From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   J.D. Baldwin  wrote:   
   >Adam H. Kerman  wrote:   
      
   >>It's fascinating that facts don't matter to you. Since facts don't   
   >>matter, you felt free to make shit up and assign criminal intent to   
   >>the homeowner.   
      
   >I didn't do that. Just on the subject of facts, you know, *mattering*   
   >and stuff.   
      
   You did it multiple times. Here is the second time you accused the   
   homeowner of having committed a crime of intent, that is, intentionally   
   setting a trap so that the e-bike motorist would be injured or killed.   
      
   	The homeowner *may* have committed a crime -- though probably not   
   	rising to the level of homicide -- depending on circumstances that   
   	I don't know. But you can't just go around setting "man-traps."   
      
   There was no reason to make that assumption. It was not a rational   
   conclusion from the news reports.   
      
   You wrote it with weasel language so it's just short of libel.   
      
   Quote editing doesn't get you out of what you did.   
      
   The homeowner had a conflict with small trucks and vans parking off road   
   and so erected the cable to discourage it. The driver would not have   
   been injured from the cable, although the truck or van would have been   
   damaged if the driver didn't notice it.   
      
   The homeowner had no conflict with e-bike motorists who for some reason   
   could have lost control of their motor vehicle right at the spot that   
   they could have been injured or killed by accidentally crashing into the   
   cable. There's no logical way to conclude that the homeowner set a trap,   
   nor that the homeowner committed a crime.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)