jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) (11/03/90)
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) writes: >hey, i'm not the one who brought up the lawsuit business in the >first place. My impression is that you're the ONLY one who has brough up sueing. i think it would be an incredible waste of time and >money for anyone to sue over things said on the net. but with >people like john de armond who IMHO wants to find an excuse to hang >len and karl kleinpaste who IMHO wants to hang me, i think the >situation is ripe for a suit. you just don't get it - the more >you dredge things up the worse they will be for =everyone= >involved. John, I'm going to admit right here and now in front of God and the net that I made a mistake. Probably a pretty bad mistake. I defended your postings and your logic in this forum. I should have known better. Every time I trust someone I don't know I get burned. I would normally assume that if someone makes as direct and as damaging a statement in public about someone as you did about Len (and you have admited making the statement a few articles ago when you noted that you canceled it a bit later.), it had to be true. No one would be so reckless as to make an unsubstantiated statement like that. Or so I thought. I was wrong. I don't know that my opinion about Len has changed any, as it had already pretty much formed before your post. But I certainly would not have been so vocal in defending you had I then the benefit of 20-20 hindsight. And I will still caution the people in this group about taking on a lynch mob mentality regarding Len's innocence or guilt in the absence of fact. Reminds me a lot of the so-called "black leaders" rallying around Marion Barry even after his conviction. (Hmm, wonder if Melinda Shore will call me a racist now? ) Let's all root for Len but let's not walk out on a limb just because it appears to be an "us vs. them" situation. As long as you want to talk about litigation, John, you might want to think about this: *) The truth is an absolute defense against libel charges. I think we all are willing to take our chances on being able to provide a preponderance of evidence that you made the posts in question if it comes to that. You should remember that reasonable doubt does not count in civil litigation. All a jury's gotta do is THINK you need it stuck to you and you will be gored. I'd probably not be wrong to guess that a whole lotta folks out there are sharpening their gorin' sticks for ya'. *) As my lawyer has reminded me many times, the use of a threat to sue in order to achieve a concession is regarded by the law as extortion. Me, I don't much care what you say. You're barely worth the 5 minutes it took to type this note in. Why should I care about your opinion? So send me some more of your little notes if that makes you feel good. And keep on threatening to sue. Someone's gonna call your bluff. As they say in the song.... Give it your best shot, dude. John -- John De Armond, WD4OQC | "The truly ignorant in our society are those people Radiation Systems, Inc. | who would throw away the parts of the Constitution Atlanta, Ga | they find inconvenient." -me Defend the 2nd {emory,uunet}!rsiatl!jgd| with the same fervor as you do the 1st.
jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F. Haugh II) (11/05/90)
In article <4639@rsiatl.UUCP> jgd@rsiatl.UUCP (John G. DeArmond) writes: >John, I'm going to admit right here and now in front of God and the net >that I made a mistake. Probably a pretty bad mistake. I defended your >postings and your logic in this forum. I should have known better. you did so because you thought it would a nice little flame fest. i've seen what you post in other groups, and i don't exactly consider you to be one of the less "flame bouyant" posters on the net. > You're barely worth the 5 minutes >it took to type this note in. then learn to touch type. -- John F. Haugh II UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org "SCCS, the source motel! Programs check in and never check out!" -- Ken Thompson