protective order scam

Sharon Ispay wrote:
Because you obsessivly bash, harass, and falsely accuse Mr. Hanson in nearly
EVERY post, in nearly EVERY thread, EVERY day, every week, every month,
every year for over 5 years now.

Kane wrote
You are lying. A recent poster who was one of his intended victims just
posted here.
Now THIS one you can't claim as a Dan sock without looking even more
ridiculous than when you tried it with others, like Chuck.

I can hardly wait.

Kane wrote
Don, if my last contact with him is any indication, not only is very
well and very sane and especially carring for family...ALL family, that
I hear he's still doing all he can to help families stay together.
Fancy that.

"Michael©" wrote in message
. 97.140...
"Ron" wrote in
:


"Doug" wrote in message
...
Absolutely not. You can tell the absolute truth and lose a suit
because you chose to tell it to the detriment and loss of the
complainant.

Hi, Kane,

Nope. Truth is an absolute defense against libel. If the defendant
proves the statement to be true in a libel suit, he prevails. Period.
Absolute defense.

If there is one thing you should have learned in posting to this news
group for as long as you have Doug, "Truth" is a matter of perspective.

Fact, on the other hand, is what is the ultimate defense.

Truth is an absolute defense in the United States and Canada to
defamation
(libel and slander).

Un uh, Michael. That's a myth based on folks ignoring qualifiers you'll
nearly always see in the authorities referenced, that actually say,
"in almost every instance truth is an absolute defense."

Michael is correct. Truth is an absolute defense in libel suits. That
the truth happens to cause detriment to the plaintiff does not in any
manner, shape or form mitigate the absolute defense of truth.

No Doug, its not. Fact is. Truth is variable.

If truth is a variable, it is not a fact.

LMAO

At CPS High, truth is ALWAYS variable.


=====================================
truth

+ noun (pl. truths /trooths, troo&ulth;z/) 1 the quality or state of
being true. 2 (also the truth) that which is true as opposed to false. 3
a fact or belief that is accepted as true.

ORIGIN Old English.

Oxford University Press, 2006
=====================================

The truth is a fact.

Therefore, you contradicted yourself above.



Ron






--
Michael©
We are just an advanced breed of monkeys on a minor planet of a very
average star. But we can understand the Universe. That makes us something
very special.

Stephen Hawking, Der Spiegel, 1989

Sharon Ispay wrote:
"0:-" wrote in message
ups.com...
Greg how is it that you went on as though I had not written this post,
failed to answer any questions from this post, and resorted to obvious
snipperage or simply ignoring?

Then asked questions with such obvious answers as to be ludicrous ....
on your part?


Because you obsessivly bash, harass, and falsely accuse Mr. Hanson in nearly
EVERY post, in nearly EVERY thread, EVERY day, every week, every month,
every year for over 5 years now.

Nearly every message about Greg "the perv" Hanson is warranted and
based not on false accusations, but information posted by Greg himself.

"Michael©" wrote in message
. 97.140...
"Ron" wrote in
:


"Michael©" wrote in message
. 97.140...
"Ron" wrote in
:


"Doug" wrote in message
...
Absolutely not. You can tell the absolute truth and lose a suit
because you chose to tell it to the detriment and loss of the
complainant.

Hi, Kane,

Nope. Truth is an absolute defense against libel. If the defendant
proves the statement to be true in a libel suit, he prevails.
Period. Absolute defense.

If there is one thing you should have learned in posting to this news
group for as long as you have Doug, "Truth" is a matter of
perspective.

Fact, on the other hand, is what is the ultimate defense.

Truth is an absolute defense in the United States and Canada to
defamation
(libel and slander).

Un uh, Michael. That's a myth based on folks ignoring qualifiers
you'll nearly always see in the authorities referenced, that
actually say, "in almost every instance truth is an absolute
defense."

Michael is correct. Truth is an absolute defense in libel suits.
That the truth happens to cause detriment to the plaintiff does not
in any manner, shape or form mitigate the absolute defense of truth.

No Doug, its not. Fact is. Truth is variable.

If truth is a variable, it is not a fact.

LMAO

=====================================
truth

+ noun (pl. truths /trooths, troo&ulth;z/) 1 the quality or state of
being true. 2 (also the truth) that which is true as opposed to false.
3 a fact or belief that is accepted as true.

ORIGIN Old English.

Oxford University Press, 2006
=====================================

The truth is a fact.

Therefore, you contradicted yourself above.



Ron


Actually mikey, I didnt, and you proved my point. "3 a fact or belief
that is accepted as true."

The name is Michael, not Mikey.

I call them as I see them mikey, and after watching your antics here, right
along with your ongoing fallacious claim of copyright protections for your
posts, you sure do seem to be quite infantile. But hey, I'm willing to
entertain a differing viewpoint, assuming of course that you are willing to
cut all the childish antics and behave like an adult.

You're like a little child. You can't even understand the simplest
principal of the truth being a fact.

What part of 'a fact' didn't you understand?

(snip the inane)


Think, Ronaldo! How foolish you look by not understanding a simple concept
such as the truth is a fact!

I guess that you just are not capable of comprehending the point. Let's see
if I can help you out in this.

The FACT is mikey, that truth IS variable, depending on each individuals
perspective and personal belief structure. What you may believe to be the
"truth" I may find to be unsupportable and therefore not a fact. Its the
reason there are two different words and two different definitions. "Truth"
is a product of an individuals belief structure and may or may not be based
on the available facts. "Truth" is a leap of faith, the belief that what
you hold as being the truth may or may not be supported by what is.

"Fact" on the other hand, is. Its provable, supportable, immutable. It can
be interpreted in different ways by different people, but it still remains
as it was found. Our perceptions of the meaning of the fact is what
changes, not the fact itself.

Truth is a matter of philosophy. Fact is a matter of what IS, or IS NOT.
Facts cannot be changed, Truth can.

I hope this was helpful for you. I have taken the time to attempt to
enlighten you to a simple but difficult concept. Even if you are not
capable of comprehending the concepts involved I do not consider it a waste
of effort for several reasons. 1. Others read here as well, and they may
be able to understand what you fail to. 2. You may indeed have that little
light bulb inside your head flash on with the comprehension of a difficult
concept and thereby have realized one of the basic constants of the
universe. 3. Even if you cannot find it in yourself to expand your
understanding of the universe, its been kind of fun poking holes in your
belief structure, even if just for a second.

Ron



And diff'ring judgements serve but to declare
That truth lies somewhere, if we knew but where.

William Cowper (1731 - 1800)
British poet.
"Hope"


Ron







--
Michael©
Ethical axioms are found and tested not very differently from the axioms
of science. Truth is what stands the test of experience.

Albert Einstein

Michael© wrote:
........snip....



So tell me Ronaldo Jr., oh great kindergarten graduate, philosopher
extraordinaire, to which philosophical theory of truth do you ascribe,
correspondence, pragmatic, coherence or deflationary?

Myself?

Deflationary. Yes, most assuredly the Deflationary.

0:-]

"What is "Truth" is not necessarily what is "True, for "truth" like
beauty is in the eye of the beholder. True is absolute. Truth never is
so bounded or confined."

Can you guess the author?

k

Michael© wrote:
"Ron" wrote in
:

"Michael©" wrote in message
.. . .

The name is Michael, not Mikey.
I call them as I see them mikey, and after watching your antics here,
right along with your ongoing fallacious claim of copyright protections
for your posts, you sure do seem to be quite infantile. But hey, I'm
willing to entertain a differing viewpoint, assuming of course that you
are willing to cut all the childish antics and behave like an adult.

You're like a little child. You can't even understand the simplest
principal of the truth being a fact.

What part of 'a fact' didn't you understand?
(snip the inane)

You snipped proof that fact is truth. Not very truthful no matter your
perspective.

Think, Ronaldo! How foolish you look by not understanding a simple
concept such as the truth is a fact!
I guess that you just are not capable of comprehending the point. Let's
see if I can help you out in this.

The FACT is mikey, that truth IS variable, depending on each individuals
perspective and personal belief structure.

The truth is not variable. If you believe the truth to be variable, then
there can be no truth. There is only one truth or fact for something; all
the variables are inaccurate untruths.

Someone's perspective of the truth may be different than another's, but
the truth is unchanged and has but one perspective, fact.


What you may believe to be
the "truth" I may find to be unsupportable and therefore not a fact.
Its the reason there are two different words and two different
definitions. "Truth" is a product of an individuals belief structure
and may or may not be based on the available facts. "Truth" is a leap
of faith, the belief that what you hold as being the truth may or may
not be supported by what is.

"Fact" on the other hand, is. Its provable, supportable, immutable. It
can be interpreted in different ways by different people, but it still
remains as it was found. Our perceptions of the meaning of the fact is
what changes, not the fact itself.

If you find the truth unsupportable, it is not the truth. The truth is
fact. After all perspectives have been removed, you are left with the
truth, the fact.

Let me dumb it down for you Ronaldo Jr.

Let's assume we know that your true birth name is Ron, a fact and the
truth that has been proven.

You go to a party and introduce yourself as John to everyone there. To
them the truth is that you are John and they may even swear to it under
oath. Their truth is based on non-fact though and is not really the
truth, so no matter if it is different and truthful in their perspective,
it is NOT the truth.

No matter what perspective they or anyone else has, the truth and the fact
remain solid and unchangeable; you are Ron, not John.

Truth is a matter of philosophy. Fact is a matter of what IS, or IS
NOT. Facts cannot be changed, Truth can.

When the truth changes, it wasn't the truth to begin with.

I hope this was helpful for you. I have taken the time to attempt to
enlighten you to a simple but difficult concept. Even if you are not
capable of comprehending the concepts involved I do not consider it a
waste of effort for several reasons. 1. Others read here as well, and
they may be able to understand what you fail to. 2. You may indeed
have that little light bulb inside your head flash on with the
comprehension of a difficult concept and thereby have realized one of
the basic constants of the universe. 3. Even if you cannot find it in
yourself to expand your understanding of the universe, its been kind of
fun poking holes in your belief structure, even if just for a second.

You attempt to belittle me and make a fool of yourself in the process!

So tell me Ronaldo Jr., oh great kindergarten graduate, philosopher
extraordinaire, to which philosophical theory of truth do you ascribe,
correspondence, pragmatic, coherence or deflationary?

Likely to which ever one knows that "true" and "Truth" are not the same
word, not do they have precisely the same meaning.

In the 'true' we can include "fact," as a given.

In the word "Truth" we invariably are faced with the very argument that
Ron tenders.

A fact will remain a fact, "true," no matter what "Truth" someone
interprets it by.

No matter what "philosophy," is used as the paradigm to view it through.

We'll always be faced with being confounded and confounding others by
our arguments of what we see, or otherwise sense in fact, the true.

Truth is an assessment and always will be.

Kane

PS, and while I like to use on line link accessible sources for
argument, Michael, I make it a point to not just cut and paste, and
pretend to my great wisdom, I give my sources credit for their's.

You never heard of these before today, Michael, now did you?

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...ry&btnG=Search

Learn the art of the 'paraphrase,' if you are going to "borrow," and not
attribute.

Same goes for chess.

k







Ron


.. . .

Michael© wrote:
"0:-" wrote in
:

...

So tell me Ronaldo Jr., oh great kindergarten graduate, philosopher
extraordinaire, to which philosophical theory of truth do you ascribe,
correspondence, pragmatic, coherence or deflationary?

Myself?

Deflationary. Yes, most assuredly the Deflationary.

That totally explains your attitude that whatever you or your cohorts say
is the gospel!

We not more have made such a claim, or argued in such a fashion that
you have, Michael.

And you know it.

You can lay off the bull****.

See ME putting up a ascps website and FAQ?

Get real.

You got the joke. Say "Ha ha."

...

--
Michael© 24 November 2006 8:02:20 PM
Ethical axioms are found and tested not very differently from the axioms
of science. Truth is what stands the test of experience.

Albert Einstein

Michael© wrote:
"0:-" wrote in
news:_p6dnQFQ7rAxxvrYnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@scnresearch. com:

.. . .

We'll always be faced with being confounded and confounding others by
our arguments of what we see, or otherwise sense in fact, the true.

Truth is an assessment and always will be.

But the truth is fact.

Nope. It is no such thing. One man's "truth" is how he sees the universe
and it's parts. Others may strongly disagree.

Finding what is "true" and a "fact" is much much harder, and the
business of science with the goal NEVER MET. Truth is not true. It is
the interpretation of what we wish would hold still and be immutable,
but never does. No atom holds still, just as no element of argument does.

You ignored the example I gave to Ronaldo.

I did? How is it I am commenting on it?

Was it
to complicated for you to comprehend

I comprehend you are now being an ass, when in fact you were offered a
chance to debate.

or did it just hurt your head to
think?

See above.

I love this as an example that "True," and "Truth" are not the same thing.

You just told us your "Truth," but people in the real world know that
how a "true fact" is presented by another through his own filter system
may not (and usually DOE not) precisely describe the "true fact" to an
exactitude.

No, your example now in how you present shows this.

The ignoring of the similarity, but the essential difference of "true,"
"truths" is perfect.

Here is the logic to consider. Is it true that it hurts me head to
think? If not why did you ask rhetorically?

Was it a lie, or is this your "truth," according to how you see me?

You KNOW the answer. That is "truth."

What is "true" about my head and thinking about complex issues, is that
on the contrary if I have a headache a sure fire way to ignore it or
make it go away is to work on difficult mental problems.

Now that is MY truth, but it is not YOUR true. To me it is "true," and
to you, NOT "true."

Are you getting this now?

Truth is an abstraction...a construct. "True" is an immutable fact.

Name a couple of immutable facts.

Then explore them in the literature, and see who agrees and doesn't, and
you have your answer about "truth," and "true."

Kane

PS, and while I like to use on line link accessible sources for
argument, Michael, I make it a point to not just cut and paste, and
pretend to my great wisdom, I give my sources credit for their's.

You never heard of these before today, Michael, now did you?

More of your ignorance to the fact that others are educated far beyond
what you ever were?

I don't believe you. Nothing in your posts have ever suggested you have
either a classical education, or are very well self educated.

I see. You don't understand or can't comprehend something so it must not
be true, or others couldn't possibly comprehend them because you can't.
...snip **** you Michael ... snip

If I knew your name I would not post it here regardless of who you are
what you do, or how much I disagree with you. You are a coward that
wants to excuse yourself endangering people for your being ****ed off at
me. Grow up.

You can't argue the issue.

You earned that report to the OSP and you know it.

In my position would have done exactly the same? You are exhibiting the
morals of a Greg. Shame on you. And that is the truth. 0:-

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...agmatic%2C+ c
oherence+or+deflationary&btnG=Search

Learn the art of the 'paraphrase,' if you are going to "borrow," and not
attribute.

How does one paraphrase names of the philosophies of truth?

describe some central principle and use it for a label.

I can't believe I have to tell a highly educated man how to paraphrase.

And they were and are not listed only as proper nouns. Or did you miss
that in your google hits?

There are a number of ways to "label" them without naming them.

Same goes for chess.

That game you suck at?

How do you know? You have some special psychic line to the truth, do you?

The truth 0:- is that you never played me at chess, Michael. Frankly I
doubt you have ever played the game or if you did you gave it up.

A bit of concentration on facts, what is true, and the truth would serve
you well in your on line exchange using the tactics of chess with me.

Now go ahead and show what a coward and weakling you are and call me Don
again, stupid.

0:-

Michael© wrote:
"0:-" wrote in
news:mZadnVMISau9MvrYnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@scnresearch. com:

Michael© wrote:
"0:-" wrote in
news:_p6dnQFQ7rAxxvrYnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@scnresearch. com:

.. . .

We'll always be faced with being confounded and confounding others by
our arguments of what we see, or otherwise sense in fact, the true.

Truth is an assessment and always will be.

But the truth is fact.

Nope. It is no such thing. One man's "truth" is how he sees the universe
and it's parts. Others may strongly disagree.

That isn't the truth he see's before him. That is his opinion, his
theory, but not a truth.

You continue to obfuscate the fact that "true," and "truth" are not the
same thing in all instances.

Sometimes "the truth," which is subjective, is 'fact' which is totally
objective.

A fact cannot change. The truth can.

Scientific research is a wonderful example.

Do they ever find the "truth."


Finding what is "true" and a "fact" is much much harder, and the
business of science with the goal NEVER MET.

It is found. Truth is fact.

Declaring it to be so isn't making it so, Michael.

Truth is that effort of ours to convince each other we have the
facts..what is true.

We call it "truth" so as to give it weight.

Truth is not true. It is
the interpretation of what we wish would hold still and be immutable,
but never does. No atom holds still, just as no element of argument
does.

We do not know if atoms remain motionless at absolute zero because it is
impossible experimentally to reach that condition yet.

Yes, I know. You are about to prove my postulate.

You're stating that no atom holds still is not true, truthful or a fact.

Until we have the facts my "truth" about it is a good as anyones,
Michael

No atom has to this point been proven to hold still and that is the
"fact."

I look at that and postulate my truth from it. Until you or others can
provide the proof you just mentioned is being sought, I have the truth.



You ignored the example I gave to Ronaldo.

I did? How is it I am commenting on it?

You commented somewhere on the example of names at a party? Sorry I missed
your comment on it.

Now I'm stumped. Must be tired. I was dragging a three hundred pound
former "institutional" barb wire topped cyclone fence gate around the
garden this morning to close the last gap in the elk and deer fence.
You'd be amazed where I picked that up, Michael.

It was a long haul.

I might remember what you are referring to with prompting though. 0:-

Was it
to complicated for you to comprehend

I comprehend you are now being an ass, when in fact you were offered a
chance to debate.

Well, since you think my given name is Asshole. . .

Given name?

Goodness, that would have been rude and even cowardly of me. I
apologize. No call for such.

Was there?

or did it just hurt your head to
think?

See above.

I love this as an example that "True," and "Truth" are not the same
thing.

You just told us your "Truth," but people in the real world know that
how a "true fact" is presented by another through his own filter system
may not (and usually DOE not) precisely describe the "true fact" to an
exactitude.

If it is not exact and provable, it is not a fact nor the truth, just an
opinion, a theory.

Then the point I made about the atom stands as the truth. Not yet
"true," but not disprove.

The atomic weight of Helium is 4.0026.

The periodic table is not a product of nature. The name and number is a
product of man.

That is the truth, a fact and
true.

That we agreed to call "something" by a name and number makes it true
for the universe we live in?

What would God call it?

If someone believes differently because of their perspective, their
education or however, that does not make their version true, the truth or
a fact.

They would be foolish to disagree in such a petty way to a perfectly
workable CONSTRUCT we have worked out to try and measure and
differentiate.


No, your example now in how you present shows this.

The ignoring of the similarity, but the essential difference of "true,"
"truths" is perfect.

Here is the logic to consider. Is it true that it hurts me head to
think? If not why did you ask rhetorically?

It was nothing but sarcasm, and you know full well.

That was not apparent to me, and I am telling you the "truth" about my
thoughts at the time.

How am I to tell when you are being sarcastic or mean it, and when did
sarcasm escape from the boundaries of defining 'truth," true," and the
"facts?"

You meant to say I couldn't think.

That you put is sarcastically makes NO difference to you meaning an
intent.

Unless of course I am wrong and that was NOT your intent.

Tell me the TRUTH, Michael.

Did you intend your sarcasm to mean that I am less capable of thinking
than you?

Was it a lie, or is this your "truth," according to how you see me?

It was sarcasm.

I didn't miss that.

Sarcasm usually doesn't exist in a vacuum. It is pointedly used to make
a point. To make a claim.

Did you or did you not with to convey that I am diminished in my
thinking capacity?

What is the truth of your meaning and intent?

You KNOW the answer. That is "truth."

What is "true" about my head and thinking about complex issues, is that
on the contrary if I have a headache a sure fire way to ignore it or
make it go away is to work on difficult mental problems.

Now that is MY truth, but it is not YOUR true. To me it is "true," and
to you, NOT "true."

By the very nature of it not working for me as it does for you, shows that
it is not fact. It just may work for you but, your headache is not
something tangible. That is philosophical.

I have two gold caps. You have none (metaphorically speaking). Does
your not having them make mine no longer true, truth, a fact?

And no, my headache is perfectly tangible. It can be measured. I can
give it a number...0:- and in time get others to accept that I measure
headache in this way. My periodic headache table has about three kinds
of headaches. I call one SUPERDUPER 007, another I call, DAMNED
ANNOYING DISTRACTION AND WHY DON'T I JUST GET A GOOD ONE AND TAKE A
DAMNED PILL AND MAKE IT GO AWAY number DOG.

Yes, that's a number as far as I'm concerned. I just have to get others
to agree to a number being a measure for my periodic table.

Your age for example, is (x) years. That is a fact. It can result in a
different number depending on what means you use to measure (variable and
perspective), but you have seen (x) numbers of sunrises (cycles that are
fixed as a fact).

Yes, x years. Wrong. I've lived underground for a time, and many times
lived where the sun did not rise for up to six weeks.

Sorry. That's MY truth.

Did it shorten or lengthen my life?


Are you getting this now?

What I think I'm getting from you and Ron is a more simplistic version of
thought on this matter.

I will discuss this little bit of arrogance and hubris in a mo,
Michael. And with it a little lesson.

You need to go deeper. You spent so many years
with children that you attempt to function on their level when dealing
with difficult matters.

Not so. I wish there had been more time with them to learn better how
to think more clearly than adults normally do. They are uncluttered.
Direct. Plain and clean.

Actually I spent far more hours with adults. Children have only so much
attention they should be giving adults, and they need learning time on
their own, with only the required level of safe supervision.

Otherwise they can be stunted or sidetracked into weird thinking and
behavior.

On average, any give day I would spend about 10 hours in sleep and my
personal toilet. shower, dressing etc.

I'd do about 3 hours commuting, and at least three hours in writing for
publication.

Then at most three hours with children.

The rest would be taken up in professional assessment of observations,
review of mental health records and updating them from the latest
interactions with the children.

A great many adult activities there, Michael.

Now as to your attempt to make Ron and myself out as simple.

Time and again I learned this lesson the hard way.

One's value, capacity to produce, ability to discover important things
in life are not confined to the "educated." Not even those that test
high on designed tests.

No, I've had some wonderfully embarrassing moments when I discovered
someone that was quieter than I, less educated had deeper insights into
something I thought I knew well.

If anyone is shallow and simple minded here, Michael you are for trying
the ploy with Ron or I.

Truth is an abstraction...a construct. "True" is an immutable fact.

Truth can have many faces, but only one factual one. When that one is
found, the others become opinions.

Your second phrase is incongruent to the first one. Fact is not Truth.

And it cannot be because what you know to be fact today, can be found
to have been mistaken tomorrow and that happens all to frequently to
those with too much assurance they have the fact, in an immutable
sense.

Name a couple of immutable facts.

I. See the above for the atomic weight of Helium.

Those are agreed upon.

II. The ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is pi.

Pi is a name for something. What is pi, but a number.

Do numbers exist in nature, or did we dream them up as a tool to
measure by agreement?

III. The speed of light is 299,792,458 meters per second in a vacuum.

What's a meter?

The speed of light is also 23 clomensiases.

We just have to agree on that, and use other numbers to provide
fractions to work with to make it a perfectly fine fact we can use in
the study and application of physics.

You mistake the truth for true.

The best we can do with your example is to hope we are right that light
travels at all.

That's a construct of OUR nervous system, not a universal truth.

It could be that "light" holds still, and everything else moves in
relation to it.


Then explore them in the literature, and see who agrees and doesn't, and
you have your answer about "truth," and "true."

The above truths, facts and truisms I made are agreed to by everyone.

Thank you for proof that "truth" is agreed upon. Now what is a fact?

What is 'true?"

They only become truth WHEN WE AGREE. What if we don't.

Your truth would have a bushman and his family rolling on the ground
with laughter. They know damn well the only really true thing is that
when jackals call a certain way it will rain within the next 24 hours,
and they are more often right than WE are.

Now care to show me how that which you requested is different by a
perspective?

See all the above.

Truth is an agreed upon concept as is what is "true."

If your argument is that it's true when WE agree, then what does that
suggest to you, if we don't?

Kane

PS, and while I like to use on line link accessible sources for
argument, Michael, I make it a point to not just cut and paste, and
pretend to my great wisdom, I give my sources credit for their's.

You never heard of these before today, Michael, now did you?

More of your ignorance to the fact that others are educated far beyond
what you ever were?

I don't believe you. Nothing in your posts have ever suggested you have
either a classical education, or are very well self educated.

Are you using the psychic hotline now?

I said IN your posts. That's all I can go on.


I see. You don't understand or can't comprehend something so it must
not be true, or others couldn't possibly comprehend them because you
can't.
...snip **** you Michael ... snip

LMAO, no thanks.

Sorry I meant **** yourself and I mean that most kindly and sincerely.


If I knew your name I would not post it here regardless of who you are
what you do, or how much I disagree with you. You are a coward that
wants to excuse yourself endangering people for your being ****ed off at
me. Grow up.

My name is Michael.

That's not your full name.

And when you use a nym and attempt to out others that do what does that
say about you?

I'm in no way endangering anyone.

We've been over that. If someone says they want to kill you, which way
do you live, and I give them your address?

Cite facts if you wish to accuse me.

**** you, most kindly and sincerely, Michael.

Apparently the Oregon State Police didn't see any danger from me either or
they would have acted.

I didn't ask them to.

I asked them to look at it, it's now on record.

You try to pass yourself off as a chess player?

I asked you a question and you didn't answer. That told me you did not
understand the strategies of chess.

I asked if you knew what pawns were used for.

My post to OSP was a pawn. It clear the way is all.

And if I have calculated correctly I will never have to use the way I
cleared.

By the way, I'm not ****ed off at you or anyone here.

Sure. Read your FAQ on the group.

Unless there is a real definition for a kook and it isn't derogatory,
and you really think that cretin, once a TRUTH, since it was medically
defined, was a kindly and loving or even neutral label you are one very
simple soul.

And no one but you is fooled by that silly claim above.


You can't argue the issue.

I'm doing very well.

Actually you are not. You can't even understand how human constructs
agreed upon don't create "facts," just agreement.

You seem incapable of doing what you claim I'm
doing.

Is that your "truth" Michael?

Don't run and prove me correct, answer my question above about how
the facts and truths and what is true can change by someone's perspective.

I'm completely at sixes and sevens, as I don's see that's what you
asked.


You earned that report to the OSP and you know it.
I earned a false report from posting my opinion on this group?

I didn't report your opinion. I simply posted your post. Others can
decide if it's an opinion or not. Your opion about what others would
make of it is your opinion.

I
certainly don't think I did.

Of course not.

That was low even for you.

It was far less than you deserve for your comments about Don's wife,
and your callous disregard of her and of him.

You put Don Fisher's family at risk, stupid.

Kane is thoroughly hated here and you know it, and there have been
people here that threatened death, and you know that. You are trying to
link the two of us.

You want a pat on the back?

That's cowardly.

No matter how stupid and vile and how much of a jerk you have been I've
done NOTHING to put you in danger, or even hint at it.

Coward. Bringing innocent people in by NAME is **** spewing. And you
know it.

You should be ashamed. I doubt you are.

Some troll asshole came here and ran up a list of Greg's civil court
case..mostly just normal bull**** that many of us have had to deal
with.

I found that, despite my dislike of his nonsense I would NEVER do that
kind of cowardly thing.

Unless it referred directly to an argument between us that HE willingly
participated in I would have NOT business listing all his and Lisa's
legal hassles.

I told the ****ant troll off, and of course Greg comes back claim I'm
the troll. Hell, knowing his buddies it was more likely Dennis or some
other ****ant.

That was cowardly of whoever it was.

It was cowardly of YOU to name individuals here that are totally
uninvolved. I didn't put your mother's name up here, did I?

You ****ant.

In my position would have done exactly the same?

Absolutely not. I would have said **** you and left if I couldn't handle
the heat in the kitchen.

Bull****. You instead put Don Fisher's name up here and that of his
wife. You are a coward.
That's unacceptable here.

I have never mentioned his name or her name here. Other than to **** on
those that started that crap.

You are exhibiting the
morals of a Greg. Shame on you. And that is the truth. 0:-

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...C+pragmatic%2C
+c oherence+or+deflationary&btnG=Search

Learn the art of the 'paraphrase,' if you are going to "borrow," and
not attribute.

How does one paraphrase names of the philosophies of truth?

describe some central principle and use it for a label.

I'm required to write a paragraph to ask a question? That goes against
everything I was taught. Short and to the point.

Nope. One word can be descriptive. Do I have to teach you to
paraphrase?

Try a thesaurus for **** sakes. Somewhere along the way surely you
learned to use one.

I can't believe I have to tell a highly educated man how to paraphrase.

I can't believe you think someone should have to paraphrase a simple,
single question!

I don't. I am glad you didn't, because it made clear that you copped it
from a website you looked up real quicklike to lend credibility to your
bull****ting arrogances.


And they were and are not listed only as proper nouns. Or did you miss
that in your google hits?

I didn't use Google. Haven't I told you Google is not my friend?

Nope. And it's your best friend when you want to dissemble.

I've watched you do it, then put the phrase to a search and found the
article you copped from and put that up here for you before.

You have such a Gregorian memory.


There are a number of ways to "label" them without naming them.

Same goes for chess.

That game you suck at?

How do you know? You have some special psychic line to the truth, do
you?

Perhaps the same one you use for me.

I don't have one. I based what I claim on what I believe I am seeing.
Nothing more.

I don't know for fact, I made an educated guess, an opinion based on your
not wiling to play a round here amongst our discussions.

Totally abstruse.


The truth 0:- is that you never played me at chess, Michael. Frankly I
doubt you have ever played the game or if you did you gave it up.

I have been playing for many years. I'm willing to put my money where my
mouth is. Play me, and if you win I will never call you Don again. If I
win you will admit I am accurate and truthful in referring to you as Don
Fisher.

You just bought a **** you, stupid.


A bit of concentration on facts, what is true, and the truth would serve
you well in your on line exchange using the tactics of chess with me.

Except for the fact that, I'm not playing a game with you. I'm just
stating my opinion on matters here, right or wrong.

No, you are not. You lie, and you put up what you won't.

You are full of ****.

Now go ahead and show what a coward and weakling you are and call me Don
again, stupid.

My truthful, factual and true statement makes me a coward and weakling?

It would not matter.

If I told someone that was hunting you where you were it might be
truthful and still cowardly of me.

I would not do that. You have demonstrated you will and did.

You have linked my name to his, then you put his wife's name up here.

Various ****ants here have tried to put up his address by claiming I am
him and claiming I'm in Hood River.

I'm not but it serves me to have people think I am. I can buy IP dial
up from any damn place in the country that I want.

And you can't find a Don Fisher in Hood River.
There is one in Bend, but again, he's not me, because I'm Kane.

I do notice you didn't call me a liar. Thanks.

I was lax.

You attempt to deceive. And you do it for nothing but your ****ant
cowardly ego...you got your ass kicked by both Dan and I and you do NOT
like that.

Do you have anyone here that classifies you by profession and wishes to
hurt you or your family?

Read Dennis' sock bull****, stupid. Then tell me that you don't mean
harm to Don Fisher.

That crap has gone on here for years.

And you take a great risk one of those assholes will act out, and YOUR
opinion will be reviewed as to content.

Other such assholes have in the past and you have that information. So
how do you justify helping those assholes with trying to link Don
Fisher to me, whether or not it's true or NOT?

****ant.

You are just as dangerous as Greg, possibly moreso.

0:-

You are out of touch with reality and that's what you need to continue
to be able to push your stupid agenda. Which appears to be finding a
way to threaten others because your ego is threatened. Just my
opinion...and so's this :

Grow up.



--
Michael© 24 November 2006 11:32:21 PM
Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man
present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the
entire population.

Albert Einstein

If there is one thing you should have learned in posting to this news
group for as long as you have Doug, "Truth" is a matter of perspective.

Hi, Ron!

Interesting concept. Nonetheless, outside of the newsgroup, in matters of
law, truth is an absolute defense to libel actions. A libel is, by legal
defination, a false statement. So, if the statement is true, regardless of
whether the truth is inflamatory or defames the subject of the statement,
the statement is not libel.

British law -- and to some degree Canadian law -- holds that a statement
that is true but damages the subject of the statement is libelous. This led
our Founding Fathers to reject the obvious danger to freedom of speech/press
in this doctrine, since, in theory, the greater the truth the greater the
damage done to the subject. In the United States of America, truth is an
absolute defense to any libel action.

As it should be.

Because of our country's tradition of freedom of speech and of the press,
libel laws even protect false statements under certain circumstances. For
instance, members of this newsgroup may be, arguably, public figures in that
they have thrust themselves into the public eye by nature of their
contributions to the forum. It's a gray area. If they were to be ruled
public figures, then a FALSE statement, would still not result in a
judgement of libel if the defendant could prove a lack of malice in making
the false statement. (In libel law, malice is defined as a statement
written "with reckless disregard for the truth.")

For libel to occur, the statement:

1) Must be false.
2) Must be done with malice (in the case of public figures, only)
3) Must be directed toward someone who is identified (an anonymous poster
would not have the recourse of libel action because they are not
identifable)
4) Must cause damage to reputation or other damages....professionals or
others who depend on their reputation would be more likely to prevail.

The requirement for a showing of malice exists partially because of the US
Supreme Court's recognition of deadline pressure experienced by newspaper
reporters. They often escape a libel judgment because their FALSE statement
was made under deadline pressure, where they claimed they did not have the
time to verify the truth. A monthly magazine, however, would not have the
same defense.

For instance, Kane's retraction in another thread in this newsgroup would
only mitigate charges of malice in a libel lawsuit. It presupposes that the
one bringing the libel lawsuit would be ruled a public figure and therefore
required to prove malice. If the trial court ruled the target of the libel
to be a private citizen, then the retraction would have no legal weight. A
retraction does not eliminate the libel, it can only be weighed when
considering malice.

There are also absolute privledges in libel statutes -- again, because of
our country's dedication to freedom of speech and of the press. For
instance, if a FALSE statement about someone is made in a courtroom that
untrue statement can be published without the subject of the false
inflamatory statement having recourse for libel.

Libel law is very complex and often changes through case by case decisions.
However, some elements remain fundamental and absolute. However. the
requirement that the statement be false -- thereby establishing truth as an
absolute defense -- remains fixed and absolute.

Fact, on the other hand, is what is the ultimate defense.

Not in libel lawsuits. The USSC chose the word "truth" in defining the
absolute defense to libel. The word, "absolute" itself, like "truth," has
specific meaning in law.

Michael is correct. Truth is an absolute defense in libel suits. That
the truth happens to cause detriment to the plaintiff does not in any
manner, shape or form mitigate the absolute defense of truth.

No Doug, its not. Fact is. Truth is variable.

No, Ron, truth is an absolute defense to libel lawsuits.