OT: Rittenhouse shot \"three black men\" - apparently!...

[Phil Allison]

bitrex = fuckwit wrote:
==================

An organization that called him a \"murderer\" instead of \"alleged
murderer\" he might have a case against, but the terms \"domestic
terrorist\" and \"white supremacist\" aren\'t well-defined.

** Don\'t matter.
The context defines the intended meaning.

How many defamation cases did Greta Thunberg win

** What a load of fucking desperate drivel.

These words are used as the material equivalent of the word \"asshole\"

** Absolute crap.

The terms aren\'t well-defined.

** Don\'t matter.
The context defines the intended meaning.

In this case, the clear imputation was that Kyle deserved to go to jail for life.
A massive, criminal defamation.


...... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

bitrex = fuckwit wrote:
==================

An organization that called him a \"murderer\" instead of \"alleged
murderer\" he might have a case against, but the terms \"domestic
terrorist\" and \"white supremacist\" aren\'t well-defined.

** Don\'t matter.
The context defines the intended meaning.

How many defamation cases did Greta Thunberg win

** What a load of fucking desperate drivel.

These words are used as the material equivalent of the word \"asshole\"

** Absolute crap.

The terms aren\'t well-defined.

** Don\'t matter.
The context defines the intended meaning.

In this case, the clear imputation was that Kyle deserved to go to jail for life.
A massive, criminal defamation.


...... Phil

 

[Cursitor Doom]

On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 16:21:31 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 11/20/2021 3:55 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
bitrex = fuckwit wrote:
==================

An organization that called him a \"murderer\" instead of \"alleged
murderer\" he might have a case against, but the terms \"domestic
terrorist\" and \"white supremacist\" aren\'t well-defined.

** Don\'t matter.
The context defines the intended meaning.

How many defamation cases did Greta Thunberg win against any of the
creepy 9,000 year old Americans who called her every name under the sun,
much less 9,000 year old American presidents.

These words are used as the material equivalent of the word \"asshole\"

** Absolute crap.


The terms aren\'t well-defined.

Actually they are. Under English law, this publication is generally
cited in court as to precisely what and what is not defamatory (this
is a *very* old edition judging by how slim it is) -

https://www.ebay.com/itm/334174838482?hash=item4dce5f5ed2:g:-cQAAOSwCLBhYMMZ

I find it impossible to believe that the US courts don\'t have their
own equivalent (although granted I believe in the US it\'s necessary to
prove malice in the statement made which is not the case in England).
--

\"The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries
and nationality.\"

- The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels

 

[bitrex]

On 11/20/2021 4:48 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 16:21:31 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 11/20/2021 3:55 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
bitrex = fuckwit wrote:
==================

An organization that called him a \"murderer\" instead of \"alleged
murderer\" he might have a case against, but the terms \"domestic
terrorist\" and \"white supremacist\" aren\'t well-defined.

** Don\'t matter.
The context defines the intended meaning.

How many defamation cases did Greta Thunberg win against any of the
creepy 9,000 year old Americans who called her every name under the sun,
much less 9,000 year old American presidents.

These words are used as the material equivalent of the word \"asshole\"

** Absolute crap.


The terms aren\'t well-defined.

Actually they are. Under English law, this publication is generally
cited in court as to precisely what and what is not defamatory (this
is a *very* old edition judging by how slim it is) -

https://www.ebay.com/itm/334174838482?hash=item4dce5f5ed2:g:-cQAAOSwCLBhYMMZ

I find it impossible to believe that the US courts don\'t have their
own equivalent (although granted I believe in the US it\'s necessary to
prove malice in the statement made which is not the case in England).

There\'s links to the relevant US case history in the ACLU link I posted.
Anyway, the court system tends to deal with what was actually said, not
what anyone \"imputed.\" Who the fuck knows what an American is thinking
exactly when he says something? I sure don\'t but I\'m not a mind-reader.

\"The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries
and nationality.\"

- The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels

Joe Biden himself has been called a white supremacist before so why
anyone would immediately assume him calling someone else that imputed he
wanted anyone to go to jail for life IDK...in his own words, \"we got
things done.\" Perhaps he should send himself to jail for life! That\'d
sure be different eh!

<https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/06/19/joe-biden-james-eastland-herman-talmadge-segregationists-civility/>

 

[bitrex]

On 11/20/2021 4:48 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 16:21:31 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

On 11/20/2021 3:55 PM, Phil Allison wrote:
bitrex = fuckwit wrote:
==================

An organization that called him a \"murderer\" instead of \"alleged
murderer\" he might have a case against, but the terms \"domestic
terrorist\" and \"white supremacist\" aren\'t well-defined.

** Don\'t matter.
The context defines the intended meaning.

How many defamation cases did Greta Thunberg win against any of the
creepy 9,000 year old Americans who called her every name under the sun,
much less 9,000 year old American presidents.

These words are used as the material equivalent of the word \"asshole\"

** Absolute crap.


The terms aren\'t well-defined.

Actually they are. Under English law, this publication is generally
cited in court as to precisely what and what is not defamatory (this
is a *very* old edition judging by how slim it is) -

https://www.ebay.com/itm/334174838482?hash=item4dce5f5ed2:g:-cQAAOSwCLBhYMMZ

I find it impossible to believe that the US courts don\'t have their
own equivalent (although granted I believe in the US it\'s necessary to
prove malice in the statement made which is not the case in England).

There\'s links to the relevant US case history in the ACLU link I posted.
Anyway, the court system tends to deal with what was actually said, not
what anyone \"imputed.\" Who the fuck knows what an American is thinking
exactly when he says something? I sure don\'t but I\'m not a mind-reader.

\"The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries
and nationality.\"

- The Communist Manifesto, Marx & Engels

Joe Biden himself has been called a white supremacist before so why
anyone would immediately assume him calling someone else that imputed he
wanted anyone to go to jail for life IDK...in his own words, \"we got
things done.\" Perhaps he should send himself to jail for life! That\'d
sure be different eh!

<https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/06/19/joe-biden-james-eastland-herman-talmadge-segregationists-civility/>

 

[Phil Allison]

bitrex = fuckwit wrote:
==================

An organization that called him a \"murderer\" instead of \"alleged
murderer\" he might have a case against, but the terms \"domestic
terrorist\" and \"white supremacist\" aren\'t well-defined.

** Don\'t matter.
The context defines the intended meaning.


The terms aren\'t well-defined.

Anyway, the court system tends to deal with what was actually said, not
what anyone \"imputed.\"

** What a fucking, pig ignorant idea.

In any defamation case the WHOLE issue revolves around \" defamatory imputations\".
What the words implied about the defamed party in the minds of others.

Look it up - fuckhead.


....... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

bitrex = fuckwit wrote:
==================

An organization that called him a \"murderer\" instead of \"alleged
murderer\" he might have a case against, but the terms \"domestic
terrorist\" and \"white supremacist\" aren\'t well-defined.

** Don\'t matter.
The context defines the intended meaning.


The terms aren\'t well-defined.

Anyway, the court system tends to deal with what was actually said, not
what anyone \"imputed.\"

** What a fucking, pig ignorant idea.

In any defamation case the WHOLE issue revolves around \" defamatory imputations\".
What the words implied about the defamed party in the minds of others.

Look it up - fuckhead.


....... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

bitrex = fuckwit wrote:
==================

An organization that called him a \"murderer\" instead of \"alleged
murderer\" he might have a case against, but the terms \"domestic
terrorist\" and \"white supremacist\" aren\'t well-defined.

** Don\'t matter.
The context defines the intended meaning.


The terms aren\'t well-defined.

Anyway, the court system tends to deal with what was actually said, not
what anyone \"imputed.\"

** What a fucking, pig ignorant idea.

In any defamation case the WHOLE issue revolves around \" defamatory imputations\".
What the words implied about the defamed party in the minds of others.

Look it up - fuckhead.


....... Phil

 

[bitrex]

On 11/20/2021 5:24 PM, Phil Allison wrote:

bitrex = fuckwit wrote:
==================


An organization that called him a \"murderer\" instead of \"alleged
murderer\" he might have a case against, but the terms \"domestic
terrorist\" and \"white supremacist\" aren\'t well-defined.

** Don\'t matter.
The context defines the intended meaning.


The terms aren\'t well-defined.

Anyway, the court system tends to deal with what was actually said, not
what anyone \"imputed.\"

** What a fucking, pig ignorant idea.

In any defamation case the WHOLE issue revolves around \" defamatory imputations\".
What the words implied about the defamed party in the minds of others.

Look it up - fuckhead.


...... Phil

With respect to claims that can be shown to be true, or false. There\'s
no way to show whether the claim \"he is a white supremacist\" is true or
false. What makes you think a court would just assume he isn\'t one? They
won\'t assume that. A shithead white supremacist might assume a court
would just take him at his word that he\'s actually an upstanding
citizen, it won\'t.

Nobody cares about what is implied about the defamed party in the minds
of others unless it\'s with respect to something that can be shown to be
untrue in the first place or the statement is defamation per se, and
what was said is definitely not defamation per se. It\'s not even a crime
to be one.

Opinions are protected speech here. fuck off.

 

[bitrex]

On 11/20/2021 5:24 PM, Phil Allison wrote:

bitrex = fuckwit wrote:
==================


An organization that called him a \"murderer\" instead of \"alleged
murderer\" he might have a case against, but the terms \"domestic
terrorist\" and \"white supremacist\" aren\'t well-defined.

** Don\'t matter.
The context defines the intended meaning.


The terms aren\'t well-defined.

Anyway, the court system tends to deal with what was actually said, not
what anyone \"imputed.\"

** What a fucking, pig ignorant idea.

In any defamation case the WHOLE issue revolves around \" defamatory imputations\".
What the words implied about the defamed party in the minds of others.

Look it up - fuckhead.


...... Phil

With respect to claims that can be shown to be true, or false. There\'s
no way to show whether the claim \"he is a white supremacist\" is true or
false. What makes you think a court would just assume he isn\'t one? They
won\'t assume that. A shithead white supremacist might assume a court
would just take him at his word that he\'s actually an upstanding
citizen, it won\'t.

Nobody cares about what is implied about the defamed party in the minds
of others unless it\'s with respect to something that can be shown to be
untrue in the first place or the statement is defamation per se, and
what was said is definitely not defamation per se. It\'s not even a crime
to be one.

Opinions are protected speech here. fuck off.

 

[bitrex]

On 11/20/2021 5:24 PM, Phil Allison wrote:

bitrex = fuckwit wrote:
==================


An organization that called him a \"murderer\" instead of \"alleged
murderer\" he might have a case against, but the terms \"domestic
terrorist\" and \"white supremacist\" aren\'t well-defined.

** Don\'t matter.
The context defines the intended meaning.


The terms aren\'t well-defined.

Anyway, the court system tends to deal with what was actually said, not
what anyone \"imputed.\"

** What a fucking, pig ignorant idea.

In any defamation case the WHOLE issue revolves around \" defamatory imputations\".
What the words implied about the defamed party in the minds of others.

Look it up - fuckhead.


...... Phil

With respect to claims that can be shown to be true, or false. There\'s
no way to show whether the claim \"he is a white supremacist\" is true or
false. What makes you think a court would just assume he isn\'t one? They
won\'t assume that. A shithead white supremacist might assume a court
would just take him at his word that he\'s actually an upstanding
citizen, it won\'t.

Nobody cares about what is implied about the defamed party in the minds
of others unless it\'s with respect to something that can be shown to be
untrue in the first place or the statement is defamation per se, and
what was said is definitely not defamation per se. It\'s not even a crime
to be one.

Opinions are protected speech here. fuck off.

 

[bitrex]

On 11/20/2021 3:53 PM, Phil Allison wrote:

dean...@gmail.com wrote:
---------------------------------------------

he should sue Biden

I guess it isn\'t as straight forward as one would think.
Rittenhouse might be considered a public figure.

** Utter nonsense.

That makes it tougher to collect.

** No when you maliciously slander someone about to face a criminal trail.

That warrants punitive damages.


...... Phil

Waah waah someone said a mean thing, let\'s run to the State to help like
a little bitch running to mommy.

They won\'t help, not here.

 

[bitrex]

On 11/20/2021 3:53 PM, Phil Allison wrote:

dean...@gmail.com wrote:
---------------------------------------------

he should sue Biden

I guess it isn\'t as straight forward as one would think.
Rittenhouse might be considered a public figure.

** Utter nonsense.

That makes it tougher to collect.

** No when you maliciously slander someone about to face a criminal trail.

That warrants punitive damages.


...... Phil

Waah waah someone said a mean thing, let\'s run to the State to help like
a little bitch running to mommy.

They won\'t help, not here.

 

[bitrex]

On 11/20/2021 4:33 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 15:07:31 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

14 hours a day of opinion pieces is a lot cheaper than maintaining
foreign news bureaus, too.

The BBC manages to somehow do both! It\'s amazing what you can do with
limitless cash extorted from the public under the threat of
imprisonment, it seems.

The real crime with American media is they almost universally expect you
to pay to watch/read it, instead of the reverse.

I wanted to watch the Red Sox lose to the Astros and it\'s never been
harder to just watch a game than it is now, it\'s all paywalled to hell
and gone with a few captive providers and who would ever pay them for a
subscription.

Fox was carrying it online and they give you a free 1 hour trial so I
watched it for an hour and then just repasted the link to the free trial
in a Chrome incognito window thinking \"no way this is gonna work\" and it
worked fine, what a bunch of dumb-dumbs.

You could probably just write a script to automate that and get infinite
sports TV until they figure it out.

 

[bitrex]

On 11/20/2021 4:33 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:

On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 15:07:31 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net> wrote:

14 hours a day of opinion pieces is a lot cheaper than maintaining
foreign news bureaus, too.

The BBC manages to somehow do both! It\'s amazing what you can do with
limitless cash extorted from the public under the threat of
imprisonment, it seems.

The real crime with American media is they almost universally expect you
to pay to watch/read it, instead of the reverse.

I wanted to watch the Red Sox lose to the Astros and it\'s never been
harder to just watch a game than it is now, it\'s all paywalled to hell
and gone with a few captive providers and who would ever pay them for a
subscription.

Fox was carrying it online and they give you a free 1 hour trial so I
watched it for an hour and then just repasted the link to the free trial
in a Chrome incognito window thinking \"no way this is gonna work\" and it
worked fine, what a bunch of dumb-dumbs.

You could probably just write a script to automate that and get infinite
sports TV until they figure it out.

 

[Pamela]

On 23:02 20 Nov 2021, bitrex said:

On 11/20/2021 4:33 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 15:07:31 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net
wrote:

14 hours a day of opinion pieces is a lot cheaper than maintaining
foreign news bureaus, too.

The BBC manages to somehow do both! It\'s amazing what you can do
with limitless cash extorted from the public under the threat of
imprisonment, it seems.


The real crime with American media is they almost universally expect
you to pay to watch/read it, instead of the reverse.

I wanted to watch the Red Sox lose to the Astros and it\'s never been
harder to just watch a game than it is now, it\'s all paywalled to
hell and gone with a few captive providers and who would ever pay
them for a subscription.

Fox was carrying it online and they give you a free 1 hour trial so
I watched it for an hour and then just repasted the link to the free
trial in a Chrome incognito window thinking \"no way this is gonna
work\" and it worked fine, what a bunch of dumb-dumbs.

You could probably just write a script to automate that and get
infinite sports TV until they figure it out.

I haven\'t used them for a while but you might still be able to stream
Fox TV with these links. Also other U.S. channels too.

http://watchnewslive.tv.fox

http://livenewsnow.com/featured/fox-news.html

 

[bitrex]

On 11/20/2021 6:41 PM, Pamela wrote:

On 23:02 20 Nov 2021, bitrex said:

On 11/20/2021 4:33 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sat, 20 Nov 2021 15:07:31 -0500, bitrex <user@example.net
wrote:

14 hours a day of opinion pieces is a lot cheaper than maintaining
foreign news bureaus, too.

The BBC manages to somehow do both! It\'s amazing what you can do
with limitless cash extorted from the public under the threat of
imprisonment, it seems.


The real crime with American media is they almost universally expect
you to pay to watch/read it, instead of the reverse.

I wanted to watch the Red Sox lose to the Astros and it\'s never been
harder to just watch a game than it is now, it\'s all paywalled to
hell and gone with a few captive providers and who would ever pay
them for a subscription.

Fox was carrying it online and they give you a free 1 hour trial so
I watched it for an hour and then just repasted the link to the free
trial in a Chrome incognito window thinking \"no way this is gonna
work\" and it worked fine, what a bunch of dumb-dumbs.

You could probably just write a script to automate that and get
infinite sports TV until they figure it out.

I haven\'t used them for a while but you might still be able to stream
Fox TV with these links. Also other U.S. channels too.

http://watchnewslive.tv.fox

http://livenewsnow.com/featured/fox-news.html

Looks like those are for Fox News (ick), but in the US they have a
number of other channels that carry live sports etc. that you can only
watch online if you have like a cable TV provider login, or subscribe to
one of those online service like Hulu, Fubo, Sling, YouTubeTV, and
probably pay some additional monthly fee, I haven\'t checked.

 

[Phil Allison]

bitrex = RAVING LUNATIC wrote:
===========================

An organization that called him a \"murderer\" instead of \"alleged
murderer\" he might have a case against, but the terms \"domestic
terrorist\" and \"white supremacist\" aren\'t well-defined.

** Don\'t matter.
The context defines the intended meaning.


The terms aren\'t well-defined.

Anyway, the court system tends to deal with what was actually said, not
what anyone \"imputed.\"

** What a fucking, pig ignorant idea.

In any defamation case the WHOLE issue revolves around \" defamatory imputations\".
What the words implied about the defamed party in the minds of others.

Look it up - fuckhead.



With respect to claims that can be shown to be true, or false.

** That is a problem for the defamer - to prove their claim is true.
Truth is a defense in defamation law.

There\'s
no way to show whether the claim \"he is a white supremacist\" is true or
false.

** Fucking stupid garbage.

> What makes you think a court would just assume he isn\'t one?

** They have to, cos they cannot assume otherwise.

Nobody cares about what is implied about the defamed party in the minds
of others unless it\'s with respect to something that can be shown to be
untrue

** More fucking stupid garbage. Accusers must prove their claims in court.

in the first place or the statement is defamation per se, and
what was said is definitely not defamation per se. It\'s not even a crime
to be one.

** But is is a crime to be a murderer - as Kyle was called many times in the MSM.

Also breaking the law of \"sub judice contempt\".

> Opinions are protected speech here.

** ROTFL - not when it is a serious defamation of a person.



....... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

bitrex = RAVING LUNATIC wrote:
===========================

An organization that called him a \"murderer\" instead of \"alleged
murderer\" he might have a case against, but the terms \"domestic
terrorist\" and \"white supremacist\" aren\'t well-defined.

** Don\'t matter.
The context defines the intended meaning.


The terms aren\'t well-defined.

Anyway, the court system tends to deal with what was actually said, not
what anyone \"imputed.\"

** What a fucking, pig ignorant idea.

In any defamation case the WHOLE issue revolves around \" defamatory imputations\".
What the words implied about the defamed party in the minds of others.

Look it up - fuckhead.



With respect to claims that can be shown to be true, or false.

** That is a problem for the defamer - to prove their claim is true.
Truth is a defense in defamation law.

There\'s
no way to show whether the claim \"he is a white supremacist\" is true or
false.

** Fucking stupid garbage.

> What makes you think a court would just assume he isn\'t one?

** They have to, cos they cannot assume otherwise.

Nobody cares about what is implied about the defamed party in the minds
of others unless it\'s with respect to something that can be shown to be
untrue

** More fucking stupid garbage. Accusers must prove their claims in court.

in the first place or the statement is defamation per se, and
what was said is definitely not defamation per se. It\'s not even a crime
to be one.

** But is is a crime to be a murderer - as Kyle was called many times in the MSM.

Also breaking the law of \"sub judice contempt\".

> Opinions are protected speech here.

** ROTFL - not when it is a serious defamation of a person.



....... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

bitrex = RAVING LUNATIC wrote:
===========================

An organization that called him a \"murderer\" instead of \"alleged
murderer\" he might have a case against, but the terms \"domestic
terrorist\" and \"white supremacist\" aren\'t well-defined.

** Don\'t matter.
The context defines the intended meaning.


The terms aren\'t well-defined.

Anyway, the court system tends to deal with what was actually said, not
what anyone \"imputed.\"

** What a fucking, pig ignorant idea.

In any defamation case the WHOLE issue revolves around \" defamatory imputations\".
What the words implied about the defamed party in the minds of others.

Look it up - fuckhead.



With respect to claims that can be shown to be true, or false.

** That is a problem for the defamer - to prove their claim is true.
Truth is a defense in defamation law.

There\'s
no way to show whether the claim \"he is a white supremacist\" is true or
false.

** Fucking stupid garbage.

> What makes you think a court would just assume he isn\'t one?

** They have to, cos they cannot assume otherwise.

Nobody cares about what is implied about the defamed party in the minds
of others unless it\'s with respect to something that can be shown to be
untrue

** More fucking stupid garbage. Accusers must prove their claims in court.

in the first place or the statement is defamation per se, and
what was said is definitely not defamation per se. It\'s not even a crime
to be one.

** But is is a crime to be a murderer - as Kyle was called many times in the MSM.

Also breaking the law of \"sub judice contempt\".

> Opinions are protected speech here.

** ROTFL - not when it is a serious defamation of a person.



....... Phil