Bergerman: racer or numpty?

Enough about you, what about the car? :-)

cheers, clive

If bunt had genuinely been libelled, then why on earth didnt he avail himself of proper legal advice and do something about it?

k

I don't see that committing genocide can ever be seen as acceptable. And that is what Isreal is trying to do.

What if a car is specced from the factory withrubber band tyres, yet has a similar suspension setup to another model that appears to come with tractor tyres because it is 50% of the price.

Or two models that come with the same wheels and tyres, yet one is FWD and the other is 4WD? Surely the different drive characteristics would require different wheel tyre combos to have the suspension altered to suit and vise versa?

Easy: get an NSX for a testdrive and let her drive. Be aware because you could drive the family trolley while the lady drives NSX.

Not practical for the schoolrun (mind you: the kid (only one) has nothing against it) and for shopping, but for the blast in the week-end or even impressing -if such is wanted- the familiy /neighbours: no better car.

As for too old: maybe you could show her a 911, a 40-year old car.

But then again: the wife, missus or GF must OK the deal, that why she has to fall in love with the car too. I didn't find that difficult. ;-)

Tom De Moor

In the eyes of the corporate media it is acceptable, and they go to some lengths to justify the behaviour of terror states such as Israel, while on the other hand suggesting that the victims are in fact agressors.

The propaganda machine today, is so much an accepted part of everyday life, that the fact that to a large extent much of what it is projecting is so far from the truth it is unrecognisable, seems to be something that draws very little adverse comment, and seems in general to be quite acceptable.

k

What are you on about? You claim to be a master troll but don't realise that sock is derived from sock puppet. I.e.. the same person posting from multiple accounts but pretending to be different people.

James

I have no insight into Bunt's mental processes. However the fact remains you and others did libel Bunt (and many others as well), your only respite was that Bunt didn't engage counsel, that and the fact that as a judge has indicated your not worth suing because you are worthless.

I look forward to reading the judgment if it ever appears. Because your interpretation of the previous case was laughable and I don't think that your understanding will have improved since then.

No, the comment made by the judge stands, you're a waster with no assets, hence no one should bother suing you.

No Judge has indicated what I am worth or not worth, as they simply dont know one way or another!

In regard to bunt, he had no proper evidence to suggest he had been libelled, so even if he had taken advice his claims were doomed to failure.....................

k

In point of fact the earlier case established an important precedent in favour of the ISP's, but as the original claim was in abuse of process, this precedent seems to be built on very shakey ground indeed...............

k

Mr Justice Eady said of you and two others:

"They may not be persons of substance, such as to make it worthwhile pursuing them."

That is, as ever untrue. Eady makes it clear that Bunt was defamed but that his remedy did not lie against ISPs and that since the defamation that Bunt was complaining about took place on hios own website, he was the publisher of the defamation and could if he chose have removed the offending material.

Hehehe that's quite funny :-)

Umm no, the precedent set with respect to liability remains. The weakness is that Bunt was a litigant in person and as such proved incompetent to handle his case, hence it could be argued that Bunt was effectively unrepresented and the case was not tested. However Mr. Justice Eady clearly took extreme steps to consider Bunt's case in the absence of counsel and clearly lays out his argument of precedent in this case. It is that clear argument that establishes precedent in this case.

The fact that Bunt could not argue his case, does not invalidate the precedent.

The case simply establishes a precedent that an ISP cannot be responsible for material published by an other (in this case Bunt, Tilley, Hancox and Stevens) and that unless an ISP is put on notice that it is publishing defamatory material that the ISP has a defence. As he stated:

"for a person to be held responsible there must be knowing involvement in the process of publication of the relevant words. It is not enough that a person merely plays a passive instrumental role in the process."

Then he observed:

"One of the factors I have to consider is whether knowledge has been notified to any of the corporate Defendants in such a way as to render the ISP in question responsible for publication from that moment onwards (even assuming ´innocence¡ up to that point)"

And he then indicated that Bunt did not advise the ISPs of their potential liability:

"Distinct issues arise in the context of notification with regard to each of the corporate Defendants."

After then discussing Bunt's failure to notify each ISP of the nature of the defamation, Justice Eady observed:

"In all the circumstances I am quite prepared to hold that there is no realistic prospect of the Claimant being able to establish that any of the corporate Defendants, in any meaningful sense, knowingly participated in the relevant publications."

None of this depends upon Bunt's case succeeding or even being tried to establish precedent and Justice Eady indicated this in his judgement:

"I would not accept the Claimantÿs proposition that this issue ´can only be settled by a trial¡, since it is a question of law which can be determined without resolving contested issues of fact."

That is, it does not take a trial to throw out Bunt's case against the ISPs and by the same token since Justice Eady's judgement is a question of law it does not take a trial to establish precedent in this case.

Carl, what is is with you and rising to this?

cheers, clive

It's difficult to see why a judge would leap to that conclusion without having been there. I can only find one reference to the day in question, and it's from Bunt himself so it may be biased:

Once more Mr Filth shows his igorance! In this case of both matters to do with the net, and the rules of evidence!

As Bunt didnt bother to get hold of the ISP usenet server log files, and didnt inform the ISPs what the offending posts were supposed to be anyway (making provision of the log files quite impossible in any case), then he had nothing to suggest who was responsible for what he complained of (which even now is unclear!).

k

I suggest you have a look at bunts web pages

and then you may well agree withn nearly everyone else that has had the misfortune to come across him, that he is barking mad rather than "biased"...................

k

Takes one to know one.