In a recent post, Martin Rayner lobs some rather odd accusations toward the Nexus:
Not exactly drawing on “reliable sources” here (considering that the individual in question persistently vilifies and libels me without cause)
Well, my "reliability" as a source aside (the story is fully referenced, he can take issue with the reliability of the Saskatoon Star Phoenix if he wants to, but my hands are clean), Mr Rayner is apparently in need of a lesson in the meaning of libel.
Libel and slander are legal claims for false statements of fact about a person that are printed, broadcast, spoken or otherwise communicated to others. Libel generally refers to statements or visual depictions in written or other permanent form...
...In order for the person about whom a statement is made to recover for libel, the false statement must be defamatory, meaning that it actually harms the reputation of the other person, as opposed to being merely insulting or offensive.
Now, perhaps it may be true that I've been insulting or offensive toward the "esteemed" mr Rayner. But I would challenge him to produce proof of his so-called libel.
Near as any rational individual could tell (and we've certainly learned not to count mr Rayner among the ranks of the rational), this could come down to one of two issues: one passage in which I suggested that Martin Rayner may not be his true identity (although this was confirmed by way of this letter written to Keith Martin and reproduced on his blog). If this were not his real identity, then he would in effect be cavorting under the identiy of someone else, in effect stealing their identity. Although we know this to not be true now, at the time it was a perfectly legitimate expression of opinion, which is not libellous.
Other than that, perhaps mr Rayner's panties are in a knot over my suggestion that he needed to start a paypal account to accept donations on account of an inability to pay his bills. When one calls their paypal account the "Red Tory sustainability fund" (suggesting his use of a free service is not financially sustainable), one wonders what else mr Rayner would have expected. Once again, it's a valid statement of opinion, one that he himself has fuelled via his own indiscretions.
Whereas, on the other hand, mr Rayner's refusal to admit that whomever was posting on his blog under the alias "number four" was clearly not myself (which has been confirmed through photographic evidence, and can further be confirmed by examining the guest list of the Conservative party function I was attending at the time), does qualify as libelous, because he has, all along, refused to amend his position.
On that note, we also note that the learning curve among Rayner's various cohorts and groupies is rather steep. I've been informed that my name has been dropped at least one other time as the presumed identity of another dissenting poster on Rayner's blog.
In other words, they weren't smart enough to feel stupid the first time they did so and were proven wrong, so they certainly weren't smart enough to feel stupid when they did it again -- which ironically doesn't prevent them from looking stupid nonetheless.
Some people just never learn, no matter how many times you teach them.
As for villifying mr Rayner? Well, one of the two of us found the wherewithall to defend Canadian Cynic over his vicious attack on Wanda Watkins.
I don't need to villify mr Rayner. He does a good enough job of villifying himself.