Slander from Google

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 20:25:06 +1000, Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Henry Law wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 06:47:14 +1000, Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Today, I am instructing my lawyers to take action against Google as the
>>>publisher of slander and defamation.
>>
>>
>> Don't be an idiot, man.
>
>Now if you'd said I was a fool, I could have seen the "money soon
>parted" inference but to suggest I'm an idiot for defending a principal
>that I have a legal right to sue for damages when someone slanders or
>defames me or my wife, is to say you really couldn't give a hoot if some
>one did it to you. Do you?

Yes, you have a legal right to sue, but you are trying to sue the
wrong entity. You don't sue the power company for a flyer posted on
the power pole. You have to find and sue the author of the flyer.
Usenet is just a huge public place to post things, with the data
copied to thousands of servers around the world, some archive the data
for hours or days (most ISPs), others archive it for years (e.g.
DejaNews/Google).

>FWIW I've already spent the cost of a small car in trying to discover
>the identity of the person responsible...

Why? What is so important about an apparently-anonymous usenet post
that you are going to these extremes?

>Cadillac's are not all that
>much more! Besides, I have the advise of a QC that my case has merit and
>an offer to appear in court for no more cost than I recover from the
>court as costs. It is going to happen.

You are going to waste a lot of money and lose. Your QC (whatever
that is) either doesn't know about or doesn't understand usenet and is
giving you poor advice.

Instead of suing Google you should be suing John Doe and then
subpoenaing Google for records and following the trace back (using
subpoenas as needed) until it can't be followed anymore. When you
reach the spot where the trace can't be followed anymore, claim THAT
entity is your John Doe, asserting that unless they can prove an
identifiable someone else posted it that they are responsible. Hold
them responsible for the post that came from their server if they
won't give up who sent it to THEM.

IMHO there should be no system to post anonymously to usenet, but it's
going to take suing each entity that runs an anonymizer (or who
otherwise refuses to disclose who transmitted the info to them) to get
those services stopped. It's not Google's fault that anonymizers
exist, and even if Google itself didn't archive those posts, anonymous
posts would still go to thousands of other usenet servers around the
world (including other servers with large archives) and as soon as
someone posted a reply, THAT post would go to Google and be archived
there. So getting Google to stop posting them to their archive would
not really change the fact that the item was posted and widely
distributed, to be easily seen by anyone with internet access.

jc

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ryadia wrote:
> Henry Law wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 06:47:14 +1000, Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Today, I am instructing my lawyers to take action against Google as
>>> the publisher of slander and defamation.
>>

<snip Mr Law's helpful but tardy advice>

>
> Now if you'd said I was a fool, I could have seen the "money soon
> parted" inference but to suggest I'm an idiot for defending a
> principal that I have a legal right to sue for damages when someone
> slanders or defames me or my wife, is to say you really couldn't give
> a hoot if some one did it to you. Do you?
>
> FWIW I've already spent the cost of a small car in trying to discover
> the identity of the person responsible... Cadillac's are not all that
> much more! Besides, I have the advise of a QC that my case has merit
> and an offer to appear in court for no more cost than I recover from
> the court as costs. It is going to happen.
>

I'll bet yours is not the first such action taken against a major
"carrier". I'll bet the QC is eager to make a name in an arena that
influences him personally in the same way a video game influences a
player: it can't hurt him, and it might be fun. In your case, someone
else (you) is going to pay the price. So much easier to show enthusiasm
in those circumstances, ne?

Speaking of costs, does the contract with your attorneys specify at what
point they advise you of the futility of your plan, and allow you to
gracefully admit defeat? Mr Google's very existence is tied up in this
kind of thing. Can you imagine the kind and amount of resources they
will bring to bear? They will not likely offer to settle: then every
_other_ kook with an eye on their net worth will jump in the game. Even
if they _do_ make you an out-of-Court offer, wouldn't acceptance be
deserting your principal (sic)?

If you want to be known as "The Guy Who Sued Google© And Won", vain
hope; if you don't mind being "Another Nice Guy Who Flirts With Reality
But Not Very Seriously", carry on. More power to you, but mind your
health. You're on the road to Ulcer, Stroke, and Heart Attack Country.

Resp'y,


--
Frank ess
"There are some aspects of existence that simply do not yield to
thinking, plain or fancy."

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 17:01:30 GMT, JC Dill <jcdill04@sonic.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 20:25:06 +1000, Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Henry Law wrote:
>>> On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 06:47:14 +1000, Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Today, I am instructing my lawyers to take action against Google as the
>>>>publisher of slander and defamation.
>>>
>>>
>>> Don't be an idiot, man.
>>
>>Now if you'd said I was a fool, I could have seen the "money soon
>>parted" inference but to suggest I'm an idiot for defending a principal
>>that I have a legal right to sue for damages when someone slanders or
>>defames me or my wife, is to say you really couldn't give a hoot if some
>>one did it to you. Do you?
>
>Yes, you have a legal right to sue, but you are trying to sue the
>wrong entity. You don't sue the power company for a flyer posted on
>the power pole. You have to find and sue the author of the flyer.
>Usenet is just a huge public place to post things, with the data
>copied to thousands of servers around the world, some archive the data
>for hours or days (most ISPs), others archive it for years (e.g.
>DejaNews/Google).
>
>>FWIW I've already spent the cost of a small car in trying to discover
>>the identity of the person responsible...
>
>Why? What is so important about an apparently-anonymous usenet post
>that you are going to these extremes?
>
>>Cadillac's are not all that
>>much more! Besides, I have the advise of a QC that my case has merit and
>>an offer to appear in court for no more cost than I recover from the
>>court as costs. It is going to happen.
>
>You are going to waste a lot of money and lose. Your QC (whatever
>that is) either doesn't know about or doesn't understand usenet and is
>giving you poor advice.
>
>Instead of suing Google you should be suing John Doe and then
>subpoenaing Google for records and following the trace back (using
>subpoenas as needed) until it can't be followed anymore. When you
>reach the spot where the trace can't be followed anymore, claim THAT
>entity is your John Doe, asserting that unless they can prove an
>identifiable someone else posted it that they are responsible. Hold
>them responsible for the post that came from their server if they
>won't give up who sent it to THEM.
>
>IMHO there should be no system to post anonymously to usenet, but it's
>going to take suing each entity that runs an anonymizer (or who
>otherwise refuses to disclose who transmitted the info to them) to get
>those services stopped. It's not Google's fault that anonymizers
>exist, and even if Google itself didn't archive those posts, anonymous
>posts would still go to thousands of other usenet servers around the
>world (including other servers with large archives) and as soon as
>someone posted a reply, THAT post would go to Google and be archived
>there. So getting Google to stop posting them to their archive would
>not really change the fact that the item was posted and widely
>distributed, to be easily seen by anyone with internet access.

First, I agree with everything you've said. But I think the point you
may have missed is that the 'slanderous' poster is using Google to
generate the posts. Ryadia (hopefully) isn't targeting Google just
because they happen to archive the posts.

Usenet has a problem with Google. They allow any idiot to set up a
Google account and then start posting to usenet. This needs to stop.
If it takes a few lawsuits, then so be it.

--
Owamanga!

 

[horace]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"JC Dill" <jcdill04@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:rm6f01petq9p9uehv24r4npdgccv31695f@4ax.com...

> You are going to waste a lot of money and lose. Your QC (whatever
> that is).......<


Ah, in the UK, 'QC' can either mean a Queen's Counsel (a Lawyer with
considerably higher qualifications than a mundane 'Solicitor') or a brand of
cheap sherry.

In this case, one wonders whether all this nonsense isn't fuelled by an
excess of the latter.....

 

[horace]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Jeremy Nixon" <jeremy@exit109.com> wrote in message
news:110fgjqvpduq72@corp.supernews.com...
> Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I get it. The individual is an 'information content provider'
>>
>> So, he as a 'user' of the interactive computer service is also
>> protected by claiming that another 'information content provider'
>> (anyone on the internet) provided the libel.
>
> Of course; if someone else posted it, he's not responsible.
>
>> This must make it virtually impossible for a celebrity to bring about
>> a liability case relating to the internet... I can always find
>> *someone* else that said that nasty thing about Michael Jackson before
>> I did. Another 'information content provider' that I'm just repeating.
>
> It doesn't work that way, and I think you know it.
>
> If you say "Michael Jackson diddles little boys" it doesn't matter if
> someone else said it first. If you say "The National Enquirer reported
> yesterday that Michael Jackson diddles little boys" that's a different
> statement entirely.
>
> --
> Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com


National colloquialism's must surely play a part here?

In the UK, for instance, 'diddling' someone usually means swindling them
(like the camera manufacturers who charge us nearly twice the price of
identical products on sale to the American market)

Thus, if Michael Jackson diddled little boys, that would make him a pretty
low sort of person - but certainly not a grotesque gender challenged sexual
predator with a peculiar chemically concocted complexion who conveys the
impression that he has just emerged from a coffin on the set of a low budget
film about the un-dead.

Which of course, Mr Jackson isn't, wasn't, didn't and never could be.
Honestly.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Owamanga" <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fcef015ndbjs7hfdkfib6uai3chgmb8gqc@4ax.com...
> He key part here I believe is:
>
> "No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be
> treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by
> another information content provider."
>
> This doesn't save Google. Because the user involved holds a posting
> account directly with them (Google), so there was no other information
> content provider involved. They can't hide behind this.

How is Google not an interactive computer service?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,news.groups (More info?)

Corporations like Google protect the criminal's own illegimate rights.
Ethical is absent when it comes to partake money and greed in this
world.
Society crumbles when it abandons universal cannons of ethics and moral
values.

For six years or so I have been stalked myself by an evil individual
from Asia by posting anonymous diffamatory messages and spreading lies
about me and posting my old personal home address along with it. Google
or Yahoo do not care at all!.. All they care is their profits and
corporate revenues. All they need to do is to ban the anon ids and have
filters that prohibit foul and offensive language.
You may think that law and justice are part of a so called civilized
world.But There is not much difference between the wild west and the
internet.

Lionel wrote:
> [Posted, & also emailed to Douglas McDonald]
>
> Kibo informs me that Jeremy Nixon <jeremy@exit109.com> stated that:
> >Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Today, I am instructing my lawyers to take action against Google
as the
> >> publisher of slander and defamation.
>
> Great work, Douglas.
> Maybe a court case will convince Google to start enforcing their
> terms-of-service, & to assign a technical staffer to secure their
> service from abuse by their users.
>
> I would love to take you up on your generous offer. Would you please
> email me to tell me what I need to do?
>
> Given that you're already dipping into your wallet for a lawyer, one
> really useful thing you might consider doing would be to ask him/her
to
> draw up some form of legal notice that a victim could fax or
snail-mail
> (via registered post) to Google, each time one of us is forged or
> defamed by their user, asking them to cancel the posts concerned, &
to
> delete the originating account, per their terms of service. This
would
> either cause them to actually deal with the problem instead of
ignoring
> it, or would give us a huge pile of court evidence that Google have
been
> *knowingly* enabling defamation & forgeries by their users.
>
> >You really want a Usenet provider to be legally considered the
publisher
> >of its users' posts? Really? Because I can almost guarantee that
if you
> >are successful, almost all providers will disallow all posting, that
being
> >the only conceivable way to protect themselves legally.
>
> I am not a lawyer, (nor do I play one on TV), but I imagine that
simply
> making a reasonable effort to enforce their TOS - rather than
ignoring
> it they way they currently do - would be sufficient to provide them,
(or
> any other news provider) with a 'good faith' defence against
defamation
> or libel suits.
>
> > Luckily, although
> >UK law is a bit silly about this,
>
> Actually, Douglas & I are both Australians, although it's true that
our
> legal system is very similar to the British system.
>
> > I doubt you'll be successful under US
> >law, so we probably don't have much to worry about from you.
>
> So far, both Australian & British courts have taken the attitude
that,
> for the purposes of libel / defamation law, website operators &
Usenet
> news services are considered to be worldwide 'publishers'. As I
> understand it, the argument is that (for example), if an Australian
is
> defamed or libelled via a website that's accessable to the general
> public in Australia, then an offence has, by definition, taken place
in
> Australia, & is consequently within the jurisdiction of Australian
> courts.
> As for enforcing any judgement we might obtain from an Australian
court,
> I suspect that the solution would be to track down any corporate
> presence that Google Ltd might have in Australia, & make the initial
> case against them, as representatives of the American parent company.
>
> --
> W
> . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
> \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda
est
>
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Frank ess wrote:

>
> If you want to be known as "The Guy Who Sued Google© And Won", vain
> hope; if you don't mind being "Another Nice Guy Who Flirts With Reality
> But Not Very Seriously", carry on. More power to you, but mind your
> health. You're on the road to Ulcer, Stroke, and Heart Attack Country.
>
> Resp'y,
>
>

You all seem to miss one very valid point here.
Google are immune from action just as long as they don't *publish* the
work of people slandering others. Now if Google kept their web forum as
just that, I wouldn't have a case but they don't. They recompile all
those posts made on their service and then publish it on news groups.
This, I'm told makes them as libel for slander as any newspaper is.

Doug

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:36pv0aF546s3gU1@individual.net...
> You all seem to miss one very valid point here.
> Google are immune from action just as long as they don't *publish* the
> work of people slandering others. Now if Google kept their web forum as
> just that, I wouldn't have a case but they don't. They recompile all those
> posts made on their service and then publish it on news groups. This, I'm
> told makes them as libel for slander as any newspaper is.

Google provides access to Usenet and it archives Usenet postings. It is not
akin to a newspaper.

 

[horace]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:36pv0aF546s3gU1@individual.net...
>
> You all seem to miss one very valid point here.
> Google are immune from action just as long as they don't *publish* the
> work of people slandering others. Now if Google kept their web forum as
> just that, I wouldn't have a case but they don't. They recompile all those
> posts made on their service and then publish it on news groups. This, I'm
> told makes them as libel for slander as any newspaper is.<

----


You would do well to consider the matter thoroughly before wasting the cost
of yet another motor car on this futile pursuit.

Google most certainly do *not* publish anything on newsgroups - all they do
is maintain a web presence that harvests and/or forwards the Usenet posts of
others.

In fact, if you're going to sue Google for anything, make it an action for
copyright infringement - since this post (like millions of others) is
destined to end up on their web server without my permission being sought or
obtained.

Usenet itself is a barely tangible thing - where does it exist?, on the
servers of your ISP?, or mine?, or in the downloaded posts contained on
millions of computers world-wide?

If Google allow you access to this ethereal network they cannot, by any sane
definition, be accused of publishing martial - any more than a bus company
could be accused of publishing pornography if you hopped on the number 22 to
pop into town in order to purchase a copy of 'Readers Wives -Hot, Hot
Hot!!!' (don't buy the February issue, btw - it's disgusting!)

FWIW, my own thoughts are that any man who lavishes the cost of new car on
pursuing a Usenet troll has far too much spare cash, and [ii] far too
much spare time - and any lawyer with an ounce of integrity would point that
out to you.

 

[Charles]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <36pv0aF546s3gU1@individual.net>, Ryadia
<ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:

> You all seem to miss one very valid point here.
> Google are immune from action just as long as they don't *publish* the
> work of people slandering others. Now if Google kept their web forum as
> just that, I wouldn't have a case but they don't. They recompile all
> those posts made on their service and then publish it on news groups.
> This, I'm told makes them as libel for slander as any newspaper is.

I think that is an interesting theory. What the heck if you have the
money and a lawyer to test the theory I think it will be an interesting
test case, even if you lose it.

--
Charles

 

[Darrell]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Ryan Robbins" <redbird007@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:QWVNd.20317$t46.12837@trndny04...
>
> "Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:36pv0aF546s3gU1@individual.net...
> > You all seem to miss one very valid point here.
> > Google are immune from action just as long as they don't *publish* the
> > work of people slandering others. Now if Google kept their web forum as
> > just that, I wouldn't have a case but they don't. They recompile all
those
> > posts made on their service and then publish it on news groups. This,
I'm
> > told makes them as libel for slander as any newspaper is.
>
> Google provides access to Usenet and it archives Usenet postings. It is
not
> akin to a newspaper.
>
Google makes it too easy for people to post. If they (Google) made use of a
verifiable e-mail header in the post headings there would be next to no
abuse. The determined will find a way via anon remailers and mail2news
gateways, but they would be using Google.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Charles wrote:
> In article <36pv0aF546s3gU1@individual.net>, Ryadia
> <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You all seem to miss one very valid point here.
>> Google are immune from action just as long as they don't *publish*
>> the work of people slandering others. Now if Google kept their web
>> forum as just that, I wouldn't have a case but they don't. They
>> recompile all those posts made on their service and then publish it
>> on news groups. This, I'm told makes them as libel for slander as
>> any newspaper is.
>
> I think that is an interesting theory. What the heck if you have the
> money and a lawyer to test the theory I think it will be an
> interesting test case, even if you lose it.

You aren't by chance a "QC" are you?

 

[Charles]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <mLKdnfY_2YOndprfRVn-ig@giganews.com>, Frank ess
<frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote:

> You aren't by chance a "QC" are you?

Nope. I think he is wasting his time and money on this suit. I don't
think he should do it, but since he seems intent on doing it, it will
be interesting to see how far it gets.

--
Charles

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:

>
> I was just making the example as simple as possible. Airing tapes is,
> as you say, an editorial decision and usually made with more than one
> source of information. (There was a similar case here where a newspaper
> quoted something said on air by a former Premier (provincial first
> minister). The Premier sued the radio station and the newspaper. He
> lost against the newspaper as it was just reporting what the radio
> station said (and attributed it to the radio station)).
>
> As to 'slander' v. 'libel', it could be argued that the broadcast of a
> recorded utterance is the broadcast of a 'document' and thus libel. (If
> "live" then it is slander.) But that's just my opinion ... I have no
> idea how civil courts interpret it.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan.

Google take all the post to their forum and then publish them in the
electronic sense to news groups. That is the difference between them and
a newsgroup host.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Google take all the post to their forum and then publish them in the
> electronic sense to news groups. That is the difference between them and
> a newsgroup host.

That's idiotic.

The difference between Google and a Usenet provider is that Google provides
a web interface. They provide the newsreader as well as the service. That's
it.

--
Jeremy | jeremy@exit109.com

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Ryadia" <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:36ne4aF52uvklU1@individual.net...
> Today, I am instructing my lawyers to take action against Google as the
> publisher of slander and defamation.
>
> For too long now this firm has sought to ignore common courtesy and
> continues to allow anonymous and defamatory posting to news groups from
> their facilities. I urge anyone who has been slandered in a post from
> Google to join with me in a law suite. I will cover your legal costs up
> to the court date.

Since the case will probably get decided under U.S. law, even in
Australia, you might want to look at 47 USC 230 before spending your
money.

http/www.techlawjournal.com/courts/zeran/47usc230.htm

--
Michael Benveniste -- mhb-offer@clearether.com
Spam and UCE professionally evaluated for $419. Use this email
address only to submit mail for evaluation.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ryadia wrote:

> Google take all the post to their forum and then publish them in the
> electronic sense to news groups. That is the difference between them and
> a newsgroup host.

"Google" doesn't 'do' anything other than automatically forward posts to usenet
and/or store messages in Google-groups for retirieval. There is nobody
involved. The material is originated by someone not associated with Google.
Those are the people you need to track down. Your lawyer should get a court
order to get Google (or better, the offenders ISP) to reveal who they are.

I'm not saying you shouldn't persue this, I'm saying you should persue the
originator. Google is just the messenger.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http/www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http/www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Mon, 07 Feb 2005 19:20:43 GMT, Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>I get it. The individual is an 'information content provider'

In the context of Google, yes. So you can't sue Google because _they_
didn't make the statement, it came from one of Google's 'information
content provider's (a Google user).

>
>So, he as a 'user' of the interactive computer service is also
>protected by claiming that another 'information content provider'
>(anyone on the internet) provided the libel.

Not unless that user had some mechanism in place to perform "blind",
indiscriminate reposting of the information from that provider (i.e.
someone who has set up an automatic digest-posting to a newsgroup from a
mailing list). If a user _chooses_ to make a deliberate post, even if the
information came from another source, they have "published" that info. (As
a later respondent comments, posting "The XYZ Media Corp reported that
'...<some contentious comment>...'" _might_ be a different case).

The key concept (as I understand it) is _control_: if you/an organisation
has no control over the information, then you can't be held liable for its
content (though you might be held liable for not _having_ control, but
that's probably a different question).

>
>This must make it virtually impossible for a celebrity to bring about
>a liability case relating to the internet... I can always find
>*someone* else that said that nasty thing about Michael Jackson before
>I did. Another 'information content provider' that I'm just repeating.
>
>Cool.


Regards,
Graham Holden (g-holden AT dircon DOT co DOT uk)
--
There are 10 types of people in the world;
those that understand binary and those that don't.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Tue, 08 Feb 2005 05:50:44 +1000, Ryadia <ryadia@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Google take all the post to their forum and then publish them in the
>electronic sense to news groups. That is the difference between them and
>a newsgroup host.

I'm appreciative of the position you're in, and of your desire to "do
something about it", but, as others have said, I do think you're getting
possibly unreliable advice about "going for" Google.

What you see as a "Google forum" is really nothing more than a web-based
interface to the news groups of usenet. It isn't "something separate", the
contents of which are "republished" to usenet: it is just another way to
read from/post to usenet. They are no more "republishing" than is my copy
of Agent when it sends this post to my ISP's news server.

Almost certainly usenet would be a better place if Google placed tighter
controls over who can post, and you'd probably get more encouragement from
others if you took them to task over this (I don't know what, if any, law
you would base an action on, but I'm almost sure it wouldn't be for libel).

<covering-my-back-disclaimer>
I am not a lawyer, just a drifter through usenet. The above opinion is
based on the situation as I see it, but is offered "for information only".
</covering-my-back-disclaimer>


Regards,
Graham Holden (g-holden AT dircon DOT co DOT uk)
--
There are 10 types of people in the world;
those that understand binary and those that don't.