"Carol Lee Smith" <human@csd.uwm.edu> wrote

On 29 Dec 2003, Eve Janes wrote:

The safety and serenity of sci.skeptic provided an atmosphere conducive to
deprogramming, despite the pandemonium that ensued. Graham Andrew Cooper was
the first man who not only did not abuse us, but cared for our welfare
and well being. ...

http://www.randi.org/jr/031502.html
----excerpt--------------
***** Smith, very well-known in Australia, is a leading supporter of the
skeptical (pardon me, sceptical!) movement there, and one of his business
interests is producing food products.
Australian Broadcasting News: A man charged with threatening to poison
food produced by ***** Smith has been refused bail in the Rockhampton
Magistrates Court in central Queensland. Graham Andrew Cooper, 30, is
charged with trying extort $100,000 from the Australian Sceptics
Association. Cooper appeared in court this morning charged with stalking,
extortion and sending threatening e-mails. The court was told Cooper sent
e-mails to Barry Williams from the Australian Sceptics Association, which
has offered $100,000 to anyone who can prove psychic powers. The police
prosecutor said Cooper claimed the association refused to test him. It is
alleged the e-mails said that ***** Smith owed him $100,000 and that he
would put rat sack into as much ***** Smith food as he could lay his hands
on. The court was told Cooper is a paranoid schizophrenic and police said
the threats were not carried out. Cooper will be held in custody until his
next court appearance in May.
The term "rat sack" refers to rat poison. These colorful Aussie
expressions....!

Cleared in Supreme Court because they forged everything.

They quoted the given "evidence" as if it was factual.
They put quotes around forged words with no NEARBY reference it was
actually written by the policeman.
He said "she said 'stuff that'"
is attributed to HIM. People READ IT as her. The average person will think
I said those words exactly, and the newspaper abuses technically correct quotes.

No,the Senior Constable made it clear it was not a direct quote, and
when one uses the term "such as" it means it is a paraphrase of what was
actually said. It would be reasonable for a newspaper to use his
paraphrase quote during the interview with the Senior Constable, and as

is it common practice to paraphrase in quotes, inside quotes again?

it is not a "court" where actual exact evidence need be submitted, your
action for damages, if any (since you admit it was "technically
correct"), would be against the person who said it. This means the
Senior Constable.
You also admit that threats were made by you to the Skeptics (albeit you
now claim they were "sarcastic" comments). Here's how you put it in
your second post:
"...I wrote ...mercy to god....'please reply in a day or two," (obvious
sarchasm intended) "I am about to put Ratsak.....' after my detailed
letter nothing to do with demands, in my sig."
There is an old adage on Internet communications: "Sarcasm doesn't work
in written communications like e-mail (or Usenet, for that matter)." As
one business site noted such e-mails can be viewed as bullying or
threatening to others:
"...Reed.co.uk has put together six golden rules of email etiquette to
ensure that the email sender does not inadvertently become the email
bully:
Don't write emails in capital letters since this is commonly interpreted
as shouting.
Unless you know the recipient well, take time to put some pleasantries
in the email. Though it need not be as formal as a letter, a few how are
yous and best regards can convey a considerate, responsive tone.
If you need to communicate to someone sitting near you, try and speak to
them rather than sending them emails.
Use the copy fields Cc and Bcc sparingly and appropriately. Copying the
names of bosses and senior directors into an email sent to a colleague
might appear intimidating and underhand.
Remember that sarcasm doesn't work in emails.
Businesses often store employees emails on a central server. Never write
anything that you are not happy to have as a permanent record in an
email."
Source:
http://www.clearlybusiness.com/news_views_events/na_2003Apr02_email_bullying.jsp
E-bullying in the workplace on the up
As the law sees it, in Australia, what the newspaper did was report what
was told to its reporter without there being any malice on the part of
the newspaper. In Theophanous v. The Herald Weekly Times Ltd v. Times
Ltd & Anor, it was held that a defamatory publication will not be
actionable under the law relating to defamation if the defendant
establishes that: (a) it was unaware of the falsity of the material
published; (b) it did not publish the material recklessly (i. e. , not
caring if the material was true or false); and (c) the publication was
reasonable in the circumstances. A publication that attracts the freedom
implied in the Commonwealth Constitution can be described as a
publication on an occasion of qualified privilege.
You yourself admit the information was not a verbatim quote, but
technically correct, and the newspaper had no reason to think there was

no, the quote was technically correct, the policeman said "incorrect",
the information is completely incorrect. every sentence is modified,
please reply in a day or two was cut from the joke, i never wrote pay,
i never demanded money. I tried to inform them of their obligations from
their website proposal and public invitation from a commitee member
to submit an application.

any direct quote (from the interviewed police officer) involved. It
reported only what he said, and he was careful to state that _what_ he
said was a paraphrase of statements you _did_ make to
Williams/Australian Skeptics, albeit over a period of time (you have
said).

The newspaper effectively, decietfully and literally quoted me (incorrectly).

It didn't quote YOU at all; it quoted Senior Constable Sean Janes, as it
clearly states.

yes it did, it used single quotes after such as, there was no reason for that.
They could have put blah. threat'" said the policeman to make it clear,
but they didn't, they relied on a reference 3 paragraphs earlier.

How far from a quote mark does a name have to be?

The lead into the paragraph that is only attributed 3 paragraphs earlier
has blind quotes that sound like a newspaper journalist.

This is not how I see most people reading it, but apparently YMMV.
<snip>

Read the article and tell me who you think wrote :
Reply or pay the consequences. I am about to put Ratsak in as much ***** Smith
food as I can'."

The reporter, quoting Senior Constable Sean Janes; it is not a misquote
of you, as you were not named as the quoted party. That's MY take on
it, and I suspect, that of most reasonable people.
--
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg, J.D.

DISCLAIMER:

Not a practicing attorney, and no attorney-client relationship
is created. This response is for discussion purposes only. It
isn't meant to be legal advice. If you wish legal advice, seek
out an attorney in your own state who is familar with your
state's laws and applications thereof.

Thankyou for the input, I'll go over it later but I've stated everything.

ONE, the email recipient was

Say that fast 3 times, I know that wont hold in court but its meaningful
and related to my parnormal claim that names have meaning.

TWO, why did the newspaper admit fraud with a play on the top related story.
"INVESTIGATOR FOUND GUILTY OF DEFAMING"
Are you certain this is unrelated to the story? Are you familiar with media layouts
and using advertising space.
THREE, I am not qualfied to comment on the technical accuracy of the quotes.
The level of grammar required to understand the single quotes ' ' around my
words were not my own words, is well above average, i.e. a minority of the public.
This is my case. The fact is everyone who reads it takes it as factual. Its like
one of those movies that begin with someone dreaming then you forget that
scene and tune into the movie, then are suprised at the end that 'oh it was just
a dream/quote'.
FOUR, (b) it did not publish the material recklessly This is exactly false.
The police had a list of quoted sentences off me. They snipped and snipped until
the 2 sentences together, an altered reply ASAP demand next to a threat, looked like extortion.
The newspaper used EVERY TRICK IN THE BOOK to make it look like my words.
Can you rewrite that article any worse? Its a piece of artwork!
The policeman sounds like the news reporter the previous paragraph. There's quotes
inside quotes . There's a technically correct atrribution to the extortion
phrase half a page up to the policeman.
Do a poll. Get people to read the article, the ask them who wrote this
"reply or pay consequences. I am about to put..."
Sergeant or Mr Cooper ?????
The policeman is a crook, but he's just putting people away that have a finger pointed
at them, thats what law comes down to. But the newspaper thrived on it. They
wanted those words attributed to me and they succeeded.
Herc

Carol Lee Smith wrote:

On 29 Dec 2003, Eve Janes wrote:

The safety and serenity of sci.skeptic provided an atmosphere conducive to
deprogramming, despite the pandemonium that ensued. Graham Andrew Cooper was
the first man who not only did not abuse us, but cared for our welfare
and well being. ... You can write the Territory of
Queensland demanding to know why Kelly is being denied her right
to qualified rehabilitation.

Poor Kelly.

Poor Eve.

What does it have to do with James Randi?

Or sci.skeptic?