Proof of CentOS hacking Discussion, linux 2662
Well, I'd say you responded to the "libel" part when your response came right after a paragraph that was only about libel.
Oh? You think that I can "libel" you by telling you something negative about you in private? Wow.
Got a dictionary?
Oh, is that what you're on about. The email was clearly private. Whether an email is private or not depends on the recipients, not the contents (in general, with exceptions made for emails which explicitly state: "Please forward this to everyone you know" and so on).
If I saw any comprehension problems on my part, I'd be happy to explain them. An email sent from person A to person B *and no one else* is a private email *even if* it includes threats. That doesn't mean that such private emails can not be publicized. But it *does* mean that such private emails can not be accused of libel if the libelous comments apply only to the recipient.
Proof of CentOS hacking
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, High Plains Thumper wrote on Sat, 25 Mar 2006 11:31:23 +0000 (UTC) I frankly don't know *what* happened, but this response annoys me: Jerry A. Taylor: Get this web site off...
Read the thread. The "libel" part is the only interest I had and everything I wrote was relevant to that "part".
I did not say that the recipient had no right to publicize the emails. (I also didn't say he has the right. I'm not sure about this point.)
Proof of CentOS hacking Discussion, linux 2663
Maybe not but (1) he didn't tell them and (2) even if he had, that...
-- "Georg Cantor, the mathematician, is not the cantor from the synagogue. Cantor, the man, was a Christian and also basically a Jew, and he was circumspect about his beliefs, which probably included faith in a higher power." -- Ross Finlayson: Logician, theologian.