🚀 go-pugleaf

On 23 Dec 1997 02:20:50 GMT, ak955@chebucto.ns.ca (Barbara Amero)
wrote:


> Tho' I don't agree that it 
>should be libelous, unless such is said to ridicule, defame, etc., it 
>is according to the law a libelous statement.

There is a tad more in the legal interpretation of libel then that.

>I suggest that you talk to that "well known probably the best civil
>suit lawyer in the Province" who you say is your lawyer (g).

Would you like his name now or would you rather just wait?

>You are
>either uninformed or misinformed. Do a DejaNews search for my posts
>on defamation, libel or do a 'net search for other information. Any
>statements that expose one to hatred, ridicule or contempt, or cause
>one to be shunned or avoided can be labeled defamatory.

No need to search Dejanews, your verbal onslaughts are, and were saved
prior to you cancelling them at a hairy pace. <G>

<< no comment>>

>I've been libeled in here in all four categories. Recently someone made a
>post about me having an STD, tho' the word wasn't spelled correctly most
>people would know what the author meant.

No t interested. Just concerned now in other matters.

>: Unless invited.
>
>How does one do that? "I'm asking you to make slurs on my sexual habits".
>I didn't ask you or anyone else to do that and I don't know any other
>woman who has.

I'm sure you can figure out *how* to ask the question. Since when have
you been lost for words.

>: First, there has to be arguable points. But I do disagree with most
>: (not all) of what you say. I definitely abhor your actions against
>: people. And I don't have to repeat myself on that.
>
>My posts are full of many issue, arguable points and some posters argue
>them without attacking or libeling me. 

Are they points or biased opinions?


Qunn, Thomas Cantine, etc.
>I definitely abhor your actions against people, including your comments
>about African (blacks) having stopped in the evolution process, that
>blacks act as stupid as they always have and can't take care of themselves
>most of the time; your derogatory comments about menopause, single
>mothers, divorced women; using the physical characteristics of people to
>ridicule both women and men; using salary and welfare to ridicule people;
>and on and on.

Your nattering again. You know by now why people think your a bit
"disturbed" is the way you keep repeating things in an attempt to wear
a person down, or your lost for dialoague, or for some unknown reason.
This tactic doesn't work on me. I just get bored with your posts and
don't read them most of the time. 

>I dislike the way you attack women - their appearance; bodily functions;
>educational, financial, marital status, etc.

Yours or all women?  And you forgot the Naa, naa, na,naa na.

>No I am not the creator of the problem.

Until you admit it........................................

Buzz