And I never called it a criminal act. And I never threatened anyone with a
criminal action. So, do not make it look like I did.

The situation is very simple. I am amazed that as a lawyer you do not see
it.:
1. One insults someone to the extent that he/she is now angry enough to take
a counteraction. It was your free will to insult, be prepared to find
yourself on a receiving end of someone exercising his fee will too. All
within legal boundaries, of course.
2. One is offered several remedies to satisfy the insulted and one neither
agree to them, no offer alternative solution. One understands that this will
put him (or her) in an unfavorable position when such situation will be in
front of a judge or a court of public opinion. One has chosen a path of war.
3. In that case one needs to be prepared that one's opponent will take steps
within legal or public system to get satisfaction. That is called
"responsibility for your actions" and is part of the natural justice system.

Depending on the jurisdiction, legal situation and money/time available to
the angry party it could be anything. I do not go through an American law
school and cannot represent anyone but myself, but I went through many legal
business proceedings and studied law to the extent that I am comfortable
representing myself in non-criminal cases or cases that does not involve
potential serious damages against me.
As soon as I get off "the boat" onto these shores, I understood almost
instantaneously that a person here can be taken to court for any, however
stupid and miniscule reason and that translated immediately into huge legal
bills. Comparing to these expenses the outcome of the case may be completely
irrelevant. That was an implicit attack on my freedom (you may not agree)
and I dedicated a certain amount of time and money to investigate the
situation and acquire enough knowledge to be my own lawyer, thus taking
(albeit only partially) my freedom not to be robbed by some petty lawsuit
back.

You (and nobody else) is in any danger from my stance -
1. Do not knowingly insult me (your mother should have told you that
already)
2. When you do and I offer you a way out (an apology or retraction or
arbitration of any sort) take it.
3. If you did not take it - do not be surprised by my actions.

I think if more people will follow my example, USENET would become a much
more civilized, informative an in general humane place.
I also think if more people would study law just not to be scared of a petty
lawsuits, this country will definitely be better off and the amount of
freedom will increase. And, most probably, we will become more civil, polite
and respectful of others.
Should I call White House about this?

Cheers,

Sasha.



"Space Cowboy" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> It's not a criminal act to call someone a liar. It is a criminal act
> to lie under oath. Applying libel and copyright laws to USENET is so
> far a waste of time in court. You have no real legal remedy. Instead
> you're taking your case to the media. You can't lose. Is liar,
> rapist, and thief the extent of pursuable measures on your part? I
> want you to state the full extent for the public record since you made
> the threat to me and others.
>
> Jim
>
> Alex Chaihorsky wrote:
>> That is your opinion and I respect it. Mine's different. You can say
>> anything you want and question anything I say. But if you call me a liar
>> or
>> a rapist or a thief, I will take measures similar to these. USENET or not
>> USENET, this is public record. If most people choose to wipe the spit off
>> their faces, spitting back, I don't. That is my personal and legal
>> choice.
>> BTW, there is no legal definition of "troll" and calling someone that is
>> meaningless outside USENET. "Liar" is different. And you know that.
>>
>> Sasha.
>>
>>
>> "Space Cowboy" > wrote in message
>> ups.com...
>> > So now what are we suppose to think? We'll say something else that
>> > will trip your hot button and threaten us with punitive actions.
>> > Calling someone in Usenet a Liar is like calling them a Troll. It is
>> > meaningless and used for dramatic punctuation. If the accused suspects
>> > you of tall tales and calls them a lie that's her opinion. Usenet is
>> > nothing more than opinions that barely rise above the background noice
>> > of slurs and innuendos. I'd be more concerned about what this
>> > community thinks than the media. I hound the guy and he's still here.
>> > He has a thick hide. You need one in Usenet. It ain't for the
>> > sensitive or squeemish. I think you have it in for us liberals. I'm
>> > the only liberal between here and Chinatown.
>> >
>> > Jim
>> >
>> > Alex Chaihorsky wrote:
>> >> Dear Ms. Brown (Ore),
>> >> cc. Usenet.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> You have exercised your First Amendment right and posted numerous
>> >> potentially libelous statements about me on international USENET
>> >> forum. I
>> >> respect your Constitutional right and would like to excursive same of
>> >> my
>> >> own, by sending letters about what happened to Temple University Press
>> >> and
>> >> Temple University Public Radio who appeared to be interested in the
>> >> subject.
>> >> This is just a letter or courtesy, you are free to answer or not
>> >> answer
>> >> it
>> >> in any way you find appropriate. I am also planning to contact Drexel
>> >> as
>> >> soon as I figure out how their media works.
>> >> I have not yet figured out what other publications and media resources
>> >> would
>> >> be interested in such a subject but I am doing my research as you read
>> >> this
>> >> letter.
>> >>
>> >> As you rejected my offer to resolve this issue with the remedy I
>> >> proposed
>> >> and never offered a different one or a public retraction with a proper
>> >> apology, I will seek satisfaction the way I see fit.
>> >>
>> >> Regards,
>> >>
>> >> Alex Chaihorsky.
>> >> 5774 Tappan Dr.
>> >> Reno, NV 89523
>> >
>