Skeeve

These cases are particularly expensive to run I've been told, prob $100k for
each party but now with your expert legal advise I can save that cost.

You are an intelligent man sleeve, I'm sure you can understand even if you
win it will be a year + before you get your costs back, but if you lose I'll
claim my $100k+ out of  your wife's grocery spending budget, any
lawyers/accountants on the list know if that's a tax deduction for skeeve?

From your postings its hard to tell whether your a naughty kid who's playing
with fire or a court judge.

Brad


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Skeeve Stevens" <skeeve&#167;skeeve.org>
To: <dns&#167;dotau.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 10:16 PM
Subject: RE: [DNS] Brad Norrish's auDA


>
> How amusing.
>
> Brad has decided to threaten me with legal action unless I publish an
> apology within 24 hours. He thinks that a post that I refer to his lack of
> business ethics and morals was untruthful and damaging to his reputation.
>
> I state now, my defence of my post.
>
> Firstly under 'Fair Comment'
>
> A) It was comment/opinion
> B) The facts of your activities are widely documented (and thanks to Josh
> and others, VERY detailed) and as such known by the participants in the
> forum.
> C) The communication was of public interest to the list. (Debatable, but
was
> of interest to me... Anyone else found my comment 'interesting' ;-)
>
> For clarification.  It is in my OPINION, and having that opinion, I
> COMMENTED on what I perceived to be your failings.
>
> Next under 'Truth'
>
> For something to be found defamatory, the law must presume it is false. My
> OPINION, based on your business activities that are well documented, would
> constitute a form of Truth.
>
> In QLD, Tas, ACT and NSW, should you choose to prosecute there, it is also
> required that the publication was for public benefit.  Considering the
> context of the forum involved, I don't think that is an issue.
>
> So.. Brad is it all clear for you?
>
> More explanation?
>
> I could give you more examples of my opinions regarding your misleading
> business practices. But I really don't want to waste any more time on a
fool
> such as yourself.  Oh.. No.. Is that defamation? Oops, wrong again, it is
> just my opinion, or is name calling to be considered defamation now.
>
> Oh, and lastly... Since your replied to the offending post, there by
> re-publishing it, it would suggest that you don't actually disagree with
the
> posting since you are happy to again pass it on to the people on the list
> ;-)
>
> ...Skeeve
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brad Norrish [mailto:brad&#167;brad.com.au]
> Sent: Monday, 15 March 2004 1:56 PM
> To: dns&#167;lists.auda.org.au
> Subject: Re: [DNS] Brad Norrish's auDA
>
> Skeve
>
> Brave Words. Please clarify the first line.
>
> This kind of  "don't question anything, especially our crew, don't rock
the
> boat anyone, things are travelling fine ... anybody who talks about a
change
> in things should be silenced" is exactly the kind of reaction we would
> expect from a cartel type arrangement, not capitalist industry.
>
> I also notice your 2nd line backs up what I have said about people taking
> this list as if it's an Auda list.
>
> Brad
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
> List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://dotau.org/
> Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the
> author, further information at the above URL.
>
>
>