Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site spar.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxj!mhuxr!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!spar!baba From: baba@spar.UUCP (Baba ROM DOS) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: An Apology to Cliff Message-ID: <117@spar.UUCP> Date: Fri, 1-Mar-85 16:51:06 EST Article-I.D.: spar.117 Posted: Fri Mar 1 16:51:06 1985 Date-Received: Mon, 4-Mar-85 06:25:38 EST References: <905@ratex.UUCP> Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research, CA Lines: 34 > Cliff: > > When Baba said that someone had said that there would be no lawyers, I > accepted his claim without due thought, and fell for his straw-man (oh the > shame!); in doing so, I, in essence, repeated his claim. > I'm very sorry for contributing to his libelling of you; it was not > intentional. > > Sorry, > DKMcK The quote in question, once again: > Surprise, since the legal code would be so much easier to understand it > would be inconceivable that a lawyer's prowess would enter into the play. > > Cliff We have heard a great deal from Cliff about what he *meant* to say, but there is a big difference between "entering into play" and "being the deciding factor". I can accept the notion that he chose his words poorly (he would appear to have been in a hurry at the time, to judge from the punctuation). Nonetheless, he wrote what he wrote, and I think that it should be clear that one natural way to parse the statement is "it would be inconceivable that a lawyer's skills would be required" i.e. that the society will require no lawyers. My statements, however pointed, have been made without intentional misrepresention, and I see no possibility that I have tarnished Cliff's sterling reputation. In short, while I may have ridiculed a statement that he erroneously made and/or that I misinterpreted, I have not libeled him. Thus DKMcK's accusation of libel on my part is false, and, because it was made in net.news, potentially libellous itself. Baba