vjohn82 wrote:Seth wrote:vjohn82 wrote:Svartalf wrote:OK, a guy who starts putting Seth down after less than ten posts can't be all bad.
It just seems to have escaped Seth that maybe, just maybe, someone is using the very favourable libel laws to take advantage of someone whose words were innocuous in their full context.
Hasn't escaped me at all. When one lives and posts in a country with "favourable" libel laws, one must perforce carefully moderate one's speech if one hopes not to be brought up on charges, or had that point escaped you?
The thing about libel laws is that the "full context" is not the metric by which libel is or is not judged.
And with this you demonstrate your lack of knowledge of English law regarding libel' the context is very important. Why? Because words in isolation can mean anything, sentences mean something entirely different. Didn't you pick up that when I said the words "quote mine"? In any event that is established as precedent (see BCS vs. Singh 2009). Context is very important.
But neither all important nor determinative.
Seth wrote: If you made a claim as a statement of fact about an individual and that statement is false and derogatory, then in most places you've violated the libel laws.
How can you assume that it was false and derogatory without the evidence? Again, this is why I am here. To dispel this sort of speculation.
See the word "if" at the beginning of the sentence? It has meaning. And we'll never know because you refuse to post the evidence, which makes your being here rather pointless and futile unless you were expecting a congratulatory circle-jerk merely because you claim that you've been wronged. That was a mistake because your own words give rise to substantial doubt about your innocence, and confirm your guilt on one regard. Bad tactics, that, but it's often the case that Internet pundits tend to run off at the mouth and dig their graves even deeper because they can't shut up long enough to let the legal system work. If you think what's-his-name isn't copying all this colloquy, I think you're a fool.
Ever heard of Johanna Kaschke? I suggest you read up on her cases against the bloggers John Gray, David Osler and Alex Hilton and then you'll be more in the picture about the abuses of court process.
I'm well aware of how courts can be abused. That doesn't mean that the court is abusing YOU, now does it? We have only your word for that, and your blog belies your protestations of innocence rather starkly, in my humble opinion.
Seth wrote: The UK's metric is quite a bit more broad in its protection of reputation and business, which is something you should have known before you wrote your "review." I don't know whether you have violated the libel laws of the UK or not, but it's perfectly evident that what you wrote was disparaging enough and (at least to the plaintiff) false enough and harmful enough for him to invest some money in suing you. That's his right, if he believes you have harmed him and violated the law.
You're assuming that this claimant is investing money; in the UK there is something called a fee remission which means it is paid for by the British taxpayer. Nothing would prevent me from issuing numerous claims. I believe Smith vs. ADVFN, where the Plaintiff took 30 people to court, which were eventually struck out as an abuse of process, provides one example of the abuse of libel law.
Red herring. That others may have abused, or been abused by the libel laws doesn't mean that you are being wrongfully abused in this case.
Libel law in the UK is not favourable to people who haven't done anything wrong is my point.
But we have only your word that you haven't done anything wrong, and we also have your blog writings which cast substantial doubt, IMHO, on your claim of innocence.
This is why the Libel Reform campaign exists.
Yes, well, "reform" doesn't mean "repeal" now does it.
But again you offer a a perfect example of a person who makes up things and then writes it down without thinking. Do not accuse me of the same thing without any evidence.
I have evidence, I have your own words written in your own blog, which you linked to, which is the basis for my conclusions. That you don't like my conclusions is irrelevant.
Seth wrote: Your blog clearly demonstrates the antipathy you have towards this person and religionists in general, and I'm familiar with the sort of antipathy that many Atheists have, and how loudly they voice it, against people of faith, and how often those disparaging comments could very well transgress the laws of libel. Most Atheist pundits get away with it because most people of faith have neither the money nor the interest in pursuing expensive litigation and they would have a difficult time proving economic damages. But when you "reviewed" this fellow's book, and outed his ad campaign, and outed his children and generally went far beyond merely reviewing and criticizing the book, you very likely crossed the line into libel, at least in the UK, and he has the money to make an issue of it.
Drivel. Absolute drivel.
Why am I unsurprised that you would fail to see the flaws in your own arguments?
I can criticise a person's choice in music but not their religion? Pathetic argument at the best of times.
That depends on UK law. If it's anything like Canadian law, and I believe it is, your right to do so is severely constrained. But my complaint about you has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with your outing of his children. I don't know whether you violated UK libel laws regarding criticism of religion because you are keeping what you wrote secret. If you care to PM me the original "review" and following comments, I'll look at it and at the UK libel laws and render you my opinion.
Until then, I take my evidence from your blog writings, and I form my conclusions based on those statements. So far, you've been pretty persistent in attributing to me judgments that I have not made. Indeed, I've been very specific in saying that I'm not rendering judgment on the merits of the case, I'm rendering judgment based on what YOU WROTE in your blog and my impressions thereof.
Seth wrote: As I said, I don't know the facts of the case other than the ones you have provided in your blog, so I'm not prepared to argue the merits of anything other than your outing of his children's names and school, which was a reprehensible and cowardly and entirely unnecessary act, and the sort of thing that anti-religious zealots who would be perfectly satisfied to see he and his children harassed or physically harmed by other Atheists would do. As I said, I have personal experience with that sort of mentally deranged Internet Netwit, and it's not a pleasant experience at all, and can be physically dangerous, particularly when personal details are "outed" on the Internet for anyone who is mentally unstable to find and potentially used. For that reason I'm not at all surprised he's suing you. I would too, if I didn't first track you down (or better yet hire some thugs to do it for me) and break both your legs and all your fingers first for placing my children in danger. Oh, wait, that would be a deranged thing to do, wouldn't it? It's perhaps worth remembering that there are deranged people on BOTH SIDES of the question, and YOU might well become a target for some religious zealot who sees you as a clear and present danger to children of the faithful and decides to do unto you as you have done unto others, only worse.
"US Keyboard warrior, who cannot read properly and makes up things, threatens to break legs and fingers of UK blogger"
Only if you fuck with my kids
Seth wrote: Ponder on that for a while as you ride your high horse of indignation at criticism from me for a reprehensible act of cowardice involving a man's children.
And that criticism is based on what YOU WROTE in your blog and nothing else. If you didn't intend to admit that you outed the man's children and their school, that's your problem. But you did, and now you can rightfully be criticized for doing so.
If you could read, you will know that I said nothing of where his children go to school. There is nothing in my blog about mentioning his children. Your words demonstrate my point that people are able to invent things for a purpose. I suggest you offer some evidence of where I mentioned his children's school or apologise. If not, your entire rambling nonsense is invalid.
vjohn82 in his blog wrote:Well, the author in question was using a pseudonym to write the book. I discovered who the pseudonym was...Having outed the pseudonym he became a little bit of a weekend project... I mentioned, in a single line, that I felt sorry for the author's children being subjected to his bullshit and religious indoctrination. In fact, here is what I wrote in the EXACT words:
"I feel sorry for [name] and [name] who appear likely to be subjected to your bullshit for some time to come" [italics in original] Yes, I mentioned the authors children's names... However, it must be pointed out that at this time I did not have confirmation from the pseudonym that he was who I thought he was.
Now, in re the "revealing the school" charge, you are correct, that was done by the Ministry of Truth, which is a co-conspirator in this little drama. The result is the same, and it's all YOUR fault. If you had not outed McGrath and his kids names, the MOT would not have revealed the school by finding a newspaper story cached. End result: because of your actions, the children, and their school, have been outed. Person responsible: You.
However, what you did was, as I have said, reprehensible and cowardly. First, you outed McGrath, then you outed his children, then you try to excuse this cowardly act by saying that you "did not have confirmation...that he was who I thought he was."
That doesn't absolve you, that magnifies the wrongness of your actions. Without knowing that the person you were outing was factually the person behind the pseudonym, you went right ahead and set your "honeypot" up by using McGrath's children as "bait" (the precise word YOU used) to try to confirm your suspicions. It happens that you were correct, but what if you HAD NOT BEEN CORRECT?
You would have outed an innocent man, and his children and you would have subjected them to scorn, derision, ridicule and economic harm, not to mention potential physical and emotional harm, all because you were obsessed with making a clear and unequivocal personal attack on someone who wrote something you disagreed with. The fact that you WERE correct in your suspicions in no way ameliorates or excuses the horrendous, evil, cruel and arrogant manner in which you, with callous disregard for the truth or the rights of the people you attacked, went about "confirming" your suspicions.
You had no right whatsoever to use his kids as "bait" for your narcissistic and obsessive vendetta against the pseudonymous author of a book you disfavor, and it's perfectly clear to me that your whole agenda is to suppress McGrath's rights of free speech and expression by subjecting him to terroristic threats to his children's safety with the hope that he will stop writing things you disagree with, so there's more than a little hypocrisy evident in your whining about it to us. And it's perfectly clear from your blog, and from your participation here, that you have absolutely no remorse whatsoever for placing children in danger, both physical and emotional, so long as your little sociopathic anti-freedom-of-speech vendetta against someone you clearly hate is successful.
And this sort of obsessive stalking and harassment is PRECISELY what the libel laws are intended to inhibit and punish.
I hope he cleans out your bank account and gets half your paycheck for the next 20 years.
And I hope to hell the Court sees it exactly that way.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke
"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth
© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.
