The slur was not contained in the Latin. The slurs were all in English and occurred though out your posts. As I pointed out, the Latin was bad and really meaningless. In order to guess at what it meant, I had to make corrections, such as determining that, there was no such word as "palman". Non est is backwards and meaningless, and "repetitio injuria" should be "repetitio iniurio", which means repetition injury, and makes no sense.
"How interesting, considering that the very first hit that Google serves up on the phrase gives its meaning as, "To say what everybody knows is no injury." IOW, no slur."
The Latin you gave, in no way translates to the English phrase you claim it does. The English phrase you just ave translates into Latin as, "Loquor quis quidque teneo est haud iniuria." The Latin you first gave, "Si palman res est, repetitio injuria non est", translates to, after making necessary correction for the nonexistent word "palman", "If the victory award is the object, repetition injury not is." So your Latin's imaginary also.
I'm guilty of a typo. Palman should be palam. As for the rest of your post, to quote you, "Whatever."
injurio, injuriare, injuriavi, injuriatus V (1st) TRANS [FXXEM] Medieval uncommon
injure; do injury; wrong, do wrong;
The problem seems to be that I made a couple of typos, and you weren't up to the task of seeing past them. So, as seems to be a pattern with you, you leapt to the conclusion that you were dealing with the "imaginary."
Have you ever studied Latin? I had a year in high school and two in college, finishing up by reading Ovid and Cicero. The first thing you learn about Latin is that, unlike English, Latin does not use word order to indicate meaning or parts of speech; it uses inflected endings.
"Non est" means "he/she/it is not". "Est non" means "he/she/it is not".