🚀 go-pugleaf

Although you have seen fit to remove text before and/or after these
allegations in an what I can only see as an attempt to take them out of
context and make them appear in a worse light, I shall endeavour to address
the question(s).

"�-�� tayl�rchuk ��|I" <taylorchuk@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:P%xt9.561140$v53.23591389@news3.calgary.shaw.ca...
> How much of this content addressed to one person is considered actionable.
>
> Libel
>
> Threats
>
> Vulgarity in violations to most ISPs aup (acceptable usage policies)
>
> "I've warned you before of the consequences. Please do take me seriously,
>  Peter D"

None of the above appears to be valid here. It's not illegal or against an
AUP to indicate possible legal action in a posting.

> ***
>
> "People like you are the ones that wind up wondering what happened just as
> their skull is splitting open from a baseball bat impact, or when you're
> trying to hold your guts in after a 6" blade has penetrated that flab, and
> introduced your intestines to the environment."

Again, none of the above appears to be valid here. An observation is
perfectly legal, and you must provide a copy of the AUP portion that you
feel is violated, if you object to it on that platform.

> ***
> "I've warned you before of the consequences. Please do take me seriously,
> Don,

This is the same as the first.

> ***
>
>
> "You come anywhere near me or mine you stalking self loving freak and
you'll
> get more than just a hawkin goober sent toward your tin can head...thats a
> guarantee."

Is there any real threat here? Due in part to what *may* be your deliberate
removal of possible surrounding text, it's impossible to ascertain exactly
what the recipient should expect. Perhaps being called a "doo-doo head" is
what the original poster is implying. In any case, it's up to the person
making the objection to prove the intent.

> ***
>
> "Rumour has it there will be a fire sale shortly somewhere in the 200
> block of *and. Word in the rumour mill has it someone is looking
> to fraudulently claim fire insurance....."

Far too vague to be conclusive, and based on this exact excerpt and this
excerpt alone, it's very dubious that a court of law would be able to make a
ruling.

> **
>
>
> "I strongly suggest for your own piece of mind and personal well being
> that you put down the stick.
>
> It would be most uncomfortable embedded in the wrong place.
>

Absolutely no indication of violated laws or AUP's.

> **
> Piss off, dink. You haven't the guts to stomp over there -
> guess your panties get all soiled when you dump a load
> facing those cretins. If you had any guts you'd either leave
> or face the music. You slink over here hoping the ass
> fuckings will stop.  Dream on, sissy.
>

Perhaps a violation of an AUP, if you can provide the portion of the AUP
from the supposed violator's ISP. As for legal issues, again, very little
chance that a court of law would find this actionable.

> **
> Or *WHAT*?!?! Your gonna hold your breath and count to a thousand?
> *FUCK YOU* and the stick-horse you rode in on!!
> So WHY the fuck are you posting about it, you fucking imbecile?!?
>

Back around to the AUP again. As is always the case, you must first provide
proof of the supposed violation. Certainly no actionable content here. Not
even close.