Pahoran: Make your case for libel against DCP or shut up

[_Yahoo Bot]

"is potentially liable to factor into the ensuing litigation"

Wow, what a threat. And, in reaction to Eric's claim he had a lawyer and was about to sue an impoverished academic? You've got blinders, bub. Blinders of vile hate.

[_RockSlider]

impoverished academic?

visual of donuts can not be avoided

[_3sheets2thewind]

"is potentially liable to factor into the ensuing litigation"

Wow, what a threat. And, in reaction to Eric's claim he had a lawyer and was about to sue an impoverished academic? You've got blinders, bub. Blinders of vile hate.

Well Counselor, would you like to explain how posting someones exact words is "blinders of vile hate."

[_sock puppet]

When DCP was testifying as an expert at the Brian David Mitchell sentencing hearing, in December 2010, you might recall that very coincidentally MAD went offline for a few days. More than coincidence, it was most inconvenient for BDM's defense attorneys to be able to go online and grab from a treasure trove of DCP's writings, some which may have helped them cross-examine DCP to trip him up.

A thread opened up here, and speculation about the timing and how it may have thwarted BDM's defense team became an issue. There were the typical over the top protestations and denials from DCP. But the thread here was closed.

I at first thought DCP had threatened litigation against Shades. But it seems Shades was looking out for some of us posters. Posters in the thread, not the board or Shades, is whom DCP took aim with his litigation threats to get that thread closed.

DCP advanced his theory that the postings in the thread were accusing, "falsely" of course, that DCP had committed a crime in having a hand in the closing of MAD during his time testifying. That could be actionable. The crime? Well, obstruction of justice through the hiding or spoliation of evidence. However, that crime would only be possible by him if DCP's writings were then under legal process or reasonably anticipated to be sought under imminent legal process. They weren't, unless DCP had been asked to provide them writings on topic, and DCP had in fact not provided those relevant posts from MAD.

Of course, the postings in the thread were not asserted conclusively, but were couched as speculations. As I recall, none rose from the level of speculation of possibilities to being accusations that he had in fact committed such a crime. There is a big qualitative difference between, for example

• "It seems awfully convenient for DCP and coincidental. It would not surprise me if Juliann took MAD down during that time, at DCP's suggestion, to prevent his online postings from being a source of cross-examination materials."
• "No doubt about it. Juliann took MAD down at DCP's suggestion to prevent his online postings from being a source of cross-examination materials."

But, the threats worked. The thread was closed. And MAD was in fact offline at the most inopportune time for BDM's attorneys to perhaps find it useful in defense of BDM.

DCP has over the years gained mileage from making threats of lawsuits. If he had not, he would not yet keep leveling those threats, as he did Saturday.

Buckling to DCP's threats, even when nobly done by Shades for the sake of posters here, the troll is being fed.

[_Equality]

Let's not goad Pahoran into proving the obvious.

It is obvious to me that the sun goes round the earth; the stars as well. All I need do to prove it is stand outside and look up at the sky for a little while. See? Obvious! Now, don't ask me to prove it--I have already stated that it is obvious to me, and because it is obvious to me, it is therefore true. Any requests that I prove the obvious are just red herrings thrown out by bitter, rabid, bigoted heliocentrists.

[_Yahoo Bot]

. Any requests that I prove the obvious are just red herrings thrown out by bitter, rabid, bigoted heliocentrists.

How excellently true, and wholly consistent with the truth, the way and the light of my views.

[_3sheets2thewind]

yahoo bot....can't you back up your claims against me?

how is posting DCP words "blind vile hate."


Posting DCP words is "blind vile hate", if and only if, DCP words are "blind vile hate." (Does DCP know that you think his (DCP) own words are "blind vile hate"?)

[_Yahoo Bot]

yahoo bot....can't you back up your claims against me?

how is posting DCP words "blind vile hate."


Posting DCP words is "blind vile hate", if and only if, DCP words are "blind vile hate." (Does DCP know that you think his (DCP) own words are "blind vile hate"?)

I guess I'm going to have to revise my comments. I see your posts instead as vile blind hate.

Sorry for the confusion.

[_Chap]

yahoo bot....can't you back up your claims against me?

how is posting DCP words "blind vile hate."


Posting DCP words is "blind vile hate", if and only if, DCP words are "blind vile hate." (Does DCP know that you think his (DCP) own words are "blind vile hate"?)

I guess I'm going to have to revise my comments. I see your posts instead as vile blind hate.

Sorry for the confusion.

The words used by DCP, who threatened to sue anybody who is connected with this board, are much more interesting to me than Yahoo Bot's speculations about 3sheets2thewind's emotional attitude towards DCP, which affects me not in the least.

The motive for posting DCP's words is irrelevant to a judgement on their content, which is clear evidence of a wish to use the threat of litigation to intimidate critics into silence. No doubt DCP is not the only person to have tried to do that. But the fact remains that he undoubtedly did it.

[_Darth J]

Gee, that's funny. Pahoran says that people who don't post under their real names are cowards, and yet numerous mentions of his real name have been deleted in this thread. Go figure!

While we patiently await Pahoran's compelling argument in support of his incessant question-begging tirade (this particular one of his many question-begging tirades, I mean), I think it would be educational for everyone were Pahoran to also explain how inviting a person to explain the basis for the assertions that he has in fact made (repeatedly) is a "red herring." viewtopic.php?f=1&t=26675&p=650631&hilit=herring#p650631