• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What the Hell?

-Fran- said:
Thanks for the link. Oh my, nasty business all around there. You think this now could then be some sort of revenge?
Click to expand...

Well "Brick Locknar, Private Eye" might have an opinion, but not "Brick Locknar, the Canadian Mountie" (aka Dudley Doright - lol).

I don't know...could just be a coincidence, and granted a lot of time has passed, but did make me wonder.

If nothing else, it could have plated the seed for the current @!#$@#%!@$% story; ie. "he did it to someone, I'll do it to him".
 
Locknar said:
Well "Brick Locknar, Private Eye" might have an opinion, but not "Brick Locknar, the Canadian Mountie" (aka Dudley Doright - lol).
Click to expand...

*LOL* :D

Locknar said:
I don't know...could just be a coincidence, and granted a lot of time has passed, but did make me wonder.

If nothing else, it could have plated the seed for the current @!#$@#%!@$% story; ie. "he did it to someone, I'll do it to him".
Click to expand...

It probably is just a coincidence. The child molesting thing is something that is effective to use in slander, I mean there are few things that are worse, and it will almost infallibly create a knee-jerk reaction in people, who will then not even try to research if there is actually something in it, or not.

But one never knows, I guess.
 
-Fran- said:
It probably is just a coincidence. The child molesting thing is something that is effective to use in slander, I mean there are few things that are worse, and it will almost infallibly create a knee-jerk reaction in people, who will then not even try to research if there is actually something in it, or not.

But one never knows, I guess.
Click to expand...

True...I can't really think of anything that would bring such universal reaction.
 
I strongly suspect that it's a parody blog, and it is trying to associate the name of the Religious Freedom Watch website owner (Joel Philips) with words like child molester.

See this odd post as an example: http://joelphillipsreligiousfreedomwatch.blogspot.com/2007/08/technorati.html

Those are some odd, irrelevant tags.

And here, the real RFW site disavows the blog and offers a 5000 dollar reward for information leading to the capture of the blogger. http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/media-newsroom/5000-reward/

Some kind of strange dispute going on.
 
Pipirr said:
I strongly suspect that it's a parody blog, and it is trying to associate the name of the Religious Freedom Watch website owner (Joel Philips) with words like child molester.

See this odd post as an example: http://joelphillipsreligiousfreedomwatch.blogspot.com/2007/08/technorati.html

Those are some odd, irrelevant tags.

And here, the real RFW site disavows the blog and offers a 5000 dollar reward for information leading to the capture of the blogger. http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/media-newsroom/5000-reward/

Some kind of strange dispute going on.
Click to expand...

Could be. It does all look weird. Though, still damaging to Randi.
 
Pipirr said:
I strongly suspect that it's a parody blog, and it is trying to associate the name of the Religious Freedom Watch website owner (Joel Philips) with words like child molester.

See this odd post as an example: http://joelphillipsreligiousfreedomwatch.blogspot.com/2007/08/technorati.html

Those are some odd, irrelevant tags.

And here, the real RFW site disavows the blog and offers a 5000 dollar reward for information leading to the capture of the blogger. http://www.religiousfreedomwatch.org/media-newsroom/5000-reward/

Some kind of strange dispute going on.
Click to expand...

I accessed this site via Google:
http://72.14.205.104/search?q=cache...spot.com/&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=4&gl=ca&lr=lang_en
and found this disclaimer at the top:

A blog to PARODY the potentially libelous Joel Phillips, his silly company American Coast Title and his equally silly and potentially libelous Religious Freedom Watch website in their pathetic and misguided efforts to restrict free speech and the disclosure of the TRUTH ABOUT SCIENTOLOGY!
Click to expand...

So. Yes. Some game is being played behind the scenes. But it is not nice to involve Randi. :mad:
 
So it's a site run by Scientologists to make Scientologists look like victims of false accusations of slander?
 
It seems to be a site run by a prankster that wants to make the Scientologist Joel Phillips look bad. Phillips runs a site for "religious freedom" which basically attacks those that are critical of Scientology. This prankster, however, has made a grave error in judgment and has posted a lie about James Randi.
 
Kilgore Trout said:
It seems to be a site run by a prankster that wants to make the Scientologist Joel Phillips look bad. Phillips runs a site for "religious freedom" which basically attacks those that are critical of Scientology. This prankster, however, has made a grave error in judgment and has posted a lie about James Randi.
Click to expand...

Sigh... If this is so, we really don't need "friends" like this.
 
Every now and then, someone pulls some nonsense like this, and when called to account, responds with:

"IT WAS A JOKE!"

Jokes, however, have discernable wit to them. Many of them have punch lines.

This web report has none of the indicia of being a joke. If the author's intent was to make a joke, he did not express that intent in any way.
 
Brown said:
Every now and then, someone pulls some nonsense like this, and when called to account, responds with:

"IT WAS A JOKE!"

Jokes, however, have discernable wit to them. Many of them have punch lines.

This web report has none of the indicia of being a joke. If the author's intent was to make a joke, he did not express that intent in any way.
Click to expand...

So very true. The person who wrote this crap needs to revisit what can and cannot be legally used as satire of a public figure.

A funny satire would have been: "Randi Has Real Magic Powers" or "Randi Elopes With Sylvia Browne." Both deal with issues Randi is very vocal about and his opinion is well known to the public. The outlandishness of such a satire makes it funny.
 
The Vampire said:
The person who wrote this crap needs to revisit what can and cannot be legally used as satire of a public figure.
Click to expand...

I don't think this was intended to be satire or a "joke", though. This is a very real accusation leveled against a public figure. If untrue, it is certainly libelous, specifically definition 2b(1) and 2b(2) below.

li·bel
Pronunciation: 'lI-b&l
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, written declaration, from Anglo-French, from Latin libellus, diminutive of liber book
1 a : a written statement in which a plaintiff in certain courts sets forth the cause of action or the relief sought b archaic : a handbill especially attacking or defaming someone
2 a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1) : a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2) : defamation of a person by written or representational means (3) : the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures (4) : the act, tort, or crime of publishing such a libel
Click to expand...

http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/libel

And, publishing something like this on a website is indeed a tort.

http://www.medialaw.org/Content/Nav...rces/Libel_FAQs/Libel_FAQs.htm#What is Libel?

-Dr. Imago
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom