[Rhodes22-list] POLITICAL Re: ... failure of leadership or leading ...
Herb Parsons
hparsons at parsonsys.com
Tue Oct 21 18:01:04 EDT 2008
Last word??? I asked a question
I think you answered it for me though.
Hyperbole.
Ben Cittadino wrote:
> Now I know why they call you "Has to have the last word Herb". I've said what
> I have to say on this subject .
>
> You didn't get it this time.
>
> Your Colleague;
>
> Ben C.
>
> hparsons wrote:
>
>> Ben,
>>
>> When comparing what Ed wrote, is it REALLY your assertion that he's
>> doing more than expressing his opinion, but is actually attempting to
>> illegally blacklist and boycott someone?
>>
>> Are you really comparing Ed's actions on here to what Aware, Johnson,
>> and Hartnett did?
>>
>> I just want to be clear....
>>
>> Sounds a bit hyperbolic to me, not that I'd imply a lawyer would get a
>> bit full of himself.... oh wait at minute, yeah, that's exactly what I'm
>> implying
>>
>> I think you need to find a case that is a bit more comparable to what Ed
>> did.
>>
>> And, in the interest of being clear, I don't understand the term
>> "colleagial", did you mean "collegial"? If not, maybe you'd better spell
>> out the meaning for me, I have to claim ignorance.
>>
>>
>> Ben Cittadino wrote:
>>
>>> Let me be clear Herb.
>>>
>>> My remarks to Ed were a colleagial warning to him . He is a grown man
>>> and
>>> he can heed the warning or not. I truly do not want to see him get in
>>> legal
>>> trouble, but if he wants to call names in a public place where other
>>> people
>>> can read those names then he will eventually call the wrong person the
>>> wrong
>>> name and buy himself a lot of heartache. In 33 years of legal practice
>>> and
>>> involvement in hundreds of lawsuits I have never sued anybody for myself,
>>> and believe me I'm not about to start with Ed. But somebody will sue him
>>> and
>>> win if he keeps it up long enough.
>>>
>>> The "inquiring minds want to know" line is Eds, remember(?), he has
>>> signed
>>> off with it like about a million times.
>>>
>>> Don't take my remarks as a complete course in the law of defamation. You
>>> should not assume actual damages are necessary in every case.
>>> Traditionally, "slander per se" does not require proof of actual damages.
>>> Example, accusing a woman of unchastity ( oddly enough it doesn't seem to
>>> apply to men). There are also exceptions for "public figures" which is
>>> how
>>> politicians get raked unmercifully over the coals with no recourse.
>>>
>>> Ed's post could fairly be read to call me a "marxist" and a "criminal
>>> conspirator". I have read his remarks addressed to others along a
>>> similar
>>> vein. He has called into question my father and Grandfather's activities
>>> in
>>> Italy as possibly helping to put the fascist dictator Mussolini into
>>> power,
>>> when he clearly knows nothing of those men. And, you gentle Herb, take up
>>> his defense. Why? Do you think he is a classy guy?
>>>
>>> I've noticed your skin is pretty thin on the subject of whether you are a
>>> "thinker or debater", or whether you "just believe", in response to
>>> somebody
>>> a while back.
>>>
>>> You're question asking for a reference to a lawsuit from the fifties? See
>>> Faulk v. Aware et al. It's the case of John Henry Faulk that I believe
>>> was
>>> made into a movie. I don't have the cite available but google it, you'll
>>> find it.
>>>
>>> best wishes,
>>>
>>> Ben Cittadino
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> hparsons wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Sorry Ben, doesn't fly. You weren't talking "someday", you said
>>>> "inquiring minds want to know.
>>>>
>>>> People are not the fools you assume them to be. Your idiotic comment was
>>>> a threat, and anyone that can read could recognize it as such.
>>>>
>>>> A Marxist is one who follows the teachings of Marx. I think it would be
>>>> a pretty easy case to make when one is espousing Marxist philosophies to
>>>> show that they are indeed marxists, it would only be to what degree.
>>>>
>>>> He made no accusation about a particular action, but rather about your
>>>> philosophical view point.
>>>>
>>>> Further, as you said, they would have to prove damages. I think you
>>>> would be hard pressed to show any damages.
>>>>
>>>> Finally, as Ed pointed out, he wasn't calling you anything, he was
>>>> talking about Obama. He would not be able to be sued for calling Obama a
>>>> Marxist.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would be interested in some (not many) of the case studies you're
>>>> talking about. My recollection of the time period you mention (I wasn't
>>>> around at the time, just studied it) was that the accusations that were
>>>> actionable were very specific in nature. Keep in mind, Communism is both
>>>> a philosophy AND a party. One is hard to prove or disprove, the other
>>>> not so much
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I think you need to develop a little thicker skin.
>>>>
>>>> And I stand by my statement, anyone that uses what's written on a
>>>> past-time such as this to threaten, even hint at, legal action reveals
>>>> themselves as an asshole.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ben Cittadino wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Herb;
>>>>>
>>>>> To address your concern, I would not sue Ed, but somebody, someday (who
>>>>> doesn't have a sense of humor) will make real trouble for him if he
>>>>> doesn't
>>>>> learn that there are rules under our laws about what you can and cannot
>>>>> say
>>>>> about people. Call someone an asshole, as you did, and as you have
>>>>> done
>>>>> to
>>>>> several in the past, and it means nothing. It is merely an expletive.
>>>>> It
>>>>> cannot be literally true and therefor it cannot really hurt anyone. It
>>>>> says
>>>>> a lot about the speaker, but vitually nothing about the object of the
>>>>> speech.
>>>>> But, accuse someone of a crime (like conspiracy) who you know to be
>>>>> innocent, disparage someone in their profession where you know or
>>>>> should
>>>>> know the statement isn't true, falsely say some woman is unchaste, or
>>>>> spread a story that someone has a loathsome disease when you have no
>>>>> reason
>>>>> to believe it, and you may well find yourself responsible for the
>>>>> damage
>>>>> you
>>>>> do to that person. In the 1950's calling someone a communist or marxist
>>>>> could get them blacklisted, could hurt them in their reputation in
>>>>> their
>>>>> community, could impact their ability to support themselves and their
>>>>> families. Lawsuits were filed and damages were awarded because people
>>>>> were
>>>>> really injured by false accusations. Surely you understand this.
>>>>> Opinions about a program being "based on mao or marx" aren't actionable
>>>>> because Brad wasn't talking about a person. He was opining about a
>>>>> philosophy.
>>>>> Ed can express his opinion all he wants, but if he calls someone a
>>>>> marxist,
>>>>> (and that is a statement of fact not opinion) and that person is
>>>>> injured
>>>>> in
>>>>> some real way by that label, he could have a problem. I'd rather he
>>>>> got
>>>>> a
>>>>> heads-up to watch his language, than see something bad happen in his
>>>>> life. I
>>>>> love Ed. Jesus wants me to love Ed. I even love you Herb.
>>>>>
>>>>> Peace, Love,and Dope;
>>>>>
>>>>> Ben C.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> hparsons wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> There you go. Express your opinon Ed, and the lawyer lists vague
>>>>>> threats
>>>>>> to sue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ben, sue ME if you want. Anyone that even hints at suing over
>>>>>> something
>>>>>> like that is an asshole. Go look in the mirror, then file your
>>>>>> motions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ben Cittadino wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ed;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Will you answer some questions for me? What is a marxist as you see
>>>>>>> it?
>>>>>>> What
>>>>>>> makes me a marxist in your view? Does the 1st Amendment to our
>>>>>>> Constitution
>>>>>>> immunize folks who libel other folks? Does calling someone a marxist
>>>>>>> who
>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>> not in fact a marxist constitute defamation of character? Do you have
>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>> life savings? Inquiring minds want to know?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Have a nice day.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ben C.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Brad Haslett-2 wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ed,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Obama intentionally and cynically has misled the public about his
>>>>>>>> relationship with Ayers. This issue isn't going away and it
>>>>>>>> shouldn't
>>>>>>>> go away. Speculation is strong and the evidence is growing that the
>>>>>>>> Obama and Ayers relationship goes all the way back to Obama's days
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> NYC at Columbia (Ayers was there at the same time and they were both
>>>>>>>> friends of Dr. Saed) and that Ayers actually ghost authored Obama's
>>>>>>>> first book (the word count and sentence structure mirrors Ayer's
>>>>>>>> writing and was written at a 12th grade level, Obama's second book
>>>>>>>> was
>>>>>>>> written at a 9th grade level). But let's forget speculation for a
>>>>>>>> moment and stick with what is known. I'm posting a link instead of
>>>>>>>> the article so you can see the photo.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/20/obama-praised-searing-timely-book-ayers/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We know from tax returns from the Annenberg Challenge that Obama,
>>>>>>>> Ayers, and Klonsky all had offices on the same floor of the same
>>>>>>>> building. Michelle and Ayers' wife both worked at the same law firm.
>>>>>>>> Obama and Ayers appeared at joint speaking engagements (which by the
>>>>>>>> way, Illinois ethics law prohibits receiving fees for speaking but
>>>>>>>> Obama's tax returns show "speaker fees" during the period he was in
>>>>>>>> the Illinois Senate, another MSM oversight).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Just a guy in my neighborhood with a degree in English"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That was willful intent to decieve and the MSM has for the most part
>>>>>>>> let him get away with it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The man is a liar, if he were on trial he would certainly be guilty
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> perjury - and he may well be, soon.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Brad
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 2:34 AM, Tootle <ekroposki at charter.net>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ben said, "... Since I socialize mostly with folks in my own
>>>>>>>>> socioeconomic
>>>>>>>>> class, while most support Obama, ..." The term leadership
>>>>>>>>> comprises
>>>>>>>>> many
>>>>>>>>> atributes. And part of what are call traditional values is simple
>>>>>>>>> honesty.
>>>>>>>>> Sometimes honesty requires analysis of what is going on and saying
>>>>>>>>> hey,
>>>>>>>>> "
>>>>>>>>> America, we have a problem..."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ben discounted the Bill Ayers thing. Even if he is a Marxist as is
>>>>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>>>>> Ayers, he as an American has an obligation to speak the truth. In
>>>>>>>>> America a
>>>>>>>>> Marxist is obligated to tell the truth and not lie about it. So it
>>>>>>>>> goes
>>>>>>>>> with his candidate Obama.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So what are the elements of Conspiracy? If you know or should have
>>>>>>>>> reasonable known something? Are you obligated to say something?
>>>>>>>>> If
>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>>>> not say anything are you a coconspirator?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> In Ben's case I have to ask, if a fraud is being commited is he
>>>>>>>>> obligated
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> speak out?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The above is why I routinely for years have quoted:
>>>>>>>>> In Germany they first came for the Communists
>>>>>>>>> and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
>>>>>>>>> Then they came for the Jews,
>>>>>>>>> and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
>>>>>>>>> Then they came for the trade unionists
>>>>>>>>> and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
>>>>>>>>> Then they came for the Catholics
>>>>>>>>> and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
>>>>>>>>> Then they came for me
>>>>>>>>> and by that time no one was left to speak up.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --The Reverend Martin Niemöller, a pastor in the German Confessing
>>>>>>>>> Church
>>>>>>>>> who spent seven years in a concentration camp.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ben said, "... I, on the other hand, wish there were no connection
>>>>>>>>> at
>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>> because then we could argue about policy instead of who knew who,
>>>>>>>>> where
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> when, and what possible difference it makes."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is this an admission of an issue? Saying that because most others
>>>>>>>>> deny
>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> connection is using Richard Nixon's arguement that everybody else
>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> politics did it, therefore it was o.k. Saying his friends deny the
>>>>>>>>> issue
>>>>>>>>> does not make it go away. It is Richard Nixon's arguement all over
>>>>>>>>> again.
>>>>>>>>> Wasn't Nixon a lawyer?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Does law school teach ask the hard questions in court, but do not
>>>>>>>>> ask
>>>>>>>>> them
>>>>>>>>> of yourself? Are lawyers above the law? Inquiring minds want to
>>>>>>>>> know?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ed K
>>>>>>>>> Greenville, SC, USA
>>>>>>>>> attachment for Andrew:
>>>>>>>>> http://www.nabble.com/file/p20084939/Andrew%2527s%2Bversion.jpg
>>>>>>>>> Andrew%27s+version.jpg
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> View this message in context:
>>>>>>>>> http://www.nabble.com/...-failure-of-leadership-or-leading-...-tp20084939p20084939.html
>>>>>>>>> Sent from the Rhodes 22 mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>>>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>>>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>>>> __________________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>> __________________________________________________
>> To subscribe/unsubscribe or for help with using the mailing list go to
>> http://www.rhodes22.org/list
>> __________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>
>
>
More information about the Rhodes22-list
mailing list