On Feb 28, 9:21=A0pm, "I.N. Galidakis" <morph...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Quinn wrote:
> > Marshall said:
>
> >> I say, with respect, that you still have work to do in this area.
>
> >> Don Quixote : Windmills :: Quinn : Neilist
>
> > Well -- I put off this particular Wind(bag|mill) for over a year --
> > so I am making *some* progress in the area of being lessQuixotic.
>
> Assuming _some_ defamation for person A already exists in the net (say
cac=
hed
> under Google), it can only either stay constant or get worse as a
function=
of
> time (i.e., if a potential defamator B decides to add more defaming (and
> ultimately cached) comments).
>
> It's a no-win situation, hence the best strategy for A is to avoid
confron=
ting a
> potential defamator B further by not annoying him/her further :-)
>
> One particularly interesting (behavioraly) example came up in
sci.astro.am=
ateur,
> with a certain person A annoying a certain anonymous person B with A
endin=
g up
> in the hospital from a stroke and also ending up having this public
record=
:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ypt5fn
> --
> I.N. Galidakis
Quinn is threatening a libel/defamation lawsuit against me! Help!
But now he's trying to hide his own posts with such threats.
In DLtruth.com, on March 21, 2008
Quinn (as jackson) wrote, and then later erased:
"Neilist:
You are an extortionist. You have promised to continue muddying Google
index space with nonsense attached to my name unless I give in to your
demand that I start a thread on sci.math that denounces Harris as a
crank. I already said that he's a crank, but not in a thread that I
started.
I don't bow to extortion.
Without prejudice, I am willing to let your libel against me slide,
despite your clear malice aforethought. But you have to stop, and stop
now. Many in the DL world will attest to my willingness to be patient
with some of the most multifarious of yahoos. But my patience with you
is wearing very, very thin. Do not pretend to yourself that becauase
you're not using the US postal service or the telephone in your
attacks that you are immune to recourse. Moreover, do not pretend that
I have to prove actual damages, since your attacks have been per se
from the beginning. Malice + libel per se ... this is not a good
combination. By your own public words you have made your intent clear.
Govern yourself accordingly."
|
