"Danny Purvis" wrote in message
om...

Clearly she has access to the material that is the substance of her
complaint, but she prefers to reserve this material for a possible
court date rather than exhibit it here. But if you would like to post
some of it, I for one would be interested in looking.

Clearly, I'm not sure what she considers libelous.

If I were you, however, I would simply apologize, an action that she
indicated would end the matter. Whether or not you are in the wrong
legally, you have certainly done some vigorous mudslinging, and an
apology would not be out of order on that score alone.

If I knew what she considered libelous I would look into it. If I was given
wrong information I would cheerfully clear the air. Until she presents
something specific, I must assume it is just an attempt to intimidate me
from engaging in my constitutional right to free speech. I bear her no ill
will. Let her put it on the table.

StanB

On Mon, 5 Jan 2004 18:17:12 -0500, "StanB"
wrote:

"Danny Purvis" wrote in message
. com...

Clearly she has access to the material that is the substance of her
complaint, but she prefers to reserve this material for a possible
court date rather than exhibit it here. But if you would like to post
some of it, I for one would be interested in looking.

Clearly, I'm not sure what she considers libelous.

If I were you, however, I would simply apologize, an action that she
indicated would end the matter. Whether or not you are in the wrong
legally, you have certainly done some vigorous mudslinging, and an
apology would not be out of order on that score alone.

If I knew what she considered libelous I would look into it. If I was given
wrong information I would cheerfully clear the air. Until she presents
something specific, I must assume it is just an attempt to intimidate me
from engaging in my constitutional right to free speech. I bear her no ill
will. Let her put it on the table.

StanB

Clerarly what she considers to be libelous is your claim that she did
not really play Gulko but that Truong using a computer played Gulko in
her name.

You already knew that.

Sam Sloan

"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...

Clerarly what she considers to be libelous is your claim that she did
not really play Gulko but that Truong using a computer played Gulko in
her name.

You already knew that.

No I didn't.

StanB

"StanB" wrote in message ...
"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...

Clerarly what she considers to be libelous is your claim that she did
not really play Gulko but that Truong using a computer played Gulko in
her name.

You already knew that.

No I didn't.

StanB

Stan,

Just a hint: if this thing goes to trial, you'll want to give
testimony that makes you sound like you are not a liar and an idiot.


Danny Purvis

Danny Purvis wrote:

Clerarly what she considers to be libelous is your claim that she did
not really play Gulko but that Truong using a computer played Gulko in
her name.

You already knew that.

No I didn't.

StanB

Stan,

Just a hint: if this thing goes to trial, you'll want to give
testimony that makes you sound like you are not a liar and an idiot.


Danny:

Actually, what Stan did was answer the question you ASKED precisely.

Your question makes several assumptions, and my educated guess is that Stan
answered the question the way he did because one of your assumptions is
incorrect.

This makes him neither a liar, nor an idiot. Rather the reverse, in fact.

Wick Deer

illSpam (Wickdeer3) wrote in message ...
Danny Purvis wrote:

Clerarly what she considers to be libelous is your claim that she did
not really play Gulko but that Truong using a computer played Gulko in
her name.

You already knew that.

No I didn't.

StanB

Stan,

Just a hint: if this thing goes to trial, you'll want to give
testimony that makes you sound like you are not a liar and an idiot.


Danny:

Actually, what Stan did was answer the question you ASKED precisely.

Your question makes several assumptions, and my educated guess is that Stan
answered the question the way he did because one of your assumptions is
incorrect.

This makes him neither a liar, nor an idiot. Rather the reverse, in fact.

Wick Deer


Thanks for the brilliant analysis, but I did not ask a question.

Danny Purvis

(Danny Purvis) wrote in
message . com...(to StanB):
"StanB" wrote in message
...
"Sam Sloan" wrote in message
...
Clerarly what she considers to be libelous is your claim that she did
not really play Gulko but that Truong using a computer played Gulko in
her name. You already knew that.

No I didn't.
StanB

Stan,
Just a hint: if this thing goes to trial, you'll want to give
testimony that makes you sound like you are not a liar and an idiot.

Dear Mr. Purvis,

Under those circumstances, I expect that Stan Booz, armed with his lawyer's
advice, would do his best to sound as though he's "not a liar and an idiot".
But his chances for success might be diminished by the evident fact that
Stan Booz, at least in his relations with me and some other writers here,
has shown himself to be "a liar and an idiot".

Here's a link to my post in the thread, "Tim Hanke's Cultural Prejudice"
(30 July 2003), wherein I cite evidence to prove StanB has lied about me:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?V27416E75

Of course, Stan Booz's misbehaviour against me is not relevant to the specific
legal issues of his alleged misbehaviour against Susan Polgar or Paul Truong.

'Deceit cannot otherwise be maintained but by deceit.'
--Philip Sidney (Arcadia)

--Nick