> >> previously been an open forum, a censored one. > > > > But the forum is no less open and no more censored than it was before. > > The only difference is that one more person is now on the list of those > > excluded from posting. > > I don't understand, what kind of legal logic or lingo you refer to for > saying this. > To me, the only apt word for shutting someone out like this is censorship. > > >> May I ask, what in the world justifies letting Roman rant on with his > >> interminable insults and obsessive, bellicose language when we can't > >> stand > >> Matanya's equally insulting postings? Why should there be a difference? > > > > I don't know that anything justifies some of Roman's more personal > > jibes. But they are never libelous, > > Gee, Howard... do you really mean that? DO you have evidence of me being libellous??????
> > since they never purport to be > > more than personal opinion. (Indeed, many of Roman's posts are > > grounded in the notion that his opinions are valid solely because they > > are his, so he never feels the need to substantiate them, or even > > explain what he means.) > > And in what way does this make Matanya's postings any different? Because MO had set out to assasinate Arthur's character by spreading lies about Arthur. It was a libelous act. RT ___________________________________________________________ $0 Web Hosting with up to 200MB web space, 1000 MB Transfer 10 Personalized POP and Web E-mail Accounts, and much more. Signup at www.doteasy.com To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
