Louis Kyu Won Ryu wrote:
Seeing as how Mr. Hubley on his web site takes credit for one of 142.177.etc's trademark articles, I believe there is every reason to believe that Hubley and 142.177.etc are one and the same, unless there is some evidence to the contrary.
I agree with you. And the truth is an absolute defense in any libel case (even if not true, then any reasonable person would also strongly suspect a Hubley/142 connection given all the available evidence). My mentioning that 142.177 was Craig Hubley is not, as he likes to state, actionable libel and slander.
However, I must take issue with the implied suggestion some have made that we undertake to bombard Hubley with e-mail, phone calls, legal threats, and personal visits.
Who implied this? Lir came close, but I just don't see a clear connection between Lir's research and any advocacy to deluge Mr. Hubley or otherwise bother him. It was my impression that Lir was trying to make a point that now that 142 has been "outed" then we could (in a technical sense) do that. He did not say that we should do that and in fact indicated that the outing was bad because we could disrupt Mr. Hubley's life.
Such a response would be ineffective and inconsistent with our core values.
I agree. But we can and should use that information to contact the authorities if Mr. Hubley's actions justify that.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)