wrote in message
ups.com...

Chess One wrote:

The only difficulty in a libel is having to prove that such material was
taken seriously by anyone. But, who knows who reads what on usenet? PI.


Bzzt. Wrong again. Jerry Falwell certainly took Hustler's proclaimation
that he "screwed his mother in an outhouse" seriously, but was unable
to win his libel case. Who read it didn't matter, what did matter was
whether a *reasonable person* would believe it.

Would any case like this be comparable to the great American figures of our
day such as Falwell and Hustler Mag? And would a reasonable person believe
Neil Brennan? They would have to first concur that he himself was acting in
a reasonable way, no? Let's see...

And I hate to tell you this, Phil,

What a cant and supercilious trope. Since it is, on its face, untrue. Not a
good start when the subject is 'reason'.

but neither you or Rob would be the
example of a "reasonable person." To say nothing of trying to prove
harm...

Let's see below what 'reasonable' could mean in any context of this issue:

But the Prozac boat bit was great; Rob couldn't have looked sillier if
he stepped in a bucket and fell down a flight of stairs. It's amazing
to see him posting about Neil "dying a lonely, unwanted man in his
little apartment"

Like Alekhine, only transposed to PA! violins or maybe that's not so
appropriate tubas? And why should he write this, if not for this:

'Reasonable' Neil suspected that the ZED program he accessed was actually
me! No matter what time of day or night he interacted with it, and its
virtually instantaneous responses. Neil failed a Turing test! Or rather ZED
passed one.

one day and then accusing him of libel in such a
short time. If anything, Neil has been the model of decorum while Rob
continues to hassle him.

This Very Model of a Modern Major Reasonable Person has accused Rob of
plagiarising music and cheating insurance clients. That's a standard, sure.
It is unclearly a true statement by virtue of not being accompanied by any
facts. I would say that truly reasonable people would be suspicious, right
there! The same where you are?

Its not quite so reasonable as airing the possibility that I may be a
murderer. Perhaps it is some sort of basis or reasonableness taught at your
university, since you do not seem to require other than an assertion. So
much for reason.

His obsession with him might be seen by a Freudian as homoerotic desire.

But how would you know what a 'Freudian' [laugh] might see? And as for
homoerotic desire, pfft! its interesting that you suggest it, but I think
you make a Freudian slut!

So when issues emerge at your university and someone talks of reason, are
these the sort of reactions you have? Do you usually ignore one side of
things entirely, and issue your own views on a blatantly partisan basis?

Do you at any time, in a phrase, resort to facts?

Cordially, Phil Innes
The Hippocampus, Vermont

PS: What society or institution is this you represent as being so reasonably
constituted? If it is not of your University, is this of your confreres at
the laundry?