On the line or over the line?
F. Frank LeFever
flefever at ix.netcom.com
Sat Jan 2 23:36:17 EST 1999
What a bizarre use of the word "libel" !!
(i.e. in the long retort to Dr. Stenberg)
In other words, kkollins re-defines words to suit his narcissistic
needs, not only in neuroscience, physics, etc., but also in the
vocabulary of law. This insistence on a private language no doubt
underlies much of his life-long difficulty in getting other people to
accept what he writes as meaningful and worth reading. Probably
impedes his understanding of what others write, also...
In <368E7DF0.D4DB332 at pop3.concentric.net> kkollins at pop3.concentric.net
>dag.stenberg at helsinki.nospam.fi wrote:
>> kkollins at pop3.concentric.net wrote:
>> > Your post constitutes Libel. K. P. Collins
>> > Krakatoa wrote:
>> > > No, most of what he posts is just totally worthless garbage.
Turns out the
>> > > same is true of what you post. What a surprise.
>> I had to look up "libel" in Webster's to be sure, but:
>> It seems to me that in order to show libel you must prove that his
>> allegations are unjust or false. Fortunately, this is not a court of
>> Dag Stenberg
>I stand on what I posted, Dag. The comments constitute Libel be-cause
>they use my person, in a 3rd-party way, to demean another person.
>Doing such places my person in the untennable position of being
>in criticism of a 3rd person through no choice, or action, of my own.
>On my own behalf, I do not pursue redress in such matters. But I'm
>obliged, and always stand ready to pursue redress, on behalf of the
>My purpose, short of a request from any 3rd parties that have been
>demeaned through the Libelous use of my person, are Educational. This
>sort of 3rd-party Libel is totally unacceptable, and it's important
>folks get such straght.
>K. P. Collins (ken)
More information about the Neur-sci