1997-10-06 - Re: Stronghold 1/2

Header Data

From: Jeff Barber <jeffb@issl.atl.hp.com>
To: dlv@bwalk.dm.com
Message Hash: db15d6423d5b83d8ff9211c7fd7b60f51fb2ca7be0d22c25d581461891e7f3d5
Message ID: <199710061516.LAA19565@jafar.issl.atl.hp.com>
Reply To: <6e32De9w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
UTC Datetime: 1997-10-06 14:33:43 UTC
Raw Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 22:33:43 +0800

Raw message

From: Jeff Barber <jeffb@issl.atl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 1997 22:33:43 +0800
To: dlv@bwalk.dm.com
Subject: Re: Stronghold 1/2
In-Reply-To: <6e32De9w165w@bwalk.dm.com>
Message-ID: <199710061516.LAA19565@jafar.issl.atl.hp.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Dr.Dimitri Vulis KOTM writes:

> "Moderation" is a misnomer. C2Net engaged in outright fraud by providing
> a list which C2Net claimed would contain the articles rejected by the
> C2Net moderator, then censoring articles from both the censored and the
> uncensored lists. At least one of my articles (not the one about Stronghold;
> the one quoting the threatening letter from C2net's lawyers) didn't make
> it even to the "unedited" list.

As has been pointed out before, "C2Net" never "provided a list" (at 
least not one relevant to this discussion).  Since it is clear you are
fully aware of that, this is sufficient to "prove" to most of us the
charge of "liar" against you (ignoring the several hundred other 
examples that might come to mind from the last couple of years).
I don't particularly care about this except that it reinforces why
your credibility is so low here.

> Jeff Barber <jeffb@issl.atl.hp.com> wrote:
   [quoting Dimitri:]
> >> Lucky is lying: the censored articles were also filtered from the list which
> >> was billed as being unfiltered.
> >
> >This is revisionist history.  I can't recall any intimation at the
> >time that any messages were filtered from the unfiltered list.
> If you can't recall, I'm quoting a bunch of stuff below. At least one of
> my articles, the one quoting the threatening letter from C2net's lawyers,
> didn't make it even to the "unedited" list.

Since obviously none of us who were on the -unedited list can say for 
sure whether we received everything sent to it, I can't say with 
certainty this never happened.  But....
This is the problem with being known as a liar.  Nobody is inclined to
believe what you say without substantitation.  So I still don't see any
reason to believe that anything was "censored" from the unedited list.

> C2Net's shill called me a liar about a dozen times, yet hasn't presented any
> evidence of me ever lying. On the other hand, C2net's claim that I'm a closet
> homosexual is an outright lie, typical of Sameer Parekh and his employees.

I don't recall ever seeing such a claim from Sameer or anyone else at
C2Net.  Though given your penchant for making such "accusations" 
yourself, one could understand the impulse for making such a claim.

The fact that *you* are constantly accusing people you don't
apparently know of engaging in various sexual acts or holding a certain
sexual orientation is evidence enough that you are unreliable.  It
seems to be your stance that you are free to fabricate anything the
truth of which cannot be utterly *disproven*.  This is consistent with
your allegations against C2Net's product as well as the allegations of 
sexual acts and preferences you habitually make.

Whether you like them or not, this is why libel laws and such exist.
If you accuse someone of having backdoors in their product, but cannot
or will not show any basis for the allegation, it's perfectly
understandable that they might threaten you legally.  And if you're
simply "throwing rocks" at Sameer with no substance behind your
allegations, the rest of us are unlikely to come to your "defense".
Also, here's a little hint (from a non-lawyer): truth is generally a
very good defense to a libel suit.  You may squirm and dance and claim
you don't want to deal with the hassle or expense of a suit, but we
all know precisely what that really means...

-- Jeff