$ 5,000 Charitable Wager/Obsessed People

[Jim Hughes]

Some people within this forum seem to be suggesting that all of my past forecasts that I have mentioned within this forum are just mythical ad-hock schemes that never actually have occurred. I am supposedly a fraud who has never forecasted anything before hand and I only talk about things after the fact.

Well if anyone seriously believes that this is true than I am making this challenge TO ALL forum members who think this way and you can pool all your money together.

I am willing to put up $5,000 to any charitable fund...agreed upon within reason...You match it. We will get a local Washington DC radio/newspaper/TV to hold the CASH money ... No credit here people

Past Newspaper articles ,. taped radio shows etc... talking about them before hand will be brought forward to judge whether my claims about the past are true.

Any serious takers? Please do not waste my time by saying that this is not science because I am not talking about what constitutes SCIENCE.

I am referring to individuals making bogus claims about what I have and have not forecasted. This is slander and these are bold face lies against me and they are baseless accusations. There is definitely a double standard going on here.

If I was to start questioning the integrity of what people claim to be..meteorologists etc...I do not think that this would be tolerated by management.

Someone earlier mentioned how they dislike reading certain comments when trying to follow a post. Well you can make the claim that I am contributing by these comments but this would be unfair.

At what point must these disturbed-obessed individual's comments stop. These blatant lies are thrown around like they are facts. They have no foundation of truth what so ever.

They will never stop until management intercedes because these individuals are trying to basically sabotage my subject matters and discussions. I have repeatedly said you read I talk. NO READ.... NO TALK. This is simple coherent English.

A landmark INTERNET case was recently won about stalking. I suggest certain people think about what they are doing. I have downloaded your past posts /comments from way before I got here. So your old profile speaks volumes in the way that you are now dealing WITH ME.

[Windy]

Jim, I've been on the board for a while. I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that poking the management with a stick while threatening to sue them isn't going to get you anywhere. If you've got probs, you need to PM them. I learned that one the hard way. My guess is that they'll say something to me if they feel I've stepped over the line, but they'll probably just tell you to man-up and accept that when you make bizarre science claims, you get a lot of hard questions. They don't play favorites, but then they don't play nanny, either.

BTW, cartooney lawyer threats are as old as dirt on the internet. If you really think you have a "stalking case", get a lawyer and sue. You might want to google "How to Sound Like a Lawyer" again, though, before you do. My guess is that you'll be unhappy with the results.

I kinda wondered if you'd start with the creepy threats and such if people sufficiently questioned your ideas, and you seem to be doing your best to provide that answer.

[kevin]

Its not slander if its true.

[Windy]

Its not slander if its true.

Actually, it's not potential slander unless you say it. In print, it's potential libel. My guess is that Jim isn't an attorney.

But yeah, asking questions and disagreeing with someone in a public forum is not libel. Ever. He's free to waste his time and a great deal of his money finding that out, though.

He's not exactly helping his case. Proposing strange, new scientific theories and then threatening to sue people who disagree with you is a tactic seen often on Usenet with net.kooks. If I were a scientist, like Jim, I'd try as hard as I could to not sound like one of the above-mentioned classes of internet citizens.

[kevin]

Doesn't if have to be a falsehood spread about? That is the person guilty of libel not only said something with the intent to defame, but did so against the best of his knowledge? For instance if the mayor was seen with topless women, and someone said in the paper that the mayor was seen with topless women, but it was really a man dressed up as the mayor... there hasn't been any libel. ?

[Windy]

Doesn't if have to be a falsehood spread about? That is the person guilty of libel not only said something with the intent to defame, but did so against the best of his knowledge? For instance if the mayor was seen with topless women, and someone said in the paper that the mayor was seen with topless women, but it was really a man dressed up as the mayor... there hasn't been any libel. ?

The mayor is a different case, as he's classified in the law as a "public figure". Public figures are a special class of people who are afforded less protection against libel and slander under the law. The idea is that if you derive your living from the public, the public should have easier access to information about you. It's kinda technical, but basically with public figures you not only have to prove that the person's words were a falsehood, but that the person knew the truth and intentionally disregarded it with the intent to cause damages. It's nearly impossible to win a libel suit when you're a public figure, though it happens sometimes with celebrities pitted against tabloids. (More of a lawyer mud-wrestling match, really.)

Jim would likely not normally be classified as a public figure as you can't even find him using Google. Non public figures are afforded a different level of libel protection: they only need to prove that the information was wrong and that the person was negligent in their research. (Still pretty hard to do.) However, Jim might be classified as a public figure in the context of this discussion board.

Note that both classes have to prove some sort of damages to get any. I can't imagine what Jim would claim for damages. Everything has been phrased in the form of a question and is in response to literature that he's publishing, and he's been offered every opportunity to defend himself; he just chooses not to. There is a reason that bad book reviews are never libel, and that reason is the same reason why reviewing and questioning the content of someone's internet post is also usually not libel.

IANAL, and this is not legal advice. Consult a lawyer for qualified legal advice.