In the Parker vs. Polgar et al, No. 08-00829 suit in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, counsel for
Polgar and Truong filed a motion to dismiss on October 10, 2008 in
which they interposed a creative new defense, namely the "Cyber-
Bathroom Stall Defense".

This defense provides that the Internet postings by Polgar and Truong
were so obscene that they were the equivalent of words that one might
find written on the walls of a bathroom stall and such words are never
taken seriously and thus are not defamatory.

I must say that I am shocked by this defense.

Here is the relevant part of the brief filed by counsel for Polgar and
Truong in which they assert this "defense".



H. Plaintiff Fails to Plead Facts Sufficient to Allege the Essential
Elements of Defamation

In a claim for defamation, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving:
(1) the defamatory character of the statement made; (2) the
statement's publication by the defendant; (3) the statement's
application to the plaintiff; (4) the understanding by the recipient
of the statement's defamatory meaning; (5) the understanding by the
recipient of the statement as intended to be applied to the plaintiff;
and (6) special harm resulting to the plaintiff from the statement's
publication. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8343(a); see also, Thomas Merton Center v.
Rockwell Int'l Corn., 442 A.2d 213, 497 Pa. 460 (1981), cent dn. 457
U.S. 1134 (1982); Beverly Enterprises, Inc., v. Trump, et al., 1
F.Supp.2d 489, 492 (W.D. Pa. 1998), aff'd 182 F.3d 183 (3d Cir. 1999).

"A communication is defamatory if it tends to deter third persons from
associating with the subject of the communication or to harm his
reputation by lowering him in the estimation of the community," Parano
v. O'Connor; et al., 641 A.2d 607, 609, 433 Pa. Super. 570 (1993), or
if it tends to "blacken a person's reputation or to expose him to
public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or to injure him in his business
or profession." Baker v. Lafavette College, 532 A.2d 399, 402, 516 Pa.
291 (1987). It is a matter of law for the court to determine whether
statements may be characterized as defamatory. Parano, 641 A.2d at
609; Kryeski v. Schott Glass Technologies, 626 A.2d 595, 600, 426 Pa.
Super. 105 (1993), app. dn. 639 A.2d 29 (Pa. 1994); see also Thomas
Merton Center, 442 A.2d at 215; MacElree v. Philadelphia Newspapers,
674 A.2d 1050, 1053, 544 Pa. 117 (1996), reh'g dn. 1996 Pa. Lexis
1243.

Plaintiff complains of the following statements: that he lived with or
was living with his (deceased) mother and a running commentary on the
blog in which the imposter states about "Sam Sloan soliciting 8 year
old girls", "can I solicit these girls? If I can, I'm all for it".

It is evident from the plaintiff's re-printing of the web postings of
multiple originators referenced in the Mottershead report that these
"publications" are akin to a cyber-bathroom stall graffiti in which
sophomoric rants are exchanged by participants in blog postings which
are likely read by no-one other than their creators. Such activity is
called "Internet flaming" which, in some quarters, has acquired the
status of a cyber-sport. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming .

Collectively viewed, the statements are not capable of defamatory
meaning because they do not objectively contain any factual content
that a reader would take seriously. While many of the postings are
graphic and perverse, the on-going discourse between the posters
reflects that the speakers, whoever they may be, are engaged in
hyperbole which is not capable of defamatory meaning. See Savitskv v.
Shenandoah Valley Publishing Corp., 389 Pa. Super. 176, 566 A. 2d 901
(1989); Wecht v. PG Publishing Company, 353 Pa. Super. 493, 510 A. 2d
769 (1986).

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth herein, moving defendants, Paul Truong and
Susan Polgar, respectfully request that this honorable Court grant
their Motion to Dismiss.

SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC
s/William T. Salzer
William T. Salzer Attorneys for Defendants,
Paul Truong and Susan Polgar

Shades of Flynt and Falwell.

samsloan wrote:
In the Parker vs. Polgar et al, No. 08-00829 suit in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, counsel for
Polgar and Truong filed a motion to dismiss on October 10, 2008 in
which they interposed a creative new defense, namely the "Cyber-
Bathroom Stall Defense".

This defense provides that the Internet postings by Polgar and Truong
were so obscene that they were the equivalent of words that one might
find written on the walls of a bathroom stall and such words are never
taken seriously and thus are not defamatory.

I must say that I am shocked by this defense.

Here is the relevant part of the brief filed by counsel for Polgar and
Truong in which they assert this "defense".



H. Plaintiff Fails to Plead Facts Sufficient to Allege the Essential
Elements of Defamation

In a claim for defamation, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving:
(1) the defamatory character of the statement made; (2) the
statement's publication by the defendant; (3) the statement's
application to the plaintiff; (4) the understanding by the recipient
of the statement's defamatory meaning; (5) the understanding by the
recipient of the statement as intended to be applied to the plaintiff;
and (6) special harm resulting to the plaintiff from the statement's
publication. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8343(a); see also, Thomas Merton Center v.
Rockwell Int'l Corn., 442 A.2d 213, 497 Pa. 460 (1981), cent dn. 457
U.S. 1134 (1982); Beverly Enterprises, Inc., v. Trump, et al., 1
F.Supp.2d 489, 492 (W.D. Pa. 1998), aff'd 182 F.3d 183 (3d Cir. 1999).

"A communication is defamatory if it tends to deter third persons from
associating with the subject of the communication or to harm his
reputation by lowering him in the estimation of the community," Parano
v. O'Connor; et al., 641 A.2d 607, 609, 433 Pa. Super. 570 (1993), or
if it tends to "blacken a person's reputation or to expose him to
public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or to injure him in his business
or profession." Baker v. Lafavette College, 532 A.2d 399, 402, 516 Pa.
291 (1987). It is a matter of law for the court to determine whether
statements may be characterized as defamatory. Parano, 641 A.2d at
609; Kryeski v. Schott Glass Technologies, 626 A.2d 595, 600, 426 Pa.
Super. 105 (1993), app. dn. 639 A.2d 29 (Pa. 1994); see also Thomas
Merton Center, 442 A.2d at 215; MacElree v. Philadelphia Newspapers,
674 A.2d 1050, 1053, 544 Pa. 117 (1996), reh'g dn. 1996 Pa. Lexis
1243.

Plaintiff complains of the following statements: that he lived with or
was living with his (deceased) mother and a running commentary on the
blog in which the imposter states about "Sam Sloan soliciting 8 year
old girls", "can I solicit these girls? If I can, I'm all for it".

It is evident from the plaintiff's re-printing of the web postings of
multiple originators referenced in the Mottershead report that these
"publications" are akin to a cyber-bathroom stall graffiti in which
sophomoric rants are exchanged by participants in blog postings which
are likely read by no-one other than their creators. Such activity is
called "Internet flaming" which, in some quarters, has acquired the
status of a cyber-sport. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming .

Collectively viewed, the statements are not capable of defamatory
meaning because they do not objectively contain any factual content
that a reader would take seriously. While many of the postings are
graphic and perverse, the on-going discourse between the posters
reflects that the speakers, whoever they may be, are engaged in
hyperbole which is not capable of defamatory meaning. See Savitskv v.
Shenandoah Valley Publishing Corp., 389 Pa. Super. 176, 566 A. 2d 901
(1989); Wecht v. PG Publishing Company, 353 Pa. Super. 493, 510 A. 2d
769 (1986).

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth herein, moving defendants, Paul Truong and
Susan Polgar, respectfully request that this honorable Court grant
their Motion to Dismiss.

SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC
s/William T. Salzer
William T. Salzer Attorneys for Defendants,
Paul Truong and Susan Polgar

This is exactly the right argument. Unfortunately the guy
can't write very well.
If anybody takes anything seriously that he gleens from
rgcp and similar sources, in particular the nonsense
posted by Sloan and Parker, no matter if fake or real,
he can't be helped by a court of law - he needs psychiatric care.

"samsloan" wrote in message
...
In the Parker vs. Polgar et al, No. 08-00829 suit in the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, counsel for
Polgar and Truong filed a motion to dismiss on October 10, 2008 in
which they interposed a creative new defense, namely the "Cyber-
Bathroom Stall Defense".

This defense provides that the Internet postings by Polgar and Truong
were so obscene that they were the equivalent of words that one might
find written on the walls of a bathroom stall and such words are never
taken seriously and thus are not defamatory.

I must say that I am shocked by this defense.

=======

What's shocking is that anyone's bothered developing a legal argument, when
it would have been easier for counsel to quote your defunct website, where
you state that you do not find it at all troubling when people impersonate
you on the internets and in fact are flattered by such impersonation. That's
have been a slam dunk. If counsel has missed this posting, wherein you
disavow the possibility of pecuniary damages from such things, you'd best
hope he and his clients and their allies don't read this newsgroup.




"Takeoffs on Sam Sloan

We Are Not Amused Department

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and so I am not really insulted
when somebody imitates my style or publishes or posts a parody of me.

Some of them are rather good, such as those by "SlamStoan" which appear from
time to time in the newsgroup rec.games.chess.politics."


http://web.archive.org/web/200008230...m/takeoffs.htm









Here is the relevant part of the brief filed by counsel for Polgar and
Truong in which they assert this "defense".



H. Plaintiff Fails to Plead Facts Sufficient to Allege the Essential
Elements of Defamation

In a claim for defamation, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving:
(1) the defamatory character of the statement made; (2) the
statement's publication by the defendant; (3) the statement's
application to the plaintiff; (4) the understanding by the recipient
of the statement's defamatory meaning; (5) the understanding by the
recipient of the statement as intended to be applied to the plaintiff;
and (6) special harm resulting to the plaintiff from the statement's
publication. 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8343(a); see also, Thomas Merton Center v.
Rockwell Int'l Corn., 442 A.2d 213, 497 Pa. 460 (1981), cent dn. 457
U.S. 1134 (1982); Beverly Enterprises, Inc., v. Trump, et al., 1
F.Supp.2d 489, 492 (W.D. Pa. 1998), aff'd 182 F.3d 183 (3d Cir. 1999).

"A communication is defamatory if it tends to deter third persons from
associating with the subject of the communication or to harm his
reputation by lowering him in the estimation of the community," Parano
v. O'Connor; et al., 641 A.2d 607, 609, 433 Pa. Super. 570 (1993), or
if it tends to "blacken a person's reputation or to expose him to
public hatred, contempt, or ridicule, or to injure him in his business
or profession." Baker v. Lafavette College, 532 A.2d 399, 402, 516 Pa.
291 (1987). It is a matter of law for the court to determine whether
statements may be characterized as defamatory. Parano, 641 A.2d at
609; Kryeski v. Schott Glass Technologies, 626 A.2d 595, 600, 426 Pa.
Super. 105 (1993), app. dn. 639 A.2d 29 (Pa. 1994); see also Thomas
Merton Center, 442 A.2d at 215; MacElree v. Philadelphia Newspapers,
674 A.2d 1050, 1053, 544 Pa. 117 (1996), reh'g dn. 1996 Pa. Lexis
1243.

Plaintiff complains of the following statements: that he lived with or
was living with his (deceased) mother and a running commentary on the
blog in which the imposter states about "Sam Sloan soliciting 8 year
old girls", "can I solicit these girls? If I can, I'm all for it".

It is evident from the plaintiff's re-printing of the web postings of
multiple originators referenced in the Mottershead report that these
"publications" are akin to a cyber-bathroom stall graffiti in which
sophomoric rants are exchanged by participants in blog postings which
are likely read by no-one other than their creators. Such activity is
called "Internet flaming" which, in some quarters, has acquired the
status of a cyber-sport. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flaming .

Collectively viewed, the statements are not capable of defamatory
meaning because they do not objectively contain any factual content
that a reader would take seriously. While many of the postings are
graphic and perverse, the on-going discourse between the posters
reflects that the speakers, whoever they may be, are engaged in
hyperbole which is not capable of defamatory meaning. See Savitskv v.
Shenandoah Valley Publishing Corp., 389 Pa. Super. 176, 566 A. 2d 901
(1989); Wecht v. PG Publishing Company, 353 Pa. Super. 493, 510 A. 2d
769 (1986).

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth herein, moving defendants, Paul Truong and
Susan Polgar, respectfully request that this honorable Court grant
their Motion to Dismiss.

SWARTZ CAMPBELL LLC
s/William T. Salzer
William T. Salzer Attorneys for Defendants,
Paul Truong and Susan Polgar

Donna Alarie wrote me asking me to send her a complete copy of the
Polgar and Truong "Bathroom Stall Defense".

When I sent it to her in PDF Format (which means that it could not be
altered or forged), Donna replied:


I am actually amazed that this is the attorney's response to Mr.
Parker's complaint. I really do not see where the attorney states
that the defendants deny making the postings. Also, quite seriously,
I thought you made up the part about the bathroom stall...sometimes
truth really is stranger than fiction...hard to believe that this
response was actually written by an attorney.

Donna

On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 13:39:45 -0700 (PDT), samsloan
wrote:

Donna Alarie wrote me asking me to send her a complete copy of the
Polgar and Truong "Bathroom Stall Defense".

When I sent it to her in PDF Format (which means that it could not be
altered or forged), Donna replied:

I am actually amazed that this is the attorney's response to Mr.
Parker's complaint. I really do not see where the attorney states
that the defendants deny making the postings. Also, quite seriously,
I thought you made up the part about the bathroom stall...sometimes
truth really is stranger than fiction...hard to believe that this
response was actually written by an attorney.

The law has gone to pot.

"samsloan" wrote in message
...
Donna Alarie wrote me asking me to send her a complete copy of the
Polgar and Truong "Bathroom Stall Defense".

When I sent it to her in PDF Format (which means that it could not be
altered or forged), Donna replied:


I am actually amazed that this is the attorney's response to Mr.
Parker's complaint. I really do not see where the attorney states
that the defendants deny making the postings. Also, quite seriously,
I thought you made up the part about the bathroom stall...sometimes
truth really is stranger than fiction...hard to believe that this
response was actually written by an attorney.

Donna



Defendants are arguing, correctly, that the statements are not defamatory.
ITFP they are not meant to be factual: they are merely insult. And ITSP they
can not damage Gordon's reputation because Gordon's reputation is ****, of
his own making, in usenet, where no one thinks Gordon is anything but a
slug, with or without chatter on an obscure blog. Plaintiffs have the burden
on all six elements of the cause. Defendants failure to deny an element is
not sufficient to prove it, and even if proven the single element by itself
is insufficient to support judgment. It doesn't matter that they "did it" if
"it" tortious.

No wonder Sam likes Susan - She plays Chess & Sues People - it doesn´t
get better than that!; Computer Dating by Deep Blue couldn´t do
better!

Luck, Walt Dorne