On Aug 30, 6:31=A0pm, "Reality_Check=A9" <Real...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Guillaume Ier de Normandie wrote:
I hope you don't think you're fooling me by simply switching over to a
different nym.
> Just because you think it's "libel per se"
> doesn't mean that it is.
I claim that it is libel per se because every definition I've seen of
libel per se indicates that it is indeed libel per se.
I don't need a vet to tell me that my cat is a feline. I don't need a
doctor to tell me that I am fatigued. And I don't need a judge to
tell me that falsely publi****ng a story that a person has HIV, AIDS
and AIDS-related dementia and using that person's real full name,
birthdate and place of residence is libel per se.
> So how many people now think that you are "loathesome" ?
Doesn't matter. I never said that ANYONE thought I was loathsome.
You are taking an adjective that is applied to a disease, and somehow
insisting on using that adjective to describe the person who has the
disease.
Understanding that you're a racist, let me put it this way: it's
rather like calling a person WHITE because he has WHITE teeth.
You CERTAINLY wouldn't want us to be doing THAT, correct?
> > 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.
Doesn't matter. Perhaps I don't want to date another person -- you
must know what THAT'S like, being on the receiving end of rejection so
frequently, as you obviously have been.
> > 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?
READ
MY
LIPS:
Damages do not have to be proved in cases of libel per se.
>
>
>
> > The disease is loathsome:
>
> Prove it.
Already did. Gave links to defining articles in a previous post to
you when you were using the nym "Prof." Jonez.
"Prof" indeed!
> > infectious, contagious, chronic, lethal, and
> > almost always transmitted ***ually or via IV drug use.
>
> So why do you claim that makes it "loathesome" ?
By definition of loathsome in law and common law.
> There are many diseases that have those characteristics/vectors.
They would be considered loathsome. Syphilis is considered
loathsome. Cancer is not.
> > FWOOOOOOSHHHHHHHH!
>
> The air escaping from between your ears again?
No, that was sanity and reason flying over your empty head.
> > Pointless indeed, as it is clear and needn't have been pointed out at
> > all.
>
> Yet you did.
Just to keep you occupied. Your non-stop posting to every imaginable
group possible is evidence that
1. You have no life and
2. You have no friends and
3. You have no life and
4. You have no life
ad infinitum.
Don't you think it's time to see a therapist?
//snip remainder unread, in the certainty that it's just more of the
same//
|
