🚀 go-pugleaf

"Arthur Brain" <arthur_brain1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:1187588983.874978.217410@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Godfrey_%28physics_lecturer%29

It left some out like the Christchurch student he put pressure on to pay up 
or supposedly get dragged off to court.

How could anyone forget him?
This group, science groups, and law groups.

I see he went after Telecom NZ, it would be internet related involving 
someone postings no doubt.

E. Scrooge 

In message <1187588983.874978.217410@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, 
Arthur Brain <arthur_brain1@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Godfrey_%28physics_lecturer%29
>

The article begins by claiming that a legal precedent was set by his 
settling out of court. I stopped reading there.

-- 
Mike_B

"Mike_B" <usenet@localhosts.net> wrote in message 
news:E5+bXFbHnVyGFwA9@localhosts.net...
> In message <1187588983.874978.217410@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Arthur 
> Brain <arthur_brain1@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Godfrey_%28physics_lecturer%29
>>
>
> The article begins by claiming that a legal precedent was set by his 
> settling out of court. I stopped reading there.

He was the claimant in the celebrated case of Godfrey v Demon, which is an 
important judgment and worth reading. It did set a precedent. It was an 
interlocutory judgment and afterwards Demon settled out of court.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/1999/244.html

Sounds like a real twat 

On 20 Aug, 06:49, Arthur Brain <arthur_bra...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Godfrey_%28physics_lecturer%29

Thank you for having alerted me to that defamatory crap.

As I do not have Lawrence's current email address, it may be better
for me to correct some of the more egregious nonsense.

--
 x
/|\

"��" <��@itsasecret.com> wrote in message 
news:13citji79941o02@corp.supernews.com...
> Sounds like a real twat

But he isn't.  He's an intelligent, good-humoured, helpful person, who has 
offered much good advice on usenet. I've met him in person. I liked him.

On 20 Aug, 12:09, "ò¿ó" <ò¿ó@itsasecret.com> wrote:
> Sounds like a real twat

The article is on Wikipedia and has been written or vandalised by
someone with an axe to grind.

Needless to say, the actual words of Justice Morland were quite
different from those reported on that page and did not concern any
allegations about Laurence Godfrey or previous damages he may have
won.  Why should he concern himself with such matters, when his real
judgement was that Demon's defence was "in law, hopeless".

He did allow Demon to resubmit their pleadings - they had initially
pleaded that, although they did not remove the defamatory statements
when asked, they were not the original publisher(s) of the libel(s).

After a while and with costs mounting, as it became obvious that
Laurence was not just going away, Demon changed their lawyer to
Olswang & co who advised Demon to settle for moderate damages and
payment of all the claimant's taxed (assessed) costs.  With rather
less than a month to go before the full hearing was to start, Demon
capitulated but it still took them months to pay up.

--
 x
/|\

The Todal wrote:
> "ò¿ó" <ò¿ó@itsasecret.com> wrote in message
> news:13citji79941o02@corp.supernews.com...
> > Sounds like a real twat
>
> But he isn't.  He's an intelligent, good-humoured, helpful person, who has
> offered much good advice on usenet. I've met him in person. I liked him.

Rubbish. He was a heavy-handed bully.

The Todal wrote:
> "Mike_B" <usenet@localhosts.net> wrote in message
> news:E5+bXFbHnVyGFwA9@localhosts.net...
> > In message <1187588983.874978.217410@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Arthur
> > Brain <arthur_brain1@yahoo.co.uk> writes
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Godfrey_%28physics_lecturer%29
> >>
> >
> > The article begins by claiming that a legal precedent was set by his
> > settling out of court. I stopped reading there.
>
> He was the claimant in the celebrated case of Godfrey v Demon, which is an
> important judgment and worth reading. It did set a precedent. It was an
> interlocutory judgment and afterwards Demon settled out of court.
>
> http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/1999/244.html

The only "importance" in that case was as a demonstration of the
defects of UK defamation law, which unaccountably requires the
*defendant* to prove their innocence.

In other words, fatso merely proved that there exist severe legal
impediments to free speech in the UK.

"Arthur Brain" <arthur_brain@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1187621299.514324.177860@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

The Todal wrote:
> "��" <��@itsasecret.com> wrote in message
> news:13citji79941o02@corp.supernews.com...
> > Sounds like a real twat
>
>> But he isn't.  He's an intelligent, good-humoured, helpful person, who 
>> has
>> offered much good advice on usenet. I've met him in person. I liked him.

> Rubbish. He was a heavy-handed bully.

Give reasons for your answer. Did he threaten you with legal action? If so, 
was it because you libelled him?

Is that you Joe?

I recognise your sig from the old days on uk.rec.eqestrian

Mark (no horse or Ferrari)

-- 
This e-mail is only for the above addressees. If you have received it then 
you are an addressee so ignore this stupid disclaimer.


"��" <��@itsasecret.com> wrote in message 
news:13citji79941o02@corp.supernews.com...
> Sounds like a real twat
> 

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 06:21:49 -0700, "Theo_Delight@yahoo.co.uk"
<Theo_Delight@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>On 20 Aug, 06:49, Arthur Brain <arthur_bra...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Godfrey_%28physics_lecturer%29
>
>Thank you for having alerted me to that defamatory crap.

Defamatory of whom? Godfrey?

>As I do not have Lawrence's current email address, it may be better
>for me to correct some of the more egregious nonsense.

It's odd that you are misspelling his name in the same way as in the
supposedly defamatory posting.

(I've just checked, and Google Groups still carries a reply to the
fake Godfrey post, quoting the original post.)

On 20 Aug, 15:53, Arthur Brain <arthur_br...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The Todal wrote:
> > "Mike_B" <use...@localhosts.net> wrote in message
> >news:E5+bXFbHnVyGFwA9@localhosts.net...
> > > In message <1187588983.874978.217...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Arthur
> > > Brain <arthur_bra...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
> > >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Godfrey_%28physics_lecturer%29
>
> > > The article begins by claiming that a legal precedent was set by his
> > > settling out of court. I stopped reading there.
>
> > He was the claimant in the celebrated case of Godfrey v Demon, which is an
> > important judgment and worth reading. It did set a precedent. It was an
> > interlocutory judgment and afterwards Demon settled out of court.
>
> >http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/1999/244.html
>
> The only "importance" in that case was as a demonstration of the
> defects of UK defamation law, which unaccountably requires the
> *defendant* to prove their innocence.

You will find that the same applies to libel law across Australia.

--
 x
/|\

On 20 Aug, 16:11, "The Todal" <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote:
> "Arthur Brain" <arthur_br...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1187621299.514324.177860@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> The Todal wrote:
> > "ò¿ó" <ò¿ó@itsasecret.com> wrote in message
> >news:13citji79941o02@corp.supernews.com...
> > > Sounds like a real twat
>
> >> But he isn't.  He's an intelligent, good-humoured, helpful person, who
> >> has
> >> offered much good advice on usenet. I've met him in person. I liked him.
> > Rubbish. He was a heavy-handed bully.
>
> Give reasons for your answer. Did he threaten you with legal action? If so,
> was it because you libelled him?

http://www.caslon.com.au/defamationprofile9.htm#godfrey may shed some
light on this:

[quote]
In unrelated litigation Godfrey settled with Melbourne PC Users Group
for a reported US$6,190 in 1998 and settled suits with New Zealand
Telecom and the Toronto Star for undisclosed sums. He had meanwhile
sued major UK ISP Demon regarding statements posted to the
soc.culture.thai newsgroup by an unknown person using his name. Demon
had received that item from another ISP and as part of a standard
usenet service had stored it on their news server.

The UK High Court's decision in Godfrey v Demon Internet was that in
principle an ISP could avail itself of a statutory defence under
section 1 of the Defamation Act 1996. In practice Demon had crucially
failed to remove the offending item from its server within an
appropriate time after being alerted by Godfrey's lawyers, who had
served notice by fax to Demon's managing director.

[unquote]

Of course, the report makes the usual mistake of believing there was
only one claim made against Demon, whereas there were actually two
claims made; the first was indeed made by a forger to soc.culture.thai
but the second posting was, I believe, made to the uk.legal newsgroup
by a Demon customer.  Neither posting was removed by Demon in a timely
manner, though other ISPs did act more promptly.

--
 x
/|\

On 20 Aug, 19:54, IanAl <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 06:21:49 -0700, "Theo_Deli...@yahoo.co.uk"
> <Theo_Deli...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >On 20 Aug, 06:49, Arthur Brain <arthur_bra...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Godfrey_%28physics_lecturer%29
>
> >Thank you for having alerted me to that defamatory crap.
>
> Defamatory of whom? Godfrey?

Who else?  Santa Claus?

> >As I do not have Lawrence's current email address, it may be better
> >for me to correct some of the more egregious nonsense.
>
> It's odd that you are misspelling his name in the same way as in the
> supposedly defamatory posting.

Odd, perhaps, but not significant in the least.  I know two people
with that given name but with different spellings and I'm always
getting them mixed up.

Besides, I liked the tales about his goldfish.

--
 x
/|\

On 20 Aug, 16:11, "The Todal" <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote:
> "Arthur Brain" <arthur_br...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1187621299.514324.177860@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> The Todal wrote:
> > "ò¿ó" <ò¿ó@itsasecret.com> wrote in message
> >news:13citji79941o02@corp.supernews.com...
> > > Sounds like a real twat
>
> >> But he isn't.  He's an intelligent, good-humoured, helpful person, who
> >> has
> >> offered much good advice on usenet. I've met him in person. I liked him.
> > Rubbish. He was a heavy-handed bully.
>
> Give reasons for your answer. Did he threaten you with legal action? If so,
> was it because you libelled him?

Whether or not he did so in the past, he certainly did so today.

Here are the headers from the original posting:

Path: g2news2.google.com!postnews.google.com!
x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From:  Arthur Brain <arthur_br...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: sci.physics,nz.politics,aus.legal,uk.legal,nz.general
Subject: Re: Who remembers this guy?
Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 07:48:19 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <1187621299.514324.177860@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
References: <1187588983.874978.217410@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>
   <1187594504.778653@ftpsrv1>
   <13citji79941o02@corp.supernews.com>
   <5itk8lF3qug0fU1@mid.individual.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.129.54.171
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1187621301 28400 127.0.0.1 (20 Aug 2007
14:48:21 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 14:48:21 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <5itk8lF3qug0fU1@mid.individual.net>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:
1.8.1.6) Gecko/20070725 Firefox/2.0.0.6,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com; posting-
host=203.129.54.171;
   posting-account=ps2QrAMAAAA6_jCuRt2JEIpn5Otqf_w0

Note: NNTP-Posting-Host: 203.129.54.171

Wikipedia logs and stores the IP address for each alteration:

Look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Laurence_Godfrey_%28physics_lecturer%29&action=history

This is the log entry for the edit in which allegations against
Laurence were said to have been made by Mr Justice Morland:

 11:07, 20 August 2007 203.129.54.171 (Talk) (3,793 bytes)

The article has since been corrected and the vandalism removed.

--
 x
/|\

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 07:53:51 -0700, Arthur Brain
<arthur_brain@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>The Todal wrote:
>> "Mike_B" <usenet@localhosts.net> wrote in message
>> news:E5+bXFbHnVyGFwA9@localhosts.net...
>> > In message <1187588983.874978.217410@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Arthur
>> > Brain <arthur_brain1@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Godfrey_%28physics_lecturer%29
>> >>
>> >
>> > The article begins by claiming that a legal precedent was set by his
>> > settling out of court. I stopped reading there.
>>
>> He was the claimant in the celebrated case of Godfrey v Demon, which is an
>> important judgment and worth reading. It did set a precedent. It was an
>> interlocutory judgment and afterwards Demon settled out of court.
>>
>> http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/1999/244.html
>
>The only "importance" in that case was as a demonstration of the
>defects of UK defamation law, which unaccountably requires the
>*defendant* to prove their innocence.
>
>In other words, fatso merely proved that there exist severe legal
>impediments to free speech in the UK.

Wrong in absolutely every respect. (Well apart from that he may have
been a "fatso", I have no idea).
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Meets quality standards: compiles without errors.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 09:07:16 GMT, Mike_B <usenet@localhosts.net>
wrote:

>In message <1187588983.874978.217410@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, 
>Arthur Brain <arthur_brain1@yahoo.co.uk> writes
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Godfrey_%28physics_lecturer%29
>>
>
>The article begins by claiming that a legal precedent was set by his 
>settling out of court. I stopped reading there.

It claims no such thing.

The legal precedent and the settling out of court were two different
things.

A legal precedent *was* set, when a high court judge ruled that Demon
could not use the defence allowed by Section1 of the defamation act
once they knew of the defamatory postings.

Once that defence had been struck out by the high court, they *then*
reached a settlement out of court, but the precedent had already been
set.
-- 
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Programmers don't get sniffles, they get a CODE.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom

On 20 Aug, 21:57, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> A legal precedent *was* set, when a high court judge ruled that Demon
> could not use the defence allowed by Section1 of the defamation act
> once they knew of the defamatory postings.
>
> Once that defence had been struck out by the high court, they *then*
> reached a settlement out of court, but the precedent had already been
> set.

It took them months to do it.

In the meantime, Laurence's costs (even though he did much of the work
himself) were over £250,000 and Demon's cost were said to exceed twice
that.

--
 x
/|\

On 20 Aug, 21:51, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 07:53:51 -0700, Arthur Brain
>
>
>
>
>
> <arthur_br...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >The Todal wrote:
> >> "Mike_B" <use...@localhosts.net> wrote in message
> >>news:E5+bXFbHnVyGFwA9@localhosts.net...
> >> > In message <1187588983.874978.217...@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Arthur
> >> > Brain <arthur_bra...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
> >> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Godfrey_%28physics_lecturer%29
>
> >> > The article begins by claiming that a legal precedent was set by his
> >> > settling out of court. I stopped reading there.
>
> >> He was the claimant in the celebrated case of Godfrey v Demon, which is an
> >> important judgment and worth reading. It did set a precedent. It was an
> >> interlocutory judgment and afterwards Demon settled out of court.
>
> >>http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/1999/244.html
>
> >The only "importance" in that case was as a demonstration of the
> >defects of UK defamation law, which unaccountably requires the
> >*defendant* to prove their innocence.
>
> >In other words, fatso merely proved that there exist severe legal
> >impediments to free speech in the UK.
>
> Wrong in absolutely every respect. (Well apart from that he may have
> been a "fatso", I have no idea).

Well, he did say that his anorexia was asymptomatic.

--
 x
/|\

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 16:11:57 +0100, "The Todal" <deadmailbox@beeb.net>
wrote:

>
>"Arthur Brain" <arthur_brain@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
>news:1187621299.514324.177860@x40g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>The Todal wrote:
>> "��" <��@itsasecret.com> wrote in message
>> news:13citji79941o02@corp.supernews.com...
>> > Sounds like a real twat
>>
>>> But he isn't.  He's an intelligent, good-humoured, helpful person, who 
>>> has
>>> offered much good advice on usenet. I've met him in person. I liked him.
>
>> Rubbish. He was a heavy-handed bully.
>
>Give reasons for your answer. Did he threaten you with legal action? If so, 
>was it because you libelled him?

Successful bullies are usually charming.

In article <5itk8lF3qug0fU1@mid.individual.net>,
The Todal <deadmailbox@beeb.net> wrote:
>But he isn't.  He's an intelligent, good-humoured, helpful person, who has 
>offered much good advice on usenet. I've met him in person. I liked him.

But he seems to be rather unwise.  I am sure there are thousands of
people like me who would otherwise never have heard of him but now
know him only as someone who sues people who disagree with him on
usenet.  His lawsuits and threats may have been completely justified,
but have they really had the effect he wanted?

-- Richard
-- 
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.

In article <acojc3h58t79cs3folgoprrih13jjoqdig@4ax.com>,
IanAl  <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>>As I do not have Lawrence's current email address, it may be better
>>for me to correct some of the more egregious nonsense.

>It's odd that you are misspelling his name in the same way as in the
>supposedly defamatory posting.

Not really.  Lawrence is a much more common spelling.

-- Richard
-- 
"Consideration shall be given to the need for as many as 32 characters
in some alphabets" - X3.4, 1963.

On 20 Aug, 23:42, rich...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) wrote:
> In article <5itk8lF3qug0...@mid.individual.net>,
>
> The Todal <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote:
> >But he isn't.  He's an intelligent, good-humoured, helpful person, who has
> >offered much good advice on usenet. I've met him in person. I liked him.
>
> But he seems to be rather unwise.  I am sure there are thousands of
> people like me who would otherwise never have heard of him but now
> know him only as someone who sues people who disagree with him on
> usenet.  His lawsuits and threats may have been completely justified,
> but have they really had the effect he wanted?

Except that most of the libels over which he sued were egregiously
vile, sordid and wholly false allegations about his personal life; to
protect his good name and his professional status, he really had
little option other than to sue.  Had he not done so, the number of
people who believed such lies would probably have been many times
greater than just a few idiots who will believe almost anything
including the idea that one can seek libel damages over a simple
difference of opinion.

--
 x
/|\

Theo_Delight@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

>
> The article has since been corrected and the vandalism removed.

Why is it vandalism?

Those are quotes relevant to the issue of people defaming each other
and suing each other on the internet.

Unless some of those insults about germans/thais/canadians were
forgeries - which I don't believe was the case. Or am I wrong?

The way I unerstand it is people insult each other on the internet,
and one particular individual took advantage of his superior
understanding of the defective defamation law in the UK to send people
threatening letters about their half of the insulting exchanges.
On 6 or 7 occasions this ended up in court.

I think the quoted insults are quite interesting.

We start off with "Canadians are idiots" (non-defamatory, unless more
recent race-hate legislation can be bent to the task?)
and go on to "Individual A. is X" (defamatory, where X is a negative
thing).

So why on earth do you consider the "Canadians are idiots" quotes to
be vandalism?

Theo_Delight@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

> Well, he did say that his anorexia was asymptomatic.

What kind of a complete fuckwit took that quote out of the Wikipaedia
article?

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 21:26:47 -0700, Arthur Brain
<arthur_brain1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>
>Theo_Delight@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
>
>>
>> The article has since been corrected and the vandalism removed.
>
>Why is it vandalism?
>
>Those are quotes relevant to the issue of people defaming each other
>and suing each other on the internet.
>
>Unless some of those insults about germans/thais/canadians were
>forgeries - which I don't believe was the case. Or am I wrong?
>
>The way I unerstand it is people insult each other on the internet,
>and one particular individual took advantage of his superior
>understanding of the defective defamation law in the UK to send people
>threatening letters about their half of the insulting exchanges.
>On 6 or 7 occasions this ended up in court.
>
>I think the quoted insults are quite interesting.
>
>We start off with "Canadians are idiots" (non-defamatory, unless more
>recent race-hate legislation can be bent to the task?)
>and go on to "Individual A. is X" (defamatory, where X is a negative
>thing).
>
>So why on earth do you consider the "Canadians are idiots" quotes to
>be vandalism?

Arthur, will you please stay out of nz.general.
-- 

Brian Dooley

Wellington  New Zealand

On 21 Aug, 05:26, Arthur Brain <arthur_bra...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Theo_Deli...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> > The article has since been corrected and the vandalism removed.
>
> Why is it vandalism?

It was vandalism because you - or someone using the same IP address as
yourself - took a biographical stub at Wikipedia and added irrelevant
material and untruths in an attempt to damage Laurence Godfrey's
reputation.

> Those are quotes relevant to the issue of people defaming each other
> and suing each other on the internet.

Irrelevant.

> Unless some of those insults about germans/thais/canadians were
> forgeries - which I don't believe was the case. Or am I wrong?

Irrelevant, and you missed some better gems about Thai wenches.  As
another good friend of mine discovered, you might be able to take a
"bar girl" out of a bar, but no amount of money can take the bar out
of the girl.

> The way I unerstand it is people insult each other on the internet,
> and one particular individual took advantage of his superior
> understanding of the defective defamation law in the UK to send people
> threatening letters about their half of the insulting exchanges.

You are also mistaken about "the defective defamation law in the UK",
as much the ssme law applies in Australia and New Zealand.  If you
publish one or more defamatory statements about a named person, they
have the right to defend their reputation by seeking an apology, a
retraction and an account of damages from you.  They do not have to
prove anything other than, perhaps, that you were the person who
published the defamatory statement(s) and that the statement(s) have,
or could reasonably be said to have, the meaning that is the subject
of the complaint.

Various defences might be possible, some of which are a complete
defence whilst others only seek to reduce the level of damages
payable.  Some Australian states also have other quirks, such as only
being able to sue for libel in that state if one has a reputation in
that state that is worth defending, which may have been introduced to
reduce frivolous claims by former felons transported there as
punishment.  One or two Australian states may also have a statute
making it a criminal offence to defame foreign princes, etc and it
might have been interesting to consider if the celebrated "Brian and
Shirley" postings to soc.culture.thai might have contravened that
particular and, IMO. somewhat silly law.

> On 6 or 7 occasions this ended up in court.

Yes.  So what?

> I think the quoted insults are quite interesting.

As is the fact that you seem unable to understand the difference
between insults, which are classed as "common abuse" and libel.  It is
that difference that allowed a presenter on a UK television show to
refer to a named individual as a "conniving little shit"; had any
allegation been made that he had connived in a particular manner to
his advantage, that could have been construed as libel.

> So why on earth do you consider the "Canadians are idiots" quotes to
> be vandalism?

I just consider that to be irrelevant.

The potentially libellous vandalism was in some of the other material
you - or someone using the same IP address as yourself - added to the
stub article.  This included, but was not limited to, allegations made
against Laurence that had been falsely reported as having been part of
the judgement in the first case of Godfrey v. Demon Internet but
which, if anything, seemed to have been part of an attempted defence
to a claim of libel.  When Laurence reads the history of that article
- and I hope he does - it should not be too difficult to determine
from which case those remarks were taken.

--
 x
/|\

Theo_Delight@yahoo.co.uk wrote:

> The potentially libellous vandalism was in some of the other material
> you - or someone using the same IP address as yourself - added to the
> stub article.  This included, but was not limited to, allegations made
> against Laurence that had been falsely reported as having been part of
> the judgement in the first case of Godfrey v. Demon Internet

What a load of crapola. I bet you use an apple-mac.

The Wikipedia article was far too bland, excluding as it did the
colourful background to the sorry individual's industrious litigation.

I therefore added in a good bunch of interesting quotes.
[If I missed some good ones, why didn't you add them in?]

Insults against Canadians, Germans, Thais, and unidentified
individuals - "drooling retards" was a good one.
Doesn't like "retards" much, does he?

I also added a paragraph from Morland's judgment, which outlined the
defence, to provide balance with bum-licking brown-nose introductory
details.

On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 17:37:17 -0700, "Theo_Delight@yahoo.co.uk"
<Theo_Delight@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>On 20 Aug, 23:42, rich...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) wrote:
>> In article <5itk8lF3qug0...@mid.individual.net>,
>>
>> The Todal <deadmail...@beeb.net> wrote:
>> >But he isn't.  He's an intelligent, good-humoured, helpful person, who has
>> >offered much good advice on usenet. I've met him in person. I liked him.
>>
>> But he seems to be rather unwise.  I am sure there are thousands of
>> people like me who would otherwise never have heard of him but now
>> know him only as someone who sues people who disagree with him on
>> usenet.  His lawsuits and threats may have been completely justified,
>> but have they really had the effect he wanted?
>
>Except that most of the libels over which he sued were egregiously
>vile, sordid and wholly false allegations about his personal life; to
>protect his good name and his professional status, he really had
>little option other than to sue.  Had he not done so, the number of
>people who believed such lies would probably have been many times
>greater than just a few idiots who will believe almost anything
>including the idea that one can seek libel damages over a simple
>difference of opinion.

In the case that he sued Demon over, it's *obviously* fake.

The man's just an attention seeker.

On 20 Aug 2007 22:42:02 GMT, richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin)
wrote:

>In article <5itk8lF3qug0fU1@mid.individual.net>,
>The Todal <deadmailbox@beeb.net> wrote:
>>But he isn't.  He's an intelligent, good-humoured, helpful person, who has 
>>offered much good advice on usenet. I've met him in person. I liked him.
>
>But he seems to be rather unwise.  I am sure there are thousands of
>people like me who would otherwise never have heard of him but now
>know him only as someone who sues people who disagree with him on
>usenet.  His lawsuits and threats may have been completely justified,
>but have they really had the effect he wanted?

Probably.

On 21 Aug, 11:10, Arthur Brain <arthur_bra...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Theo_Deli...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> > The potentially libellous vandalism was in some of the other material
> > you - or someone using the same IP address as yourself - added to the
> > stub article.  This included, but was not limited to, allegations made
> > against Laurence that had been falsely reported as having been part of
> > the judgement in the first case of Godfrey v. Demon Internet
>
> What a load of crapola.

All anyone has to do is to visit the history page of that article to
see that my comments were both true and accurate.

> I bet you use an apple-mac.

Wrong again.  Care to quit now, while you're only a little behind?

> The Wikipedia article was far too bland, excluding as it did the
> colourful background to the sorry individual's industrious litigation.
>
> I therefore added in a good bunch of interesting quotes.

I thsnk you for having admitted your guilt in this matter.  It should
make it so much easier for Laurence to "sue your sorry ass" (as some
colonials are given to say).

> [If I missed some good ones, why didn't you add them in?]

As it is abundantly obvious that the description of "gentleman" hardly
applies to you, you may perhaps be forgiven for not understanding that
one does not wish to harm or hurt one's friends.

> Insults against Canadians, Germans, Thais, and unidentified
> individuals - "drooling retards" was a good one.
> Doesn't like "retards" much, does he?

He may or he may not.  Readers of your nonsense may soon begin to
dislike you and/or wonder if you might be a "retard".

> I also added a paragraph from Morland's judgment, which outlined the
> defence, to provide balance with bum-licking brown-nose introductory
> details.

No, you did not, as none of the words you falsely claimed as being in
that judgement actually appears in that judgement which is at
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/1999/244.html

You have admitted to being the vandal who altered the Wikipedia
article about Laurence Godfrey and you have now been shewn to have
written lies about him which, at best, are potentially libellous.

I really would suggest that you stop posting and let people think that
you _may_ be an imbecile and/or a hopeless liar, rather than continue
to post and, thereby, dispel any remaining doubt.

--
 x
/|\

Theo_Delight@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> On 21 Aug, 11:10, Arthur Brain <arthur_bra...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > Theo_Deli...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> > > The potentially libellous vandalism was in some of the other material
> > > you - or someone using the same IP address as yourself - added to the
> > > stub article.  This included, but was not limited to, allegations made
> > > against Laurence that had been falsely reported as having been part of
> > > the judgement in the first case of Godfrey v. Demon Internet
> >
> > What a load of crapola.
>
> All anyone has to do is to visit the history page of that article to
> see that my comments were both true and accurate.

Nope. You are still full of crap.
Why do *you* get to say what's "vandalism" and what's "irrelevant"?
I say all those quotes full of insults are relevant, interesting and
even sometimes amusing.

> > I bet you use an apple-mac.
>
> Wrong again.  Care to quit now, while you're only a little behind?

I bet you wish you had an apple-mac then. Did that Thai bar-girl dose
you up with Rohypnol and steal your Apple-mac?

> I thsnk you for having admitted your guilt in this matter.  It should
> make it so much easier for Laurence to "sue your sorry ass" (as some
> colonials are given to say).

Are they? What a horrid turn of phrase. What kind of people did you
have to rub shoulders with to pick that one up? Is this something to
do with those pox-ridden Thai bargirls again?

> As it is abundantly obvious that the description of "gentleman" hardly
> applies to you,

Why is it obvious?  Why would we believe you even know the difference,
considering your rubbing of shoulders with foul-mouthed illiterate
colonials?

> you may perhaps be forgiven for not understanding that
> one does not wish to harm or hurt one's friends.

Why would it hurt anybody? Are you saying comments denigratory of Thai
bargirls are something to be ashamed of?

I suppose even admitting that one hangs around with sluts might be
considered somewhat shameful...however most people would make
allowances for those who are exceptionally ugly.
Is that a defence you would consider?

> > Insults against Canadians, Germans, Thais, and unidentified
> > individuals - "drooling retards" was a good one.
> > Doesn't like "retards" much, does he?
>
> He may or he may not.

Sitting on the fence, huh?
A bit like that retard Neville Chamberlain who tried to help you lose
to the Nazis - shame you were left with such a depleted gene-pool
after having shipped off so much of your good human stock to the
colonies, eh?
Maybe you could ask Jade Goody for her opinion?

> Readers of your nonsense may soon begin to
> dislike you and/or wonder if you might be a "retard".

Readers of your nonsense on the other hand can avoid any such
uncertainty.

> No, you did not, as none of the words you falsely claimed as being in
> that judgement actually appears in that judgement which is at
> http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/1999/244.html

The link you posted concludes with:

"With regard to the Defendants' application to amend the Defence I
make no definitive ruling but indicate that it is likely to succeed."

"It may also be helpful to suggest that on the basis of the proposed
Amended Defence any award of damages to the Plaintiff is likely to be
very small."

And subsequently I gather Demon's defence was amended - unless these
guys are lying http://www.cyber-rights.org/reports/demon.htm
 and you just haven't got around to "suing their arses"(sorry, unlike
you I just can't bring myself to perpetrate atrocious misspellings,
even in quoting) yet to make them take their site off the internet.

On 21 Aug, 12:54, Arthur Brain <arthur_bra...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Theo_Deli...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> > On 21 Aug, 11:10, Arthur Brain <arthur_bra...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > Theo_Deli...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> > > > The potentially libellous vandalism was in some of the other material
> > > > you - or someone using the same IP address as yourself - added to the
> > > > stub article.  This included, but was not limited to, allegations made
> > > > against Laurence that had been falsely reported as having been part of
> > > > the judgement in the first case of Godfrey v. Demon Internet
>
> > > What a load of crapola.
>
> > All anyone has to do is to visit the history page of that article to
> > see that my comments were both true and accurate.
>
> Nope. You are still full of crap.
> Why do *you* get to say what's "vandalism" and what's "irrelevant"?
> I say all those quotes full of insults are relevant, interesting and
> even sometimes amusing.

Whether they were or were not, the lies you wrote were and remain
libellous vandalism.

For example, you wrote that he had been "chased off the Internet",
which is quite untrue;


>
> > > I bet you use an apple-mac.
>
> > Wrong again.  Care to quit now, while you're only a little behind?
>
> I bet you wish you had an apple-mac then. Did that Thai bar-girl dose
> you up with Rohypnol and steal your Apple-mac?
>
> > I thsnk you for having admitted your guilt in this matter.  It should
> > make it so much easier for Laurence to "sue your sorry ass" (as some
> > colonials are given to say).
>
> Are they? What a horrid turn of phrase. What kind of people did you
> have to rub shoulders with to pick that one up? Is this something to
> do with those pox-ridden Thai bargirls again?
>
> > As it is abundantly obvious that the description of "gentleman" hardly
> > applies to you,
>
> Why is it obvious?  Why would we believe you even know the difference,
> considering your rubbing of shoulders with foul-mouthed illiterate
> colonials?
>
> > you may perhaps be forgiven for not understanding that
> > one does not wish to harm or hurt one's friends.
>
> Why would it hurt anybody? Are you saying comments denigratory of Thai
> bargirls are something to be ashamed of?
>
> I suppose even admitting that one hangs around with sluts might be
> considered somewhat shameful...however most people would make
> allowances for those who are exceptionally ugly.
> Is that a defence you would consider?
>
> > > Insults against Canadians, Germans, Thais, and unidentified
> > > individuals - "drooling retards" was a good one.
> > > Doesn't like "retards" much, does he?
>
> > He may or he may not.
>
> Sitting on the fence, huh?
> A bit like that retard Neville Chamberlain who tried to help you lose
> to the Nazis - shame you were left with such a depleted gene-pool
> after having shipped off so much of your good human stock to the
> colonies, eh?
> Maybe you could ask Jade Goody for her opinion?
>
> > Readers of your nonsense may soon begin to
> > dislike you and/or wonder if you might be a "retard".
>
> Readers of your nonsense on the other hand can avoid any such
> uncertainty.
>
> > No, you did not, as none of the words you falsely claimed as being in
> > that judgement actually appears in that judgement which is at
> >http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/1999/244.html
>
> The link you posted concludes with:
>
> "With regard to the Defendants' application to amend the Defence I
> make no definitive ruling but indicate that it is likely to succeed."
>
> "It may also be helpful to suggest that on the basis of the proposed
> Amended Defence any award of damages to the Plaintiff is likely to be
> very small."
>
> And subsequently I gather Demon's defence was amended - unless these
> guys are lyinghttp://www.cyber-rights.org/reports/demon.htm
>  and you just haven't got around to "suing their arses"(sorry, unlike
> you I just can't bring myself to perpetrate atrocious misspellings,
> even in quoting) yet to make them take their site off the internet.

Yes, Demon did say that they would appeal the judgement and also that
they would vigourously contest the action, but they did neither.  They
did not appeal in time and, although they did amend their pleadings to
include allegations of provocation, that could only have been used in
reference to the forged article which they failed to remove in a
timely manner when notified of it.  The amended pleadings could not
have been applied to the second posting from a customer of Demon
Internet, which is reflected in the level of damages agreed in the
settlement: £5,000 for the first posting and £10,000 for the second,
plus the claimant's assessed costs.

On 21 Aug, 12:54, Arthur Brain <arthur_bra...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Theo_Deli...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> > On 21 Aug, 11:10, Arthur Brain <arthur_bra...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > Theo_Deli...@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
> > > > The potentially libellous vandalism was in some of the other material
> > > > you - or someone using the same IP address as yourself - added to the
> > > > stub article.  This included, but was not limited to, allegations made
> > > > against Laurence that had been falsely reported as having been part of
> > > > the judgement in the first case of Godfrey v. Demon Internet

> > > What a load of crapola.

> > All anyone has to do is to visit the history page of that article to
> > see that my comments were both true and accurate.

> Nope. You are still full of crap.
> Why do *you* get to say what's "vandalism" and what's "irrelevant"?
> I say all those quotes full of insults are relevant, interesting and
> even sometimes amusing.

Whether the quotes you dug up were or were not "relevant, interesting
and even sometimes amusing", the lies you wrote were and remain
libellous vandalism.

For example, you wrote that he had been "chased off the Internet",
which is quite untrue.  After settling the action, Laurence continued
to contribute to uk.legal and only ceased to do so from the same email
address when he emigrated.

It is believed he still contributes from time to time, but posting via
a newsserver in Germany.

> > > I bet you use an apple-mac.
> > Wrong again.  Care to quit now, while you're only a little behind?
> I bet you wish you had an apple-mac then. Did that Thai bar-girl dose
> you up with Rohypnol and steal your Apple-mac?

How very strange.  Do you really believe that, if you post such
deluded ramblings, I might retort in like manner?

> > As it is abundantly obvious that the description of "gentleman" hardly
> > applies to you,

> Why is it obvious?

It is obvious that the description of "gentleman" could never be
accurately applied to a colonial clod such as you appear to be.

> > you may perhaps be forgiven for not understanding that
> > one does not wish to harm or hurt one's friends.

> Why would it hurt anybody? Are you saying comments denigratory of Thai
> bargirls are something to be ashamed of?

It would be hurtful as those things were told me in confidence.

> > No, you did not, as none of the words you falsely claimed as being in
> > that judgement actually appears in that judgement which is at
> >http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/1999/244.html

> The link you posted concludes with:

> "With regard to the Defendants' application to amend the Defence I
> make no definitive ruling but indicate that it is likely to succeed."

> "It may also be helpful to suggest that on the basis of the proposed
> Amended Defence any award of damages to the Plaintiff is likely to be
> very small."

> And subsequently I gather Demon's defence was amended - unless these
> guys are lyinghttp://www.cyber-rights.org/reports/demon.htm
>  and you just haven't got around to "suing their arses"(sorry, unlike
> you I just can't bring myself to perpetrate atrocious misspellings,
> even in quoting) yet to make them take their site off the internet.

Yes, Demon did say that they would appeal the judgement and also that
they would vigourously contest the action, but they did neither.  They
did not appeal in time and, although they did amend their pleadings to
include allegations of provocation, that could only have been used in
reference to the forged article which they failed to remove in a
timely manner when notified of it.  The amended pleadings could not
have been applied to the second posting from a customer of Demon
Internet, which is reflected in the level of damages agreed in the
settlement: £5,000 for the first posting and £10,000 for the second,
plus the claimant's assessed costs of some £250,000.

Demon's costs were said to have been over twice as much.

Had they deleted the postings from their news servers when requested,
they would not have been responsible for the continued publication of
those defamatory statements and would not have been sued.

Suffice it to say that I know very much more about this case than you
do and rather more than is contained in either the judgement or the
analysis of that judgement.

--
 x
/|\