A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » misc.kids » Kids Health
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Mark Probert and his anti-semitic campaign



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 5th 03, 09:14 PM
Ilena
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mark Probert and his anti-semitic campaign

Under various and ridiculous names he posts from his AOL account,
using "volcanomail.com" addresses ... failed attorney Mark Probert has
now taken his anti-semitic Propaganda to the
alt.support.breast-implant newsgroup.

"The Kid" as he has affectionately been (mis)named here ... uses
Usenet badgering and harassment to attempt to convince the world that
those he hates are anti-semites ... just one disgusting game in his
Propaganda bag of tricks.

Here he is on other groups doing the same thing:

http://groups.google.com/groups?num=...=Google+Search

http://groups.google.com/groups?num=...=Google+Search

http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/P...stProbert.html
  #2  
Old July 6th 03, 04:13 AM
CBI
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mark Probert and his anti-semitic campaign



"Ilena" wrote in message
m...
Under various and ridiculous names he posts from
his AOL account.....


yawn So?


  #4  
Old July 6th 03, 05:49 PM
Ilena
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mark Probert and his anti-semitic campaign

Peter Bowditch


Ilena, why don't you tell everyone why "Quack Inc" sued you?


Happily.

They are Sue Happy Quacks who use the Legal System to try to stifle
their critics.

The details, as well as the Judge's decision on Quack Inc's loss
against me is housed at:

http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm

EXCERPTS:

Plaintiffs (Quacks Barrett & Polevoy and Malicious Prosecutor Grell)
here cannot meet the evidentiary burdens with which they are faced,
for each of several reasons.


(ii) Rosenthal Has Published Nothing About Plaintiff Grell

Initially, the Court notes that plaintiff Grell's claim fails the
publication requirement, that is, an affirmative showing by him that
the statements at issue were directed at or concerned him in some way.
Notably, Grell is not mentioned in any publication which Rosenthal is
alleged to have made, and presented no evidence to show that any
reader reasonably understood the publications to refer to him. Indeed,
at the hearing plaintiff Grell as much as conceded the motion as
against him.


(iii) Plaintiffs Cannot Establish That Most Of The Statements At Issue
Are Demonstrably False Statements Of Fact

Plaintiffs complain that Rosenthal has posted to Internet newsgroups
her views that plaintiffs Barrett and Polevoy are "quacks"; that
Barrett is "arrogant" and a "bully"; and that Barrett has tried to
"extort" her. Such statements are not actionable, because they do not
contain provably false assertions of fact, but rather are expressions
of subjective judgment. As Justice Swager observed in Copp v. Paxton
(1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 829: "The issue whether a communication was a
statement of fact or opinion is a question of law to be decided by the
Court. In making the distinction, the courts have regarded as opinion
any 'broad, unfocused and wholly subjective comment,' such as that the
plaintiff was a 'shady practitioner,' 'crook,' or 'crooked
politician.' Similarly, in Moyer, this court found no cause of action
for statements in a high school newspaper that the plaintiff was 'the
worst teacher at FHS' and 'a babbler.' The former was clearly 'an
expression of subjective judgment.' And the epithet 'babbler' could be
reasonably understood only 'as a form of exaggerated expression
conveying the student-speaker's disapproval of plaintiff's teaching or
speaking style.' (Cits. omitted; 45 Cal.App.4th at 837-838.) To the
same effect, see Morningstar, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 23
Cal.App.4th 676, 691, n. 5, citing cases holding that (a) referring to
township clerk as "playing hide and seek" with township funds, (b)
referring to William Buckley as a "fellow traveler of fascism," and
(c) referring to a change of membership on public board as "sleazy
sleight of hand," are nonlibelous because the comments are phrased in
vituperative terms or because the language was used in a "loose or
figurative" sense.

Plaintiffs' Opposition ignores Rosenthal's discussion on this issue,
and does not meaningfully attempt to argue that any of those
statements are actionable. Instead, Plaintiffs' Opposition cites a
passage from defendant Tim Bolen's piece, reposted by Rosenthal, as
containing provably false statements of fact (Opp.14:9-24), which
contention is discussed below, in part (iv).

Plaintiffs' Opposition does cite several old defamation cases,
primarily from the years 1916 through 1939 and one in 1955.
(Opp.8:17-28.) However, as Rosenthal points out, the boundaries of
permissible public discourse have evolved significantly in the last
half century, and as her Reply aptly summarizes it: "Although it may
have been actionable to call someone a 'hypocrite' in 1916, or an 'old
witch' in 1955 (Opp.8:24-9:5), today calling someone a 'thief' and a
'liar' in a public debate has been held to be
constitutionally-protected rhetorical hyperbole. (Rosenaur v. Scherer
(2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 260, 280.)"

The conclusion that Rosenthal's statements discussed above are
protected opinion or rhetoric is also supported by the forum and
context in which the statements were made, that is, in the "the
general cacophony of an Internet" newsgroup, "part of an on-going
free-wheeling and highly animated exchange" about health issues, where
the "the postings are full of hyperbole, invective, shorthand phrases
and language not generally found in fact-based documents." (Global
Telemedia International v. Doe 1 aka BUSTEDAGAIN40 (C.D.Cal.2001) 132
F.Supp.2d 1261, 1267, 1269-1270 [holding critical comments about
plaintiff in Internet chat-room, including that it "screwed" investors
out of their money and lied to them, to be non-actionable opinion and
rhetoric]. Also see Gregory v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1976) 17
Cal.3d 596, 601: "[W]here potentially defamatory statements are
published in a public debate, ... or in another setting in which the
audience may anticipate efforts by the parties to persuade others to
their positions by use of epithets, fiery rhetoric or hyperbole,
language which generally might be considered as statements of fact may
well assume the character of statements of opinion.")

In sum, the Court concludes that, with one exception, the publications
attributed to Rosenthal are not statements of fact, and thus will not
support any plaintiff's claim for libel. The one exception, that is,
the one statement that appears to be factual, is the posting by
Rosenthal of the self-described "opinion piece" by Tim Bolen claiming
plaintiff Polevoy stalked Christine McPhee, and the Court turns to
discussion of that statement.


(iv) Rosenthal's Statement About Polevoy Is Protected By Federal Law

The Complaint alleges in pertinent part that sometime after August 14,
2000 Rosenthal "repeatedly posted" to newsgroups "at least one"
libelous message, (Paragraph 18), which message was that Polevoy
stalked Christine McPhee. Because Plaintiffs specifically pleaded that
such message was in fact originally posted by Tim Bolen and was
reposted by Rosenthal, Rosenthal's moving papers contended that 47
U.S.C. 230 shielded her from liability. Plaintiffs' Opposition
eschewed any reference to, much less discussion of, this argument and
Rosenthal's Reply urged that the issue was conceded. At the hearing
the Court confronted counsel for Plaintiffs about this, and
Plaintiffs' Supplemental Memorandum does address the issue.
(Supplemental Memorandum, hereinafter cited "Supp. Opp.," 5:21-10:14.)
But not successfully.

47 U.S.C. 230 is part of the Communications Decency Act enacted by
Congress in 1996 ("the Act"), and includes provisions creating
immunity for certain communications on the Internet. As pertinent
here, 47 U.S.C. 230(c)(1) provides that: "No provider or user of an
interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or
speaker of any information provided by another information content
provider." [FN 3] And Section 230(e)(3) provides in relevant part: "No
cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under
any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section."

[FN 3] Section 230(f)(2) defines "interactive computer service" as any
information service system, or access software provider that provides
or enables computer access by multiple user to a computer server ..."
Section 230(f)(3) defines "information content provider" as "any
person or entity that is responsible, in whole or in part, for the
creation or development of information provided through the Internet
or any other interactive computer serve. Section 230(f)(4) defines
"access software provider" as "a provider of software (including
client or server software), or enabling tools that do any one or more
of the following: (A) filter, screen, allow, or disallow content; (B)
pick, choose, analyze, or digest content; or (C) transmit, receive,
display, forward, cache, search, subset, organize, reorganize, or
translate content."
These protections for covered communications were enacted "to promote
the continued development of the Internet and other interactive
computer services and other interactive media," and "to preserve the
vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the
Internet and other interactive computer services, unfettered by
Federal or State regulation." (47 U.S.C. 230(b)(1),(2).) "[b]y its
plain language, § 230[(c)(1)] creates a federal immunity to any cause
of action that would make service providers liable for information
originating with a third-party user of the service." (Zeran v.
American Online (4th Cir.1997) 129 F.3d 327, 330, cited with approval
in Kathleen R. v. City of Livermore (2001) 87 Cal.App.4 th 684, 692.)
Thus, § 230(c)(1) provides immunity to users, as well as providers, of
interactive computer services.
It is undisputed that Rosenthal did not "create" or "develop" the
information in defendant Bolen's piece. Thus, as a user of an
interactive computer service, that is, a newsgroup, Rosenthal is not
the publisher or speaker of Bolen's piece. Thus, she cannot be civilly
liable for posting it on the Internet. She is immune.

Plaintiffs contend that to apply Section 230 would be contrary to one
of the purposes of the Community Decency Act, specifically to ensure
vigorous enforcement of federal criminal laws to deter and
punishtrafficking in obscenity, stalking, and harassment by means of
computer." (Supp. Opp. 6:24-27, citing 47 USC 230(b)(5).) This
argument is without merit, because §§ 230(c)(1) and (e)(3) merely
provide for immunity from civil liability, and the Act expressly
provides that it has no effect on federal criminal statutes. (47 USC
230(e)(1).)

Plaintiffs also assert that so applying the act is inconsistent with
the statement in Zeran that "None of this means, of course, that the
original culpable party who posts defamatory messages would escape
accountability." (Supp.Opp., 7:1-5.) However, the "original culpable
party" is the "information content provider," the person who "created"
the information. As to Bolen's piece, that is Bolen, not Rosenthal.

In sum and in short, no plaintiff has any claim against Rosenthal:
Grell is not even mentioned; Barrett can show no statement of fact,
false or otherwise; and the one statement of fact to which Polevoy can
point, the reposting of the Bolen piece, will not subject Rosenthal to
liability. But assuming arguendo Barrett and Polevoy could point to a
statement that would support a libel claim, their claims would fail
because they are public figures.


(v) Plaintiffs Barrett and Polevoy Are Public Figures, Whose Claims
Fail Because They Cannot Show Actual Malice

(a) Barrett and Polevoy are Public Figures

Plaintiffs are all described above, essentially based on their own
views of themselves, which descriptions would appear to make
Plaintiffs Barrett and Polevoy public figures. Were not that enough,
Rosenthal's Declaration embellishes the picture, demonstrating that in
June, 2000 Barrett and Polevoy were interviewed on a two-part PBS
television show about defendant Clark, and that on February 23, 2001,
Barrett was interviewed on the Today show. Moreover, Barrett authored
an article on "How to Spot a Quack" for the March 5, 2001, issue of
Time's monthly magazine "On," and Time itself published an article on
Barrett in its April 20, 2001 issue, entitled "The Man Who Loves To
Bust Quacks." The article states that "Barrett has become one of
America's premier debunkers of what he likes to call quackery."
Indeed, Barrett himself is quoted in the article as saying: "Twenty
years ago, I had trouble getting my ideas through to the media. Today
I am the media." (Rosenthal Decl., ¶¶ 55-57 and Exs. O, U, & V.)

In light of all this, it hardly needs citation of authority to
demonstrate that Barrett and Polovey are public figures. Plaintiffs
hardly contend otherwise.


(b) Barrett and Polevoy Cannot Show Malice

It is well settled that where, as here, the publications at issue
concern a public figure, actual malice may not be presumed. To the
contrary, Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving actual malice, and it
must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. (See Copp v. Paxton,
supra, 45 Cal.App.4th at 846.) This means that Plaintiffs must show
not only that the statements they attribute to Defendants were false
and defamatory, but also that they were published with actual
knowledge of their falsity or otherwise circulated with reckless
disregard of whether they were false or not. (Id.) Moreover, "[t]he
burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence requires a finding of
high probability. The evidence must be so clear as to leave no
substantial doubt. It must be sufficiently strong so as to command the
unhesitating assent of every reasonable mind." (Ibid.) Plaintiffs
cannot meet the burden with which they are faced.

In their Opposition to the motion, Plaintiffs point tothree factors
which they contend are prima facie evidence of actual malice: (1) the
tenor of the statements at issue; (2) the fact that the statements
were circulated without any attempt by defendants to "learn the truth
about Plaintiffs' conduct"; and (3) the statement by Rosenthal upon
learning that she had been sued that she "despises" Plaintiffs. None
of these presents sufficient prima facie evidence of actual malice.

First, as explained above, the tenor of the statements here provides
little, if any, evidence on the issue of actual malice. Indeed, the
very fact that the statements contain hyperbole, invective, and
animated descriptive passages establishes them as non-defamatory
expressions of opinion -- not provably false assertions of fact that
were demonstrably false at the time they were made. (See Global
Telemedia International v. Doe 1, supra, 132 F.Supp.2d at 1269- 1270;
Rosenaur v. Scherer, supra, 88 Cal.App.4 th at 280.)

Second, there is no requirement that one first "learn the truth"
before making statements concerning a public figure. As the United
States Supreme Court has held: "reckless conduct is not measured by
whether a reasonably prudent [person] would have published, or would
have investigated before publishing. There must [instead] be
sufficient evidence to permit the conclusion that defendant in fact
entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his [or her]
publication." (St. Amant v. Thompson (1968) 390 U.S. 727, 731.) In
this instance, there is no evidence, let alone clear and convincing
evidence, that Rosenthal in fact entertained serious doubts as to the
truth of their publications.

Third, Rosenthal's expression that she "despises" Plaintiffs, coming
as it did only after having being sued, avails Plaintiffs of nothing.
This Court surmises that most people would not react well to the news
that they have been named as a defendant in a contentious and
potentially long and expensive lawsuit. But, Rosenthal's reaction to
being sued provides no evidence of her subjective intent at the in
time critical to the actual malice analysis, the time at which she
circulated the statements on the Internet. But even if the Court were
to read Rosenthal's post-filing e-mail as evidence that she was
motivated by her dislike of Plaintiffs to circulate critical
statements about them on the Internet, such evidence does not
constitute actual malice." 'Actual malice' under the New York Times
standard focuses on the defendant's attitude toward the truth or
falsity of [her] published material rather than on the defendant's
attitude toward plaintiff.' Under this standard, ill will does not
constitute proof of knowledge of falsity." (Gomes v. Fried (1982) 136
Cal.App.3d 924, 934 [internal citations omitted].)

In short, Plaintiffs have not come forward with sufficient prima facie
evidence of actual malice to establish a probability of prevailing on
their defamation claims.


(vi) Plaintiffs' Claims Also Fail for Lack of Evidence of Actual
Monetary Damages

Last, Plaintiffs' claims suffer the additional fatal defect in their
damages allegations. While at common law compensatory damages for
defamation-related injuries were available without evidence of loss,
the United States Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment
prohibits an award of presumed damages for false and defamatory
statements involving matters of public concern. (See Gertz v. Robert
Welch, supra, 418 U.S. at 350.) Thus, under Gertz, a public figure
plaintiff must produce "competent evidence of actual injury" to state
a constitutional claim for defamation. (Ibid.) In this instance,
however, Plaintiffs have submitted no evidence that they suffered any
actual monetary damage as a result of Defendants' publications. Having
failed to establish that they suffered any monetary damage of any
kind, Plaintiffs' claims are properly stricken for failure to show
that they have prima facie merit. (See Averill v. Superior Court
(1996) 42 Cal.App.4 th 1170, 1176.)


C. Plaintiffs Have Not Shown Good Cause for Discovery

As noted, Plaintiffs Opposition requested, "[a]s an aside," the right
to conduct discovery, a request renewed at the hearing. The Court
requested further briefing on Plaintiffs' request, which was received,
and the Court now addresses that request.

Preliminarily, the Court rejects Rosenthal's contention that the
request must be denied on the basis that Plaintiffs never filed a
noticed motion seeking such discovery as required by subdivision (g)
of Section 425.16. (See 10. ["The court, on noticed motion and for
good cause shown, may order that specified discovery be conducted
notwithstanding this subdivision."]; also see Evans v. Unkow, supra,
38 Cal.App.4th at 1499 [request for discovery denied when not made by
noticed motion: "The failure to comply with the statute by making a
timely and proper showing below makes his discovery request
meritless."]; and Robertson v. Rodriguez (1995) 36 Cal.App.4 th 347,
357 [request for discovery in opposition papers denied because not
made by noticed motion].) Instead, the Court reaches the merits of
Plaintiffs' request, and concludes that it is wanting.

It is probably enough to note, as demonstrated above, that no
plaintiff has asserted a cognizable claim for defamation against
Rosenthal: Grell is not even mentioned by her; Barrett can show no
statement of fact, false or otherwise, made by her; and the one
statement of fact about Polevoy, the reposting of the Bolen piece,
will not subject her to liability. Plaintiffs' request is also wanting
because they have failed to demonstrate good cause.

In their Supplemental Memorandum filed after the hearing, requested by
the Court on the issue of discovery, Plaintiffs devote less than 4 of
17 pages to the request for discovery. (Supp.Opp.13:5-16:18). There,
with little discussion, Plaintiffs request the right to conduct
discovery on damages and malice. (See Supp. Opp., 17:1-2; see also
12:22-24.) Neither request is well taken.

The only justification Plaintiffs give for their request to conduct
discovery to determine their own damages is their vague assertion,
without explanation or support, that "[e]vidence of Plaintiffs'
damages is in part, under the control of the University and other
people that deal with Plaintiffs." (Supp. Opp. 14:2-3; see also
11:15-17.) Plaintiffs do not explain why anyone else knows better than
they do what damages they have allegedly suffered, nor who those
people are or what specific discovery they seek to obtain from them.

Plaintiffs' claimed justification for discovery regarding actual
malice is the following: "Plaintiffs would like to be able to depose
Ilena Rosenthal, Tim Bolen, and Ms. McFee [sic] in order to determine
what evidence they had to show that the statements they made were not
made with reckless disregard for the truth." (Supp. Brief 12:24-27.)

Plaintiffs' request to depose defendant Bolen and Ms. McPhee is
fatuous. Whether Bolen or McPhee made their statements with actual
malice is irrelevant to whether Rosenthal posted Bolen's piece with
actual malice. As for deposing Rosenthal, Plaintiffs say they want to
see what evidence she had to show that her statements were not made
with actual malice. However, Plaintiffs' request falls short because
they do not "explain what additional facts [they] expect to uncover
...." (Sipple v. Foundation for National Progress, supra, 71 Cal.App.4
th at 247.)

The Court is aware that if a plaintiff makes a timely and proper
showing for discovery, a Court should liberally exercise its
discretion to allow such discovery, when "evidence to establish a
prima facie case is reasonably shown to be held, or known, by
defendant." (Lafayette Morehouse, Inc. v. Chronicle Publishing Co.
(1995) 37 Cal.App.4 th. 855, 868.) But such liberality applies only if
the plaintiff demonstrates "that a defendant or a witness possess
evidence needed by plaintiff to establish a prima facie case." (Id.)
Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy this prerequisite. They have not
made an adequate showing to justify discovery.


5. Conclusion

Based on the above, the Court concludes that Section 425.16 applies to
Plaintiffs' Complaint, and that no Plaintiff has established by
competent evidence a probability that he will prevail on his claim.
Accordingly, Rosenthal's motion will be granted, and Rosenthal will be
awarded reasonable attorney's fees and costs according to proof.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
  #5  
Old July 6th 03, 06:51 PM
Ilena
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mark Probert and his anti-semitic campaign

Orac

Bottom line: If Ilena perceives you as being on "her side," you can do
no wrong. If Ilena perceives you as being "against" her, you can do no
right.


You are a fool ... yet again revising history and claiming to speak
for me.

I am quite capable of speaking for myself.

You remind me of the stupidest doctor in the world who believes that
when a sick male patient puts on a mask (like your buddy Probert) and
says his name is "Marla" ... you believe him. You've done the same
with failed attorney Probert and his ridiculous masks.

I will repeat what I wrote earlier ...

From: Ilena )
Subject: Report: Anti-Semitic Acts Up on Campuses


Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative, talk.politics.medicine,
sci.med.dentistry
Date: 2003-03-26 18:35:15 PST


I will repeat my words ...

Your ability and the vigor with which David Gorski tries to change
history is astounding:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Joel M. Eichen" wrote in message ...
Hmmmmm,,,

Would this be some belittling, Jan?



Mark Probert belittles himself ... bulllying and visciously attacking
the opponents of his Paymasters ... he is but a Parrot for the Quack /
Junk Science Campaign on the net with the most disgusting and
revolting habits ...

Both failed lawyer Probert (and you, Joelly) trying to convince people
they are Nazis and anti-semites based on your skewed perceptions is
disgusting ...

In my 55 years, I've never seen the behavior of Jews like Probert &
you and Jacobson cyberly beating to a pulp trying to convince the
victim (Jan or Debbee or whoever) that they hate Jews ...

I have never felt any prejudice against me as a Jew from the people
you and Davey Gorski and Probert claim are ... maybe they despise you
.... not Judiasm.

Probert is the most despicable and deceptive male I know ... yet not
because he is Jewish ... in spite of it.

The idea that he is out in the world "teaching" people about Judiasm
nauseates med ... he represents (you too) NOTHING that I, as a Jewsish
woman have ever believed in ...



Joelly ... do you ever go back and read your own posts and see how the
legacy you are leaving?

Whatever the perqs you receive to fill Usenet with your industry
propaganda ... attempting to convince people they hate Jews ... is
that really for the greater good?


Ilena Rosenthal
http://www.BreastImplantAwareness.org
  #6  
Old July 6th 03, 09:56 PM
Orac
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mark Probert and his anti-semitic campaign

In article ,
(Ilena) wrote:

Orac

Bottom line: If Ilena perceives you as being on "her side," you can do
no wrong. If Ilena perceives you as being "against" her, you can do no
right.


You are a fool ... yet again revising history and claiming to speak
for me.


I make no such claim. I'm merely making a simple observation and
conclusion based on your own statements in this newsgroup. You don't
hesitate to do the same with me, based on my statements; so I'm puzzled
why you would get so upset by my simply looking for patterns in your
posts to m.h.a. I have never seen you criticize someone whom you usually
ally with on this newsgroup (such as Jan, DEBBEE, etc.), no matter how
outrageous or abusive they are, and similarly because I have never seen
you praise anyone whom you consider your opponent, no matter how
innocuous their behavior.


I am quite capable of speaking for myself.


I never said you weren't.


You remind me of the stupidest doctor in the world who believes that
when a sick male patient puts on a mask (like your buddy Probert) and
says his name is "Marla" ... you believe him. You've done the same
with failed attorney Probert and his ridiculous masks.


Nope. I've only pointed out that your evidence that all these different
'nyms are Mark isn't particularly convincing. Post convincing evidence
and you might persuade me.


I will repeat what I wrote earlier ...



[Snip]

No need to, but thanks for the offer. I'm happy to repost the relevant
links that support my assertion about how you defend anti-Semitism when
voiced by people whom you consider allies, particularly if the person
pointing out the anti-Semitism happens to be someone whom you consider
an opponent. Your technique has usually been to accuse the one pointing
out the anti-Semitism of "spreading anti-Semitism" through his or her
accusation:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...%40dt011n65.sa
n.rr.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain (Ilena accuses Rich and Mark of
"spreading anti-Semitism.")

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...%40dt011n65.sa
n.rr.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain (Ilena thanks someone posting under the
'nym of "Sir ARthur," who also said: "Remember when Ilena called you a
pushy, and all that, she even implied that you single-handily increase
the amount of Anti-Semitism in this country. I tend to accept her
premise right now.")

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...8d74b%40postin
g.google.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain (Ilena attacks Mark Probert, Joel
Eichen, and me for "spreading anti-Semitism," because we criticized
DEBBEE for HER blatantly anti-Semitic comments originally posted in
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...0000014%40mb-c
b.aol.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain and earlier criticized Jan for her support
of a Holocaust denial website)

And, to be fair, I'll even include the article you just reposted for me,
which, though you appear not to realize it, actually does fit in with
the articles I've listed above:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...154eb%40postin
g.google.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

My only question on this last one is, how is my perception skewed, based
on a sampling of her posts:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...0000014%40mb-c
b.aol.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain (The infamous "a certain European leader
from long ago" may have been right post. She also seems to be blaming
Jews here for suppressing alt-med.)

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...0000181%40mb-m
r.aol.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain (In which DEBBEE claims that Jews control
the media.)

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...0000211%40mb-m
04.aol.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain (Posted earlier today, in which DEBBEE
talks about how one dare not criticize "New York Jews" and how Jews
started the ACLU, mentioning smugly her satisfaction when pointing this
out to potential donors to the ACLU.)

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...0000500%40mb-f
d.aol.com&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain (Complaints about Israel.)

The most damning post is the first one, but the second and third ones
are also pretty bad. The fourth one could be explained away as being
"anti-Zionist" (a common defense used by anti-Semites, although clearly
not all anti-Zionists are anti-Semites), but is less easily explained
when taken in context with the totality with her previous posts.

I will now retire and allow the reader to decide whether I am
exaggerating or unjustly criticizing you or DEBBEE or not.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
  #7  
Old July 6th 03, 11:27 PM
Peter Bowditch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mark Probert and his anti-semitic campaign

(Ilena) wrote:

Peter Bowditch


Ilena, why don't you tell everyone why "Quack Inc" sued you?


Happily.

They are Sue Happy Quacks who use the Legal System to try to stifle
their critics.

The details, as well as the Judge's decision on Quack Inc's loss
against me is housed at:

http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm

EXCERPTS:

Plaintiffs (Quacks Barrett & Polevoy and Malicious Prosecutor Grell)
here cannot meet the evidentiary burdens with which they are faced,
for each of several reasons.


Don't tell us why they lost (we all know about the crack parties),
tell us why they sued you.

--
Peter Bowditch
The Millenium Project
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight
  #8  
Old July 7th 03, 12:46 AM
Dana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mark Probert and his anti-semitic campaign


"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
...
(Ilena) wrote:

(Mark)


Aside from the problems between you and Mr. Probert, let me ask you
something:



First ... your revisionist history is glaring again ... Probert made
me his target, just like Quack Barrett's Parrot ... after Quack Inc
sued me ... you are one who posted BS along with Probert about this
SLAPP suit.


Ilena, why don't you tell everyone why "Quack Inc" sued you?


Get a life. So you support the establishment in trying to prevent other
ideas from being presented.

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/issues.../cityside.html

"It is undisputed that Rosenthal did not 'create' or 'develop' the
information in defendant Bolen's piece," he wrote. "Thus, as a user of an
interactive computer service, that is, a newsgroup, Rosenthal is not the
publisher or speaker of Bolen's piece. Thus, she cannot be civilly liable
for posting it on the Internet. She is immune."


  #9  
Old July 7th 03, 12:47 AM
Dana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Mark Probert and his anti-semitic campaign


"Peter Bowditch" wrote in message
...
(Ilena) wrote:

Peter Bowditch


Ilena, why don't you tell everyone why "Quack Inc" sued you?


Happily.

They are Sue Happy Quacks who use the Legal System to try to stifle
their critics.

The details, as well as the Judge's decision on Quack Inc's loss
against me is housed at:

http://www.humanticsfoundation.com/quacklibelsuit.htm

EXCERPTS:

Plaintiffs (Quacks Barrett & Polevoy and Malicious Prosecutor Grell)
here cannot meet the evidentiary burdens with which they are faced,
for each of several reasons.


Don't tell us why they lost (we all know about the crack parties),
tell us why they sued you.


Greed. Simple Greed.

--
Peter Bowditch
The Millenium Project
http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
The Green Light http://www.ratbags.com/greenlight



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.