DCP naming names again

[_3sheets2thewind]

Dan would be considered a public. I too would be interested in what statements Scratch has made - which statements are not clearly or implicitly couched as opinion or with a disclaimer. Also which statements were made as fact but where a disregard to the truth of the matter?

And as Dan pointed out it is not likely that Dan has suffered any damage to his reputation,.

In my opinion any lawsuit Dan would bring would be a vindicative suit, that even Dan very likely has a good idea he would win; it would be a suit designed to "bankrupt" the defendant - via attorneys fees rather than a finding of guilt by the court.

[_Pahoran]

Did Pahoran tell me that he thought that Chino Blanco was Scratch? Yes, he did.

Did you tell Pahoran that he wasn't correct, or did you pile on? This is a pretty important point.

Why is it important? Important as a matter of institutional loyalty to the scumbag-in-chief? Why should she tell me I'm not correct unless she actually thinks that?

Did I suggest that Dan unfriend Jason Echols, who was on Dan's Facebook friend list? Yes, I did. (by the way, Dan does not know Jason, and has no idea why that person was on his friends list to begin with.)

Why in the world would you be scouring Mr. Peterson's Facebook friend list, and pointing out potential "enemies"?

More to the point: why in the world would someone who claims he has no knowledge of or interest in Dr Peterson go to the trouble of friending him on Facebook?

Pahoran had already told Dan that he thought Jason was Scratch. All I did was notice that Jason Echols' name was on Dan's Friends list, and suggested that he remove Jason as a friend as a security precaution.

Why would you do this if you didn't think Chino Blanco was Dr. Scratch? Did you give Mr. Peterson the impression Chino Blanco might be Dr. Scratch?

She didn't have to; I'd already done that.

I did read on Jason's Facebook page (which is public) that he spent time in Taiwan. The comment I made to Scratch was an obscure swipe. It was a payback for his prior pulling of crap on me when he has tried to get me ousted as a Moderator previously.

This clearly looks like you thought Dr. Scratch was Chino Blanco. Also, why in the world are you reading Chino Blanco's Facebook page?

A Facebook page is public; reading it requires no explanation.

It was an obscure enough swipe that if Scratch was NOT Jason Echols, Scratch would not know what the hell I was talking about, and it would be no harm no foul. If Scratch WAS Jason, then it would allow him to know that I suspected who he was, and he better simply leave me alone.

So you Internet sleuthed evidence for Dr. Scratch's identity, thought it was Chino Blanco, discussed it with Pahoran, and warned Mr. Peterson that Chino Blanco might be Dr. Scratch?

Don't they teach reading in Hickory? You've got it backwards.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Pahoran]

Yup. Liz clearly thought there was a strong possibility that she was doing this to Scratch. But she made that post all the same.

Scratch (if he were CB) wouldn't have been the only person who "got" the swipe...It was obviously also intended for her apologist buddies who were privy to the information...

But the fact is that the worthless Scratch did get the swipe. He also got all of the little hints I dropped on that forum, including the first and most obscure one. And he didn't just figure it out in retrospect; he got it at once, and immediately altered his posting behaviour.

Interesting, isn't it?

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

In my opinion any lawsuit Dan would bring would be a vindicative suit, that even Dan very likely has a good idea he would win; it would be a suit designed to "bankrupt" the defendant - via attorneys fees rather than a finding of guilt by the court.

Dan has absolutely no legal standing to prevail in a lawsuit against Dr. Scratch. Anyone who thinks otherwise, is ignorant of the applicable standards and certainly has never handled these types of cases. It's just a pipe dream for DCP.

It would be an honor to have my firm represent Dr. Scratch completely free of any fees/costs if DCP should attempt such a ridiculous undertaking.

[_lulu]

I'd even be willing to bet DCP is a public figure, so he'd have to show reckless disregard for the truth.

Good point. Among other things, including his name dropping, public disclosures of all his travels and the "important things" he does, having his own page on Wikipedia would probably qualify him as a public figure for the purposes of a defense against libel.

Yes, but if Sockpuppet is a lawyer as he claims, he can tell you that the "public figure" defense doesn't automagically vitiate any and all libel claims. And proving that Scratch shows reckless disregard for the truth, not to mention actual malice, would be trivially easy.

Regards,
Pahoran

You don't know any more about the definition of "actual malice" in a defamation suit than you do the definition of "systematic theology."

"Actual malice" for defamation means "reckless disregard for the truth."

lulu - redundantly

[_Pahoran]

And yet, what we are seeing from the worthless Scratch is not at all "a gale of derisive laughter." It looks a lot more like lashing out in rage.

Not really.

But if it cheers you up to think that way about it, no harm will be done, so why shouldn't you indulge yourself?

That's right. There's nothing remotely angry about him firing off spiteful accusations in all directions.

He claims to have "incontrovertible proof in [his] PM box" that Liz has been "looking at IP addresses and giving that type of information to Pahoran or anyone else." But he has no such proof, and he knows it.

He's lashing out. Intemperately and angrily.

And isn't it fascinating how all his boosters are so anxious to "assure" everyone that Scratch isn't who I think he is?

Well, if he's not that person, then neither Liz nor I have broken any rules, have we?

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Pahoran]

Dan has absolutely no legal standing to prevail in a lawsuit against Dr. Scratch. Anyone who thinks otherwise, is ignorant of the applicable standards and certainly has never handled these types of cases. It's just a pipe dream for DCP.

It would be an honor to have my firm represent Dr. Scratch completely free of any fees/costs if DCP should attempt such a ridiculous undertaking.

Yes, I'm sure you are in complete sympathy with the worthless Scratch's relentless campaign of harassment and defamation.

Regards,
Pahoran

[_Chap]

I usually read Scratch's posts with interest, and I can't say I have noticed the phenomena to which Pahoran is referring. Has anybody else?

I am beginning to think that Pahoran is becoming subject to an obsession that is distorting his vision of reality. It certainly can't be good for him to be so continually fizzing with rage. Sooner or later, something will go pop.

[_Darth J]

Dan has absolutely no legal standing to prevail in a lawsuit against Dr. Scratch. Anyone who thinks otherwise, is ignorant of the applicable standards and certainly has never handled these types of cases. It's just a pipe dream for DCP.

It would be an honor to have my firm represent Dr. Scratch completely free of any fees/costs if DCP should attempt such a ridiculous undertaking.

Yes, I'm sure you are in complete sympathy with the worthless Scratch's relentless campaign of harassment and defamation.

Regards,
Pahoran

Gee, Pahoran. Why don't you stop begging the question in this thread, and courageously impress us all in this other thread?

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=26689

[_lulu]

Well, if he's not that person, then neither Liz nor I have broken any rules, have we?

Regards,
Pahoran

So you think the burden of proceeding as well as proof should lie with the person you think you have outed?