🚀 go-pugleaf

 
In article <7ftaj4$cgv@bonkers.taronga.com>, Peter da Silva (peter@taronga.com) writes:

>What they have to do to satisfy the abusive legal system they are subject
>to is a different matter. I'm objecting to the implication I perceived
>in the text I quoted that this was a good thing. Do you believe that this
>is a good thing, then, or are you simply playing devil's advocate because
>you enjoy the intellectual stimulation of robust discussions?

I'm not playing devil's advocate; simply putting forward my
interpretation of the law, which no one with any proper legal
training posting to this thread has yet disagreed with. If Demon
still have a defence to put forward, I'd be intrigued to know what
it is, because I simply can't see what it could be. OTOH, nobody
should invoke the libel laws lightly. It can prove horribly
expensive and often counterproductive inasmuch as it draws more
attention to the remark(s) complained of, which would otherwise
probably go largely unnoticed. Sadly, however, it can prove to be
the only option when dealing with an ISP who simply won't take
notice of anything less. 

--

Previous sig abolished under Woolf reforms  >:-<