.
If most people who see her or hear her voice can readily identify her, then
I will submit that she is a public figure.
Anyway, I think you will find that tabloids get sued successfully quite often
by public figures. I feel that just because you are a public figure, people
should not be able to spread lies about you.
>Second, truth is a defense in these cases, and if it goes to trial it
>seems to me the pain of having their lives investigated to the nth detail
>isn't worth the money they might or might not get from it.
How hard is it to prove that someone is a "whore". You might be able to be
discreet and manage to get away with having an affair. But there is no
way to hide being a prostitute. I think she can easily prove that she is
not, and therefore Mancow has slandered her.
Jerome Jahnke
Tomko) wrote:
> Previously on chi.general,chi.media,
> Jerome Jahnke <fat...@tormenta.com> wrote:
> >In article <ed7a3.202$EE4...@news.megsinet.net>, Dana Kuhar
> ><dan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >> Man, if I sued for everytime someone called me names
> >> >> on newsgroups alone I would never have time to have a life outside of
> >> >> the courthouse.
> >> >
> >> >I'm a meteorologist. Hmmm. Sue everyone who has called me a bad
> >> >name? Wow! If I won each case I'd clean house... :-)
> >> >
> >>
> >> Do you all fail to see a difference between vague "calling someone
> >> names" and terms with specific allegations embedded in them,
> >> like "adulterer"?
> >>
> >> And don't get me started on the abuse of the so-called "actual
> >> malice" standard in the argument so far.
> >
> >To begin with she and her husband are both public figures. As you well
> >know they don't get the same protection in the courts (nor should they the
> >sword cuts both ways.)
>
> I don't see how Mrs. Dahl is a public figure. She is married to one, and
> he does occassionally mention her on the air, but I don't believe she
> needs to be declared a public figure unless she is publicly recognizable.
> If most people who see her or hear her voice can readily identify her, then
> I will submit that she is a public figure.
I was under the impression she was an on air TV personality on the either
WGN or FOX.
> Anyway, I think you will find that tabloids get sued successfully quite often
> by public figures. I feel that just because you are a public figure, people
> should not be able to spread lies about you.
Hmmmmm you mean like when the peronalities themselves spread lies about
themselves? You do know that during Michael Jacksons 'wierd' (pre abuser)
period he released those photos of him in the hyperbolic chamber. Or the
people who get degrees and other honors not ever really awarded to them in
press releases. It all works both ways. If you use the media to become
wealthy you can't say, stop it don't use me anymore.
> >Second, truth is a defense in these cases, and if it goes to trial it
> >seems to me the pain of having their lives investigated to the nth detail
> >isn't worth the money they might or might not get from it.
>
> How hard is it to prove that someone is a "whore". You might be able to be
> discreet and manage to get away with having an affair. But there is no
> way to hide being a prostitute. I think she can easily prove that she is
> not, and therefore Mancow has slandered her.
You misunderstand... Wether or not she is either a whore or having an
affiar, their lives will be turned upside down in defenses investigation
and every little niggling thing that is wrong with them will be released
in an open court room. Do you think you could stand that kind of scrutiny
just becuase of some jobo doing the same thing your husband does every
day?
Doesn't seem worth it to me, just keep your trap shut and don't say
anything it will all blow over. It isn't like anyone who matters seriously
thought she was doing either.
Jer,
Jude Crouch
> Previously on chi.general,chi.media,
> Jerome Jahnke <fat...@tormenta.com> wrote:
>>In article <ed7a3.202$EE4...@news.megsinet.net>, Dana Kuhar
>><dan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >> Man, if I sued for everytime someone called me names
>>> >> on newsgroups alone I would never have time to have a life outside of
>>> >> the courthouse.
>>> >
>>> >I'm a meteorologist. Hmmm. Sue everyone who has called me a bad
>>> >name? Wow! If I won each case I'd clean house... :-)
>>> >
>>>
>>> Do you all fail to see a difference between vague "calling someone
>>> names" and terms with specific allegations embedded in them,
>>> like "adulterer"?
>>>
>>> And don't get me started on the abuse of the so-called "actual
>>> malice" standard in the argument so far.
>>
>>To begin with she and her husband are both public figures. As you well
>>know they don't get the same protection in the courts (nor should they the
>>sword cuts both ways.)
> I don't see how Mrs. Dahl is a public figure. She is married to one, and
> he does occassionally mention her on the air, but I don't believe she
> needs to be declared a public figure unless she is publicly recognizable.
> If most people who see her or hear her voice can readily identify her, then
> I will submit that she is a public figure.
Except that that would not be the legal test. I might be a public
figure relative to the newsgroups or to the nonprofit world or to
computer professionals. Many may never have heard my voice or
recognize my face. Those are the "worlds" I have injected myself
into. Outside those worlds, I am not a public figure.
I also ran for office a few times in my town. There, I could be
considered a public figure, but not in, say, California. Again,
I injected myself into the situation in Oak Park.
So that would likely be what would have to be proven, and I think
that it wouldn't be difficult to peg her as a public figure, if
I understand the facts correctly. She called into Steve's show
and either identified herself or was identified by Steve. She
certainly could have called in unidentified thus protecting her
privacy. Or she could have not called at all.
> Anyway, I think you will find that tabloids get sued successfully quite often
> by public figures. I feel that just because you are a public figure, people
> should not be able to spread lies about you.
>>Second, truth is a defense in these cases, and if it goes to trial it
>>seems to me the pain of having their lives investigated to the nth detail
>>isn't worth the money they might or might not get from it.
> How hard is it to prove that someone is a "whore". You might be able to be
> discreet and manage to get away with having an affair. But there is no
> way to hide being a prostitute. I think she can easily prove that she is
> not, and therefore Mancow has slandered her.
I think you are confused about who has to prove what. A disparaging
remark is slanderous _per se_ (on its face). Burden shifts to person
charged. Defendent may use truth as a defense, but then has to prove
that what was said was true.
> ... I think she can easily prove that she is
> not, and therefore Mancow has slandered her.
It's difficult to prove a negative, but then she doesn't have
to prove anything other than what was said and that it was
disparaging.
[Standard disclaimer -- I'm not a lawyer and this should not
be construed as legal advice. ]
INWOsuxRED
>I don't see how Mrs. Dahl is a public figure. She is married to one, and
>he does occassionally mention her on the air, but I don't believe she
>needs to be declared a public figure unless she is publicly recognizable.
>If most people who see her or hear her voice can readily identify her, then
>I will submit that she is a public figure.
>
She has been on the air hours and hours and hours. Anyone that listens to Dahl
or listened to Steve and Garry would know her obnoxious voice. Anyone who has
seen "New Year's Steve and Garry" has seen her.
>Anyway, I think you will find that tabloids get sued successfully quite often
>by public figures. I feel that just because you are a public figure, people
>should not be able to spread lies about you.
>
Tabloids present themselves as non-fiction. It is common knowledge that
Mancow's show is "fake". Anyone with a brain can tell Mancow is doing radio
bits to get under Steve's skin(public figure). Go watch "The People vs. Larry
Flynt". Fallwell's mother wasn't a public figure and he still lost. Janet IS
a public figure and Mancow is obviously going for humor.
>How hard is it to prove that someone is a "whore". You might be able to be
>discreet and manage to get away with having an affair. But there is no
>way to hide being a prostitute. I think she can easily prove that she is
>not, and therefore Mancow has slandered her.
Mancow doesn't have to prove Janet is a "whore" to win his case.
daniel b.
Paul Tomko wrote:
>
> Previously on chi.general,chi.media,
> Jerome Jahnke <fat...@tormenta.com> wrote:
> >In article <ed7a3.202$EE4...@news.megsinet.net>, Dana Kuhar
> ><dan...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> >> Man, if I sued for everytime someone called me names
> >> >> on newsgroups alone I would never have time to have a life outside of
> >> >> the courthouse.
> >> >
> >> >I'm a meteorologist. Hmmm. Sue everyone who has called me a bad
> >> >name? Wow! If I won each case I'd clean house... :-)
> >> >
> >>
> >> Do you all fail to see a difference between vague "calling someone
> >> names" and terms with specific allegations embedded in them,
> >> like "adulterer"?
> >>
> >> And don't get me started on the abuse of the so-called "actual
> >> malice" standard in the argument so far.
> >
> >To begin with she and her husband are both public figures. As you well
> >know they don't get the same protection in the courts (nor should they the
> >sword cuts both ways.)
>
> I don't see how Mrs. Dahl is a public figure. She is married to one, and
> he does occassionally mention her on the air, but I don't believe she
> needs to be declared a public figure unless she is publicly recognizable.
> If most people who see her or hear her voice can readily identify her, then
> I will submit that she is a public figure.
>
> Anyway, I think you will find that tabloids get sued successfully quite often
> by public figures. I feel that just because you are a public figure, people
> should not be able to spread lies about you.
>
> >Second, truth is a defense in these cases, and if it goes to trial it
> >seems to me the pain of having their lives investigated to the nth detail
> >isn't worth the money they might or might not get from it.
>
> How hard is it to prove that someone is a "whore". You might be able to be
> discreet and manage to get away with having an affair. But there is no
> way to hide being a prostitute. I think she can easily prove that she is
> not, and therefore Mancow has slandered her.
>
Jude Crouch
>>
>>I don't see how Mrs. Dahl is a public figure. She is married to one, and
>>he does occassionally mention her on the air, but I don't believe she
>>needs to be declared a public figure unless she is publicly recognizable.
>>If most people who see her or hear her voice can readily identify her, then
>>I will submit that she is a public figure.
>>
> She has been on the air hours and hours and hours. Anyone that listens to Dahl
> or listened to Steve and Garry would know her obnoxious voice. Anyone who has
> seen "New Year's Steve and Garry" has seen her.
>>Anyway, I think you will find that tabloids get sued successfully quite often
>>by public figures. I feel that just because you are a public figure, people
>>should not be able to spread lies about you.
>>
> Tabloids present themselves as non-fiction. It is common knowledge that
> Mancow's show is "fake". Anyone with a brain can tell Mancow is doing radio
> bits to get under Steve's skin(public figure). Go watch "The People vs. Larry
> Flynt". Fallwell's mother wasn't a public figure and he still lost. Janet IS
> a public figure and Mancow is obviously going for humor.
>>How hard is it to prove that someone is a "whore". You might be able to be
>>discreet and manage to get away with having an affair. But there is no
>>way to hide being a prostitute. I think she can easily prove that she is
>>not, and therefore Mancow has slandered her.
> Mancow doesn't have to prove Janet is a "whore" to win his case.
Actually, that is exactly what he will have to prove. The only
defense is truth, even if Janet is considered a public figure.
(Well actually, it must also be proven he said it, but that does not
seem to be in dispute). I don't think this is a hard case to
litigate.
McBarron1
seen "New Year's Steve and Garry" has seen her.<<
It would take a much wider audience than that pay-per-view program received to
make anyone a "public figure."
INWOsuxRED
>> Mancow doesn't have to prove Janet is a "whore" to win his case.
>
>Actually, that is exactly what he will have to prove. The only
>defense is truth, even if Janet is considered a public figure.
>(Well actually, it must also be proven he said it, but that does not
>seem to be in dispute). I don't think this is a hard case to
>litigate.
>
>
He doesn't have to prove what he said. He was JOKING, which is a legal thing
to do. Again, go see "People vs Larry Flynt". Nobody believes Mancow had sex
with Janet. Everyone knows it was a joke at the expense of a very public
figure. If you've ever listened to Dahl at any point in his career in Chicago,
you know who Janet is.
INWOsuxRED
Thats why I also said she has spent HOURS AND HOURS on the radio. Anyone who
has followed Dahl's radio career knows who she is and has heard her on the air
countless times. They would also remember when she and Steve ripped on Garry's
wife, thus adding the straw that broke the camel's back.
Jude Crouch
I've never heard of *JOKING* as a legal defense. Oh, I bet you
mean Rev. Jerry Falwell's unsuccessful suit against Flynt for Flynt's
parody of Falwell's drunken, incestuous encounter with his mother?
A clear, unambiguous case where truly no one believed it to be true.
(Falwell v Flynt)
I am not sure that would hold here, because this case will be
judged by ordinary people on the jury, not Mancow or Dahl listeners.
The satire will have to be clear on its face.
ciak
jc wrote:
> Come on, folks. Dahl had his day .... and he had his original bits, but he also
> ripped off a lot of other people's work over the years.
Like who? I started listening to Steve Dahl in 1977-78 (or around then) on I believe it
was WDHF (or WMET or whatever) and remember thinking I'd never heard anything like him.
> None of these radio jocks
> is "original". I mean, it is talk radio for Christ's sake.
I dunno. I've never heard Wally Phillips or Eddie Schwatrz crank call Iran.
> There are only so many
> ways you can do it.
And I think Steve established (what was then) a radically new way of doing it!
> Dahl immediately accuses anyone else who is funny of ripping
> him off.
--ciak
> ==========================================
raider
of proof lie w/ the plaintiff in slander actions?
In article <7kdfd4$nc6$1...@eve.enteract.com>, jcr...@pobox.com (Jude
Crouch) wrote:
--
Eric
Jude Crouch
> The focus seems to be on Mancow proving "something". Doesn't the burden
> of proof lie w/ the plaintiff in slander actions?
Once the words are found to be disparaging, the plaintiff only
needs to prove that they were spoken publically. Burden shifts
to the defendant.
I can envision that his defense would be 1) it was true or 2) it was
speech protected by the First Amendment.
Jude
Sir
> names" and terms with specific allegations embedded in them,
> like "adulterer"?
Yes. I fail to see a difference.
> Jesu Christo!, what does it take for some of you people to acknowledge
> the legitimacy of a lawsuit? How far can A do things to B before you'll
> regard it as okay for B to bring suit (or press charges through the gov't)?
Perhaps I should sue you for the racial term of "you people" that you
just used. Or perhaps the slang term of Jesus Christ which may offend
someone's religious beliefs here.
One day when it happens to you, and the coffee is shoved up your nose,
you will smell it and wake up.
Sir
>
> >Please!! For $110 Million, you can say anything you want about me, my
> >family,
> >and my grandmother on national television. Trust me, the Dahl's will laugh
> >all
> >the way to the bank if they make $100,000 off of this suit.
>
> She won't win. She has no case at all.
Unfortunatley, that has nothing to do with the US court system. Who
ever has the better higher paid lawyer wins, regardless of the case.
David
> > Do you all fail to see a difference between vague "calling someone
> > names" and terms with specific allegations embedded in them,
> > like "adulterer"?
> Yes. I fail to see a difference.
Based upon your response below, it's little wonder.
> > Jesu Christo!, what does it take for some of you people to acknowledge
> > the legitimacy of a lawsuit?
> Perhaps I should sue you for the racial term of "you people" that you
> just used.
Unless "you people" think that ignorance constitutes race, there
was there was nothing that could be construed as racial in the
context she used.
David
-- E-mail which originates in this news-group is not accepted
by this account.
Sneeeeezy
>> > Do you all fail to see a difference between vague "calling someone
>> > names" and terms with specific allegations embedded in them,
>> > like "adulterer"?
>
>> Yes. I fail to see a difference.
>
>Based upon your response below, it's little wonder.
Yes, I fail to see the difference also. Can you please explain the difference?
Thanks!
Mark