🚀 go-pugleaf

"Helen" <helen@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:a6bi3s$o12$1@paris.btinternet.com...
>
> "Laurence Godfrey" <laurence@godfreynet.net> wrote in message
> news:3c9a462c.25138327@news.virgin.net...
> > On Fri, 8 Mar 2002 18:01:53 -0500, "Ray Gordon" <caveman21@nni.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >> >Please answer why you can't just file a John-Doe claim.
> > >>
> > >> They do not exist in England, and I sue in defamation in the English
> > >> High Court.
> > >
> > >So if no one gives you their name online you cannot sue them?
> > >
> > >Or do you sue the ISP and have them give it to you?
> >
> > That's almost right. You get a court order compelling disclosure, as
> > you also (sometimes) do in the USA.
> >
> > >> >Why not just get it from the ISP via a subpoena?  You're the one who
> > >claims
> > >> >to be trained in law.
> > >>
> > >> I could. I may still do so. But you miss the point. Someone who
> > >> invites me to sue him and then fails to provide the necessary
> > >> information is the child who taunts: "I dare you to hit me" and
> > >> immediately runs away.
> > >
> > >I don't know there.  Didn't you say you were going to sue if you didn't
> get
> > >your apology?
> > >
> > >It would seem that you laid down the gauntlet there, not him, when you
> > >protested over his postings.  Isn't your standard warning to apologize
> and
> > >cover your legal costs or you're going to sue?
> >
> > You are confused. The person who refused to supply his name and
> > address in this tiresome thread is not the person responsible for the
> > original postings.
> >
> > >I didn't see an apology.  The next step after that was a claim from you
> that
> > >you needed the address to sue, and I pointed out that in America this
is
> not
> > >the case, and further, even if you *thought* you had the right name,
> you'd
> > >STILL have to verify it through the ISP, so you would probably do that
> > >anyway.
> > >
> > >That's how most American libel cases are fought.
> >
> > Why should I care how American libel cases are fought?
> >
> > Laurence
>
> Laurence, why do you do this?  I'm not trying to wind you up nor am I a
> silly kid (too many years on the planet for that), but I do not undertand
> why you join in with 'kids' and others trying to wind you up.  With your
> reputation as a result of the Demon case (on which I have no opinion
either
> way, I can see both sides of the argument), you are obviously a target,
but
> why don't you just ignore it?

Just a waste of time isnt it?

Beck