Calif Bill wrote:

"Rick" wrote in message
news
Calif Bill wrote:

Now, Don, would *you* buy an engine from a heroin addict?

Is that Slander or Libel? Forget which is the written version.

It is merely a question.

Rick


Yes it is a question. Which is it, Slander or Libel?




Neither, Bill, and the reasons why are too sophisticated and complicated
for a binary fellow like you to understand.



--
Email sent to is never read.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:

"Rick" wrote in message
news
Calif Bill wrote:

Now, Don, would *you* buy an engine from a heroin addict?

Is that Slander or Libel? Forget which is the written version.

It is merely a question.

Rick


Yes it is a question. Which is it, Slander or Libel?




Neither, Bill, and the reasons why are too sophisticated and complicated
for a binary fellow like you to understand.



--
Email sent to is never read.

I guess you have to be a know it all like you.

Calif Bill wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:

"Rick" wrote in message
news Calif Bill wrote:

Now, Don, would *you* buy an engine from a heroin addict?

Is that Slander or Libel? Forget which is the written version.

It is merely a question.

Rick


Yes it is a question. Which is it, Slander or Libel?




Neither, Bill, and the reasons why are too sophisticated and complicated
for a binary fellow like you to understand.



--
Email sent to is never read.

I guess you have to be a know it all like you.



I'm not a know-it-all, Bill. But I also am not boxed in by binary
thinking, as you and so many other conservatives seem to be. In my
younger days as a newspaper and wire service reporter, I was instructed
at length in the ins and outs of libel and slander.

The unnamed subject of your inquiry might be able to initiate a lawsuit
for libel. After all, in the United States, anyone may be sued for just
about anything. But the suit would get nowhere, it would be dismissed,
probably with prejudice, and, in the end, the subject could be
countersued for bringing forward a nuisance lawsuit. If that happened,
the subject likely would lose. But I suspect the subject is suit-proof,
as it were, because the subject is without assets. There's little sense
in pursuing a civil suit against an entity with no assets.






Email sent to is never read.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:

"Rick" wrote in message
news Calif Bill wrote:

Now, Don, would *you* buy an engine from a heroin addict?

Is that Slander or Libel? Forget which is the written version.

It is merely a question.

Rick


Yes it is a question. Which is it, Slander or Libel?




Neither, Bill, and the reasons why are too sophisticated and
complicated
for a binary fellow like you to understand.



--
Email sent to is never read.

I guess you have to be a know it all like you.



I'm not a know-it-all, Bill. But I also am not boxed in by binary
thinking, as you and so many other conservatives seem to be. In my
younger days as a newspaper and wire service reporter, I was instructed
at length in the ins and outs of libel and slander.

The unnamed subject of your inquiry might be able to initiate a lawsuit
for libel. After all, in the United States, anyone may be sued for just
about anything. But the suit would get nowhere, it would be dismissed,
probably with prejudice, and, in the end, the subject could be
countersued for bringing forward a nuisance lawsuit. If that happened,
the subject likely would lose. But I suspect the subject is suit-proof,
as it were, because the subject is without assets. There's little sense
in pursuing a civil suit against an entity with no assets.






Email sent to is never read.

Actually she could sue as you accused her of being a heroin addict, in a
public forum, just to spite her. Seems as if there is a case, so no
nuisance ruling. Maybe you have no assets, so you don't get sued.

Calif Bill wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:

"Rick" wrote in message
news Calif Bill wrote:

Now, Don, would *you* buy an engine from a heroin addict?

Is that Slander or Libel? Forget which is the written version.

It is merely a question.

Rick


Yes it is a question. Which is it, Slander or Libel?




Neither, Bill, and the reasons why are too sophisticated and
complicated
for a binary fellow like you to understand.



--
Email sent to is never read.

I guess you have to be a know it all like you.



I'm not a know-it-all, Bill. But I also am not boxed in by binary
thinking, as you and so many other conservatives seem to be. In my
younger days as a newspaper and wire service reporter, I was instructed
at length in the ins and outs of libel and slander.

The unnamed subject of your inquiry might be able to initiate a lawsuit
for libel. After all, in the United States, anyone may be sued for just
about anything. But the suit would get nowhere, it would be dismissed,
probably with prejudice, and, in the end, the subject could be
countersued for bringing forward a nuisance lawsuit. If that happened,
the subject likely would lose. But I suspect the subject is suit-proof,
as it were, because the subject is without assets. There's little sense
in pursuing a civil suit against an entity with no assets.






Email sent to is never read.

Actually she could sue as you accused her of being a heroin addict, in a
public forum, just to spite her. Seems as if there is a case, so no
nuisance ruling. Maybe you have no assets, so you don't get sued.



Bill, I have already stated that anyone can sue anyone in this country.
That's not news. Ahh, but Bill, I never stated the reason *why* your
subject's case would be dismissed. I only stated it would be dismissed.

Try to think outside the box. Try.




--
Email sent to is never read.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:

"Rick" wrote in message
news Calif Bill wrote:

Now, Don, would *you* buy an engine from a heroin addict?

Is that Slander or Libel? Forget which is the written version.

It is merely a question.

Rick


Yes it is a question. Which is it, Slander or Libel?




Neither, Bill, and the reasons why are too sophisticated and
complicated
for a binary fellow like you to understand.



--
Email sent to is never read.

I guess you have to be a know it all like you.



I'm not a know-it-all, Bill. But I also am not boxed in by binary
thinking, as you and so many other conservatives seem to be. In my
younger days as a newspaper and wire service reporter, I was instructed
at length in the ins and outs of libel and slander.

The unnamed subject of your inquiry might be able to initiate a lawsuit
for libel. After all, in the United States, anyone may be sued for just
about anything. But the suit would get nowhere, it would be dismissed,
probably with prejudice, and, in the end, the subject could be
countersued for bringing forward a nuisance lawsuit. If that happened,
the subject likely would lose. But I suspect the subject is suit-proof,
as it were, because the subject is without assets. There's little sense
in pursuing a civil suit against an entity with no assets.






Email sent to is never read.

Actually she could sue as you accused her of being a heroin addict, in a
public forum, just to spite her. Seems as if there is a case, so no
nuisance ruling. Maybe you have no assets, so you don't get sued.



Bill, I have already stated that anyone can sue anyone in this country.
That's not news. Ahh, but Bill, I never stated the reason *why* your
subject's case would be dismissed. I only stated it would be dismissed.

Try to think outside the box. Try.



Sure it may be dismissed, but not with prejudice. Why don't you try to
think. Instead of being 1/2 of binary. Single track.

Calif Bill wrote:

Instead of being 1/2 of binary. Single track.

Binary doesn't "have" halves. It means two states or conditions.

A track is a linear concept, it is not a condition or state. A track
originates in one place and leads to another. A binary state is static,
it does not move or exhibit variation or degrees of condition. It is the
refuge of the political and religious fundamentalist. It is or is not,
there is no allowance for thought that would occasion the intrusion of
the disturbing variability of truth.

Rick

Calif Bill wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:

"Rick" wrote in message
news Calif Bill wrote:

Now, Don, would *you* buy an engine from a heroin addict?

Is that Slander or Libel? Forget which is the written version.

It is merely a question.

Rick


Yes it is a question. Which is it, Slander or Libel?




Neither, Bill, and the reasons why are too sophisticated and
complicated
for a binary fellow like you to understand.



--
Email sent to is never read.

I guess you have to be a know it all like you.



I'm not a know-it-all, Bill. But I also am not boxed in by binary
thinking, as you and so many other conservatives seem to be. In my
younger days as a newspaper and wire service reporter, I was instructed
at length in the ins and outs of libel and slander.

The unnamed subject of your inquiry might be able to initiate a lawsuit
for libel. After all, in the United States, anyone may be sued for just
about anything. But the suit would get nowhere, it would be dismissed,
probably with prejudice, and, in the end, the subject could be
countersued for bringing forward a nuisance lawsuit. If that happened,
the subject likely would lose. But I suspect the subject is suit-proof,
as it were, because the subject is without assets. There's little sense
in pursuing a civil suit against an entity with no assets.






Email sent to is never read.

Actually she could sue as you accused her of being a heroin addict, in a
public forum, just to spite her. Seems as if there is a case, so no
nuisance ruling. Maybe you have no assets, so you don't get sued.



Bill, I have already stated that anyone can sue anyone in this country.
That's not news. Ahh, but Bill, I never stated the reason *why* your
subject's case would be dismissed. I only stated it would be dismissed.

Try to think outside the box. Try.



Sure it may be dismissed, but not with prejudice. Why don't you try to
think. Instead of being 1/2 of binary. Single track.



Sheesh.

I didn't say it "may" be dismissed with prejudice. I wrote it *would* be
dismissed with prejudice. And you apparently still don't understand why.

As for my "thinking," I suggest you spend some time researching the
concept of "binary logic" as it applies to the human mind. One half of
binary? Single track? Nonsense. It is this kind of absurdity -binary
thinking- that drives you right-wingers, including your simple-minded
fool of a president, George W. Bush.





--
Email sent to is never read.

For both Rick and Harry. Binary covers all numbers. Just add more ones and
zeros. Binary is base 2. 1/2 binary is base 1!!!!. A single state. A
zero. Unchanging. Covers both of you.

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:

"Rick" wrote in message
news Calif Bill wrote:

Now, Don, would *you* buy an engine from a heroin addict?

Is that Slander or Libel? Forget which is the written
version.

It is merely a question.

Rick


Yes it is a question. Which is it, Slander or Libel?




Neither, Bill, and the reasons why are too sophisticated and
complicated
for a binary fellow like you to understand.



--
Email sent to is never read.

I guess you have to be a know it all like you.



I'm not a know-it-all, Bill. But I also am not boxed in by binary
thinking, as you and so many other conservatives seem to be. In my
younger days as a newspaper and wire service reporter, I was
instructed
at length in the ins and outs of libel and slander.

The unnamed subject of your inquiry might be able to initiate a
lawsuit
for libel. After all, in the United States, anyone may be sued for
just
about anything. But the suit would get nowhere, it would be
dismissed,
probably with prejudice, and, in the end, the subject could be
countersued for bringing forward a nuisance lawsuit. If that
happened,
the subject likely would lose. But I suspect the subject is
suit-proof,
as it were, because the subject is without assets. There's little
sense
in pursuing a civil suit against an entity with no assets.






Email sent to is never read.

Actually she could sue as you accused her of being a heroin addict,
in a
public forum, just to spite her. Seems as if there is a case, so no
nuisance ruling. Maybe you have no assets, so you don't get sued.



Bill, I have already stated that anyone can sue anyone in this country.
That's not news. Ahh, but Bill, I never stated the reason *why* your
subject's case would be dismissed. I only stated it would be dismissed.

Try to think outside the box. Try.



Sure it may be dismissed, but not with prejudice. Why don't you try to
think. Instead of being 1/2 of binary. Single track.



Sheesh.

I didn't say it "may" be dismissed with prejudice. I wrote it *would* be
dismissed with prejudice. And you apparently still don't understand why.

As for my "thinking," I suggest you spend some time researching the
concept of "binary logic" as it applies to the human mind. One half of
binary? Single track? Nonsense. It is this kind of absurdity -binary
thinking- that drives you right-wingers, including your simple-minded
fool of a president, George W. Bush.





--
Email sent to is never read.

Calif Bill wrote:

For both Rick and Harry. Binary covers all numbers.

Go boating. Get out of the house. Take a break.

Rick