On Aug 6, 2:04 pm, Vance gmail.com> wrote:

Hmm, that's a new one on me. I was - without realizing it - fully
aware of "libel per se" which is when you say something which is out-
and-out false. Libel per quod is when someone says something where
circumstances beyond the statement are necessary to make the statement
libelous.

I think, when I post my regular statement pointing out how Gordon Roy
Parker is a sociopath, that Gordo is trying to claim that my statement
is libel per quod rather than libel per se, because he claims it
damages his reputation (or would claim it, if he could prove it was
false.)

And it also applies to my comments. Notwithstanding the fact that
when I call Gordo a sociopath, I am in fact speaking the truth, in
order for him to sue me he'd have to be able to prove that I have
damaged his reputation, which is impossible in his case, not because
people wouldn't believe me - In fact, I think I have a very high
standing on this newsgroup because people have seen how *I* act and
what I say over many years - but because his own actions to defame
himself have lowered his reputation to zero anyway. If you have no
reputation to begin with, you can't be defamed.