MarianneLuban at aol.com
MarianneLuban at aol.com
Fri Aug 27 15:37:48 EDT 2004
In a message dated 8/27/2004 11:39:58 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
peterkirk at qaya.org writes:
First, I restore the text from my post, to which Peter Kirk is replying, that
he conveniently omitted:
Rohl, "Pharaohs and Kings", page 364:
"At the beginning of our journey back in time I promised you that we would
stand together before the cult statue of Joseph and look upon the likeness of
this remarkable legendary figure from the past. With the advent of modern
computer technology I am able to keep my promise."
> > ...
> >So, Mr. Peter Kirk--where is the libel? And what does Rohl's assertion
> >he has actually found a statue of Joseph have to do with Manetho? Also, I
> >suggest you give up "lawyering" as your previous posts have shown that you
> >even know the difference between civil and criminal law.
> Now you are libelling *me* in a public forum.
No. I am not. Because when I wrote about "setting precedents" in a previous
post, you replied with an example of someone being shot or stabbed or
something. For that, the defendant would be involved in a criminal case, in which
caselaw and precedents do not apply--only the facts of the case matter. The
sole exception to this is a "wrongful death" lawsuit--which is a civil matter and
can be brought even when the defendant in a criminal action is judged "not
You might find yourself > needing a lawyer yourself.
Or you--if you continue to publicly assert that I am libeling anybody. If
you publicly accuse someone of that, you had better make sure that it is the
You have no idea whether or not I have > qualifications in law. You should
> be careful before making such a statement publicly about someone who for all
> you know might be a practising libel lawyer who would certainly see what you
> write as a
> libel against himself. Such things could get very expensive for you.
LOL! Your previous post about the law would have tipped off anyone who knows
anything about it that you are no "practising libel lawyer". And the one I
am replying to erases all doubt entirely. If you are no lawyer, as you state
below, no claim by anyone that you don't know the law could ever be construed
as libel by a court of law. Period. Because you would in no way suffer
damages by such a claim.
> >>Meanwhile, Marianne, I haven't noticed many question marks in your
> >>recent postings, just quite a lot of statements like "definitely" and
> >>"No doubt about it".
Did you make certain of the facts before you wrote that? My assertion is
that you did not--and that it is a gross exaggeration.
> >About some things I don't have any doubts. Yet I also doubt that I have
> >"quite a lot of statements" that contain those words. But if I found a
> >statue that looked to be like that of an Asiatic at Avaris (where Asiatics
> >for a long time) I would certainly not go out on a limb declaring "this
> must be
> I don't think David Rohl ever stated that "this must be Joseph". He
> acknowledges that there is much speculation here. He certainly allows
> much more room for doubt about this statue than you do (in the words of
> yours I quoted) about the actions of Hatshepsut.
That is pure baloney. See the quote from Rohl above. Do you require some
> PS (and in fact you could probably have discovered this from my website)
> I am not in fact a lawyer, and I have no intention to take this to
I'm not worried in the least. And I have never visited your website.
But I agree with you that the moderators ought to intervene, to >
> stop list members libelling either reputable scholars like David Rohl or
> other list members.
Or threatening them--as you have done me. I am going to give you some good
advice: calm yourself now and think twice about replying to any of my
posts--unless you can do so in a scholarly and gentlemanly fashion. I am a student of
the law. And don't at this point need a lawyer for anything.
More information about the b-hebrew