DCP naming names again

[_RockSlider]

come on ceebee, just say it ... someone jumped the gun and shot theirself in the foot.
add plurals as you see fit

[_sock puppet]

*runs in, slightly out of breath*

Sorry I'm late.
So, DCP has named someone who he believes to be his malevolent stalker. Bu he got it wrong. Therefore defaming an innocent person.

This is a valid point. Everyone seems to agree that accusing the wrong person of being Scratch is essentially defamatory. Even Scratch's claque agree to that.

So what does that say about Scratch? That his utter vileness is simply taken as read?

Regards,
Pahoran

I, for one, said it would be a compliment.

[_Kishkumen]

DCP has repeatedly asserted that Scratch is a malicious, mentally deranged person. So when DCP named someone as Scratch, he was certainly making a deliberately defamatory remark.

Whether or not posters agree with DCP's defamatory description of Scratch is quite besides the point. Of course it was entirely predictable that you would attempt this bit of sophistry.

There is so much that is going on in hunt to determine the identity of Scratch that makes the participants look silly. One hardly needs to comment.

Daniel Peterson's histrionics over it are the stuff of mock epic.

The fact that he has numerous lackeys and minions assisting him is drop dead hilarious.

[_consiglieri]

in my opinion, Jason's response seemed to take it as a game. A game he was familiar with because he'd been playing it for years....

Now there's a smoking gun if ever I've seen one.

The case is solv-ed.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

P.S. Hi, Alter Idem! I hope you a well!

[_consiglieri]

If he were to file a lawsuit, DCP and his would have to do an about face.

I'm still trying to figure out who would be named as the Respondent.

[_consiglieri]

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

But what about damages, Pahoran?

Damages?

[_sock puppet]

If he were to file a lawsuit, DCP and his would have to do an about face.

I'm still trying to figure out who would be named as the Respondent.

John Does I-X.

[_sock puppet]

Yes, but if Sockpuppet is a lawyer as he claims, ...

Questionable only due to the fact I went to the Lord's law school, is that it?

[_sock puppet]

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

But what about damages, Pahoran?

Damages?

Particularly with all the repeated protestations by DCP that he's not been harmed.

Wouldn't it be fun, consig, to cross examine DCP on the damages issue by stuffing his own words in his mouth?

[_consiglieri]

True, Darth, no analogy holds perfectly. As an avid childhood EB reader, I was mainly going after the obnoxious, always-getting-beaten-up-nerd-and-running-behind-Sallys-skirt aspect of the character.

H.

Do you remember the one where the culprit gave the story about a squirrel backing down the tree from the tree house, and Encyclopedia said that is what gave him away because squirrels go head first down trees?

Or the one where the dog couldn't possibly have known the cape was red because dogs are color blind?

I learned a lot from those stories.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri