From: INVALID_SEE_SIG@example.com.invalid   
      
   In the previous article, 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."   
      
   I raised a hypothetical possibility based on my knowledge of the law   
   and some assumptions you seemed to be making about how a desire to   
   prevent cars from going somewhere justified erecting a hazard. (I   
   assume you don't dispute that it was, in fact, a hazard.)   
      
   > You wrote it with weasel language so it's just short of libel.   
      
   I can promise you that I have forgotten more about libel law than you   
   could probably learn with a month of intensive study. And that   
   sentence is fatuously silly.   
   --   
     _+_ From the catapult of |If anyone objects to any statement I make, I am   
   _|70|___:)=}- J.D. Baldwin |quite prepared not only to retract it, but also   
   \      /  baldwin@panix.com|to deny under oath that I ever made it.-T. Lehrer   
   ***~~~~----------------------------------------------------------------------   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)