Wednesday, September 03, 2008

Call me stupid, call me wrong...

Fine. Have at 'er. We can have a spirited debate about that if you'd like.

But call me a liar? That's different. (screenshots from a post on Werner's *other* blog)...

The first version:

All he did there was opine that *I* was psychiatrically ill.

That version I left alone.

Then Werner went back and added something:

From Werner in the updated version:
He has even gone so far as to fabricate things I supposedly said, because he's run out of things to write about me.
and that I am:
obsessing about, libelling and fabricating things about other people

So, to Werner: Piss off.

You unarguably did advocate violence against me (and others who don't agree with you and who won't comply) a number of times in this post on your site and I explained exactly how you were advocating violence against me in my comment at 4:28 PM, September 03, 2008 in this thread.

I'm understanding enough to accept that you were too shallow or ill-informed to realize that was what you did (hell, it's getting obvious you don't yet understand the deeper but inescapable and clearly demonstrable consequences of what you were advocating).

However--and this is where things get interesting--I am quite sure you clearly understand that "fabricating" means "lying"...
(fabricate: to concoct to deceive; to invent a story or lie; to make up for the purpose of deception)
...because it's just a bigger word you can use in place of a smaller one, and not an integrated philosophical or political concept requiring insight. Besides, you bill yourself as a pundit and translator ; you claim a degree of professional expertise with words.

Additionally, though, you also now clearly imply I am "libelling" you or "other people". How so? For libel to take place, what I said about you (or these other people, if somehow you didn't mean yourself) must not only be critical, it has to be untrue.

(Is that what you were referring to when you suggested I'll "be facing criminal charges soon if [I] don't stop [my] deranged behaviour" in a comment on my previous thread? Libel is a tort, Werner. Even if proved, libel is a civil, not criminal, wrongdoing--and, in any case, again, what I said was true. Or are you accusing me of something else that *is* criminal?)

In any case, are you also aware that, especially given that you bill yourself as a pundit (generally understood as: a public figure offering public commentary on public issues) that I think I'm correct when I suggest that the bar for someone to successfully be held as libeling you is likely to be higher than it might be when compared to comments made about a generally private citizen?

To sum up:

I said you advocated violence. You did.

You, on the other hand, explicitly said I was fabricating/lying. I wasn't. You didn't even say you thought I was lying/fabricating. You simply said I *was* fabricating/lying.

Want to guess which one of us I think is actually closer to being guilty of something like libel/defamation? And do you also understand that I'm very sure that it is not even necessary for a plaintiff [that would, in this hypothetical example, be *me*] to prove that a defendant [hypothetically *you*] intended to defame?

Oh yeah, one last thing, for now: you said I "dedicate almost [my] entire blog content to [you] and [your] blog."

Bullshit. I've written 5 or 6 posts referencing your blog; this post makes maybe six or seven. I've written over 250 posts, so you occupy maybe 2% of my output. Your math is evidently every bit as accurate as your logic.

Update (Sept 5th): Gawd, Werner Patels changed it again...(see the comments on this thread for my--I dearly hope--last reply)


Mike said...

Good job Ron, but I suspect this is like arguing with a chimp, trying to convince him to not fling poo.

Werner has a history, including actually libeling someone (which resulted in the curious "disappearance" of the entirety of one of his early blogs - Was it The Alberta Report or Alberta Canada Now? I can never remember...

(Note - check out the comments for the real details of the story)

So, no who is trolling whom?

Ron, considering his history, I suggest you take Werner's own advice and ignore him.

Werner Patels said...

If you call mandatory voting "physical violence", then you only prove how deranged you are. You need not only a shrink, but a closed institution with padded cells.

You're an idiot. And by stating that I threatened physical violence by saying that I think that voting should be mandatory, you are committing criminal libel, for which you can go to jail for up to 5 years (check Criminal Code s. 298 and following).

It also proves that you have no sense of democracy, as I pointed out to you in our original discussion.

Did you mommie drop you on the head when you were a baby?

Ron said...

Well, seeing as since you dropped the same reply to two threads, I'll just post this reply in both and be done with it--and you. So from now on you've probably got your wish: I'll do my level best to leave you to what I imagine to be both of your remaining readers from now on.

I've pointed this out a couple of times but, in the obviously very dim chance you'll realize what I've been saying about violence/physical coercion connected your "mandatory" dreams regarding voting:

Most folks who understand law realize that, as refusal to comply with a law continues, the level of actual physical coerciveness/violence on the part of the State does, too.

Consequently, (although my resistance would only be passive, a mere refusal to comply) since I won't comply at any point should your dreams become reality, you logically are assumed to advocate that same and usual instigation and escalation of coercion: the end points which are always a threat, then imposition, of increasing violence, as further described in this post from Stephan Molyneux entitled "The Gun in the Room".

You possibly won't parse or accept that, but other folks will and already do, and any judge is very,very likely to concede that my understanding of the flow of State actions when it comes to refusal to comply is spot on, completely accurate.

That means what I said is true about how the law works, and about what you advocate.

And did you not read as far as sections 310, 311 and 312?

Rejoice, Werner. Unless you come at me some more (like with your threatened legal action), I'm done with you. And that's more truth.

Ron said...

oh yeah, and 309...

309. No person shall be deemed to publish a defamatory libel by reason only that he publishes defamatory matter that, on reasonable grounds, he believes is true, and that is relevant to any subject of public interest, the public discussion of which is for the public benefit. [R.S., c.C-34, s.273.]

Somena Woman said...


Comparing Werner's prattle with monkey's flinging pooh is an insult to pooh-flinging monkeys everywhere.

Mike said...

Indeed Meaghan, but it was the best metaphor I could come up with after watching "Madagascar" with my kids...