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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Mark Probert and his anti-semitic campaign
(Ilena) wrote in message om...
(Mark) Aside from the problems between you and Mr. Probert, let me ask you something: First ... your revisionist history is glaring again ... Okay, stop tape... So, since I'm not an actual Nazi, I can say anything I want? I guess that means it would be perfectly acceptable to reply to you, "Shut up, you hook-nose J.A.P." whenever you say something I don't like. That wouldn't be bigoted. I'm a white non-Jew, just like the utterer of the comment in question. I hold some views which are in disagreement with some of yours, just like utterer and the target of the "Jew Boy" comment. It's not disruptive (not to mention irrelevant) to respond to someone on M.H.A. with a slap at their ethnicity or religion? If you want to play the game where your friends are guiltless whatever they say, welcome to Germany, 1934. Frankly, I'm unnerved that you're willing to ignore someone who uses the term, "Jew Boy" as long as they agree with you unrelated issues. Some issues transcend whether or not you think alike about alternative health. Mark, MD |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|