"S888Wheel" wrote in message

I said


No that is not what I said in other words. I don't know if anyone has
won a libel lawsuit for being libeled on a Usenet group. I don't know
if anyone has ever filed a suit for libel on a Usenet group.



Arny said


You're probably the first person to be stupid enough to try that,
sockpuppet Wheel. This is especially difficult given that the name of
the forum contains the word "opinion".


This is rich. Are you now contending that it is your "opinion" that I
am a pedophile and you are just exercising your rights of free
speech?

Are you dense or what, sockpuppet "Wheel"? Why don't you recite the name of
this newsgroup to yourself until you perceive the obvious?

Think before you answer. You have already falsely accused me
of being a pedophile once on RAO.

Sockpuppet Wheel, you are guilty of being a non-entity, in the eyes of the
law. You obviously don't know the name of the newsgroup you are posting in.
You're also guilty of selective quoting in an effort to make your purported
case. Finally, you've repeatedly lied about obtaining the formal services of
a lawyer to advise you.

In short sockpuppet Wheel, you have zero credibility in the eyes of the law
or any reasonable person.

Powell wrote

OTOH can you cite any lawsuits for libel
being dismissed because the libel was
on a Usenet group?

Geosynch said


Sorry, I'm not here to prove a negative,


Powell said


Agreed. Perhaps Scott should do due some
research before continuing to prosecute his
case on USEnet. He also has not demonstrated
that he has suffered actual financial damage.

Geosynch said


Correct. Though he may have suffered emotional
distress, unless he gives music lessons to little kiddies
whose parents surf this group, there is no demonstrable
cause for having suffered actual financial damage.

These free legal lessons for arny and his supporters are getting old.
Geosynch's demonstration of his ignorance of California civil code is noted.
Read California civil code 45a. Then read the forms for pleadings and practices
on libel page 30.6 under the heading of general damages.

Geosynch said


but do let us know if your libel suit against
Arny makes it beyond the summary
dismissal stage or is otherwise not laughed
out of the courtroom. TIA.


Powell said


Yup, and what about the laughing and
harassment to follow by not following through
after all this feather-ruffling. Arny already
has a on-going four year old vendetta against
Atkinson.

geosynch said


If anybody had just reason to sue Arny ... :-)

As if one person having a reason to sue someone precludes another person from
having a reason to sue that same person.

Powell said


Scott case can't stand muster nor does he
have the financial depth for such an
undertaking. Arny's inappropriate behavior
extends across this board... Scott is not
special (litigious material). Imagine Scott's
difficulty trying to demonstrate that Arny's
opinion has weight/influence on r.a.o..

Geosynch said


Even his fellow brethren engineers don't take him seriously.


I guess this is some sort of a stab at an insult.

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 20:48:21 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

I think you need to go back and check the post in question:

I read it. You're a paedophile.

(1) You've only partially represented what it said.

Yes, but you're a paedophile.

(2) You've overlooked the fact it was posted in a newsgroup where all posts
are labeled "opinion", as in rec.audio.opinion.

Paedo.

(3) You've overlooked the fact that the entity the post was directed to was
and is an anonymous fictitious name.

Interesting, paedophile, but not quite interesting enough to stop me
thinking and asserting that you're a paedophile.

BTW sockpuppet Whell, I've asked you repeatedly to prove your true identity
which you've repeatedly declined to do. Therefore, it is quite clear that
you have no intent of ever being anything but an anonymous fictitious name.
That makes you a non-entity in the eyes of any legal institution, including
any court of law.

Well, paedophile, that's certainly spruced up the flowers in my vase,
but the question remains: Why do you insist on molesting small
children?

--
Oily Tartlet

I said


Arny did not express an
opinion, he wrecklessly made a false accusation that I am a
pedophile.


Arny said


I think you need to go back and check the post in question:


I have checked it quite carefully.

Arny said


(1) You've only partially represented what it said.

Here is exactly what you said.

"So sockpuppet Wheel. you're a well-known pedophile like Marc Phillips and
George Middius?"

"OK sockpuppet wheel, so you're not only a widely reported pedophile and proud
of it, but you're also a hypocrite."

A clear false accusation that I am a pedophile.

Arny said



(2) You've overlooked the fact it was posted in a newsgroup where all posts
are labeled "opinion", as in rec.audio.opinion

I have not over looked that fact. You have simply over looked all the
information on the California civil codes and forms for pleadings and practices
that I have cited for your benefit. I can lead you to the law but I can't make
you read it or understand it.

Arny said


(3) You've overlooked the fact that the entity the post was directed to was
and is an anonymous fictitious name.

See above.

Arny said


BTW sockpuppet Whell, I've asked you repeatedly to prove your true identity
which you've repeatedly declined to do.

You have a letter in your hand with my name and signature on it.

Arny said

Therefore, it is quite clear that
you have no intent of ever being anything but an anonymous fictitious name.
That makes you a non-entity in the eyes of any legal institution, including
any court of law.


You speak for courts of law without even knowing the law. Certainly you can
cite the specific California civil codes that apply to all of these defenses
you are claiming can't you? Well. no you can't. They don't exist. I have cited
all the relevant material on the subject for your benefit. You will have to
seek legal council elsewhere from now on or bear the burden of your ignorance
of California law after the 20th.

Sockpuppet Yustabe said to ****-for-Brains:

How many times do you have to lie to yourself before you
start beleiving your own lies?

Only once. That fact is well established.

Are you halfway there yet?

Krooger's toilet of lies overfloweth as usual.

"S888Wheel" wrote in message

I said


Arny did not express an
opinion, he wrecklessly made a false accusation that I am a
pedophile.


Arny said


I think you need to go back and check the post in question:


I have checked it quite carefully.


Then you can't read.


Arny said


(1) You've only partially represented what it said.

Here is exactly what you said.

"So sockpuppet Wheel. you're a well-known pedophile like Marc
Phillips and George Middius?"

So what kind of pedophile are Marc Phillips and George Middius?

If they aren't pedophiles, then the statement should be interpreted as
saying that you aren't one either.

"OK sockpuppet wheel, so you're not only a widely reported pedophile
and proud of it, but you're also a hypocrite."

A clear false accusation that I am a pedophile.

No, just that you are said to be a pedophile, which is of course true.

Arny said


(2) You've overlooked the fact it was posted in a newsgroup where
all posts are labeled "opinion", as in rec.audio.opinion

I have not over looked that fact. You have simply over looked all the
information on the California civil codes and forms for pleadings and
practices that I have cited for your benefit. I can lead you to the
law but I can't make you read it or understand it.

You obviously aren't interpreting the law properly. No law that prohibits
expressing opinion as opinion can stand a constitutional test.

Arny said


(3) You've overlooked the fact that the entity the post was
directed to was and is an anonymous fictitious name.

See above.

Wrong sockpuppet Wheel. It is presumed that the parties are legal entities.
Just becaues every law doesn't say that doesn't mean that a court won't
enforce that fact.

Arny said


BTW sockpuppet Wheel, I've asked you repeatedly to prove your true
identity which you've repeatedly declined to do.

You have a letter in your hand with my name and signature on it.

Which is totally meaningless.

Arny said

Therefore, it is quite clear that
you have no intent of ever being anything but an anonymous
fictitious name. That makes you a non-entity in the eyes of any
legal institution, including any court of law.

You speak for courts of law without even knowing the law.

The same can be said of you. They're laughing in your face over at
misc.legal!

Certainly
you can cite the specific California civil codes that apply to all of
these defenses you are claiming can't you? Well. no you can't.

I don't need to because I'm not in California nor do I do business in
Calfornia. What's happening sockpuppet Wheel is that you are totally
overcome with artifacts of your own imagination.

They don't exist.

That's because this whole event exists only in your mind, sockpuppet Wheel.

I have cited all the relevant material on the subject
for your benefit. You will have to seek legal council elsewhere from
now on or bear the burden of your ignorance of California law after
the 20th.

LOL!

"S888Wheel" wrote in message


I have never claimed to have obtained the formal services of a lawyer
to advise me.

I don't think so but what I think is moot in this matter. Please find a
lawyer to advise you and this time tell him the whole truth.

Like I said, they're laughing at you over in misc.legal which you previously
cited as an authority. Unlike you, I told them the truth.

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 06:36:45 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

I have never claimed to have obtained the formal services of a lawyer
to advise me.

I don't think so but what I think is moot in this matter. Please find a
lawyer to advise you and this time tell him the whole truth.

Like I said, they're laughing at you over in misc.legal which you previously
cited as an authority. Unlike you, I told them the truth.

Is *this* what you're talking about?

http://www.google.com/groups?q=group...ast.com&rnum=1

LOL!

--
Oily Tartlet

"George M. Middius" wrote

Don't waste a lot of time on Powell.

" George quacking on gun control"

How was I to know that your name would continue
to be posted on the gun thread subject line ;-) ?

"S888Wheel" wrote

Hehehe... Scott, you have no case and no
attorney of record, mr. Do-it-yourself.

I have no lawyer unless I hire one. One does
not need a lawyer to file a lawsuit and win.

Those who defend themselves have a “fool for
a client,” as they say.

I said


Arny did not express an
opinion, he wrecklessly made a false accusation that I am a
pedophile.


Arny said


I think you need to go back and check the post in question:


I said



I have checked it quite carefully.


Arny said


Then you can't read.


Personal attack noted.


Arny said


(1) You've only partially represented what it said.

I said


Here is exactly what you said.


"So sockpuppet Wheel. you're a well-known pedophile like Marc
Phillips and George Middius?"


Arny said


So what kind of pedophile are Marc Phillips and George Middius?

If they aren't pedophiles, then the statement should be interpreted as
saying that you aren't one either.


Clearly you are completely unaware of the laws regarding language in libel in
California.

I quoted Arny


"OK sockpuppet wheel, so you're not only a widely reported pedophile
and proud of it, but you're also a hypocrite."

I said


A clear false accusation that I am a pedophile.

Arny said


No, just that you are said to be a pedophile, which is of course true.


Yet another libelous statement accusing me of being a pedophile. I guess you
are in a hurry to get to court. If this happens again the 20th deadline is no
longer on the table. They have special rules for people who repeat their libel
over and over again.


Arny said


(2) You've overlooked the fact it was posted in a newsgroup where
all posts are labeled "opinion", as in rec.audio.opinion

I said


I have not over looked that fact. You have simply over looked all the
information on the California civil codes and forms for pleadings and
practices that I have cited for your benefit. I can lead you to the
law but I can't make you read it or understand it.

Arny said


You obviously aren't interpreting the law properly. No law that prohibits
expressing opinion as opinion can stand a constitutional test.


Wrong. Read the material I cited.


Arny said


(3) You've overlooked the fact that the entity the post was
directed to was and is an anonymous fictitious name.

I said


See above.


Arny said


Wrong sockpuppet Wheel. It is presumed that the parties are legal entities.
Just becaues every law doesn't say that doesn't mean that a court won't
enforce that fact.


Clearly you have not read the material I have cited.


Arny said


BTW sockpuppet Wheel, I've asked you repeatedly to prove your true
identity which you've repeatedly declined to do.

I said


You have a letter in your hand with my name and signature on it.


Arny said


Which is totally meaningless.


No.


Arny said

Therefore, it is quite clear that
you have no intent of ever being anything but an anonymous
fictitious name. That makes you a non-entity in the eyes of any
legal institution, including any court of law.

I said


You speak for courts of law without even knowing the law.


Arny said


The same can be said of you. They're laughing in your face over at
misc.legal!

I read the thread. i didn't see anyone laughing. i noticed you never mentioned
that you falsely accused me of being a pedophile. See if they think that is
funny.

I said


Certainly
you can cite the specific California civil codes that apply to all of
these defenses you are claiming can't you? Well. no you can't.


Arny said


I don't need to because I'm not in California nor do I do business in
Calfornia. What's happening sockpuppet Wheel is that you are totally
overcome with artifacts of your own imagination.

As you so often say, if irony could kill...

I said


They don't exist.

Arny said


That's because this whole event exists only in your mind, sockpuppet Wheel.


No.


I said


I have cited all the relevant material on the subject
for your benefit. You will have to seek legal council elsewhere from
now on or bear the burden of your ignorance of California law after
the 20th.

Arny said


LOL!


Are you going to use that on your answer to the lawsuit?

Thanks for proving my point about your inability to read and write English.
You know, Usenet has plenty of French-speaking newsgroups. Go visit them.

Boon


Do you think I will be able to find an other boonie-boy to spank is big
fat ass ?

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003, George M. Middius wrote:

Marc Phillips said:

You know, Usenet has plenty of French-speaking newsgroups. Go visit them.

And take Mcint[yre] with you.

Z'aimez pas ma présence, Votre Middiotie?
--
Anon E. Mouse

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, S888Wheel wrote:

[...]

Are you going to use that on your answer to the lawsuit?

Make sure my name appears on the libellé too... 8-D

Gotta love those pranks on Usenet...
--
Anon E. Mouse

[Playing] "Andy" - Les Rita Mitsouko

Andy!
Dis-moi oui, chéri!

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote in message
...
Scott wrote:



Weren't you the guy who was begging me to publish something nasty about
outside of USENET because posting on USENET couln't be used for libel
suits?




If Bruce believed that at one time he was mistaken. Nothing wrong with
making
mistaken assumptions about the laws of libel unless you have libeled
someone.
Posts on USENET can be libel.








No, I never said or believed that posts published on a Usenet NG could not
be
the grounds of a libel suit. I *did* however challenge several of RAO's
more
chronic libelers such as duh-Mikey, to publish his idiotic lies in a print
publication.



Bruce J. Richman



That would mean I have to come up with idiotic lies. I haven't done that,
so I should be safe.

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...

That would mean I have to come up with idiotic lies. I haven't done that,
so I should be safe.

However, you could be charged for plagerizing Arny's stupid lies, as you
are too
dimwitted to come up with your own original stupid lies.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Girth said:

(Marc Phillips) wrote:

Dying of stress from the heat because your body is not able to deal with it
is
NATURAL SELECTION.

Depends.. was the excessive heat a natural event?

Yes, it was.

Boon

Girth said:

Depends.. was the excessive heat a natural event?

Yes, it was.

Meteorologists say : global warming.

So you're selling off your SUV tout de suite?

Since you put it like that, I guess it's fair to say that America
played a big role in the deaths of these French people.

If I were putting it like that, I'd say all the petrol-gluttons of
the world "played a big role". You U.S.-haters should also
acknowledge that the chief impetus for lowering tailpipe emissions
of greenhouse gases was the U.S. government.

However, you have yet to prove that global warming was the culprit.
Did Mother Nature smack those oldsters to the ground and prevent
them from seeking relief on their own? Who paralyzed their families?
We saw Chirac beating his chest, but why doesn't his government have
some sort of contingency on the boards? It can't be unknown to them
that thousands of ancient apartments are blessedly free of air
conditioning.

Suppose the same weather phenomenon and a similar result in
heat-related deaths were to occur in the UK next summer. Let's hear
your predictions. Would the government fall? Would single-issue
zealots trumpet the evils of global warming?

Girth a écrit :

George M. Middius wrote:


Depends.. was the excessive heat a natural event?

Yes, it was.

Meteorologists say : global warming.

So you're selling off your SUV tout de suite?


Since you put it like that, I guess it's fair to say that America
played a big role in the deaths of these French people.




--
S i g n a l @ l i n e o n e . n e t

I was sure that Boon "Oily Target" Phillips was behind that !

George M. Middius a écrit :


Girth said:


Depends.. was the excessive heat a natural event?

Yes, it was.

Meteorologists say : global warming.

So you're selling off your SUV tout de suite?

Since you put it like that, I guess it's fair to say that America
played a big role in the deaths of these French people.


If I were putting it like that, I'd say all the petrol-gluttons of
the world "played a big role". You U.S.-haters should also
acknowledge that the chief impetus for lowering tailpipe emissions
of greenhouse gases was the U.S. government.

However, you have yet to prove that global warming was the culprit.
Did Mother Nature smack those oldsters to the ground and prevent
them from seeking relief on their own? Who paralyzed their families?

Nobody ! A lot of them died in hospital. I personally know a nice
looking good specialized hospital in which they have had 21 dead in a
day. So stop listening your stupid American medias concerning this
problem and come here I will show you the true and explain it.
Anyway, like myself a lot of french people was on holidays and I never
bring my TV with me. Moreover when meteorologists said that this heat
will late at least 1 week nobody could imagine such deasaster.
In some US area people know very well tornados they know how to protect
their life. Imagine what would happen if tornado suddenly born in a
place where it never occur before and you have an idea of what happened
in France. Imagine that next winter in Florida temperature would
suddenly decrease to -25°C in one night how many oldsters would die

We saw Chirac beating his chest, but why doesn't his government have
some sort of contingency on the boards? It can't be unknown to them
that thousands of ancient apartments are blessedly free of air
conditioning.

Pure polemic and politic fiction ! More air conditioning will increase
pollution... The snake his eating his tail.

I really don't like you Middius. You want to look here as a
well-modern-informed man and you still continue to say in an other way
****s that your Dennis Prager wrote.
In this particular case it's an unexpected natural deasaster full point.
Any polemic around it is indecent in the same way if I was starting here
a discussion around why NYC service, firemen failed to save more people
in WTC.

In this particular case I'm sure that all those dead people now need
more Mr. Krueger prayers than your stupid and indecent comments

So **** you, **** Phillips, **** Prager in a same batch.

Lionel Chapuis