He went so far as to present his opinion in that matter as a 'gift' to the forum, and was blathering about being a lawyer himself. The trouble is, he was lying and used the post to try to silence people who opposed his opinon on the Schiavo thread. And though his ego was gratified by hundreds upon hundreds of posts, and though some initially took him seriously, his lie was eventually exposed.
On the same thread, some FReepers, including me, began to suspect that One_Particular_Palpatine was in fact posting under an alias, and had in fact once been a controversial member of FR whose voluminous (and self serving) posts were somehow expunged from FR under mysterious circumstances.
Attempts to get OPP to confirm or deny this fact were met with silence: he fled the thread, like a schoolgirl.
I was then showered with abusive FReepmail by his cohorts (or, perhaps even by OPP himself under an alias, I can't be sure), and eventually got from him a two word, sexually suggestive vulgarity in response to my repeated insistence that he 'come clean'.
The point is that One_Particular_Palpatine must not be taken seriously. His posts are meant to incite and inflame and come from no intellectual basis. As evidenced by my referenced thread above, the guy will do anything to win an argument including posting a factually and intellectually vacant scare-piece to shout down his opponents.
Oh yeah, he also mocked the CBS Boycott of the Reagan movie and posted a thread trying to stop it.
I invite you to ping your list to this post so that all may see who and what this person is, and make their own judgment down the road as to how they will deal with One_Particular_Palpatine.
Let me post some tidbits from a key case decided not too long along in California.
States Supreme Court has held that a plaintiff must produce "competent evidence of actual injury" in order to state a constitutional claim for defamation arising from matters of public concern. ... (iii) Plaintiffs Cannot Establish That Most Of The Statements At Issue Are Demonstrably False Statements Of Fact
Plaintiffs complain that Rosenthal has posted to Internet newsgroups her views that plaintiffs Barrett and Rosenthal are "quacks"; that Barren is "arrogant" and a "bully"; and that Barrett has tried to "extort" her. Such statements are not actionable, because they do not contain provably false assertions of fact, but rather are expressions of subjective judgment. As Justice Swager observed in Copp v. Paxton (1996) 45 Cal.App.4 829: "The issue whether a communication was a statement of fact or opinion is a question of law to be decided by the Court. In making the distinction, the courts have regarded as opinion any 'broad, unfocused and wholly subjective comment,' such as that the plaintiff was a 'shady practitioner,' 'crook,' or 'crooked politician.' Similarly, in Moyer, this court found no cause of action for statements in a high school newspaper that the plaintiff was 'the worst teacher at FUS' and 'a babbler.' The former was clearly 'an expression of subjective judgment.' And the epithet 'babbler' could be reasonably understood only 'as a form of exaggerated expression conveying the student-speaker's disapproval of plaintiff's teaching or speaking style.' (Cits. omitted; 45 Cal.App.4tTh at 837-838.) To the same effect, see Morningstar, Inc. v. Superior Court (1994) 23 CaJ.APP.4th 676, 691, n.5, citing cases holding that (a) referring to township clerk as "playing hide and seek" with township funds, (b) referring to William Buckley as a "fellow traveler of fascism," and (e) referring to a change of membership on public board as "sleazy sleight of hand," are nonlibelous because the comments arc phrased in vituperative terms or because the language was used in a "loose or figurative" sense. ...
"Although it may have been actionable to call someone a 'hypocrite' in 1916, or an 'old witch in 1955 (Opp. 8:24-9:5), today calling someone a 'thief" and a 'liar' in a public debate has been held to be constitutionally-protected rhetorical hyperbole.
The conclusion that Rosenthal's statements discussed above are protected opinion or rhetoric is also supported by the forum and context in which the statements were made, that is, in the "the general cacophony of an Internet" newsgroup, "part of an on-going free-wheeling and highly animated exchange" about health issues, where the "the postings are full of hyperbole, invective, short-hand phrases and language not generally found in fact-based documents." (Global Telemedia International v. Doe 1 aka PUSTEDAGAIN4O (C.D.Cal. 2001) 132 E.Snpp.2d E26l, 1267, A269-1270 [holding critical comments about Plaintiff in Internet chat-room, including that it "screwed" investors out of their money and lied to them, to be non-actionable opinion and rhetoric. Also see Gregori' v. McDonnell Douglas Corp. (1976) 17 Cal.Sd 596, 601: "[Where potentially defamatory statements are published in a public debate, ... or in another setting in which the audience may anticipate efforts by the parties to persuade others to their positions by use of epithets, fiery' rhetoric or hyperbole, language which generally might be considered as statements of fact may well assume the character of statements of opinion.")
So in conclusion my Freeper friends... feel free to call HINO and Felos rats, scum, lowlifes, murderers, scoundrels, thieves, liars, etc., etc., without fear.
I don't know. I've thought about that a number of times. It seems to me there would be some way to take some action beyond scooting away and leaving the man to die --- if it were real life. Movies are but movies. While I found the sub captains action callous, in the context of the movie -- at least the writers suggested by the plot and dialogue it was the right thing to be done.
And I don't know why CP feels compelled to raise a voice for death against the voices here calling for life! Not that I don't understand the view "She's not human any more, just a vegetable. Help her die quick, so we have no more aggravation and bother from that quarter."
I think that is a view the callous or spiritually-ignorant have. I've heard it a number of times. What I don't quite grasp is why CP seems compelled to press that callous point here.
What is the bother to him that we argue for her life?
A great bother to him it is, or so seems. Yet what does he make of our arguments, does he give any lfe to them -- by that I mean, seek to understand or honor our arguments for her life? No, as far as I know, no he has not.
He ignores the spirit of our arguments, and dwells only on that mechanical aspect of them that -- to him -- seems actionable for libel or slander, or discountable for foolishness.
So like his regard for Terri is his regard for the other side of an argument. He's a half-man, at least in terms of making arguments that have real vim and vigor. Arguing with him is like fly-fishing for dead trout.