Randi's lawsuit against Winston, need some answers

[WWu777]

Dear all,

I received emails from Randi and his lawyer that they plan to take legal action against me for posting something libelous on this forum on April 15. Yet I did no such thing. The last time I posted here I posted things about ghost orbs and DNA research.

Yet, neither Randi nor his lawyer have referenced the post they are talking about. They claim that this post made serious personal charges of Randi of a criminal nature. I did NO SUCH THING!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If such a post exists, I believe that either someone impersonated me, Randi misunderstood something, or that someone is playing a prank here. I have explained this to them, but they are not listening.

In fact, I recently received an email from JREF forum that my password was reset. I never requested such a thing. Could that be evidence that my account was tampered with?

Can anyone here show me the post they are referring to on April 15? I used the search engine here but couldn't find it. Or does anyone remember reading it?

Perhaps Randi has mixed me up with Michael Goodspeed's articles about him. Benneth made serious personal charges against Randi long ago, but I didn't. So why is he going after me? I did not write any official articles about him either.

Winston

[TLN]

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38701

Originally posted by WWu777
In his book Christian Science, ironically published by Prometheus, (publisher of skeptical books, Randi, Kurtz and information about sex between children and adults) and is also available on line, Twain states that as a method of metaphysical healing it appeared to have a lot of validity in creating a complacent and happy following, and that since most of our ills are mental, it could indeed cure the majority of the world's problems, and that at its growth rate in the early 1900's at the time would overtake Congress by the 1930's.

See you in court jackass.

[Undodog]

Originally posted by WWu777
Perhaps Randi has mixed me up with Michael Goodspeed's articles about him. Benneth made serious personal charges against Randi long ago, but I didn't. So why is he going after me? I did not write any official articles about him either.

Winston
'It wasnt me.. it was him!'
Wow. You're the best friend a guy could have, Winston.

*..and we see your truuuuue colours shinin' through..*

[MRC_Hans]

Guess what, Wu: You posted the text, so you are responsible, no matter who wrote it. What did you think? The original author may be held responsible too, but that won't help YOU one bit.

But don't worry, they will make it clear what they are suing you for. Just ask your lawyer to contact them for details. You don't have a lawyer? Well, it's time to get one, NOW!

Hans

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by WWu777
If such a post exists, I believe that either someone impersonated me, Randi misunderstood something, or that someone is playing a prank here. I have explained this to them, but they are not listening.

Sorry, Winston. You posted it. Didn't you?

Originally posted by WWu777
In fact, I recently received an email from JREF forum that my password was reset. I never requested such a thing. Could that be evidence that my account was tampered with?

Nope. You are not going to get away with such a lame excuse.

Originally posted by WWu777
Can anyone here show me the post they are referring to on April 15? I used the search engine here but couldn't find it. Or does anyone remember reading it?

Do you admit to posting the post in the thread TLN linked to, yes or no?

Originally posted by WWu777
Perhaps Randi has mixed me up with Michael Goodspeed's articles about him. Benneth made serious personal charges against Randi long ago, but I didn't. So why is he going after me? I did not write any official articles about him either.

What is this "official" manure? You posted it, didn't you?

Do you really think that posting someone's libel absolves you of responsibility?

See you in court, jackass. Get a lawyer. You will need a very good one. Better mortgage your trailer.

[TheBoyPaj]

Oh, that is priceless.

[Vitnir]

It was worth a click on the

This person is on your Ignore List. To view this post click [here]

[Oleron]

Now Winston is going to pay the price for his drive-by posts.

I'm sure Goodspeed will stand by you, Winston.
:dl:


As our colonial cousins would say:
'Bring the smackdown!'

[davidhorman]

In his book Christian Science, ironically published by Prometheus, (publisher of skeptical books, Randi, Kurtz and information about sex between children and adults)

Is "ironically" the word that Randi has a problem with?

David

[Brian the Snail]

Originally posted by davidhorman


Is "ironically" the word that Randi has a problem with?

David

Actually, the bit TLN quoted wasn't even the worst part. I think Randi is suing over a different section of Wu's post.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by WWu777
Dear all,

I received emails from Randi and his lawyer that they plan to take legal action against me for posting something libelous on this forum on April 15. Yet I did no such thing. The last time I posted here I posted things about ghost orbs and DNA research.

Yet, neither Randi nor his lawyer have referenced the post they are talking about. They claim that this post made serious personal charges of Randi of a criminal nature. I did NO SUCH THING!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If such a post exists, I believe that either someone impersonated me, Randi misunderstood something, or that someone is playing a prank here. I have explained this to them, but they are not listening.

In fact, I recently received an email from JREF forum that my password was reset. I never requested such a thing. Could that be evidence that my account was tampered with?

Can anyone here show me the post they are referring to on April 15? I used the search engine here but couldn't find it. Or does anyone remember reading it?

Perhaps Randi has mixed me up with Michael Goodspeed's articles about him. Benneth made serious personal charges against Randi long ago, but I didn't. So why is he going after me? I did not write any official articles about him either.

Winston

I am just quoting it because you can never know with such "persons".

I adore the moment that the scums realize that they will face a real court of Law.

[richardm]

Do I detect a whiff of panic in Winston's post? :D

[Filippo Lippi]

Expect an 'everything must go' sale at Russian Brides 'R' Us in order to raise some ready cash

[Peter Jenkins]

Winstons next thread:
"American <SPAN STYLE="text-decoration:line-through;">women</SPAN> restrictive laws prevent<SPAN STYLE="text-decoration:line-through;"> me from libelling whoever I like</SPAN> us freely expressing ourselves".
P

[Brian the Snail]

Originally posted by WWu777

In fact, I recently received an email from JREF forum that my password was reset. I never requested such a thing. Could that be evidence that my account was tampered with?


Could it have anything to do with the fact that you were suspended from the forum for copyright violation? I don't know what exactly happens when you're suspended (having never been stupid enough) but I suspect that it might involve resetting passwords.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by WWu777
Dear all,

I received emails from Randi and his lawyer that they plan to take legal action against me for posting something libelous on this forum on April 15. Yet I did no such thing. The last time I posted here I posted things about ghost orbs and DNA research.

Yet, neither Randi nor his lawyer have referenced the post they are talking about. They claim that this post made serious personal charges of Randi of a criminal nature. I did NO SUCH THING!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If such a post exists, I believe that either someone impersonated me, Randi misunderstood something, or that someone is playing a prank here. I have explained this to them, but they are not listening.

In fact, I recently received an email from JREF forum that my password was reset. I never requested such a thing. Could that be evidence that my account was tampered with?

Can anyone here show me the post they are referring to on April 15? I used the search engine here but couldn't find it. Or does anyone remember reading it?

Perhaps Randi has mixed me up with Michael Goodspeed's articles about him. Benneth made serious personal charges against Randi long ago, but I didn't. So why is he going after me? I did not write any official articles about him either.

Winston
Regarding the legal issue, it's a legal issue and I can't comment on it.

Regarding your password: YOUR ACCOUNT WAS NOT TAMPERED WITH. You were suspended for three days for posting copyrighted material despite a warning that doing so would result in suspension. Others said that you might not even realize you had been suspended, since you only drop in once a week to post. They were correct.

It's all here in this part of the Forum. You might try actually reading the threads you post to.

[Pyrrho]

For the record, although an Administrator can change a user's password, or can reset a user's password, they cannot view a user's password. Winston Wu posted here after April 15, meaning that nobody here changed his password in order to impersonate him.

In addition, even if an administrator types in a password manually, when the Forum software is used to email a password to a user, the software resets the password to a string of random numbers, also unavailable to the administrator.

[geni]

Eddietd because I apear to be rather behind on this issue.

[Zep]

Winston,

Seriously. If you look at your threads you posted here, you will see I warned you often that the people you were quoting were not your friends, and that you were simply acting as their mouthpiece. Well, here's what happens when you aren't careful about choosing your friends nor what you do for them. In the drug-trade, you would be known as a "mule" because a mule does all the hard work but it is also mindless and easily expendable. Do you understand now?

I was also going to suggest that you ask Victor Zammit, the noted self-professed law expert and champion of "New Scientists" everywhere, to offer you advice, especially since he seems to be some sort of "hero" of yours. But honestly, I'm too soft-hearted to do that. So here's my last bit free bit of advice for you: Don't talk to him, keep away from him, do not listen to what he says, get a REAL lawyer. You are in enough trouble without having Victor make it worse...unless you look forward to going to jail.

Other than that, I have no further comment on the situation or your predicament. So good luck, mate. It looks like you will need it.

Zep

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Brian the Snail


Could it have anything to do with the fact that you were suspended from the forum for copyright violation? I don't know what exactly happens when you're suspended (having never been stupid enough) but I suspect that it might involve resetting passwords.

I've been suspended a few times, and yes, passwords are reset.

[Cleopatra]

Zep I am sorry but I don't agree with your compassionate attitude.

I am up to here with every sort of scum ( astrologer-psychic -believer) that joins this forum and starts calling us names, posts libels and fiction about the families of the members etc.

Enough!

When he was posting his libels he thought he was smart now he will be asked to demonstrate how smart he really is.

[iain]

Winston,

Having read the original thread, all I can say is that I would say "good luck in court" because I think you'll need it; but I won't because you don't deserve it.

Spreading those sorts of claims about people is very serious - lives have been completely ruined for less. If you can't back them up with hard evidence, you deserve everything you get.

[hal bidlack]

<table cellspacing=1 cellpadding=4 bgcolor=#cc6666 border=0><tr><td bgcolor=#cc6666><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#ffffff size=1>posted by Hal:</font></td></tr><tr><td bgcolor=white><font face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=black size=2>
Note:
I have briefly returned to the forum as an observer only due to the need to observe matters that have a legal implication. I will not reply, respond, or in any way publically engage in any way with any member of this forum, and I do not accept PMs.

No one beyond the paid staff and the Board of Directors can speak on behalf of the James Randi Educational Foundation. The JREF will not, under any circumstances reply or make any statements in the forum about pending legal matters.

Additionally, I am directing the Admin, the deputy Admins, and the moderators not to discuss this matter formally on this or any other public forum. They may, of course, choose to discuss anything they wish to in their role as private members of the forum, but I direct that they identify clearly in each post that they are speaking for themselves, and in no way on behalf of the JREF.

Again, there will be absolutely no formal interaction here on the forum in any way from the legal entity known as the JREF and any defendants in any current or pending legal action.

</font></td></tr></table>

[Suezoled]

We love you Hal baby! Keep up the good work!

[Psiload]

In defense of Wu Wu here...

I doubt he realized, or understood what he was posting. I seriously doubt he even bothers to read through half of the cut-and-paste drivel that he spews. I realize that ignorance of the law is not a valid defense, but how about plain ol' ignorance?

If I were Wu Wu, that's the defense strategy I'd go with... pig ignorance. There certainly is a load of corroborating evidence to support that claim.

[Nigel]

For some reason, Winston seems surprised by the fact that when you punch somebody, they tend to punch back. Especially somebody of Mr. Randi's caliber.

I, for one, am very interested in seeing how this turns out. Anybody want some popcorn? Peanuts? Tacos? Cheez-its? We need something to snack on while watching the proceedings.

:dl:

[Suezoled]

Hey Nigel, please pass the popcorn.

Hm... is Winston's situation what is known as "karmic retribution"?

[Zep]

Thank you, Mr Bidlack! Up front and fair is always a good thing.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Psiload
In defense of Wu Wu here...

I doubt he realized, or understood what he was posting. I seriously doubt he even bothers to read through half of the cut-and-paste drivel that he spews. I said as much to him each time he started another of his pointless threads. Oh well. You can lead a horse to water...


[edit to add...] Whoops! I'm commenting when I said I wouldn't. {raps self over knuckles}

[RamblingOnwards]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Do you really think that posting someone's libel absolves you of responsibility?

See you in court, jackass. Get a lawyer.

I'm confused about when posting someone else's libel does become actionable. Say I post:

A) My hero said *libellous comment*, and I thought you should all know the TRUTH!
B) A reliable stranger said *libellous comment*.
C) An unreliable stranger said *libellous comment*, and I curious to know whether there was any truth in it.
D) My enemey said *libellous comment*, the evil, lying bastard!

Which of the above could I potentially be sued for?

I suspect it has something to do with whether the libel in question is presented as fact or as rumour, but could anyone give a definitive answer?

[CFLarsen]

Hal,

Yep, keep it up. Don't even think of going soft on these....people. And I'm being nice here. Slam dunk.

Pyrrho,

Technically, you should use "Pyrrho" when you speak as a mod/admin/deputy dawg, and "Ohrryp" when you are not. It might get confusing otherwise. Or, create "PyrrhoHeadHoncho" or something...

Btw, what is a "Deputy Admin"? An ad hoc admin?

Originally posted by Psiload
I doubt he realized, or understood what he was posting. I seriously doubt he even bothers to read through half of the cut-and-paste drivel that he spews. I realize that ignorance of the law is not a valid defense, but how about plain ol' ignorance?

There is absolutely that possibility - that Winston is simply too stupid, naive and gullible not to understand what he is doing. All the more reason to drag his sorry ass into court. Perhaps then he will understand what he has done.

People like Winston hides behind the Internet. He could never have made such a "name" for himself without it. It's time that he is brought back to reality, and since reason clearly means nothing to Winston, perhaps he will get it before a judge.

Even if he doesn't, it will be a clear message to those trying the same.

Zep,

Beer's on me. Danish, the best. ;)

[Pyrrho]

As Hal indicated, I am an unpaid volunteer. Any opinion I express on this Forum, either publicly or privately, is my own opinion, and should not be construed as an official opinion of the James Randi Educational Foundation. I do not speak for James Randi or for his organization.

[Suezoled]

Have some popcorn Pyrrho. And you can sit in the Comfy Chair.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Beer's on me. Danish, the best. ;)
And for those silly ones who speculated that Claus and I are the same person, our first public feud!

No freakin' way, Claus. The U.S. microbrew market is putting out some of the best brews on the planet, dude. I am currently in mourning because one of the greatest seasonals (Paper City Brewing Company's Wee Heavy Winter Palace) went out of production a few months ago. I bought up and drank all the remaining bottles I could find. Now I have to wait for winter again.

Winter Palace is great on those cold winter days when you're out in the woodshed splitting another half-cord of wood.

But, fortunately, it is now the season for Black Cherries (half Sam Adams Double Bock; half Sam Adams Cherry Wheat). I drink that while chain-sawing the trees during the spring.

[NoZed Avenger]

Mr. Wu:

I think -- as someone unconnected to the JREF -- that you would do better by contacting the JREF or its attorney directly. I am not offering legal advice in any way, just making a practical suggestion. You won't be getting answers on the forum, or at least not as quickly and directly as from the JREF directly.

I also think that they will be looking closely at your usenet posting history, where similar remarks were published by you several years ago. While those earlier comments were probably too far removed in time to be actionable in themselves, the threads show fairly convincingly that you were shown that the rumors alluded to had serious questions, and in fact had no real basis in fact.

I am of course oinly going by memory here, so may have misremembered the exchanges.

I would echo the posters who indicate that you may want to discuss the communication that you received with a -qualified- attorney who practices law in your state and/or Florida.

Again, I am making the above statements merely as an observer; I am not acting or speaking on behalf of the JREF and I am specifically -not- offering any legal advice on how you should behave, what you should do, or what you should say.

N/A

[richardm]

Originally posted by RamblingOnwards


I'm confused about when posting someone else's libel does become actionable. Say I post:

A) My hero said *libellous comment*, and I thought you should all know the TRUTH!
B) A reliable stranger said *libellous comment*.
C) An unreliable stranger said *libellous comment*, and I curious to know whether there was any truth in it.
D) My enemey said *libellous comment*, the evil, lying bastard!

Which of the above could I potentially be sued for?

I suspect it has something to do with whether the libel in question is presented as fact or as rumour, but could anyone give a definitive answer?

Repeating a libel leaves you liable to be sued for libel. And that was fun to type. This is why newspapers are careful to add the word "Allegedly" when reporting cases like this. Winston presented the statements as fact, so he'll be up before the beak.

Obviously, if you're on the side of the person being libelled, they are likely to not sue you for repeating the libel, but might ask you to STFU.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

(snipped)

But, fortunately, it is now the season for Black Cherries (half Sam Adams Double Bock; half Sam Adams Cherry Wheat). I drink that while chain-sawing the trees during the spring.

I've never had Danish beer, but I do like Sam Adams. mmm.. cherry...

[kookbreaker]

Originally posted by RamblingOnwards

A) My hero said *libellous comment*, and I thought you should all know the TRUTH!
B) A reliable stranger said *libellous comment*.
C) An unreliable stranger said *libellous comment*, and I curious to know whether there was any truth in it.
D) My enemey said *libellous comment*, the evil, lying bastard!

Which of the above could I potentially be sued for?


Probably none (except maybe 'A'). But Winston is not ignorant of these matters. He has had it explained to him on several occasions. He should know better by this point. Even if he himself is 'undecided' about the truth behind them, he should have more sense than to repeat the allegations.

Also, pretending to 'innocently repeat' the libel (i.e. superficially resembling 'B' or 'C') in order to stir up the pot and resurface the allegations is likely to result in a lawsuit as well. One guy tried that on USENET. He was outed on his second attempt.

[Zep]

Oh ho! Tasmania enters the fray!

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/20/1082395832514.html
A specialty beer brewed in Tasmania has snared the coveted title of the world's best amber lager.

Cascade Autumn Amber, a seasonal drop produced at a historic brewery in Hobart owned by Carlton and United Breweries, received the accolade at the World Beer Cup 2004, held in San Diego, California, at the weekend.

Much more than froth and bubble, the event attracted some 1,500 entries from more than 390 breweries across 40 countries.THAT'S MY BEER! :D

[Tricky]

It is good to see that there is a limit to how much James Randi will put up with when having his name dragged through the mud. With luck, this will keep other Wu-like creduloids from pushing the envelope on libel.

But I really would like to see Randi go for bigger fish. Can Winston's posting here be used to show that Goodspeed, Benneth and Zammit have indeed influenced weak, impressionable young minds to hate Randi? What better case could be made for libel than to show that the libel has been repeated by others?

Obviously, JREF employees cannot comment. How about you legal types out there? Can Randi punish the sources of these malicious lies? I mean, we have Winston's own words here admitting that he is just repeating what they said.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Zep
Oh ho! Tasmania enters the fray!

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/04/20/1082395832514.html
THAT'S MY BEER! :D

World Beer Cup? You losers! The U.S. has the World Beer Pint. Cup? Hah!

Texas has the World Beer Half-Yard, an even bigger competition. Of course, everything's bigger in Texas.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
And for those silly ones who speculated that Claus and I are the same person, our first public feud!

No freakin' way, Claus. The U.S. microbrew market is putting out some of the best brews on the planet, dude. I am currently in mourning because one of the greatest seasonals (Paper City Brewing Company's Wee Heavy Winter Palace) went out of production a few months ago. I bought up and drank all the remaining bottles I could find. Now I have to wait for winter again.

Winter Palace is great on those cold winter days when you're out in the woodshed splitting another half-cord of wood.

But, fortunately, it is now the season for Black Cherries (half Sam Adams Double Bock; half Sam Adams Cherry Wheat). I drink that while chain-sawing the trees during the spring.

All the more real beer for the rest of us. You philistine!

....beer with cherry flavor....ye gods....

Originally posted by Suezoled
I've never had Danish beer, but I do like Sam Adams. mmm.. cherry...

Philistinesse...

[Undodog]

Pah!
Real beer is filtered through fish-bits and isnt fizzy.
What you lot are handbagging about is Lager - the ladies choice.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Tricky
It is good to see that there is a limit to how much James Randi will put up with when having his name dragged through the mud. With luck, this will keep other Wu-like creduloids from pushing the envelope on libel.

But I really would like to see Randi go for bigger fish. Can Winston's posting here be used to show that Goodspeed, Benneth and Zammit have indeed influenced weak, impressionable young minds to hate Randi? What better case could be made for libel than to show that the libel has been repeated by others?

Obviously, JREF employees cannot comment. How about you legal types out there? Can Randi punish the sources of these malicious lies? I mean, we have Winston's own words here admitting that he is just repeating what they said.

Tricky:

I would not assume automatically that Winston is the only person to have received such a communication.

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by kookbreaker
Also, pretending to 'innocently repeat' the libel (i.e. superficially resembling 'B' or 'C') in order to stir up the pot and resurface the allegations is likely to result in a lawsuit as well. One guy tried that on USENET. He was outed on his second attempt.

. . . um. Wasn't Winston that guy, in fact?

[hal bidlack]

please do not hijack this thread. please move the beer and other discussions to a new thread. thanks.

[Thanz]

I looked at the thread, and it is very easy to spot the passage that would cause the legal action. I won't repeat it here, but it makes a very serious accusation against Randi personally.

Here is my question: Why the hell is the post still there? Why has the offending passage not been removed by a moderator or admin?

I am all for free speech, but this is a privately owned forum. If someone posts what you consider to be actionable libel on your own website, and you have every power to remove the libel but choose not to, I think that makes you a moron. Have you ever heard of the idea of mitigating your damages? First step - remove the libel.

Am I the only one who thinks it is sheer idiocy to have this text remain on Randi's website?

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Suezoled
Hey Nigel, please pass the popcorn.


Sorry Suez, I was away from this forum for a bit. Happy to oblige, and pleased you took it upon yourself to offer the popcorn to anyone who wants it. :)

As far as Wu, I take my old deceased father's advice: "It's better not to get yourself into that situation to begin with."

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Thanz
Here is my question: Why the hell is the post still there? Why has the offending passage not been removed by a moderator or admin?
I'm guessing it's for reasons of evidence. Perhaps Randi wants to show that he is indeed offering an open forum here with limited censorship, and that Wu has abused that freedom. Although I admit that a few screen captures could provide a lot of evidence without having to leave the post up. But I can also see that continuing to publicly show how he has been attacked makes Randi look quite tolerant of abuse.
***
edited to ask:

Can Hal or anyone else, without commenting, tell us where we can go to get the specifics of the case?

[Mr Manifesto]

Goodness gracious me. No amount of smilicons can describe how much I'm laughing right now.

Prognostication: probably won't amount to anything in the end, but it is nice to see WWu eat a healthy helping of Crow a la King for the time being.

[Tacita]

Wow... I remember arguing with Winston back on AOL nearly 10 years ago. I gave up long ago (on both him and AOL).

It's really interesting to watch his rise and now his fall...

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Tricky

I'm guessing it's for reasons of evidence. Perhaps Randi wants to show that he is indeed offering an open forum here with limited censorship, and that Wu has abused that freedom. Although I admit that a few screen captures could provide a lot of evidence without having to leave the post up. But I can also see that continuing to publicly show how he has been attacked makes Randi look quite tolerant of abuse.
***
edited to ask:

Can Hal or anyone else, without commenting, tell us where we can go to get the specifics of the case?

I think you are right about "evidence," but I doubt it has anything to do with freedom or abuse and everything to do with ensuring there are no questions about the electronic chain of evidence.

Look at Wu's posts here for a clue about what counter claims may be heard in court and think about what more might be claimed if someone at JREF does anything to those database records. They have to be careful here and ensure a bullet-proof audit trail exists. If no such thing can be ensured by the application security layers, JREF would be ill-adised to touch it unless they have a bullet-proof back-up.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Tacita
Wow... I remember arguing with Winston back on AOL nearly 10 years ago. I gave up long ago (on both him and AOL).

It's really interesting to watch his rise ...

I would like to hear more about this... :confused:

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Tricky

I'm guessing it's for reasons of evidence. Perhaps Randi wants to show that he is indeed offering an open forum here with limited censorship, and that Wu has abused that freedom. Although I admit that a few screen captures could provide a lot of evidence without having to leave the post up. But I can also see that continuing to publicly show how he has been attacked makes Randi look quite tolerant of abuse.

The moderators can move the thread to an area that cannot be accessed by the public and preserve the integrity of the thread.

Randi saw and complained about the libel 14 hours after it was posted, but didn't do anything to remove it. I don't know how many views it had at the time, but the thread now has over 1800 a week later. If you really think that statements are libellous and causing you damage (and they have to be causing you damage to win a lawsuit) why do you not take the unique opportunity that you have as owner of the forum to remove the libel? What does that say about just how serious he actually sees the damage as?

To me, by not removing the libel, Randi is acting like a bit of a martyr for the cause - "just look at the type of crap I must up with from the lunatic fringe". The fact is, he could have shut it down 14 hours after it was first posted (with most of that time overnight in the US). But that would not have made for much of a lawsuit, would it?

Let me clear about one thing - what Randi has been accused of is just about the worst thing you can accuse someone of. I in no way advocate what Winston did, nor do I attempt to excuse it in any way. I am simply questioning the response, and non-response, of Randi.

[Virgil]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
[
Pyrrho,

Technically, you should use "Pyrrho" when you speak as a mod/admin/deputy dawg, and "Ohrryp" when you are not. It might get confusing otherwise. Or, create "PyrrhoHeadHoncho" or something...








I agree with CFLarsen on this issue.

Virgil "the Tiger"

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Thanz
The moderators can move the thread to an area that cannot be accessed by the public and preserve the integrity of the thread.

Randi saw and complained about the libel 14 hours after it was posted, but didn't do anything to remove it. I don't know how many views it had at the time, but the thread now has over 1800 a week later. If you really think that statements are libellous and causing you damage (and they have to be causing you damage to win a lawsuit) why do you not take the unique opportunity that you have as owner of the forum to remove the libel? What does that say about just how serious he actually sees the damage as?

To me, by not removing the libel, Randi is acting like a bit of a martyr for the cause - "just look at the type of crap I must up with from the lunatic fringe". The fact is, he could have shut it down 14 hours after it was first posted (with most of that time overnight in the US). But that would not have made for much of a lawsuit, would it?

Let me clear about one thing - what Randi has been accused of is just about the worst thing you can accuse someone of. I in no way advocate what Winston did, nor do I attempt to excuse it in any way. I am simply questioning the response, and non-response, of Randi.

I think you are wrong. The second the thread/post is even touched, any defense lawyer worth his salt would scream "TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE".

And you know what? He'd be right! The thread/post has to stay intact. Randi has clearly stated that he will take action on this. Let's wait and see what happens.

[sweetkb713]

Originally posted by Nigel
very interested in seeing how this turns out. Anybody want some popcorn? Peanuts? Tacos? Cheez-its? We need something to snack on while watching the proceedings.

:dl: [/B]

I'll take some popcorn. Got any BBQ potato chips?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Thanz

The moderators can move the thread to an area that cannot be accessed by the public and preserve the integrity of the thread.

If that move cannot be distinguished from any form of tampering then it cannot survive the Daubert challenge and would be destroyed in court. It comes down to a matter of the existence of an undeniable and auditable digital chain of custody. Most software systems cannot ensure this, and digital forensics would not be able to distinguish tampering from mere movement. I'd wager this is one of the things counsel is looking into right now. I'd wager JREF is simply erring on the side of caution.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


I think you are wrong. The second the thread/post is even touched, any defense lawyer worth his salt would scream "TAMPERING WITH EVIDENCE".

And you know what? He'd be right! The thread/post has to stay intact. Randi has clearly stated that he will take action on this. Let's wait and see what happens.
He can scream it all he likes. He would NOT be right. Moving the thread to an area inaccessible to the public would not alter the content of the post, and the people moving it would testify to that fact.

On the other hand, any defense lawyer worth his salt will ask Randi why the post was not moved, if it was causing so much damage to him. You have a duty to limit your damages if possible. If you are wrongfully fired, you have a duty to seek another job, for example. Here, he can limit the damages by limiting the exposure the statement gets. Why has he not done so?

As it stands right now, he is actually publishing the libel against himself. Randi, the individual, could sue the JREF, the entity, for continuing to publish this libel. It is like the publisher of a newspaper suing the author of a letter to the editor it published for libel.

[Nigel]

Originally posted by sweetkb713


I'll take some popcorn. Got any BBQ potato chips?
We can get some. Heck, in the virtual world, anything you want is available! ;)

Back to the topic: I think Larson has an excellent point there. It seems best to leave things the way they are and let the legal system work. Wu has made his bed (so to speak), and no one can deny he's been warned (officially and otherwise) more times than should be necessary, so he has no choice but to face the consequences of his actions.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Thanz

He can scream it all he likes. He would NOT be right. Moving the thread to an area inaccessible to the public would not alter the content of the post, and the people moving it would testify to that fact.

On the other hand, any defense lawyer worth his salt will ask Randi why the post was not moved, if it was causing so much damage to him. You have a duty to limit your damages if possible. If you are wrongfully fired, you have a duty to seek another job, for example. Here, he can limit the damages by limiting the exposure the statement gets. Why has he not done so?

As it stands right now, he is actually publishing the libel against himself. Randi, the individual, could sue the JREF, the entity, for continuing to publish this libel. It is like the publisher of a newspaper suing the author of a letter to the editor it published for libel.

Thanz,

You can't be serious. You are weighing damages estimation against the only evidence available. The whole case rests on JREF's abilty to incontrovertibly prove that Wu posted what Wu posted. You're worried about the state of the frosting over the possibility that the cake might get removed.

Nothing should be touched until the digital forensics are a certainty. What is done, how and by whom would all become elements in a Daubert-style challenge.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Thanz

He can scream it all he likes. He would NOT be right. Moving the thread to an area inaccessible to the public would not alter the content of the post, and the people moving it would testify to that fact.

On the other hand, any defense lawyer worth his salt will ask Randi why the post was not moved, if it was causing so much damage to him. You have a duty to limit your damages if possible. If you are wrongfully fired, you have a duty to seek another job, for example. Here, he can limit the damages by limiting the exposure the statement gets. Why has he not done so?

As it stands right now, he is actually publishing the libel against himself. Randi, the individual, could sue the JREF, the entity, for continuing to publish this libel. It is like the publisher of a newspaper suing the author of a letter to the editor it published for libel.

Do you not think, if it was that important, that the lawyer who has been engaged to act on Randi's behalf might have recommended such a course of action to his client?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


If that move cannot be distinguished from any form of tampering then it cannot survive the Daubert challenge and would be destroyed in court. It comes down to a matter of the existence of an undeniable and auditable digital chain of custody. Most software systems cannot ensure this, and digital forensics would not be able to distinguish tampering from mere movement. I'd wager this is one of the things counsel is looking into right now. I'd wager JREF is simply erring on the side of caution.
I'm not that familiar with US caselaw so I did a google on "Daubert challenge" and I can't see how it would apply. Daubert deals with the admissability of expert testimony, not chain of custody. Are you thinking of something else?

Further, the JREF (as an entity) is not erring on the side of caution by continuing to publish a potentially libellous statement made against an individual whom they know considers it to be libellous. It would be more prudent for the JREF to take it down. While this may sound silly considering the parties involved, we must remember that Randi is not the JREF.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet


Do you not think, if it was that important, that the lawyer who has been engaged to act on Randi's behalf might have recommended such a course of action to his client?
I would have thought so. Hence my confusion.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Thanz
He can scream it all he likes. He would NOT be right. Moving the thread to an area inaccessible to the public would not alter the content of the post, and the people moving it would testify to that fact.

You don't get it. The second an electronic record is touched, it is changed. The content may still be intact, but how the heck are we supposed to know? We can't see it, and neither can the defense or the judge.

Originally posted by Thanz
On the other hand, any defense lawyer worth his salt will ask Randi why the post was not moved, if it was causing so much damage to him. You have a duty to limit your damages if possible. If you are wrongfully fired, you have a duty to seek another job, for example. Here, he can limit the damages by limiting the exposure the statement gets. Why has he not done so?

Because it would serve no purpose. I have saved the thread, and I believe others have done the same. Wu has posted what he has posted, and it does not disappear just because the thread is moved out of sight.

Much better to keep it in full daylight, so nobody can tamper with it, and Wu's statements are for all to see.

Originally posted by Thanz
As it stands right now, he is actually publishing the libel against himself. Randi, the individual, could sue the JREF, the entity, for continuing to publish this libel. It is like the publisher of a newspaper suing the author of a letter to the editor it published for libel.

Absolutely not. The publisher would have the opportunity to read the letter before it was published, thereby avoiding libel altogether.

In this case, Wu posted it without Randi's knowledge or consent. Your analogy is simply plain wrong.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Thanz

I'm not that familiar with US caselaw so I did a google on "Daubert challenge" and I can't see how it would apply. Daubert deals with the admissability of expert testimony, not chain of custody. Are you thinking of something else?

Further, the JREF (as an entity) is not erring on the side of caution by continuing to publish a potentially libellous statement made against an individual whom they know considers it to be libellous. It would be more prudent for the JREF to take it down. While this may sound silly considering the parties involved, we must remember that Randi is not the JREF.

Daubert deals with competency of classes of evidence. Here (www.danjryan.com/Legal%20Issues.doc) it is discussed in the context of digital forensics. The issues of who did the move, how, and what automated audit trails are available in both the vBulletin software and the underlying database engine would all be involved in determining the competency of a moved thread as evidence.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Because it would serve no purpose. I have saved the thread, and I believe others have done the same. Wu has posted what he has posted, and it does not disappear just because the thread is moved out of sight.

Much better to keep it in full daylight, so nobody can tamper with it, and Wu's statements are for all to see.

It is clear that you don't get it. The whole problem with the statement is that it is "there for all to see". That is the essence of libel.

Think about it this way: Let's say that the statement was not here on the JREF boards but instead at some other board or website controlled by Winston. What do you think the first thing that Randi or his lawyer would do? They would demand that the libellous statement be removed. First things first - stop the libel. A judge is going to wonder why Randi, the individual, does not make the same demand of the JREF that he would make if the lebel were published somewhere else.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Thanz

It is clear that you don't get it. The whole problem with the statement is that it is "there for all to see". That is the essence of libel.

Think about it this way: Let's say that the statement was not here on the JREF boards but instead at some other board or website controlled by Winston. What do you think the first thing that Randi or his lawyer would do? They would demand that the libellous statement be removed. First things first - stop the libel. A judge is going to wonder why Randi, the individual, does not make the same demand of the JREF that he would make if the lebel were published somewhere else.

The cake, Thanz. Not the frosting. Meanwhile, Daubert has stolen the cake and the case is thrown out of court. Do you understand that the cake is more important than the frosting? Do you understand that there is not necessarily anything that ensures the data were not tampered with?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Thanz
It is clear that you don't get it. The whole problem with the statement is that it is "there for all to see". That is the essence of libel.

The damage has been done, Thanz. Why do you simply ignore what I post? You simply say that I am wrong, you don't explain why.

I, OTOH, explain why I think you are wrong. But you don't respond to it.

Originally posted by Thanz
Think about it this way: Let's say that the statement was not here on the JREF boards but instead at some other board or website controlled by Winston. What do you think the first thing that Randi or his lawyer would do? They would demand that the libellous statement be removed. First things first - stop the libel. A judge is going to wonder why Randi, the individual, does not make the same demand of the JREF that he would make if the lebel were published somewhere else.

I cannot know what Randi or his lawyer would have done. Your example is purely hypothetical and speculative.

Do you agree that your analogy was wrong?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Daubert deals with competency of classes of evidence. Here (www.danjryan.com/Legal%20Issues.doc) it is discussed in the context of digital forensics. The issues of who did the move, how, and what automated audit trails are available in both the vBulletin software and the underlying database engine would all be involved in determining the competency of a moved thread as evidence.
First, thanks for cleaning up the link. Interesting, but I think it deals with something other than what we are talking about here. Daubert is still about the admissability of expert evidence. Here, we just need evidence of publication, which can be readily available. I do not think you need to go to the lengths that you are proposing to prove the statement was made.

I think that we just disagree on what level of evidence would be required to prove the libel.

[Clancie]

I think it should be removed from view, too. How can it be "strengthening" the legal case to leave it up as if it doesn't really matter?

Some of the things said by Benneth in what Wu posted are pretty bad. If I were Randi, seeing that it's had 1800 views (and with publicity of a law suit likely to get more), I would not want people forming an opinion that there might be something to it.

Why continue to provide someone with a means to spread an ugly rumor about yourself when you know it's false? I doubt that legally one benefits in any way from choosing to continue to display something libelous about himself when he has the ability to move it to an unviewable forum.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


The cake, Thanz. Not the frosting. Meanwhile, Daubert has stolen the cake and the case is thrown out of court. Do you understand that the cake is more important than the frosting? Do you understand that there is not necessarily anything that ensures the data were not tampered with?
Damages are not just the frosting - they are part of the cake. You have no case without damages. And if I was the lawyer for Winston, I would point out that if the statement is damaging, then it should have been removed from the start, when it was discovered. I would draw the inference from Randi's inaction on this front that he did not consider the statement to truly be damaging. Why else would it be there for a week so that more people could see it?

[NoZed Avenger]

All anyone has at this point is speculation about an email that no one has seen, assuming it exists.

The speculation is not helping, and 99% of it is likely to be wrong as facts develop -- if facts develop.

[Chanileslie]

Originally posted by Suezoled
Have some popcorn Pyrrho. And you can sit in the Comfy Chair.

Oh gawd no!! You will be bringing out the fluffy pillows next...and, and, and, horror of all horrors, a nice cuppa tea!!!!! EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
[runs away in horror]
:D

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
All anyone has at this point is speculation about an email that no one has seen, assuming it exists.

The speculation is not helping, and 99% of it is likely to be wrong as facts develop -- if facts develop.

Indeed. Let's see what happens. I am sure we will be informed.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


The damage has been done, Thanz. Why do you simply ignore what I post? You simply say that I am wrong, you don't explain why.
The damage has not "been done". Rather, it is ongoing. It is compounded with every page view. Which is more damaging - 100 people seeing the statement or 2000 people?

I cannot know what Randi or his lawyer would have done. Your example is purely hypothetical and speculative.
My example is simple logic. Someone is publishing something awful and untrue about you. Do you ask them to stop publishing it or not?

Do you agree that your analogy was wrong? I'll agree that the analogy was not good, but that in no way invalidates my point. Randi had the option of stopping the publication of the libel 14 hours after it occured. Yet, more than a week later, it remains.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
All anyone has at this point is speculation about an email that no one has seen, assuming it exists.

The speculation is not helping, and 99% of it is likely to be wrong as facts develop -- if facts develop.
Okay, now I am confused. What email are you talking about? I thought that the lawsuit was about a posting in the thread that TLN linked to.

[hal bidlack]

Please know that the JREF is following the advise of legal experts and will continue to do so. A bell can not be unrung. Please feel totally free to discuss in any manner you wish, but know that we are being very careful, very exacting in our actions. additionally, not everything we do is seen publically.

[Chanileslie]

After reading the referred to post, all I have to say is: Go get 'em, Randi!!

My gosh, what a mindless twit Wu is to think he could post that crap and go unscathed!!

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Thanz
The damage has not "been done". Rather, it is ongoing. It is compounded with every page view. Which is more damaging - 100 people seeing the statement or 2000 people?

It already has a wide audience (see below).

Originally posted by Thanz
My example is simple logic. Someone is publishing something awful and untrue about you. Do you ask them to stop publishing it or not?

If you want to know what Randi would have done, you will have to ask him. Until then, your example is purely hypothetical and speculative.

Originally posted by Thanz
I'll agree that the analogy was not good, but that in no way invalidates my point. Randi had the option of stopping the publication of the libel 14 hours after it occured. Yet, more than a week later, it remains.

Of course it invalidates your point! The newspaper editor had a choice, Randi did not. And choice is key to your point.

Let's just see what happens. You can speculate all you like, and argue from invalid analogies. It does not serve any purpose.

However, as background information:

Libel and slander, Legal Terms And Concepts

libel and slander, in law, types of defamation. In common law, written defamation was libel and spoken defamation was slander. Today, however, there are no such clear definitions. Permanent forms of defamation, such as the written or pictorial, are usually called libel, while the spoken or gestured forms are called slander.

...

It is no defense that the defendant merely repeated but did not originate the defamation.
Source (http://reference.allrefer.com/encyclopedia/L/libel.html)
(Emphasis mine)

Wu, you're going up the river.

[Reginald]

Passing observations.

I think that someone has just gone from green to brown alert.

I think (as has been pointed out just a while ago) that the "best course of action" type debates are somewhat academic. If the post is still there, it's there for sound legal reasons. If leaving it there in any way compromised the case, it would be removed.

This is not a legal opinion it just seems common sense.

I am hoping that this does not stop at Wu. I hope that it gets pursued up the line, it seems that what has been posted has been posted elsewhere too, not just by this person but by others (please correct me if this is in error). If its up on the net and contains similar content and similar "problematic" themes then it should be stamped on and those making these assertions made to justify them or pay for the mistake in making them up.

Too often, to compensate for their lack of real argument, the "believing" community resort to this type of tactic. Time for something to happen methinks.

[Cleon]

Originally posted by hal bidlack
Please know that the JREF is following the advise of legal experts and will continue to do so. A bell can not be unrung. Please feel totally free to discuss in any manner you wish, but know that we are being very careful, very exacting in our actions. additionally, not everything we do is seen publically.

To which I can only say: Go get 'em.

Winston, your posting habits have been incredibly irresponsible.

Your repeated splurge of posting copyrighted articles has earned you warnings and suspension, but you decided not to listen.

Then you post an article which--and yes, I read it--contains material that can only be considered libelous, and when Randi's lawyers come after you you try to blame someone else. Grow the #$%^ up.

Enjoy the legal proceedings, Winston. You've earned them.

[Virgil]

Originally posted by Reginald
Passing observations.

I think that someone has just gone from green to brown alert.




I love it...

Virgil

[TheBoyPaj]

We would go to blue alert, but that means changing the light bulb.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
All anyone has at this point is speculation about an email that no one has seen, assuming it exists.

The speculation is not helping, and 99% of it is likely to be wrong as facts develop -- if facts develop.

NoZed,

I think you're confusing the private emails issue with the issue about Wu's original post. The emails were pursuant to said post. As you've said, none of us have seen them. The post, however, was made publically, and is still available for viewing.

Thanz' issue is with the fact that the post is still available. What he seems to miss is that that post is electronic, and that JREF is now a "crime scene." (I know this is really a civil matter, but I hope you'll grant me that license.) The point I am trying to make here is that we are in the realm of digital forensics now, and that, unless JREF can be assured that the audit trails available their software systems make it abundantly clear the post was not electronically tampered with, the safest thing is not to muck with the database.

They have to be sure that what they do meets the Daubert challenge.

[Bearguin]

I have a simpler question. Why is he still allowed to post? Would it not be reasonable to suspend his account pending the outcome of the court action?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
We would go to blue alert, but that means changing the light bulb.

And how many Winstons does it take to change a light bulb?

He doesn't have one. Never will.

Back to topic.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Thanz

Damages are not just the frosting - they are part of the cake. You have no case without damages. And if I was the lawyer for Winston, I would point out that if the statement is damaging, then it should have been removed from the start, when it was discovered. I would draw the inference from Randi's inaction on this front that he did not consider the statement to truly be damaging. Why else would it be there for a week so that more people could see it?
Thanz,

You have no case without evidence.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Thanz

First, thanks for cleaning up the link. Interesting, but I think it deals with something other than what we are talking about here. Daubert is still about the admissability of expert evidence. Here, we just need evidence of publication, which can be readily available. I do not think you need to go to the lengths that you are proposing to prove the statement was made.

I think that we just disagree on what level of evidence would be required to prove the libel.
Thanz,

From the link I provided and you claimed to have read:

"If digital evidence survives the Daubert challenge, it may still have to surmount several competency hurdles concerning the collection, storage, processing and presentation of the evidence. Computers today come with or can be augmented to provide huge amounts of data storage. Gigabyte disk drives are common and a single computer may contain several such drives. Seizing and freezing can no longer be accomplished simply by burning a single CD-ROM. Failure to freeze the evidence prior to opening the files, coupled with the fact that merely opening the files changes them, can and has invalidated critical evidence. Then comes the problem of locating the relevant evidence within massive amounts of data. Wading through such volumes of information to find relevant evidence is a daunting task. You either didn't read or couldn't comprehend the link."

Now do you understand why JREF might have been instructed not to touch it until counsel can get to the bottom of the Daubert issues?

Now do you understand that Daubert does not simply apply to "expert witnesses?"

[BillHoyt]

Ah, an even clearer paragraph from the same link:

"Digital evidence is not unique with regard to relevancy and materiality, but because it can be easily duplicated and modified, often without leaving any traces, digital evidence can present special problems related to competency. Moreover, to even reach the point where specific competency questions are answered, digital evidence must survive the threshold test posed by Daubert [2] of its competency as a class of evidence."

Can you hear me now, Thanz?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Thanz,

From the link I provided and you claimed to have read:

"If digital evidence survives the Daubert challenge, it may still have to surmount several competency hurdles concerning the collection, storage, processing and presentation of the evidence. Computers today come with or can be augmented to provide huge amounts of data storage. Gigabyte disk drives are common and a single computer may contain several such drives. Seizing and freezing can no longer be accomplished simply by burning a single CD-ROM. Failure to freeze the evidence prior to opening the files, coupled with the fact that merely opening the files changes them, can and has invalidated critical evidence. Then comes the problem of locating the relevant evidence within massive amounts of data. Wading through such volumes of information to find relevant evidence is a daunting task. You either didn't read or couldn't comprehend the link."

Now do you understand why JREF might have been instructed not to touch it until counsel can get to the bottom of the Daubert issues?

Now do you understand that Daubert does not simply apply to "expert witnesses?"
Read what you just posted again. The issues that are in that paragraph come up after the Daubert issues. They are not, strictly speaking, Daubert issues. I think that you are throwing around terminology that you don't really understand. I also think that it is pointless for you and I to argue what label we put on whatever evidentiary issues may exist.

In any event, from Hal's latest cryptic post, it appears that the post is there on the advice of counsel and I will, of course, defer to their judgment. It just strikes me as odd.

[Thanz]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Ah, an even clearer paragraph from the same link:

"Digital evidence is not unique with regard to relevancy and materiality, but because it can be easily duplicated and modified, often without leaving any traces, digital evidence can present special problems related to competency. Moreover, to even reach the point where specific competency questions are answered, digital evidence must survive the threshold test posed by Daubert [2] of its competency as a class of evidence."

Can you hear me now, Thanz?
I know I said in my last post that this debate may be pointless, but here goes. I think that you need to re-read all of section 2 of that article as you clearly do not understand it. Here are some passages that might help:In Daubert, the Court held that Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, adopted in 1973, supplanted Frye. Rule 702 provides: "If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise." This implies that the scientific evidence proposed possesses the scientific validity to be considered competent as evidence if it is grounded in the methods and procedures of science.
Daubert is a ruling concerning the admissability of expert evidence and whether certain fields of study could be considered admissable as expert evidence.
There is no specific test that can be used to determine whether digital evidence possesses the requisite scientific validity. The Court in Daubert suggested several factors to be considered:• whether the theories and techniques employed by the scientific expert have been tested;
• whether they have been subjected to peer review and publication;
• whether the techniques employed by the expert have a known error rate;
• whether they are subject to standards governing their application; and
• whether the theories and techniques employed by the expert enjoy widespread acceptance.
This applies to fields of study - not particular pieces of evidence. The article is talking about whether or not digital forensics as a field of study would be considered competant expert evidence.
From the last paragraph in section 2:In practice, the result is that every expert, including computer forensics experts, are now subject to challenge for reliability. Trial courts and counsel are required to seek indicia of reliability that is reasonably pertinent to the expert’s field of expertise. Testing and verification of theories and techniques of digital forensics, peer review, existence of known error rates, articulation of standards for digital forensics investigations, and differences of opinion among digital forensics experts regarding applicability and acceptance of tools and techniques are all areas that will be probed in such threshold determinations of admissibility. To the extent that digital forensics is more art than science, and less based on standards, it may have trouble surviving such a challenge.
The article in this section is clearly talking about the field of digital forensics as a whole, and whether the field as a whole would survuve a Daubert challenge. Nothing about the reliabiity of partuicular pieces of evidence - that is discussed later.

Whether the thread is moved or not does not have an effect on Daubert issues, although it may throw up other evidentiary challenges.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Thanz

Read what you just posted again. The issues that are in that paragraph come up after the Daubert issues. They are not, strictly speaking, Daubert issues. I think that you are throwing around terminology that you don't really understand. I also think that it is pointless for you and I to argue what label we put on whatever evidentiary issues may exist.

In any event, from Hal's latest cryptic post, it appears that the post is there on the advice of counsel and I will, of course, defer to their judgment. It just strikes me as odd.
Thanz,

You ignored my second post, sir. Here it is again:

"Digital evidence is not unique with regard to relevancy and materiality, but because it can be easily duplicated and modified, often without leaving any traces, digital evidence can present special problems related to competency. Moreover, to even reach the point where specific competency questions are answered, digital evidence must survive the threshold test posed by Daubert [2] of its competency as a class of evidence."

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


NoZed,

I think you're confusing the private emails issue with the issue about Wu's original post. The emails were pursuant to said post. As you've said, none of us have seen them. The post, however, was made publically, and is still available for viewing.

No, I was speaking about the email referenced by Mr. Wu.

[Mr Manifesto]

Is anyone else still laughing? Because I am.

I think what adds to the humour is the fact that Winston has a face like a smacked @$$. I can just imagine that face in court, trying to look contrite, or hard done-by. :roll: :roll: :roll:

[LTC8K6]

Oh look! Evidence of a crime! Lets move it from the scene to somewhere more convenient!

:D

[Thanz]

Originally posted by LTC8K6
Oh look! Evidence of a crime! Lets move it from the scene to somewhere more convenient!

:D
I think you meant this as a jab at me, but when you think about it this is exactly what happens everyday in every criminal investigation. Why do you think there aren't crimescenes everywhere? Because they gather the evidence and take it somewhere more convenient.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Thanz
There is no specific test that can be used to determine whether digital evidence possesses the requisite scientific validity. The Court in Daubert suggested several factors to be considered:• whether the theories and techniques employed by the scientific expert have been tested;
• whether they have been subjected to peer review and publication;
• whether the techniques employed by the expert have a known error rate;
• whether they are subject to standards governing their application; and
• whether the theories and techniques employed by the expert enjoy widespread acceptance.

YOU read it, Thanz. And think about it. The Daubert challenge applies to each new class of evidence. The new class here will be posts on vBulletin bulletin board software while connected to whatever database engine is used at JREF. The claim will be made that this was not Wu's post, and will be mounted on several fronts. One front will be that the evidence has been tampered with.

The showdown will then be Daubert. Does this vBulletin software use a legally admissable audit trail to ensure no tampering without footprints. Was it collected via a technique subjected to peer review? What ways are known to effect an alteration of the underlying database without leaving a footprint.

JREF's counsel probably advised JREF not to touch those records in any way. It is a crime scene. When counsel is sure of the proper collection and examination techniques, counsel will probably advise to take the posts down, but not before.

"DNA evidence" is not an indivisible legal evidence class. There are multiple techniques for collection, sampling and analysis. Each new such combination has to be Daubert-vetted before it is admitted as a class.

"Digital evidence" is an even larger smorgasboard. Each software application differs in its audit trails, its susceptibility to tampering and faking, etc. Unless the specific JREF combination of vBulletin + ?? database + ?? data back-up has already been so vetted, I would expect a Daubert challenge to its admissability. If that threshold is crossed, I expect chain of evidence disputes.

[qII]

i am jumping for joy that the "grumpy man" (aka -- the depressed, godless, hopeless, malcontent) knows in his heart of hearts that all this negativity is sapping his life energy almost guaranteeing that the vicious cycle continues hastening the grim reaper.

no wonder he is so grumpy with all the attacking and hating that he has caused.

[Clancie]

Posted by Reginald

Too often, to compensate for their lack of real argument, the "believing" community resort to this type of tactic
I take great exception to this faulty generalization and stereotyping, Reginald.

Just because someone is classified as being part of the "believing community" (whatever -that- is :rolleyes: ), in no way implies that a person therefore endorses or supports these tactics and opinions of Wu and Benneth. I certainly don't and I can't imagine any "believer" that I know would read that link and think it had any purpose other than being a crude attempt at character assassination.

In my experience, most (not all, but most) believers are...not that gullible...not that desperate...not that stupid...not that vile...to think its okay to say anything you want about someone personally just to try to discredit their point of view about the paranormal.

[LTC8K6]

I think you meant this as a jab at me, but when you think about it this is exactly what happens everyday in every criminal investigation. Why do you think there aren't crimescenes everywhere? Because they gather the evidence and take it somewhere more convenient.

Not when moving the evidence would destroy it's evidentiary value.

Not before carefully documenting everything about it, either.

Here, I'll amend my jab at you:

Oh look! Here is some fragile evidence of a crime! Let's move it from the scene to somewhere more convenient, thus rendering it useless to our case!

:D

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Thanz
I think you meant this as a jab at me, but when you think about it this is exactly what happens everyday in every criminal investigation. Why do you think there aren't crimescenes everywhere? Because they gather the evidence and take it somewhere more convenient.

Evidence is moved by investigators, the police, not the people who have been victims of the crime.

Sheeesh, your analogies are getting worse: Now you are making the case that victims of a crime should meddle about the scene of the crime.

Victim: "Yes, your honor, the burglar, who stole my Rembrandt, left a shoe, so I took it and placed it in my safe."
(sound of gavel hitting the desk)
Judge: "Case dismissed!"

Thanz, you gotta be kiddin'.... :rolleyes:

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by olaf
i am jumping for joy that the "grumpy man" (aka -- the depressed, godless, hopeless, malcontent) knows in his heart of hearts that all this negativity is sapping his life energy almost guaranteeing that the vicious cycle continues hastening the grim reaper.

no wonder he is so grumpy with all the attacking and hating that he has caused.

You are a truly despicable character. You are wishing for the death of another human being, simply because you disagree with him. That is as low as one can go. You're hardly human, are you?

I am still waiting to hear from your lawyer.

[TheBoyPaj]

Without doubt a candidate for Ignore.

[Reginald]

Originally posted by Clancie

I take great exception to this faulty generalization and stereotyping, Reginald.

Just because someone is classified as being part of the "believing community" (whatever -that- is :rolleyes: ), in no way implies that a person therefore endorses or supports these tactics and opinions of Wu and Benneth. I certainly don't and I can't imagine any "believer" that I know would read that link and think it had any purpose other than being a crude attempt at character assassination.

In my experience, most (not all, but most) believers are...not that gullible...not that desperate...not that stupid...not that vile...to think its okay to say anything you want about someone personally just to try to discredit their point of view about the paranormal.

Clancie.

You are far far too quick to take the generalised as personal, and that does you an injustice.

Yes, there are those there that take the time to try to argue from (what I consider to be) a position that is often never backed up by any facts. It seems to me that you mix with a more refined company if what you say is true. However I have to disagree with the direction of your post. Those who can (from that side of the fence) be bothered to become vocal, tend to opt for smear and ad hom. The ones you know are obviously not the ones I've seen, certainly not here recently. I go by what I see, and I see this "tactic" becoming more common in this place (let's face it it's common out there in other "believer" forums). I had you down as someone with a bit of experience, please don't make me think that you are going to get completely offended at this sort of thing.

Unfortunately without sitting here and saying here's a list of "nice" people,x,y,z.....
and here's a list of "nasty" people a,b,c.....
for the entire population of a) the board or b) the entire human race then someone is going to be upset by any comment that they are personally and specifically not excluded from. I'm not going to do that, sorry.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie
I take great exception to this faulty generalization and stereotyping, Reginald.

Clancie, you do the same to skeptics all the time.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by TLN
Clancie, you do the same to skeptics all the time.

It is not the same thing, when Clancie does it!

Sheeesh, haven't you learned by now?!? Clancie never does what she accuses others of! Never! Never! Never! (stomps angrily)

Such insolence, TLN! (produces a small tear in the corner of my eye...) How can you say such a thing... (does the Bambi-eyed thingie too, tears filling up, Disney-style)

[Reginald]

TLN, CFL....

Gentlemen, we have all bitten again it seems.

I think we should not allow this thread to be swayed off target in this manner. It's turning into a repeat of the thread that generated this one and for the same (exact same) reasons.

It's beginning to look almost tactical.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Reginald
TLN, CFL....

Gentlemen, we have all bitten again it seems.

I think we should not allow this thread to be swayed off target in this manner. It's turning into a repeat of the thread that generated this one and for the same (exact same) reasons.

It's beginning to look almost tactical.

I know. It's just that it seems like a lot of the threads Clancie participates in turn out to be "Clancie's been terribly hurt" threads.

I, for one, get very tired of listening to her perpetual whining.

But you're right, of course. Back to the subject.

[Cleopatra]

You have a point Reginald but on the other hand sometimes I feel that I am in the Twilight Zone with some people here. Clancie's post left me speechless.

Shouldn't we have a limit?

Why some people do not stop to insult our intelligence? What distinguishes WWu when he claims that his account was hijacked from Clancie's post , the posts of this Dane astrologer, the insults of Olaf etc etc?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
You have a point Reginald but on the other hand sometimes I feel that I am in the Twilight Zone with some people here. Clancie's post left me speechless.

Shouldn't we have a limit?

Why some people do not stop to insult our intelligence? What distinguishes WWu when he claims that his account was hijacked from Clancie's post , the posts of this Dane astrologer, the insults of Olaf etc etc?

Very true. Open a new thread, please. I would like to see this debated.

[Reginald]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Very true. Open a new thread, please. I would like to see this debated.

Ditto.

[Clancie]

Posted by Reginald

Too often, to compensate for their lack of real argument, the "believing" community resort to this type of tactic
Was this original post said to be "off topic:? If not, then I don't see why my -response- to it is considered off topic.

More specifically, since Reginald's above statement seems to be unchallenged by anyone else, where is the evidence that tactics like Winston's and Benneth's are "often" resorted to by the "believer community"?

Seriously. I'm as offended by Wu's post as anyone. I don't regard him as a spokesman for anyone but himself. So, more to the point, if in reality, he is a spokesman for some widespread, well known general "believer community" I'd like to know who and what it is.


[And...P.S. to TLN, Actually, I do -try- to use qualifiers like "often" or "many" or "some" or "here"...or the context of a thread itself...when I post about "skeptics". I don't think you're all alike, by any means, and I wouldn't say your "tactics" are all alike either--or your ethics--or that the most obnoxious and objectionable "skeptics" are representing any larger, amorphous unpleasant "skeptic community" with their approach).

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie
[And...P.S. to TLN, Actually, I do -try- to use qualifiers like "often" or "many" or "some" or "here"...or the context of a thread itself...when I post about "skeptics". I don't think you're all alike, by any means, and I wouldn't say your "tactics" are all alike either--or your ethics--or that the most obnoxious and objectionable "skeptics" are representing any larger, amorphous unpleasant "skeptic community" with their approach).

Which is exactly what Reginald did when he said "too often." He didn't say everyone all the time. He did the same exact thing you do very often.

And you complained about it.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Clancie

I take great exception to this faulty generalization and stereotyping, Reginald.

Just because someone is classified as being part of the "believing community" (whatever -that- is :rolleyes: ), in no way implies that a person therefore endorses or supports these tactics and opinions of Wu and Benneth. I certainly don't and I can't imagine any "believer" that I know would read that link and think it had any purpose other than being a crude attempt at character assassination.

In my experience, most (not all, but most) believers are...not that gullible...not that desperate...not that stupid...not that vile...to think its okay to say anything you want about someone personally just to try to discredit their point of view about the paranormal.

I agree with absolutely everything you say Clancie. Well said! :) Actually I was thinking about making the same point, but I thought I'd wait to see if you were going to say anything because you can express yourself better than me with such issues :)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I agree with absolutely everything you say Clancie. Well said! :) Actually I was thinking about making the same point, but I thought I'd wait to see if you were going to say anything because you can express yourself better than me with such issues :)

I find it interesting - but disturbing - that believers of very different "flavas" seem to gel, whenever the issue is "Let's get back at those skeptics who dare challenge us!".

Questions, even conflicts, about details are forgotten, or ignored, as long as points can be made that will sow doubt about critical thinking. No matter how contradicting the beliefs may be.

It seems like herd mentality, at all cost. It could very well explain some other aspects of paranormal beliefs as well. Food for thought....

[An Infinite Ocean]

Originally posted by olaf
i am jumping for joy that the "grumpy man" (aka -- the depressed, godless, hopeless, malcontent) knows in his heart of hearts that all this negativity is sapping his life energy almost guaranteeing that the vicious cycle continues hastening the grim reaper.

no wonder he is so grumpy with all the attacking and hating that he has caused.
How's your Ring of Fire, Xanta?

[Yahweh]

This thread has just made my day :)

[Reginald]

"Passing observations".
(I really don't want to be posting this here).

Ian, Clancie...

How can the comment "Too often" be taken as anything but an opinion, that and given the heading applied (see above), clearly indicates that that is exactly what it is.

Demands for some sort of quantified evidence for the above are simply pointless. I could argue that it happening once is too often.

As to my phrasing the thing "believing community", you can have it how you like, I have tried there to be somewhat diplomatic. I may come to regret that now. I have until this time steered well clear of dismissive titles for non-sceptics, it looks like attempting to be civil has created more problems than being blunt.

Have it how you like.

If you are a member of "That group which gets offensive or sees fit to make up personal attacks when you don't get your own way, or can't back up your claim with some decent evidence" then consider yourself included in my first post on this subject. If you don't, then you really had nothing to worry about in the first place.

Clear enough?

[Clancie]

Posted by Interesting Ian

...because you can express yourself better than me with such issues
If you mean the issue of, "I'm p*ssed off!" I'd have to agree, lol. (But I'll leave the "materialism debates" to you. :) ).

Posted by TLN

Which is exactly what Reginald did when he said "too often." He didn't say everyone all the time. He did the same exact thing you do very often.
Well, um, I'm going to just trying a little "sensitivity training" with you here, TLN (and my posts on this aren't about Reginald, whom I really think meant no offense...they're about guarding against over-generalization..yes, both sides). Here's a comparable example for you....

Hypothetical parallel situation....a JREFer posts a link to a scurrilous post by a so-called "skeptic" containing very unflattering characterizations about Uri Geller's sex life (I know nothing about his sex life, so this isn't fact...or even rumor...just an example of a "skeptic/believer" parallel to what Winston has done here).

Let's say that I then respond to this post about Geller (which you, personally, found offensive, btw) by saying,

All too often, to compensate for their lack of any real knowledge of paranormal topics, the skeptic community instead resorts to these tactics (of character assassination and libelous sexual innuendo).
See the over generalization, here, lumping you "skeptics" all together with one or two supposed "skeptics" who have maliciously and unfairly libeled Geller?

The "too often" part is no qualifier at all, TLN. "Some" skeptics would make it a lot better, (and even then, if I posted the comment above, I bet I'd be asked by someone or other, "Who else does this? You claim that skeptics do this...Who do you have in mind?" And, actually, it's a perfectly reasonable question, when you paint any group with a broad brush.)

[phildonnia]

Just wondering: doesn't there actually have to be some kind of harm to Randi's reputation, like, someone who read the post and actually believed it?

[Charlie in Dayton]

I do believe that the case of a reasonable individual reading the statement, and that statement coloring how the reader regards Mr Randi, falls into the category of damaging Mr R's reputation.

Someone wandering around all the time mumbling that you stink wouldn't do a whole lot for your social circumstances, even though it isn't true, now, would it?

It's like unringing a bell...once it's done, it's done.


And by the way, I've got the front row center recliner chair reserved. I'll have a gargantuan-sized popcorn with triple butter and an extry-extry large diet rooty beer...

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Reginald
"Passing observations".
(I really don't want to be posting this here).

Ian, Clancie...

How can the comment "Too often" be taken as anything but an opinion, that and given the heading applied (see above), clearly indicates that that is exactly what it is.

Demands for some sort of quantified evidence for the above are simply pointless. I could argue that it happening once is too often.

As to my phrasing the thing "believing community", you can have it how you like, I have tried there to be somewhat diplomatic. I may come to regret that now. I have until this time steered well clear of dismissive titles for non-sceptics, it looks like attempting to be civil has created more problems than being blunt.

Have it how you like.

If you are a member of "That group which gets offensive or sees fit to make up personal attacks when you don't get your own way, or can't back up your claim with some decent evidence" then consider yourself included in my first post on this subject. If you don't, then you really had nothing to worry about in the first place.

Clear enough?

Damn, was going to do some work on my website, but feel a little bit too drunk. Oh well :(

Anyway, Reg,


The problem here is that you are bracketing together people i.e believers, and referring to them as if they're some sort of single entity with similar beliefs, personalities, proclivities etc.

But we are a disparate bunch. I have in common with other believers a rejection of the skeptical belief system ie a rejection of the "wisdom" of the common western metaphysic that people tend to get "brainwashed" into. But apart from that, I have nothing more in commonality with them than any skeptic.

Bracketing people together in the manner you have is extremely unfair, and, quite frankly, extremely crass :)

[Charlie in Dayton]

Originally posted by olaf
i am jumping for joy that the "grumpy man" (aka -- the depressed, godless, hopeless, malcontent) knows in his heart of hearts that all this negativity is sapping his life energy almost guaranteeing that the vicious cycle continues hastening the grim reaper.

no wonder he is so grumpy with all the attacking and hating that he has caused.

Dude...take a homeopathic solution...

[Ratman_tf]

Olaf:

*Poses and wags finger in the air*

"Randi is grumpy! He's a bitter old man! Wah! Wah! Wah!"

I swear, I feel like I'm back in the playground again.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
[B]

I find it interesting - but disturbing - that believers of very different "flavas" seem to gel, whenever the issue is "Let's get back at those skeptics who dare challenge us!".



Seem to gel?? Do you not for one second entertain the possibility that Clancie is obviously correct in what she says?? Neither of us (Clancie or I) approve of Wu's tactics or the people he is quoting. But you're using his behaviour to attack any non-skeptics. Do you have any notion whatsoever how incredibly crass and stupid that is?? Worse still it seems that a good proportion (not all) of your fellow skeptics agree with you. How do you think that an objective rational dispassionate person would feel reading this thread?? Yup, s/he might well agree with you about Wu. But what he would find despicable is the skeptics attempts to tar all non-skeptics with the same brush.

That is deplorable, despicable, and unbelievably crass quite frankly.

Shame on you and these other skeptics.

Shame on you.

[DangerousBeliefs]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Seem to gel?? Do you not for one second entertain the possibility that Clancie is obviously correct in what she says?? Neither of us approve of Wu's tactics or the people he is quoting. But you're using his behaviour to attack any non-skeptics. Do you have any notion whatsoever how incredibly crass and stupid that is?? Worse still it seems that a good proportion (not all) of your fellow skeptics agree with you. How do you think that an objective rational dispassionate person would feel reading this thread?? Yup, s/he might well agree with you about Wu. But what he would find despicable is the skeptics attempts to tar all non-skeptics with the same brush.

That is deplorable, despicable, and unbelievably crass quite frankly.

Shame on you and these other skeptics.

Shame on you.

HEY HEY HEY THERE! Don't you be generalizing all the skeptics here into one big bunch. All you kooks do is generalize!

:D

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by olaf
i am jumping for joy that the "grumpy man" (aka -- the depressed, godless, hopeless, malcontent) knows in his heart of hearts that all this negativity is sapping his life energy almost guaranteeing that the vicious cycle continues hastening the grim reaper.

no wonder he is so grumpy with all the attacking and hating that he has caused.

Speaking of anger, you seem to be causing yourself an undue amount by participating in this forum.
Do you really think it's best for your mental health, olaf, to continue working yourself up in this way?

Here you are, so bitter and jaded, that you are actually rejoicing in the imminent death of James Randi.
That is totally vile and reeks of a sick mind.

I highly recommend, for your own good, that you take a little holiday from the JREF forum.
I think you need it.

[WildCat]

Looks like someone in prison ordered up a bride. ;)

[Virgil]

Originally posted by Charlie in Dayton

It's like unringing a bell...once it's done, it's done.






don't they have an unringing bell in Zen?


Virgil

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Virgil




don't they have an unringing bell in Zen?


Virgil

"Only the one hand that claps can unring the bell."
Ancient Zen proverb I just made up. :D

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by KelvinG
Here you are, so bitter and jaded, that you are actually rejoicing in the imminent death of James Randi.
That is totally vile and reeks of a sick mind.This is the person (oaf / Xanta / Gold) who demanded of another poster that she undertake to dose her own children every day for a year with homoeopathic tablets, "after all the 100,000 doctors who know homoeopathy works have told you not to do it because it is very dangerous", in order to prove her disbelief.

When the mother not unnaturally indignantly refused to do any such thing, and terminated the conversation, Xanta then let rip with triumphalist whoops that the mother had thus demonstrated that she had doubts about her sceptic position on homoeopathy.

Scum of the earth.

Sorry, off-topic, but just to let you know what you're dealing with here. A sock, and a pretty smelly sock at that.

Rolfe.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Reginald
It's beginning to look almost tactical.
Ya think?

[Marc]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


I find it interesting - but disturbing - that believers of very different "flavas" seem to gel, whenever the issue is "Let's get back at those skeptics who dare challenge us!".

Questions, even conflicts, about details are forgotten, or ignored, as long as points can be made that will sow doubt about critical thinking. No matter how contradicting the beliefs may be.

It seems like herd mentality, at all cost. It could very well explain some other aspects of paranormal beliefs as well. Food for thought....

Actually it is human nature I think. Conflicts are forgotten in the face of a bigger enemy. Christians band togeather against Islam, Islamics band togeather against Christians. But if either are left alone then the Protestants and Catholics go at it, the factions of Islam fight against each other. My girlfriend says she and her brother used to not get along, until they were both in college. Then they banded togeather in mutual defense of the bigger world they were in.

Or think of sports. People in NY might divide feircly on the METs vs the Yankees. But when it is a NY team vs another city's team then they are united. This behavior can be applied to pretty much any groups in which there are sub groups that can be in competition.

[Ian Osborne]

Has Wu-Wu had papers served on him yet? I hope he's got a lot of money...

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Ian Osborne
Has Wu-Wu had papers served on him yet? I hope he's got a lot of money...
I'm sure we'll hear soon. I'm also sure JREF doesn't want to make any errors in the original complaint filing, and is checking the available evidence (login records, ip addresses, database internals) to ensure the complaint is sound. One thing we might speculate on is internet searches conducted to find where else these claims appeared, and written / posted / published by whom. I suspect the list of defendants will be large. One other thing we might speculate on is CSICOP involvement or coordination of follow-on suits from CSICOP, prometheus, Paul Kurtz, et cetera.

This could get very interesting.

[Clancie]

Posted by Mark

Actually it is human nature I think. Conflicts are forgotten in the face of a bigger enemy. Christians band togeather against Islam, Islamics band togeather against Christians. But if either are left alone then the Protestants and Catholics go at it, the factions of Islam fight against each other. My girlfriend says she and her brother used to not get along, until they were both in college. Then they banded togeather in mutual defense of the bigger world they were in.
Okay. But there are also times when people just happen to agree on something....and it's no more complicated than that....

[Ian Osborne]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
This could get very interesting.

Indeed. I'd hate to be Winston Wu now. Actually, I'd hate to be him at any time, but especially now...

[Virgil]

I hope this is a wake up call for the forum and it cleans up the discussions located here in. I know there are strong opinions but everyone should try to be civil to each other.

Virgil

[Marc]

Originally posted by Clancie

Okay. But there are also times when people just happen to agree on something....and it's no more complicated than that....

Of course. I was commenting on Claus's comment of "that believers of very different "flavas" seem to gel, whenever the issue is "Let's get back at those skeptics who dare challenge us!"." There is nothing mysterious or disturbing about such behavior. It is rather normal I think.

It could probably be traced back to tribal ancestors, where one might compete with others within the tribe for leadership, but the tribe comes togeather against outside threats. How like in Shermer's latest book, you are more likely to be altruistic to someone the more closely related to you they are. (which would be more likely in the same social group/tribe as you)

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Virgil
I hope this is a wake up call for the forum and it cleans up the discussions located here in. I know there are strong opinions but everyone should try to be civil to each other.

Virgil
Civility really isn't at the heart of this issue, Virgil. One can be civil and still defamatory. One can be uncivil and not defamatory. The problematic sections of Wu's post are not uncivil; they are simply false, defamatory accusations.

[Virgil]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Civility really isn't at the heart of this issue, Virgil. One can be civil and still defamatory. One can be uncivil and not defamatory. The problematic sections of Wu's post are not uncivil; they are simply false, defamatory accusations.


I understand this is a legal issue for the courts...I was speaking in general, there are some persons on this board that are just being jerks for the sake of being jerks.


Virgil

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Marc


Of course. I was commenting on Claus's comment of "that believers of very different "flavas" seem to gel, whenever the issue is "Let's get back at those skeptics who dare challenge us!"." There is nothing mysterious or disturbing about such behavior. It is rather normal I think.


Right, so you agree that Claus's remark to me was a non-sequitur? He quoted me where I agreed with Clancie, and by doing so, he implies that I wasn't saying what I did because I was simply in agreement, but rather for the reasons you outlined.

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Marc


Of course. I was commenting on Claus's comment of "that believers of very different "flavas" seem to gel, whenever the issue is "Let's get back at those skeptics who dare challenge us!"." There is nothing mysterious or disturbing about such behavior. It is rather normal I think.

It could probably be traced back to tribal ancestors, where one might compete with others within the tribe for leadership, but the tribe comes togeather against outside threats. How like in Shermer's latest book, you are more likely to be altruistic to someone the more closely related to you they are. (which would be more likely in the same social group/tribe as you)
Another way of putting it can be, "I can beat up my brother, but nobody else better beat him up!"

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Virgil



I understand this is a legal issue for the courts...I was speaking in general, there are some persons on this board that are just being jerks for the sake of being jerks.


Virgil

I know, I know. I guess we'll just have to put up with people like BillHoyt, CFLarsen and Thaiboxerken :(

[figtertype]

I know this is a bit late and has already been stated ad nauseum but...

Winston, how DARE you? It's bad enough that you insult our intelligence regularly by parading rather uninformed articles around our forum, but what makes you think for a SECOND that any of us buys the B.S. you started this thread with? That tactic didn't work when you were four years old and it STILL doesn't work. I find your actions deplorable.




Just to be on the safe side:
The opinions expressed in this post are my own and are not affiliated with any other person, organization or legal entity.

[Marc]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Right, so you agree that Claus's remark to me was a non-sequitur? He quoted me where I agreed with Clancie, and by doing so, he implies that I wasn't saying what I did because I was simply in agreement, but rather for the reasons you outlined.

Probably a non-sequitur. At the very least not as 'interesting', definitly not as disturbing, as he was finding it.

As to if you and Clancie were simply agreeing or if it was the "us vs them" kind of thing I was pointing out I don't know. Didn't even see what it was you were agreeing on.

[CFLarsen]

Marc,

I can understand your point about the Mets and the Yankees, and Protestants and Catholics, and they have something in common: They live in NY, and they share a belief in the same god. (The Mets clearly believe they will win someday, so I suppose that is a religious belief...)

But what do people who believe in astrology have in common with people who believe in mediumship, other than their belief in a paranormal phenomenon?

The reasons why people believe in mediumship are (probably) very different from those that compels people to believe in numerology. A believer in mediumship might have lost a loved one, while a believer in numerology is just generally disappointed with life. The only thing I can see they have in common is their common lack of rationality.

So, it becomes a fight against that - rationality and critical thinking. The difference with your examples lies in that nobody can prove that their god or country is better than others. It becomes opinion and conviction based on that. But we can prove that homeopathy can't - and doesn't - work. We can prove that James van Praagh cheats. We can prove that astrology is bunk.

Quite often, a belief in A does not mean a belief in B. On the contrary, a believer in numerology might be fiercely opposed to a belief in mediumship, and vice versa. We have even seen deep rifts between believers in various mediums: A belief in JE does not mean a belief in Sylvia.

And that's what I find very scary. That people, who only share a lack of critical thinking, will team up, only to quell a criticism that their beliefs don't work and cannot work. It becomes a fight not between opinions, but between superstition and real knowledge.

Anyway, it's a discussion for another thread. Right now, this Wu-business is far more important.

[Cynical]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Marc,


Anyway, it's a discussion for another thread. Right now, this Wu-business is far more important.

So why don't you practice what you preach? You just posted a complete sermon on it. Nobody wants to read your drawn out harrangues.

Pssssst......Claus Flodin! :w2: :cs:

[jackmott]

what do you, as a believer believe in,a nd can you demonstrate it?

I keep seeing posts by you, Olaf, and Ian about supernatural belief but none of you ever offers to demonstrate anything.


Originally posted by Clancie

I take great exception to this faulty generalization and stereotyping, Reginald.

Just because someone is classified as being part of the "believing community" (whatever -that- is :rolleyes: ), in no way implies that a person therefore endorses or supports these tactics and opinions of Wu and Benneth. I certainly don't and I can't imagine any "believer" that I know would read that link and think it had any purpose other than being a crude attempt at character assassination.

In my experience, most (not all, but most) believers are...not that gullible...not that desperate...not that stupid...not that vile...to think its okay to say anything you want about someone personally just to try to discredit their point of view about the paranormal.

[Marc]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
The only thing I can see they have in common is their common lack of rationality.
Exactly. There has always been a bit of crossover between woo-woo beliefs. People who lack critical thinking in one area tend to lack it in other areas as well. Go to a UFO convenition and you will find stuff dealing with psychics and alternative medicines too.



So, it becomes a fight against that - rationality and critical thinking. The difference with your examples lies in that nobody can prove that their god or country is better than others.
irellevant. Proveablility does not matter, it is a matter of one social group against another. The basis for the groupings is besides the point

Quite often, a belief in A does not mean a belief in B. On the contrary, a believer in numerology might be fiercely opposed to a belief in mediumship, and vice versa. We have even seen deep rifts between believers in various mediums: A belief in JE does not mean a belief in Sylvia.
The enemy of my enemy. A believer in mediumship might not buy into Sylvia, but would have no love of Randi and would not likely shed any tears if Sylvia showed him up.


And that's what I find very scary. That people, who only share a lack of critical thinking, will team up, only to quell a criticism that their beliefs don't work and cannot work. It becomes a fight not between opinions, but between superstition and real knowledge.
That is how it has always been I think. Maybe you just hadn't noticed it before.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Marc
Exactly. There has always been a bit of crossover between woo-woo beliefs. People who lack critical thinking in one area tend to lack it in other areas as well. Go to a UFO convenition and you will find stuff dealing with psychics and alternative medicines too.

Oh, I have noticed it at the various psychic fairs I've been to. Tarot card reading mixed with clairvoyance. Aura readings mixed with crystals. Homeopathic remedies are sold with accompanying psychic messages from dead people.

That's what's so dangerous with paranormal beliefs. People start out believing the small stuff, the things that seem harmless. Then, when you see those beliefs tied in with beliefs you wouldn't have dreamed of accepting as real, how can you refuse? If you say yes to Tarot, but no to clairvoyance, you also say no to those who believe in both - and hence, they must be wrong. So, your own belief is also wrong. What to do? Better accept both beliefs. And so on.

It's a downward spiral into ignorance.

Originally posted by Marc
irellevant. Proveablility does not matter, it is a matter of one social group against another. The basis for the groupings is besides the point

I don't agree. :)

Originally posted by Marc
The enemy of my enemy. A believer in mediumship might not buy into Sylvia, but would have no love of Randi and would not likely shed any tears if Sylvia showed him up.

True.

Originally posted by Marc
That is how it has always been I think. Maybe you just hadn't noticed it before.

Oh, it's an old thought with me. It just came up here. :)

[Marc]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I don't agree. :)



That's ok, as long as you know you are wrong. :p ;)


Maybe if you look at it this way. People banding togeather to protect their own delusions. Besides, how often do paranormalists claim they can prove their beliefs? (not that they acutally have any real proof, just have what is enough to convince them) or at least claim their belief is just as valid as any other, or is beyond proof? The ability to get real answers or evidence does not matter to the thinking of the believers. They think they already have them.

[Clancie]

Posted by Marc

As to if you and Clancie were simply agreeing or if it was the "us vs them" kind of thing I was pointing out I don't know. Didn't even see what it was you were agreeing on.
That sure didn't stop you from expressing your very firm opinions about why believers agree-- as if your comments really -do- relate to what Ian and I were discussing! ROFL! For example....
Posted by Marc

It could probably be traced back to tribal ancestors, where one might compete with others within the tribe for leadership, but the tribe comes togeather against outside threats.
Or this....
Posted by Marc

Exactly. There has always been a bit of crossover between woo-woo beliefs. People who lack critical thinking in one area tend to lack it in other areas as well. Go to a UFO convenition and you will find stuff dealing with psychics and alternative medicines too.

Or this (still on the -supposed- topic of Ian and me agreeing in this thread)
Posted by Marc

People banding togeather to protect their own delusions. Besides, how often do paranormalists claim they can prove their beliefs? (not that they acutally have any real proof, just have what is enough to convince them) or at least claim their belief is just as valid as any other, or is beyond proof? The ability to get real answers or evidence does not matter to the thinking of the believers. They think they already have them
Or this
Posted by Marc

CFLarsen: The only thing I can see they have in common is their common lack of rationality.

Marc: Exactly. There has always been a bit of crossover between woo-woo beliefs. People who lack critical thinking in one area tend to lack it in other areas as well. Go to a UFO convenition and you will find stuff dealing with psychics and alternative medicines too.
I'm sorry, Marc, but I find your eagerness to stereotype and generalize when you don't even know what "believer" exchange you're referring to[ kind of hilarious.

Just, fyi, this was my post that Ian said he agreed with. (Just so you don't look -totally- clueless, :) Maybe you should even -read- it, lol).

Posted by Clancie

I take great exception to this faulty generalization and stereotyping, Reginald.

Just because someone is classified as being part of the "believing community" (whatever -that- is ), in no way implies that a person therefore endorses or supports these tactics and opinions of Wu and Benneth. I certainly don't and I can't imagine any "believer" that I know would read that link and think it had any purpose other than being a crude attempt at character assassination.

In my experience, most (not all, but most) believers are...not that gullible...not that desperate...not that stupid...not that vile...to think its okay to say anything you want about someone personally just to try to discredit their point of view about the paranormal.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Clancie
I'm sorry, Marc, but I find your eagerness to stereotype and generalize when you don't even know what "believer" exchange you're referring to[ kind of hilarious.

But when Ian stereotypes, that's okay, right Clancie?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Marc
That's ok, as long as you know you are wrong. :p ;)

I will take great pleasure in getting you drunk at TAM3, while discussing that one! :)

Originally posted by Marc
Maybe if you look at it this way. People banding togeather to protect their own delusions. Besides, how often do paranormalists claim they can prove their beliefs? (not that they acutally have any real proof, just have what is enough to convince them) or at least claim their belief is just as valid as any other, or is beyond proof? The ability to get real answers or evidence does not matter to the thinking of the believers. They think they already have them.

Yes, that's pretty close. :)

[Marc]

Originally posted by Clancie

That sure didn't stop you from expressing your very firm opinions about why believers agree-- as if your comments really -do- relate to what Ian and I were discussing! ROFL! For example....

What I gave is one reason believers of seemingly very different, even contradictory paranormal claims can join forces. It was not ment as the sole reason they might agree on something.


I'm sorry, Marc, but I find your eagerness to stereotype and generalize when you don't even know what "believer" exchange you're referring to[ kind of hilarious.
But I was not making any statement at all on you or Ian or the discussion you had. My comments were about Claus's observation. In other words, it was not about you. Like the song says "you probably think this song is about you"

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Marc
In other words, it was not about you.

Not everything is. That's what Clancie is missing.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by TLN


But when Ian stereotypes, that's okay, right Clancie?

Obviously one can stereotype on occasion. An a priori rejection of any anomalous phenomena is, I feel, pretty silly. Thus cynics (what you call skeptics) have this commonality of silliness. :) ok? :) That's all I pointed out.

But believers have no such thing in common.

[jackmott]

I am a skeptic

I do no reject anything a priori.



Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Obviously one can stereotype on occasion. An a priori rejection of any anomalous phenomena is, I feel, pretty silly. Thus cynics (what you call skeptics) have this commonality of silliness. :) ok? :) That's all I pointed out.

But believers have no such thing in common.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by jackmott
I am a skeptic

I do no reject anything a priori.





Yes you do, you've just rejected that you reject anything a priori.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Yes you do, you've just rejected that you reject anything a priori.

Rejecting something and rejecting something a priori are two different actions. If jackmott has reasons for all the things he has rejected (including his rejection of the idea of his having rejected things a priori), then he may well be correct in his rejection.

The preceding paragraph should be taken out and shot.

[bignickel]

Anyone else find it interesting that wwu started this thread, but since his one and only post, has yet to post again in the next 4 pages?

If not interesting, then... predictable?

[reprise]

Originally posted by bignickel
Anyone else find it interesting that wwu started this thread, but since his one and only post, has yet to post again in the next 4 pages?

If not interesting, then... predictable?

It would be extremely stupid of Winston to continue posting now that legal action has been initiated, and I'd be rather surprised if the JREF lawyers haven't advised suspending his posting privileges anyway.

[Soapy Sam]

"It would be extremely stupid of Winston to continue posting now that legal action has been initiated, and I'd be rather surprised if the JREF lawyers haven't advised suspending his posting privileges anyway."
__________________________________________________

Indeed. Since the matter is sub judice perhaps it would be wisest if we all stopped discussing it? Some of the people here might be called as witnesses for one thing.

[bignickel]

Originally posted by reprise

It would be extremely stupid of Winston to continue posting now that legal action has been initiated, and I'd be rather surprised if the JREF lawyers haven't advised suspending his posting privileges anyway.

"Extremely stupid"? As stupid as libeling the foundation's head on the foundation's own web site? :D

No, I think this is just WWu's predictable style. Once it's really sunk in.. THEN he'll stop posting altogether.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by drkitten


Rejecting something and rejecting something a priori are two different actions. If jackmott has reasons for all the things he has rejected (including his rejection of the idea of his having rejected things a priori), then he may well be correct in his rejection.

The preceding paragraph should be taken out and shot.

Huh?? Your first paragraph?

Anyway, allow me to be more precise. He is a priori rejecting that he rejects anything a priori.

After all, in saying he does not a priori reject that he doesn't a priori reject anything, but merely a posterior rejects that he rejects anything a priori, then this equates to the fact that he doesn't reject anything a priori, is something that he has discovered by experience. But he is a skeptic so his experience will be that he rejects everything. So when he says that he doesn't a priori reject anything he cannot be deriving this from experience, but rather it must be an a priori judgement. But, as explained, this is self-refuting. So he is talking nonsense. And indeed, so are you. OK?

[qII]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf
Olaf:

*Poses and wags finger in the air*

"Randi is grumpy! He's a bitter old man! Wah! Wah! Wah!"


QUIT PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH. I AM ABOUT TO BE KICKED OFF AND YOU LIARS ARE NOT HELPING MATTERS. I NEVER MENTIONED ANYONE's NAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i did not even know randi was grumpy but it would not surprise me in the least. many godless people are grumpy (btw-- i am still agnostic)

[roger]

Originally posted by olaf
i am jumping for joy that the "grumpy man" (aka -- the depressed, godless, hopeless, malcontent) knows in his heart of hearts that all this negativity is sapping his life energy almost guaranteeing that the vicious cycle continues hastening the grim reaper.

no wonder he is so grumpy with all the attacking and hating that he has caused. Then who are you referring to in this post of yours?

[Nigel]

Originally posted by olaf

I AM ABOUT TO BE KICKED OFF

Didn't you say you could use a vacation to reload? Or am I thinking of someone else?

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


But he is a skeptic so his experience will be that he rejects everything.
I can't make heads or tails out of any of what he said, except this part. I would say that as a skeptic, he may question everything, or most things, not necessarily reject everything. There's a difference.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Nigel

I can't make heads or tails out of any of what he said, except this part. I would say that as a skeptic, he may question everything, or most things, not necessarily reject everything. There's a difference.

Could a person who believes in some paranormal phenomena, and even "life after death", be described as a skeptic?

[Segnosaur]

I'm just trying to figure out what the basis of the slander is....

Was it the linking of Randi to a publishing company that publishes books about sex between children and adults the problem? Or am I missing something? (If so, it does sound fairly mild compared to other things I've seen.)

I remember seeing some rather ugly libel on Usenet in the past. (If you go to google/groups and do a search on Randi you can find much more serious statements which are even more deserving of punishment.)

Edited to add: Never mind, I managed to get a little further in the other thread and saw some of the more, well, serious statements.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Nigel

I can't make heads or tails out of any of what he said, except this part. I would say that as a skeptic, he may question everything, or most things, not necessarily reject everything. There's a difference.
Nigel,

It is Friday evening in the U.K. Has been for a while. Somebody's been feeding pints to the turkeys over there. Has been for a while.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Could a person who believes in some paranormal phenomena, and even "life after death", be described as a skeptic?

I think it would depend on how he reached that conclusion. If he reached it because he simply believed it to be true, then no. If he reached it because that's what the evidence told him, I would say, in an ideal world (because we all know that that isn't the common use of the term, so in the real world it wouldn't happen), yes. Though it wouldn't make a wit of difference to me, because I would disagree with his conclusion and still argue with him. I don't see this issue as "us vs. them", if I agree with someone on a point, I agree with them, if I don't, I don't, I don't care what labels may apply to them.

[reprise]

Is anyone else disturbed that Hal's post (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=1870418429#post1870418429) of several pages ago requesting that this thread not be hijacked is still being ignored?

[Clancie]

right, reprise, no hijacking.
(post deleted)

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by reprise
Is anyone else disturbed that Hal's post (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=1870418429#post1870418429) of several pages ago requesting that this thread not be hijacked is still being ignored?

It's unlikely to be used to discuss the OT, since it seems Wu has left the building.

[thaiboxerken]

I believe someone by the initials of Steve G. was the original author of the article. I hope that Steve is sued as well.

[reprise]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I believe someone by the initials of Steve G. was the original author of the article. I hope that Steve is sued as well.

I believe that it has been established elsewhere in this thread or the other one that the author was not Steve G, and I think that we all need to be very careful about posting any statements in relation to this whole issue which might see the JREF had liable for damages against third parties should our assertions prove false.

[angard]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Mark

Actually it is human nature I think. Conflicts are forgotten in the face of a bigger enemy. Christians band togeather against Islam, Islamics band togeather against Christians. But if either are left alone then the Protestants and Catholics go at it, the factions of Islam fight against each other. My girlfriend says she and her brother used to not get along, until they were both in college. Then they banded togeather in mutual defense of the bigger world they were in.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Posted by Clancie"
Okay. But there are also times when people just happen to agree on something....and it's no more complicated than that...."


Pherhaps in, like a warzone, but probaly not elsewhere.

EDIT: And i'm not talking about the weather here, but commonly ageed on subjects that could be disscussed either way.

[angard]

"Could a person who believes in some paranormal phenomena, and even "life after death", be described as a skeptic?"

Ofcourse. It all depends on the evidence?

EDIT: Ofcourse you have to describe Paranormal P. and "life after death", what those expressions means. Ie. put a meaning to them.

EDIT2: Just reealized... Why bother with explanations. Brotherhood is right, we must cope, survive. Ohh...go for it now. Lets cope with the zdmf.,jzsdfjsdijsdjföiosudf.-ö .-.--.


Or just say no to anything you "might" not agree with.,


Religion is free, free earth.

[hammegk]

Back on topic, what court purports to have jurisdiction? Where is WW located?

Off-topic, what court would claim jurisdiction in a case over a person posting on a USA bbs from a southern hemisphere country, making unverified and potentially libelous paedophile accusations against a person posting on that bbs from a northern hemisphere country?

[reprise]

Originally posted by hammegk
Back on topic, what court purports to have jurisdiction? Where is WW located?

Off-topic, what court would claim jurisdiction in a case over a person in a southern hemisphere country making libelous paedophile accusations against a person posting in a northern hemisphere country?

It would depend where the statements were published. Even though I live in Sydney, what I write on the JREF forums will be held to have been published in the US, not in Australia and therefore it is the US and not the Australian defamation laws which would be appplied.

There are some interesting legal debates taking place at the moment about under what circumstances something online can be deemed to have been "published" in a geographical location (a couple of years ago an version of a magazine was held to have been "published" in Australia even though it originated from a US server and therefore our courts accepted jurisdiction to hear a defamation action).

Edited to add that the case to which I refer above is Gutnick v Dow Jones (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gutnick_v._Dow_Jones)

[BillHoyt]

The internet is international. The jurisdiction is the plaintiff's choice, as there was no locus for the civil offense.

[gentlehorse]

Originally posted by hammegk
Back on topic, what court purports to have jurisdiction? Where is WW located?

I've wondered the same thing. This will be an interesting case to follow on more levels than one.

Edited to say, "Thanks, Bill."

[reprise]

An interesting Slashdot article on Criminal libel, free speech, and the internet (http://slashdot.org/features/00/06/01/1526235.shtml).

[reprise]

There are four categories of statement, however, that are defamatory per se, which means they are so inherently derogatory that a plaintiff need prove only that they were made:

Those are statements accusing a person of:

having committed a crime

having a loathsome disease (such as leprosy long ago or AIDS now)

being unchaste (in many jurisdictions this still applies only to females
)
being bad at their trade or business

from Wikinfo | Slander and libel (http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/wiki.php?title=Slander_and_libel)

[hammegk]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
The internet is international. The jurisdiction is the plaintiff's choice, as there was no locus for the civil offense.
Assuming judgement for the plaintiff & damages awarded, it's who enforces the court's opinion that is then the question.

[Z]

Well, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if, over the next few weeks, several attempts at hacking the forum server occured. Something similar happened on another forum I used to frequent, in which a certain group, feeling they were having their native language grossly misused, engaged in a massive DoS attack against a forum devoted to toys. So if the server gets hacked soon, I'd say it's pretty strong circumstantial evidence of who's right and who's desparate.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by zaayrdragon
Well, it wouldn't surprise me in the least if, over the next few weeks, several attempts at hacking the forum server occured. Something similar happened on another forum I used to frequent, in which a certain group, feeling they were having their native language grossly misused, engaged in a massive DoS attack against a forum devoted to toys. So if the server gets hacked soon, I'd say it's pretty strong circumstantial evidence of who's right and who's desparate.
Well, if we knew who was hypothetically behind such an attack, it would be evidence of who's desperate or sufficiently ticked off, but not who's right. In this case, who is right is clear based on what Wu posted. The post alleged crimes committed by Randi and claimed the existence of affadavits of the charges. Those claims are pretty desperate stuff.

[Zep]

Winston Wu lives in the town (city?) of Bellingham, Washington state, USA.hammegk: Assuming judgement for the plaintiff & damages awarded, it's who enforces the court's opinion that is then the question.I understand there are already mechanisms in place to enforce US interstate court judgements, and Mr Randi's counsel will be well aware of them.

[Ladewig]

I am jumping for joy that the "grumpy man" (aka -- the depressed, godless, hopeless, malcontent) knows in his heart of hearts that all this negativity is sapping his life energy almost guaranteeing that the vicious cycle continues hastening the grim reaper.

I would have thought that taking pleasure in another person's suffering would be a form of negative energy. I do hope that "whichever" grumpy old man Olaf is referring to doesn't die, but (God forbid), if he does I'll have to roll my eyes when the believers say that negative energy hastened the death of a man in his 70's

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Zep
Winston Wu lives in the town (city?) of Bellingham, Washington state, USA.

Really? I can find a W.Wu in Mill Creek and one in Seattle.

[Solitaire]

The problem.

Mankind often is stressed by appointments with police, lawyers,
courts, emotional turmoil is created by mental fighting, arguing
with family members, employees and employers, customers, these
and many others factors in life may deprive you from the feeling
of real peace of mind within and peace in your outside life as well.

For example in a few months you may have an appointment with
a lawyer, a lawsuit filed against you for an argument you may have
had a few months ago. Almost daily your mind is occupied with the
possible outgoing of this case. Week after week, month after month.
Just because of your action, words or decision that you made within
a single minute or less, you may experience months or even years of
emotional stress.

The source of the problem.

How could such a situation come to existence at first? It always
boils down to the very same point. It is your ego that has caused
this situation. The lack of love and missing capability to love all any
time and in all situations. If you want to defend your position, mental
fighting and emotional turmoil may be the result.

The solution.

Next time anyone wants to file a lawsuit against you, stop arguing,
stop responding to the charges, love. And of course learn to never
cause anything that ever could lead to any lawsuit or argument.
Refrain from discussions, arguments and fighting with others.
Refrain from defending your points. It all causes but emotional
stress and turmoil. Fighting for your cause is a proof of weakness.
If you remain quiet while others strive to argue or fight with you,
you display real strength and at the same time refuse to give them
any "ammunition" to continue their fighting. Remember: any fighting
of any kind always requires at least two persons to be involved.
If you can but love, no one ever can fight or argue with you.

Any questions? (http://www.kriyayoga.com/english/on_your_wings/peace.htm)

[Atlas]

Good words Synchronicity,

Love is a good thing. For not getting into the wrong situations but still risking the right ones, wisdom is better. Surely love is a component of wisdom, whatever the case.

When you do find yourself hoist with your own petard you really should be looking for a soft place to land. Likewise, when you've dug yourself into a hole, the first rule of wisdom advises: Stop digging.

I agree with you that it is one of the most difficult things to do. Often it is your own ego and stupidity that got you there. For some reason people think that by redoubling their efforts with those tools they can escape.

Your sig line identifies that you promote love from your Christian base. I think the Taoist would use wu-wei. Recognize you are on unfamiliar terrain, get a guide and champion familiar with this territory, and withdraw to a safe, objective and esthetic distance to let your champion work.

To remain in the subjective, feeling the pressure and stress day by day, works against both love and wisdom.

Though I am not a Godist, I recognize in that way of thinking a distinct advantage when worldly stress presses. The adept, the one who truly can, "Let go and let God" is able to eliminate the stress and achieve a measure of peace.

He may still be taken to the cleaners when the court rules but he has retained his sanity, his life, and his family in the meantime.

Of course there are people who are born tacticians who are at their best in engagements. Most of us are not like this.

And it is obvious to me that atheists can employ a similar strategy if they are adept at eliminating the internal stresses caused by their own subjectivity. I mean I think that is the key. I don't know if that strategy can be articulated as succinctly as a religionist's.

But mental and emotional distance and separation is a skill that one learns or does not learn as one ages and I think you find how important a skill it is when the wheels of justice grind relentlessly nearer.

[chipotle]

I say it's good that Winston has goaded James into action on this matter. All these stories about James appear from time to time here and there, are spread by word of mouth. Winston's just posted in someplace obvious to James what people whisper, or post in less obvious places, all the time. And they will report it all boldly as proven fact once James is not around to defend himself.

[Giambattista]

Thanz is right, you are idiots. Randi doesn't like being insulted and is willing to use the donations from the true-believer skeptics to pay lawyers to bother king of the libelous-woo-woo..

JREF deletes posts it doesn't like all the time, setting an obvious precedent for mitigating any 'libel'. Adhering to strict rules about 'digital tampering' of evidence are just an indication of how weak a case like this is, not how great and thorough Randi's lawyers are in making this case solid. It's not solid, it's a complete joke. I very much doubt this will go to court, but if it does the chances of getting a judgement against anybody are so slim it's laughable. It's fitting that only one among you managed to have enough brainpower to figure out what a farce this is. The most striking thing I've learned about the 'skeptics movement' is that while all of them are quite sure that rational thinking is important, very few of its participants are actually capable of using simple logic and have only wound up in the skeptic camp because they are seeking comfort and sanctuary where they think their naivity won't be exploited again after having fallen for one too many woo-woo scams (Shermer, anyone?). The communal reinforcement in these forums goes beyond anything I've ever witnessed in forums populated by new age idiots practicing their various forms of flummery. And I've seen plenty of crap from true-believers. But the true-believers in post-enlightenment rationalist humanism (aka modern skepticism) always take the cake as far as righteous furvor goes... the best is when a woo-wooer accuses a skeptic of a being 'cynic' and the skeptic rejects the role in an immediate reaction of righteousness, recoiling from the word 'cynic' as if it is a horrible designation.... because skeptics are religious people spreading a religion. Cynicism certainly isn't compatible with the kind of oceanic revivals that keep the cults going, but 'skepticism' is as compatible with oceanic revivals as christianity or psychic channelling. Skeptics, like christians and psychics, have a message to help 'mankind' overcome a supposed deficit. That's a very uplifting notion, to the dazed and confused.

Anyway for those of you who believe that the JREF's lawyers wouldn't do anything except competant legal work and that if they believed Randi's case was weak they would tell him so, why don't you fools ask Randi or Hal if those lawyers are being paid or have they agreed to work this case for a percentage of the money they know Winston Wu or whoever will have to cough up when Randi inevitably prevails in court? OH, maybe it's all about principal. But even if Wu is a broke-ass loser, just to WIN this case Randi has to prove that Wu's post to these forums resulted in monetary damages to Randi. That might be difficult, since this forum is frequented by supporters of Randi and his enemies. The former isn't affected by the libel and the latter never intended to patronize JREF or hire Randi as a magician or keynote speaker anyway. If I were a lawyer hired by JREF I'd take this case though I think it's a loser. Lawyers don't put the cases they lose on the resume.

I've had my real name dragged all over the internet with child molestation, crack smoking and other ad hominems. Yeah it sucks, and if Randi actually manages to nail Wu or whoever, I'll be impressed. I think the likelihood of that happening is nil. I've had people publically threatening to come to my house and attack me (a result of my disagreeing with a claim that 'the world would be a better place if everyone was religious'), I've showed it to the cops, and I start becoming the focus of the problem... If Randi gets any satisfaction from the legal system, he'll definitely have succeeded in amazing me.

[BillHoyt]

Do rant on.

Those interested in the truth about the necessity of monetary damages being proven may want to remember the internet click here (http://www.hfac.uh.edu/comm/media_libel/libel/other.html)

In the U.S., the chief hurdles to clear are the First Amendment hurdles. Once over those hurdles, there is no demonstrated monetary damages requirement. Simple infliction of emotional distress is sufficient. Suggested reading (http://library.lp.findlaw.com/articles/file/00051/004654/title/Subject/topic/Injury%20%20Tort%20Law_Defamation/Libel/Slander/filename/injurytortlaw_1_213)

[Giambattista]

Again, I say this just means the case is that much weaker. The case is weak because no monetary loss has occured. The case is weak because law about the digital domain is fuzzy. The case is weak because since no money was lost, and emotional distress could have been mitigated by removing the post. Oh yes, it could be won. Anyone willing to wager? I've got a paypal account that could use filling.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Giambattista
Again, I say this just means the case is that much weaker. The case is weak because no monetary loss has occured. The case is weak because law about the digital domain is fuzzy. The case is weak because since no money was lost, and emotional distress could have been mitigated by removing the post. Oh yes, it could be won. Anyone willing to wager? I've got a paypal account that could use filling.
How you can read those links and not see that your claimed need to prove monetary damages is specious is beyond me. But rather than repeat yourself, please regale us with some links providing evidence for your claim. Please also review the previous conversation about the lack of wisdom in removing the post before certain elements of digital forensics are in place. This is still the scene of a civil offense and mucking with the database may not be possible.

But let me turn this idiocy on its head with an example. A magazine publisher something defamatory about Mr. X. Do you seriously submit to us that Mr. X's failure to buy up all the copies of said magazine to contain the damage would serve against his civil case?

Now let me upend the idiocy so that its a** is closer to the ground again. Do you seriously submit that JREF counsel would advise JREF to remove the post if he is not 100% certain that JREF will have unequivocal proof of the offense when it enters court?

This is patent nonsense, sir, and you well know it. And Thanz well knows it. And all of you well know it. The primary concern at this point is proving the offense was committed. Damage containment isn't even second on the list of concerns.

Peddle crap to the sewage department.

[Clancie]

Posted by Bill Hoyt

Peddle crap to the sewage department.
Ah, Bill. You are at it again. :rolleyes:

If you read more about libel, you will see that it is actually quite unlikely that Randi (especially as a public figure) will win a defamation suit against Winston for linking to Benneth's article on Randi's own message board (and Benneth himself didn't post it here, so I don't see how he could be culpable either).

Here are some quotes you might find of interest (but don't let facts inhibit your flair for invective. :rolleyes: )


...a public figure must prove that a reporter not only published false information but also did so recklessly and maliciously without attempting to determine whether it was true.

....American courts also have ruled that various kinds of published information are generally immune from libel charges. For example, it is almost impossible for a writer to be found guilty of libel if the writing deals with opinions rather than facts. "Under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea," the Supreme Court said in a 1974 libel ruling
The above is from: http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/press/press08.htm

Randi also faces the problem of proving that he has suffered damage to his "reputation so as to lower that person in the estimation of the community or deter third persons from associating or dealing with that person" (Fedler, 1997, p. 496)

He has to show that the story was false; truth is not libelous.

He has to "show that the defamatory statement has led to "actual injury," meaning injury to his/her reputation, humiliation, mental anguish, or monetary loss."

There is also the issue of Fair Comment and Criticism - "If a statement is clearly an opinion, it is generally protected from libel suits, as long as it is "based on true facts, [is] the sincere opinion of the speaker, and [is] not motivated solely by ill will" "(Fedler, 1997, p. 503). [/QUOTE]

http://departments.ozarks.edu/bcg/grmarlow/Newswriting/libel.htm

[Reginald]

Hold on.

How do we know (because scant info is available at the moment) that the primary case is being made about the things being published here on this forum. How do we not know that the case is being made becasue the documents were published elsewhere, or indeed in several other places for all we know.

Without knowing this, the conversations about any effect on the case from this being the Jref board is rather premature. If the words were published anywhere, they were still published.

That which was published HERE may only be one aspect of the case. Or am I the only one who thinks this?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Reginald
Hold on.

How do we know (because scant info is available at the moment) that the primary case is being made about the things being published here on this forum. How do we not know that the case is being made becasue the documents were published elsewhere, or indeed in several other places for all we know.

Without knowing this, the conversations about any effect on the case from this being the Jref board is rather premature. If the words were published anywhere, they were still published.

That which was published HERE may only be one aspect of the case. Or am I the only one who thinks this?
You're missing nothing, Reginald. From Randi's post: (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870404992&highlight=Winston+cohorts#post1870404992)

"I'm going on record here to assure you that I am immediately -- within 24 hours -- pursuing legal action against Wu and against anyone else who has disseminated this libelous material. "

[BillHoyt]

Awwww, that's just so d*** cute. Someone's trying to bury these threads! Awww...

[BillHoyt]

The count is five and climbing! Busy, busy busy. Let's go for a six-pack...

[reprise]

Originally posted by Reginald
Hold on.

How do we know (because scant info is available at the moment) that the primary case is being made about the things being published here on this forum. How do we not know that the case is being made becasue the documents were published elsewhere, or indeed in several other places for all we know.

Without knowing this, the conversations about any effect on the case from this being the Jref board is rather premature. If the words were published anywhere, they were still published.

That which was published HERE may only be one aspect of the case. Or am I the only one who thinks this?

Winston has also published elsewhere online an email he received from Randi's lawyer (and no, I'm not going to link to it) in relation to this action - the email is unambiguous about which statements are considred libellous and where they were published.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by reprise
Winston has also published elsewhere online an email he received from Randi's lawyer (and no, I'm not going to link to it) in relation to this action - the email is unambiguous about which statements are considred libellous and where they were published.

Why won't you link to it?

[reprise]

Randi doesn't like being insulted and is willing to use the donations from the true-believer skeptics to pay lawyers to bother king of the libelous-woo-woo..

Have you any evidence that Randi will not be funding this legal action personally?

[billydkid]

Originally posted by Tricky
It is good to see that there is a limit to how much James Randi will put up with when having his name dragged through the mud. With luck, this will keep other Wu-like creduloids from pushing the envelope on libel.

But I really would like to see Randi go for bigger fish. Can Winston's posting here be used to show that Goodspeed, Benneth and Zammit have indeed influenced weak, impressionable young minds to hate Randi? What better case could be made for libel than to show that the libel has been repeated by others?

Obviously, JREF employees cannot comment. How about you legal types out there? Can Randi punish the sources of these malicious lies? I mean, we have Winston's own words here admitting that he is just repeating what they said.

Yes, I would like to see that. Wu is a sorry loser. Not much sport in kicking his ass.

[Charlie in Dayton]

Speaking of Mr. W. Wu, the general subject of this thread, is there somewhere I can go to learn a tad more about him? I seem to recall out of the deep dark past that he's got some sort of commercial interests in products possibly paranormal...or do I have crossed synapses, and am thinking of Alex Chiu?

[Nigel]

Originally posted by Charlie in Dayton
Speaking of Mr. W. Wu, the general subject of this thread, is there somewhere I can go to learn a tad more about him? I seem to recall out of the deep dark past that he's got some sort of commercial interests in products possibly paranormal...or do I have crossed synapses, and am thinking of Alex Chiu?
Charlie, you can find Winston's "masterpiece" here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39233&highlight=american+women ). Zep also reluctantly posted a URL detailing his exploits. I think its at www.americanwomensuck.com. But I don't recommend going there unless you have an iron constitution. I think I read something about Alex Chiu on skepdic.com once, but I'm damned if I can remember what it was. Hope this helps.

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by Clancie
Ah, Bill. You are at it again. :rolleyes:

If you read more about libel, you will see that it is actually quite unlikely that Randi (especially as a public figure) will win a defamation suit against Winston for linking to Benneth's article on Randi's own message board (and Benneth himself didn't post it here, so I don't see how he could be culpable either).

He didn't link. He took what looks like an old post from TheProoving on Yahoo Groups, copied it, and posted it here.

Randi also faces the problem of proving that he has suffered damage to his "reputation so as to lower that person in the estimation of the community or deter third persons from associating or dealing with that person" (Fedler, 1997, p. 496)

For this type of accusation, yes, it sure does!

He has to show that the story was false; truth is not libelous.

Randi has the evidence and has dealt with the matter in one of his commentaries.

He has to "show that the defamatory statement has led to "actual injury," meaning injury to his/her reputation, humiliation, mental anguish, or monetary loss."

I can see how the defamation passes all three tests, clearly.

There is also the issue of Fair Comment and Criticism - "If a statement is clearly an opinion, it is generally protected from libel suits, as long as it is "based on true facts, [is] the sincere opinion of the speaker, and [is] not motivated solely by ill will" "(Fedler, 1997, p. 503).

An opinion - mr.x is not a nice man.
This on the other hand is a verbal punch of the lowest order.

[shemp]

Originally posted by hal bidlack
Please know that the JREF is following the advise of legal experts and will continue to do so. A bell can not be unrung. Please feel totally free to discuss in any manner you wish, but know that we are being very careful, very exacting in our actions. additionally, not everything we do is seen publically.

And pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!

Hi Hal, how's it going?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Thanz

He can scream it all he likes. He would NOT be right. Moving the thread to an area inaccessible to the public would not alter the content of the post, and the people moving it would testify to that fact.

On the other hand, any defense lawyer worth his salt will ask Randi why the post was not moved, if it was causing so much damage to him. You have a duty to limit your damages if possible. If you are wrongfully fired, you have a duty to seek another job, for example. Here, he can limit the damages by limiting the exposure the statement gets. Why has he not done so?

As it stands right now, he is actually publishing the libel against himself. Randi, the individual, could sue the JREF, the entity, for continuing to publish this libel. It is like the publisher of a newspaper suing the author of a letter to the editor it published for libel.
Sure. (http://host.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870430102#post1870430102)

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Awwww, that's just so d*** cute. Someone's trying to bury these threads! Awww...

There is no rational reason at all why libel should be left on public view.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


There is no rational reason at all why libel should be left on public view.

Okay, you don't like the rational explanation that JREF secured the scene of the crime as it were. So, I'll make one up to really lp*** you off. It is such fun to watch you woos twist in the wind, you woo. You woos post libelous garbage and then you woos try to turn the tables. You woos never listen. You woos never get it. Meanwhile, JREF, for all eternity, has documented just how low you woos will stoop. Soon, we'll put it up in neon lights so all the world will see that distortions, untruths and outright lies are your stock in trade. Your only stock in trade.

Happy now, b***h?

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Okay, you don't like the rational explanation that JREF secured the scene of the crime as it were. So, I'll make one up to really lp*** you off. It is such fun to watch you woos twist in the wind, you woo. You woos post libelous garbage and then you woos try to turn the tables. You woos never listen. You woos never get it. Meanwhile, JREF, for all eternity, has documented just how low you woos will stoop. Soon, we'll put it up in neon lights so all the world will see that distortions, untruths and outright lies are your stock in trade. Your only stock in trade.

Happy now, b***h?

?! You intend to promote a campaign to publish libel about the JREF ? !

Bill, you have the mentality of a suicide bomber. I always thought you had a bit of a fundy / fanatical mindset.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy


?! You intend to promote a campaign to publish libel about the JREF ? !

Bill, you have the mentality of a suicide bomber. I always thought you had a bit of a fundy / fanatical mindset.

Jihad! Buwahahahaha.

You are truly one dense troll.

I'll spend my next ten posts elsewise.

#4990.

[Lucianarchy]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Jihad! Buwahahahaha.

You are truly one dense troll.

I'll spend my next ten posts elsewise.

#4990.

Yes, you'll continue to evade. We know.

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by Lucianarchy
Yes, you'll continue to evade. We know.

This from the master of squirm.