Path: sn.no!uninett.no!news.algonet.se!4.1.16.34.MISMATCH!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!howland.erols.net!torn!nott!freenet-news.carleton.ca!FreeNet.Carleton.CA!aa993 From: aa993@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Christopher L. Tumber) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Re: Internet Ventures, Inc. (Response) Date: 26 Oct 1997 03:40:45 GMT Organization: National Capital Freenet, Ottawa, Canada Lines: 31 Message-ID: <62ue3t$cmi@freenet-news.carleton.ca> NNTP-Posting-Host: freenet3.carleton.ca X-Given-Sender: aa993@freenet3.carleton.ca (Christopher L. Tumber) Xref: sn.no alt.religion.scientology:387847 > Our actions in this dispute were necessitated by abusive and > defamatory > comments, in a single posting, that Grady directed towards another human > being. Abusive, yes, defamatory however is a specific legal term which simply does not apply here. In fact your accusation itself is possibly actionable. > As a company our limit is set when a another netizen > complains that > they were offended by language so strong that a lawsuit could result. This is simply ludicrous. Grady has beeen making such posts for YEARS (!). Scientology has never shown any hesitation in launching legal actions. If a lawsuit had any leg to stand on it would have happened long ago. You have made a lot of sweeping statements backed up with very little fact. Please cite *exactly* what Grady posted that was "Defamatory" and which could result in a lawsuit and which part of the *original* TOS was violated, exactly? For someone attempting to try this in the court of public opinion, you've provided a lot of rhetoric but no actual evidence. [Posted and emailed]