The humiliation of this may be punishment enough
Upon further intrepid investigations into Red Tory and his humorous opinions on libel (apparently people shouldn't have to, you know... prove that their claims are true), I have discovered a delightful little bit of drama that simply couldn't be overlooked.
Coming courtesy of Joanne's Journey, our little tale tells us of Red Tory and his groupie, "liberal supporter" being accused of precisely the same chicanery that they have chosen to accuse me of, and didn't like it at all.
First, however, a brief sample of "liberal supporter"'s comments regarding my complaints regarding the libel perpetrated against myself by Red Tory:
Sue me, asshole. You lied. You are therefore a liar.
What do you intend to do about it, LIAR?
Your page shows no evidence of anyone claiming that the Number Four posting on August 6 is you. That could be because you are now a proven LIAR, or you could have forgotten to post it.
I have scanned the archives here and cannot find any references to anyone claiming the "Number 4" on August 6th as being you. You could be making these scurrilous accusations because you made a mistake, or it could be because you are a liar."
(He's an articulate fellow, isn't he?)
Now, consider the drama that unfolded at Joanne's on 29 May, when an anonymous poster wrote:
"Red Tory caught sock puppeting (Jo Journ you may remember "biff's" suggestion that Red Tory is Red Butler.
Go check out his latest post, and his attempt to delete it."
Another (or perhaps the same) anonymous poster wrote:
"Red Tory Busted by biff as "mediated" by "media1" (scroll down) here:
Now enters "liberal supporter", when he wrote:
"anon 12:22 and 12:35:
You have accused me of being Red Tory.
Prove it or retract it."
Of course, Joanne responds by asking the obvious question:
"L.S. - Now I'm really confused! Are you Rhett Butler?"
To which "liberal supporter" offered what we shall call a quizzicle answer:
"No. A troll is libeling Red Tory, and has now started libeling me.
I do not comment here under any other name."
Now, his obviously tenuous grip on the concept of trolling aside (generally, a troll is an unwelcome and uninvited visitor who offers nothing to a site other than the general aggravation of its members), "liberal supporter" claimed that the two anonymous posters were libelling him when they suggested that Red Tory may be this "Red Butler" character.
Yet, according to the link offered by Biff, Red Tory himself seems to have double-posted as "Red Butler". To his credit, Biff offers a much stronger case than Red Tory has levied against me.
To top it off "liberal supporter" insists that it is he who is being libelled when this suggestion is brought up. Could he be Red Tory (and possibly Red Butler) himself? Or is "liberal supporter" the former Red Butler, and Red Tory someone else?
I won't comment personally, but the former is the allegation that has been raised.
The drama continues, as Joanne replies:
"L.S. - Oh, O.K. I didn't think you'd do that. Actually, I didn't think RT would either, but the styles were surprisingly similar."
But lo and behold, what happens next? Why Red Tory, himself appears on the scene, in his typical ever-so-classy manner:
"Only a complete nitwit would believe that malicious bollocks being pedaled by an anonymous sociopath. It's interesting to see that appear to give it some credence. Colour me unsurprised."
"Liberal supporter" then himself added:
"styles were surprisingly similar
That's because people who are not of your political view all sound alike.
That lack of noticing relatively small differences when there are large ones is human nature. We see it in racial matters with "they all look alike" and in politics with the stereotypes we apply to the idiots who disagree with us."
So, it seems "liberal supporter" has said it himself, perhaps in regards to Red Tory's insistence that my debating style and that of the so-called number four are very similar: "that's because people who are not of your political view all sound alike."
Red Tory eventually pipes up again:
"Joanne — I’d very much like to see what stylistic similarities you see between the writing/comments/posts of this other person and me. It seems like a very curious statement to make without being able to substantiate it, so you shouldn’t really have any difficulty in this regard. Could you provide an example of what led to this conclusion?"
Sounds fair enough. Red Tory, I'd very much like to see what stylistic similarities you see between the writing/comments/posts of this other person and me. It seems like a very curious statement to make without being able to substantiate it, so you shouldn't really have any difficulty in this regard. Could you provide an example of what led to this conclusion?
Aside from having already proven that I couldn't have possibly made the "offending" posts, I pretty much rest my case.
In the meantime, the moral of our story is that, according to "liberal supporter" apparently libel is only libel when directed against you, and you can apparently libel someone when you never actually refer to their name (or online handle), but somehow you don't when you actually do.
That being said, back to our regularly-scheduled programming.