The Many Faces of William J. Hamblin

[_Daniel Peterson]

The never-substantive Scratch sets out to defame Bill Hamblin.

How fascinating.

[_CaliforniaKid]

The never-substantive Scratch sets out to defame Bill Hamblin.

How fascinating.

'Defamation' has a quite specific meaning that I don't believe applies here.

[_Daniel Peterson]

'Defamation' has a quite specific meaning that I don't believe applies here.

I think it fits reasonably well.

But if you prefer to malign, to traduce, to smear, to assassinate the character, to blacken the reputation, or some other such locution, I won't quarrel with you.

[_Chap]

'Defamation' has a quite specific meaning that I don't believe applies here.

I think it fits reasonably well.

But if you prefer to malign, to traduce, to smear, to assassinate the character, to blacken the reputation, or some other such locution, I won't quarrel with you.

DCP is quite correct that such words are normally used when someone has said bad things about someone else, and those things are untrue.

Of course, if one was to judge that the bad things that had been said were, after all, true, then one would use other words, such as convict, unmask, reveal in true colors, discredit, and so on.

I suppose that readers of this board may not really need much help with their vocabularies of praise and blame, either from DCP or myself. Indeed, rather than worrying about such matters they will probably prefer to read Hamblin's writings on the internet, and make up their mind whether he deserves to have bad things or good things said about him on that basis. Then they can pick their favorites from the menu offered by such literary paragons as DCP and my humble self.

[_EAllusion]

Defamation means to make false statements to give a person a negative reputation. If you are making statements about a person that "blacken the reputation" and they're arguably true, it isn't defamation. While Scratch is a little creepy and a bit of a d-bag, he's not making false statements here. (Well, outside of that pomo jab). This is reasonably accurate. Ironically enough, falsely claiming that someone is engaging in defamation to tarnish their reputation is itself defamation.

[_antishock8]

I think it's unfortunate that Mr. Hamblin insinuated Mr. Metcalfe had someone murdered so he could keep some photographs. The one holding the smoking gun on that particular "smear job" is the fellow who put a round through his own foot. There's no point in shifting the blame on this one, Mr. Peterson.

[_harmony]

'Defamation' has a quite specific meaning that I don't believe applies here.

I think it fits reasonably well.

But if you prefer to malign, to traduce, to smear, to assassinate the character, to blacken the reputation, or some other such locution, I won't quarrel with you.

It appears that Dr Hamblin has done a reasonably good job of doing that to himself, no help from anyone here needed. No one has quoted him out of context, no one has put words into his mouth, no one has misquoted him, no one has provided any material which he himself did not write.

No wonder he won't come here. Message boards keep long archives, and once one's left one's footprint in the cement of the archives, it's pretty hard to disown it. This isn't the church's vault, where things are hidden, go missing, are only for eyes with permission, or where gatekeepers tear pages out that might be damaging. This is the internet, the new frontier, and Dr Hamblin appears to have a problem with Foot in Mouth disease.

[_antishock8]

I wonder if he would be good enough to at least shed some light on the "2nd Watson Letter"?

[_harmony]

I wonder if he would be good enough to at least shed some light on the "2nd Watson Letter"?

It would not be in his best interest to admit that such a letter even existed, if indeed it did, and that he lost it, if indeed he did. I'm certain that letter, if it ever existed, will never again see the light of day.

[_Chap]

I wonder if he would be good enough to at least shed some light on the "2nd Watson Letter"?

Didn't the Angel Moroni take that back?

But we have the testimony of witnesses who saw it (have we not?), and none of them have yet recanted their testimony, so far as I am aware. So why all these questions?