That is not for you to decide - I'll happily show a court what I
wrote versus what John claims (or what you claim)
It is all in writing after all, and I have had enough of his libel to
decide to put a stop to it.
I have a full year of law study and have yet to lose a case I took on.
You can not defame work - only individuals.
And I have the greatest respect for Hahnemann's work anyway, as my
emails show.
Your misrepresentations will not change that, nor John's.
This is not about difference of opinion - it is about misrepresentation.
One can let it be when there is simply difference of opinion -I
actually do not give a hoot what anyone thinks of my work, as I am
pleased with my choices (else I'd make other choices) and i am
prepared to explain what i do and why, and let peple think what they
think.
- but I DO care to NOT be misrepresented. THAT is the cause
warranting action here.
SO it can not be let be, NOT when professionals are attacked with
misrepresentation that affects their reputation.
You and John (he more than you, but it applies to both) have made a
game of taking a few ways I use remedies in well explained
exceptional cases, and misrepresenting both why and what and where
that occurs, misrepresenting the principles involved, misrepresented
the reasons, misrepresented my work as a whole, applied things out of
context and you have jumped to conclusions that are invalid and you
have assumed things not true and have made false accusations right
left and centre in writing and readily proved - from those
assumptions and conclusions - NOT for my work. John has then made
sweeping libellous generalizations about my work that are totally
indefensible.
It is SO blatant it will not be hard to prove in court. That is the
Joy of having it ll ready and available to any court in writing.
Those doing it are responsible for the damages caused by their behavior.
You and John may like to be ugly and misrepresent my professional
work just for fun in your emails - but it is not the least funny.
I have put up with it more than long enough.
It WILL stop.
Not a forum - the Minutus forum did nothing wrong.
John would be charged for libel, and you if need be, as individuals.
The forum did nothing wrong. John did and you did.
And the costs will be to the loser of the case.
It is an open and shut case due to the 100% written documentation of
emails and the Yahoo policy to supply them and any needed personal
information to any court on subpoena. (From their backup if necessary).
It will cost me nothing. Filing costs and attorney costs will be for
the account of the loser. Such an open and shut case will be
acceptable on consignment anyway.
It cost me nothing last time several years ago when a woman in UK on
a list pretended to be a man in Norway and messed with my reputation.
She thought being in UK would make her unreachable - she was wrong,
and Yahoo gave full support to providing the proofs to convict her to
the Uk court.
And it cost me nothing when a vet in an eastern US state similarly
tried to misrepresent my work as something it is not (Exactly what
John is doing - and you to a somewhat lesser extent).
I value my reputation for the work I do, and as I have published and
do teach at a well respected school (BIH) - and as I plan to do more
of both publishing and teaching - my reputation is essentially my
source of income. John and you are working hard to undo that well
earned reputation. The court calls that damages and translates it
into money.
They also see that what I ACTUALLY do is very relevant
professionally in both publishing and teaching - increasing the
potential damages for the misrepresentations you and John are making
- and I am prepared to defend that position as needed.
There is no disclaimer that lets anyone out of their legal
responsibilities - such a concept is void in law.
People who write libellous emails are directly responsible for what
they write, individually and personally.
There are no excuses or disclaimers available for that.
And no boundaries of distance either.
In addition what you and John are doing violates Yahoo terms of
service which is ALSO below all emails.
It would be mature to knock off the misrepresentation and start
being careful what you write and more careful to read carefully
before jumping to false conclusions.
What you write is relevant - and has a permanent record and the
writer is responsible for its effects.
Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."
Misrepresentation responsibility (John and Joy) - was definition [was: New media attacks on homeopathy...
-
Irene de Villiers
- Posts: 3237
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 10:00 pm
Re: Misrepresentation responsibility (John and Joy) - was definition [was: New media attacks on homeopathy...
I have half a whole family of lawyers who have already laughed at this - if it is nothing to do with Minutus then take it OFF and away.
I am glad it is in writing as well as the counter claims will be very long (still have the emails where you called me delusional and inventive and telling lies) and there are many here including yourself who have defamed me in my support of Hahnemann (dead or alive). Some have merely challenged your version of Homeopathy, and rightly so and then it has to be personalised in that way so that we know who is being referenced. We could always skirt round it and not use names.
I do not care for Homeopathy to be mis-represented, I have spent many years upholding Hahemann's homeopathy so it will be fun trying to teach a court what homeopathy is and what it isn't. If you see this as a game then you are again mis-representing myself and others and it will come back to you. Freedom of speech means nothing to you. Grow up Irene and stop issuing threats that are in themselves ugly and nasty. It hasn't been fun (as you refer to it, again mis representing) but there is a dire need to clarify real homeopathy.
Joy
That is not for you to decide - I'll happily show a court what I
wrote versus what John claims (or what you claim)
It is all in writing after all, and I have had enough of his libel to
decide to put a stop to it.
I have a full year of law study and have yet to lose a case I took on.
You can not defame work - only individuals.
And I have the greatest respect for Hahnemann's work anyway, as my
emails show.
Your misrepresentations will not change that, nor John's.
This is not about difference of opinion - it is about misrepresentation.
One can let it be when there is simply difference of opinion -I
actually do not give a hoot what anyone thinks of my work, as I am
pleased with my choices (else I'd make other choices) and i am
prepared to explain what i do and why, and let peple think what they
think.
- but I DO care to NOT be misrepresented. THAT is the cause
warranting action here.
SO it can not be let be, NOT when professionals are attacked with
misrepresentation that affects their reputation.
You and John (he more than you, but it applies to both) have made a
game of taking a few ways I use remedies in well explained
exceptional cases, and misrepresenting both why and what and where
that occurs, misrepresenting the principles involved, misrepresented
the reasons, misrepresented my work as a whole, applied things out of
context and you have jumped to conclusions that are invalid and you
have assumed things not true and have made false accusations right
left and centre in writing and readily proved - from those
assumptions and conclusions - NOT for my work. John has then made
sweeping libellous generalizations about my work that are totally
indefensible.
It is SO blatant it will not be hard to prove in court. That is the
Joy of having it ll ready and available to any court in writing.
Those doing it are responsible for the damages caused by their behavior.
You and John may like to be ugly and misrepresent my professional
work just for fun in your emails - but it is not the least funny.
I have put up with it more than long enough.
It WILL stop.
Not a forum - the Minutus forum did nothing wrong.
John would be charged for libel, and you if need be, as individuals.
The forum did nothing wrong. John did and you did.
And the costs will be to the loser of the case.
It is an open and shut case due to the 100% written documentation of
emails and the Yahoo policy to supply them and any needed personal
information to any court on subpoena. (From their backup if necessary).
It will cost me nothing. Filing costs and attorney costs will be for
the account of the loser. Such an open and shut case will be
acceptable on consignment anyway.
It cost me nothing last time several years ago when a woman in UK on
a list pretended to be a man in Norway and messed with my reputation.
She thought being in UK would make her unreachable - she was wrong,
and Yahoo gave full support to providing the proofs to convict her to
the Uk court.
And it cost me nothing when a vet in an eastern US state similarly
tried to misrepresent my work as something it is not (Exactly what
John is doing - and you to a somewhat lesser extent).
I value my reputation for the work I do, and as I have published and
do teach at a well respected school (BIH) - and as I plan to do more
of both publishing and teaching - my reputation is essentially my
source of income. John and you are working hard to undo that well
earned reputation. The court calls that damages and translates it
into money.
They also see that what I ACTUALLY do is very relevant
professionally in both publishing and teaching - increasing the
potential damages for the misrepresentations you and John are making
- and I am prepared to defend that position as needed.
There is no disclaimer that lets anyone out of their legal
responsibilities - such a concept is void in law.
People who write libellous emails are directly responsible for what
they write, individually and personally.
There are no excuses or disclaimers available for that.
And no boundaries of distance either.
In addition what you and John are doing violates Yahoo terms of
service which is ALSO below all emails.
It would be mature to knock off the misrepresentation and start
being careful what you write and more careful to read carefully
before jumping to false conclusions.
What you write is relevant - and has a permanent record and the
writer is responsible for its effects.
Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."
I am glad it is in writing as well as the counter claims will be very long (still have the emails where you called me delusional and inventive and telling lies) and there are many here including yourself who have defamed me in my support of Hahnemann (dead or alive). Some have merely challenged your version of Homeopathy, and rightly so and then it has to be personalised in that way so that we know who is being referenced. We could always skirt round it and not use names.
I do not care for Homeopathy to be mis-represented, I have spent many years upholding Hahemann's homeopathy so it will be fun trying to teach a court what homeopathy is and what it isn't. If you see this as a game then you are again mis-representing myself and others and it will come back to you. Freedom of speech means nothing to you. Grow up Irene and stop issuing threats that are in themselves ugly and nasty. It hasn't been fun (as you refer to it, again mis representing) but there is a dire need to clarify real homeopathy.
Joy
That is not for you to decide - I'll happily show a court what I
wrote versus what John claims (or what you claim)
It is all in writing after all, and I have had enough of his libel to
decide to put a stop to it.
I have a full year of law study and have yet to lose a case I took on.
You can not defame work - only individuals.
And I have the greatest respect for Hahnemann's work anyway, as my
emails show.
Your misrepresentations will not change that, nor John's.
This is not about difference of opinion - it is about misrepresentation.
One can let it be when there is simply difference of opinion -I
actually do not give a hoot what anyone thinks of my work, as I am
pleased with my choices (else I'd make other choices) and i am
prepared to explain what i do and why, and let peple think what they
think.
- but I DO care to NOT be misrepresented. THAT is the cause
warranting action here.
SO it can not be let be, NOT when professionals are attacked with
misrepresentation that affects their reputation.
You and John (he more than you, but it applies to both) have made a
game of taking a few ways I use remedies in well explained
exceptional cases, and misrepresenting both why and what and where
that occurs, misrepresenting the principles involved, misrepresented
the reasons, misrepresented my work as a whole, applied things out of
context and you have jumped to conclusions that are invalid and you
have assumed things not true and have made false accusations right
left and centre in writing and readily proved - from those
assumptions and conclusions - NOT for my work. John has then made
sweeping libellous generalizations about my work that are totally
indefensible.
It is SO blatant it will not be hard to prove in court. That is the
Joy of having it ll ready and available to any court in writing.
Those doing it are responsible for the damages caused by their behavior.
You and John may like to be ugly and misrepresent my professional
work just for fun in your emails - but it is not the least funny.
I have put up with it more than long enough.
It WILL stop.
Not a forum - the Minutus forum did nothing wrong.
John would be charged for libel, and you if need be, as individuals.
The forum did nothing wrong. John did and you did.
And the costs will be to the loser of the case.
It is an open and shut case due to the 100% written documentation of
emails and the Yahoo policy to supply them and any needed personal
information to any court on subpoena. (From their backup if necessary).
It will cost me nothing. Filing costs and attorney costs will be for
the account of the loser. Such an open and shut case will be
acceptable on consignment anyway.
It cost me nothing last time several years ago when a woman in UK on
a list pretended to be a man in Norway and messed with my reputation.
She thought being in UK would make her unreachable - she was wrong,
and Yahoo gave full support to providing the proofs to convict her to
the Uk court.
And it cost me nothing when a vet in an eastern US state similarly
tried to misrepresent my work as something it is not (Exactly what
John is doing - and you to a somewhat lesser extent).
I value my reputation for the work I do, and as I have published and
do teach at a well respected school (BIH) - and as I plan to do more
of both publishing and teaching - my reputation is essentially my
source of income. John and you are working hard to undo that well
earned reputation. The court calls that damages and translates it
into money.
They also see that what I ACTUALLY do is very relevant
professionally in both publishing and teaching - increasing the
potential damages for the misrepresentations you and John are making
- and I am prepared to defend that position as needed.
There is no disclaimer that lets anyone out of their legal
responsibilities - such a concept is void in law.
People who write libellous emails are directly responsible for what
they write, individually and personally.
There are no excuses or disclaimers available for that.
And no boundaries of distance either.
In addition what you and John are doing violates Yahoo terms of
service which is ALSO below all emails.
It would be mature to knock off the misrepresentation and start
being careful what you write and more careful to read carefully
before jumping to false conclusions.
What you write is relevant - and has a permanent record and the
writer is responsible for its effects.
Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."