Guillaume Ier de Normandie wrote:
> On Aug 30, 2:28 pm, "_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> Guillaume Ier de Normandie wrote:
>>> On Aug 30, 1:36 pm, "_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>> Guillaume Ier de Normandie wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Aug 30, 1:07 pm, "_ Prof. Jonez _" <thep...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>>>> Guillaume Ier de Normandie wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> On Aug 30, 12:52 am, "Reality_Check©" <Real...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>> bobandcarole stalked me,
>>
>>>>>>>> Who's "bobandcarole" ?
>>
>>>>>>> A Usenet troll.
>>
>>>>>>>> Who are you?
>>
>>>>>>> The damaged party.
>>
>>>>>> What "damage" did you suffer, exactly?
>>
>>>>> I was libelled.
>>
>>>> What specific damage did you suffer?
>>
>>> 1. I don't have to prove damages in a libel per se action.
>>
>> You do have to prove "libel per se", moron.
>
> Libel per se is evident on its face. It is assumed to be damaging.
Just because you think it's "libel per se"
doesn't mean that it is.
>
>>> 2. This is one thing about which I will not go into detail in this
>>> forum. Do let it be known, however, that a person I know did contact
>>> me by email recently, and "warned" me about this defamation. This is
>>> a person who has never been on Usenet, but who found this defamatory
>>> information in a regular Google search.
>>
>> And did "this person" find you to be "loathsome" because of the
>> Google search?
>
> Doesn't matter what that one person thought. Matters what other
> people will think, and what conclusions they draw, and what actions
> they take, legal or not.
So how many people now think that you are "loathesome" ?
>
> A person who might otherwise date me could easily reconsider if it was
> thought that I had a contagious and usually ***ually transmitted
> disease.
And another person who wouldn't have dated you may
now consider doing so based upon the assertion.
> And while it might be illegal to fire someone from a job, or to not
> hire him in the first place, based on HIV status, this does happen.
So your damage claim is that some other person "might" engage
in an illegal activity based upon the assertion?
>
> The disease is loathsome:
Prove it.
> infectious, contagious, chronic, lethal, and
> almost always transmitted ***ually or via IV drug use.
So why do you claim that makes it "loathesome" ?
There are many diseases that have those characteristics/vectors.
Do you suffer from self-loathing?
>>>>>>>>> found a link to my genealogy,
>>
>>>>>>>> Publicly available on the internet, eh?
>>
>>>>>>> Correct, and irrelevant to the matter at hand.
>>
>>>>>> Then why'd you mention it?
>>
>>>>> Do you have trouble following Usenet threads?
>>
>>>> Do you have trouble staying on point?
>>
>>> Not at all. I related how bobandcarole got my real name, birthdate,
>>> and city and state.
>>
>> So what's the point?
>
> FWOOOOOOSHHHHHHHH!
The air escaping from between your ears again?
>
>>> You're asking why I mentioned it.
>>
>>> Which means you must not have been following the discussion.
>>
>> Why do you offer pointless digressions?
>
> Pointless indeed, as it is clear and needn't have been pointed out at
> all.
Yet you did.
>
>>>>>>>>> and from there used my full name and birthdate and city and
>>>>>>>>> state,
>>
>>>>>>>> Can you prove it's your "real name" ?
>>
>>>>>>> Yes. I can also prove my birthdate and my residence. And what a
>>>>>>> stupid question.
>>
>>>>>> Only if you're a stupid person.
>>
>>>>> The vast majority of U.S. citizens can prove who they are. Those
>>>>> who might not be currently able to can remedy that situation
>>>>> rather easily.
>>
>>>> So prove you're Guillaume Ier de Normandie.
>>
>>> I am not Guillaume I de Normandie.
>>
>> Prove it.
>
> No need to.
>
>>> That is a Usenet nickname. I am
>>> not suing based on a person saying that Guillaume I has HIV, AIDS,
>>> and AIDS-related dementia. I am suing based on a person using my
>>> real
>>> full name and publi****ng damaging untrue things about me.
>>
>> And how do *we* know it was your real name ?
>
> *You* don't *have* to know.
Then how were *you* libeled, if we don't even know
who you are?
>
> Only the Court needs to know.
Wrong answer.
>
>>>>>>>>> stated that I have HIV, AIDS
>>
>>>>>>>> Do you ?
>>
>>>>>>> No.
>>
>>>>>> Are you positive?
>>
>>>>> I'm HIV-negative, and positive that I am negative.
>>
>>>> You don't have to be so negative about it.
>>
>>>>>>>>> and AIDS-related dementia
>>
>>>>>>>> Do you have symptoms of dementia ?
>>
>>>>>>> No.
>>
>>>>>> Are you sure?
>>
>>>>> Quite.
>>
>>>> How would you know ... if you did?
>>
>>> 1. It would be diagnosed.
>>
>> By whom?
>
> A medical doctor.
>
>>> I would have symptoms.
>>
>> How would the demented know what symptoms they have?
>
> Zzzz.
Exactly.
>
>>> Since the published statement is that I have "AIDS-related
>>> dementia", I'd have to have AIDS.
>>
>> What is AIDS ?
>
> Zzzzz
>
>>> An AIDS diagnosis isn't made unless HIV is present.
>>
>> False.
>
> True.
False again.
>
>>> There are no HIV antibodies in my blood.
>>
>> You could be in remission.
>
> Incorrect.
False again.
>
>>> My immune system and all other bodily systems
>>> are fine per a recently and very comprehensive
>>> physical examination.
>>
>> Can you prove they were that way *at the time* of this
>> alleged libel?
>
> Yes. Because my most recent results are more recent than the
> libellous posts.
Which proves *nothing* about your condition/state at the time
of the posts.
>
> VERY recent.
>
>>> Again, you don't seem to be following the conversation.
>>
>> You don't seem to be conversing coherently.
>
> Is English not your first language?
When will you start using English coherently?
>
>> You sure you don't suffer from some form of dementia?
>
> Zzzzz
Dementia?
>
>>>>>>> And if I did, it wouldn't be "AIDS-related".
>>
>>>>>> It certainly might be related to Asshole Idiot Douchbag Syndrome,
>>
>>>>> You seem to be very familiar with that condition, and we'd love to
>>>>> hear more about how it hinders your ability to think.
>>
>>>>>>>>> (untrue and easily proved to be
>>>>>>>>> untrue -- this I understand to be libel per se),
>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe.
>>
>>>>>>> My HIV status (which is negative) is easily proven by a blood
>>>>>>> test. I have results of a blood test, and a recent full physical
>>>>>>> showed no sign of any disease or medical condition. The claims
>>>>>>> that I have this loathsome contagious illness are false.
>>
>>>>>> Your claim that it is a "loathsome" illness is false.
>>
>>>>> Incorrect.
>>
>>>> Prove it.
>>
>>> You first.
>>
>> You made the assertion -- you prove it.
>
> See here: http://www.***-lexis.com/***-Dictionary/loathsome%20disease
So you found someone else who has a bigoted opinion that matches
yours. You think that's enough to rise to the legal standard for libel?
>
> See here under "What is 'Libel Per Se'?
>
> http://w2.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-defamation.php
>
> See here where a New York court ruled that cancer is not a loathsome
> disease, because it "is neither contagious nor attributed in any way
> to socially repugnant conduct."
So what's "socially repugnant" about ***, eh self-loather?
> http://www.rcfp.org/news/1997/0714f.html
>
> In the end, while I appreciate the very slim possibility that I might
> have to prove that HIV are loathsome,
ROTFLMAO!!
If you think proving one of the FOUNDATIONAL ELEMENTS
of the law you're feebly attempting to prosecute isn't im****tant.
>I can't imagine --
Your lack of "imagination" isn't relevant to the law, numbnuts.
> and no one but you have even suggested -- that a court would think it
does
> not
> meet the definition of "loathsome" in law and in centuries of common
> law.
Well, for centuries of common law, Negroes were thought to be "loathsome
...
then again, so were Homo***uals.
Are you sure you aren't just projecting your rather abject self-loathing
upon
this rather common virus?
>
>>>>>>>>> made other defamatory comments,
>>
>>>>>>>> So what's "defamatory" about having AIDS/HIV ?
>>
>>>>>>> Nothing.
>>
>>>>>> So you haven't been defamed by that claim.
>>
>>>>> I have been defamed by having it published that I have a loathsome
>>>>> contagious disease that I can prove I do not have.
>>
>>>> So what makes you think AIDS/HIV is "loathsome" ?
>>
>>> Let's do it this way:
>>
>>> You name a disease that IS loathsome, according to you.
>>
>> Bromhydrosis.
>
> Yeah. Well, you're incorrect, though it's interesting (not really)
> that you're familiar with the term. Surprised you didn't say
> "halitosis".
You didn't ask for a "repugnant" disease.
>
>>> Then we'll see if we can get on the same page.
>>
>> What page are you on?
>
> I'm halfway through the book, while you have not even taken out your
> library card yet.
There's your problem. Get back to us when you finish the book, and
all the associated footnoted reading.
>
>>>>> There is and has been prejudice regarding this disease
>>
>>>> By inbred bigots like you, perhaps?
>>
>>> I'm not a bigot.
>>
>> Then why do you malign a lowly virus that
>> has done nothing to you?
>
> ZZZZZZzzz
Dementia induced vocalizations?
>
>>>>> and discrimination practiced against those known to have it since
>>>>> it was first recognized in the early 1980s.
>>
>>>> By homophobic lowlifes and bigots.
>>
>>> I'm not homophobic, but am gay.
>>
>> Self-loathing perhaps?
>
> Nope.
You sure?
>
>>> I am not a bigot.
>>
>> Apparently you are.
>
> Nope. No evidence of that here or anywhere.
You've repeatedly asserted that HIV/AIDS are "loathsome",
you offered no evidence whatsoever, and contradicted yourself
when asked specific clarifying questions about your prejudice.
>
>>> I worked for the AIDS Medical Foundation in New York, under Dr.
>>> Mathilde Krim, in the early 1980s. AMF became AmFAR.
>>
>> And you expressed to all the patients there how "loathsome" their
>> disease was, eh bigot?
>
> I didn't work with patients. Are you unfamiliar with foundations, and
> AmFAR?
So you didn't encounter any HIV+ persons in said work, eh?
Did you tell them you found their disease to be "loathsome" ?
>
>>> I am not personally afraid of HIV. Many of my friends are HIV-
>>> positive. It is not HIV or AIDS that concerns ME, but how the idea
>>> that I personally am afflicted could affect me when people do Google
>>> searches on my name.
>>
>> So you do find it "loathsome", eh self-loather ?
>
> Didn't I say that before?
In a self-loathing kind of way, yes.
>
>>> It could affect both my work life and
>>> professional life negatively. Which is why I seek relief.
>>
>> Or if you weren't such a simple-minded bigot, it could
>> be used to affect your "work life" and "professional life"
>> *positively* ... but you'd have to have a clue or two floating
>> in that vacuous skull of yours in order to orchestrate that.
>
> Problem is that I have no control over other people's opinions and
> prejudices.
Exactly.
> Quite a large number of people in this country are anti-
> gay in the first place.
So therefore being labled as "gay" would in and of itself be "loathsome",
wouldn't it?
> I have no problem dealing with that and have
> no problem with anyone broadcasting the fact that I'm gay.
In all its "loathesomeness", eh?
> But I am not willing to deal with discrimination based on an illness
that
> I do
> not have.
"Discrimination" doesn't rise to the level of "loathsome".
>
>>>>>>> It's defamatory to say someone has it when they don't.
>>
>>>>>> Why?
>>
>>>>> That's the law.
>>
>>>> So you're a legal expert now, eh?
>>
>>> Ya don't have to be F. Lee Bailey to understand law.
>>
>> Be sure to put that in your legal briefs to the court.
>
> The court understands and works with pro se litigants.
As loathsome as they are ...
>
>>>>>>> It is a "loathsome" disease.
>>
>>>>>> Only to inbred bigots like you.
>>
>>>>> Your proof that I am a bigot is... where, exactly?
>>
>>>> You falsely claim that HIV/AIDS is "loathsome".
>>
>>> Prove that my claim is false.
>>
>> You're making the assertion -- you bear the responsibility
>> of proving it.
>
> It's loathsome by definition.
What "definition" ?
>
>>>>>>>> Millions of people have that disease. Is Magic Johnson
>>>>>>>> "defamed" because he has HIV ?
>>
>>>>>>> Magic Johnson does have HIV. I do not.
>>
>>>>>> So does that make Magic Johnson "loathsome" in your bigoted mind?
>>
>>>>> Fallacy. You've changed my description of a disease into a
>>>>> description of the person who has the disease.
>>
>>>> So then *you*, the person, weren't defamed, were you?
>>
>>> By publi****ng multiple times the lie that I have HIV, AIDS, and AIDS
>>> dementia, my professional and social life can be negatively
>>> affected.
>>
>> And pigs could fly, if they had wings.
>
> Zzzzz
You really should get re-checked for dementia.
>
>>>> And why do you keep libeling a hapless virus that's done
>>>> nothing to you?
>>
>>> And just when I thought you couldn't be any more ridiculous.
>>
>> So you confess your cognitive abilities are limited.
>
> Au contraire.
>
>> Are you sure you don't suffer from some form of dementia?
>
> Zzzzz
How long have you had these verbal tics?
>
>>>>>>>>> persisted posting those things after I told him they weren't
>>>>>>>>> true and after I advised him to stop it.
>>
>>>>>>>> So how have you been "defamed", exactly ?
>>
>>>>>>> I don't have to prove defamation, or malice, or damages, in a
>>>>>>> libel per se case. It is understood on its face that accusing
>>>>>>> someone of having a loathsome disease is damaging.
>>
>>>>>> So what's "loathsome" about HIV/AIDS, eh bigot?
>>
>>>>> It's contagious, chronic, disabling, and eventually fatal.
>>
>>>> So is life, jackass.
>>
>>> Ad homs seem to be your strong suit.
>>
>> Logic doesn't seem to be yours ...
>
> I did quite well in my logic course.
Logically.
>
>>>>> If that's not loathsome, I can't think of any disease that is.
>>
>>>> You apparently can't think at all.
>>
>>> And you CLOSE with an ad hom.
>>
>> Facts, sometimes uncomfortable, but facts nonetheless.
>
> Clearly not.
Uncomfortable?
>
>>> How embarrassing for you.
>
> Your embarrassment and humiliation are all I need.
Let us know when you find it.
>
> But just in case... what's your name and address?
Loathsome Larry
New York, NY.
|
