2005-06-24

Sure, Cohen can write, but can he draw?

7 comments:

Corrie said...

Yoicks! Beautiful Losers wins? My question is, to those who voted for it, have you read it?

My, my, that's a book a little rough around the edges, don't you think? Almost pirate-like. Do you think 5M could take it? Wouldn't it shake up her nice girl sensibilities? But don't worry, I have my birthday gift for her all planned out: during my jaunt to the far-away land of spice/spas/and super-porn, I'll just pick up a wee sample of Paprika for her. Won't that just tickle her orange?

As for the UFO/Cake cam; brilliant. Except now, I'll be wanting one for my birthday, along with a new copy of Beautiful Losers. The old one is tattered. Or is that tattARRRRRRed?

coyote said...

But, Wag, she's writing her thesis about a Montreal playwright who reputedly, possibly, maybe, unspecified others have said -- have I qualified my fuzzy coyote ass out of any potential defamation suits yet? - C. -- may have boffed Lenny, esteemed author of said book.... then again, who wasn't reputed to have, for awhile?

Or maybe we just liked the title...

Conch Shell said...

POSSIBLE REASONS 5M DIDN't POST:

1. Victim of frequent power outage, and her generator doesn't connect to the internet
2. Her Matatu crashed on the way to work and she's recovering in hospital
3. She's been claimed as a 3rd wife and is busy fighting the other two for attention
4. The rainy season has got her down
5. Malaria
6. The rebels blew up the internet service providers in her village
7. She's been SAVED
8. Her Matatu broke down on the remote road and she's still waiting under the banana tree for a replacement
9. She needed to return to her village to visit her mother
10. She's on Africa time

Corrie said...

Aaaahhhh, Coyote, now I understand. I have not read so deeply and thoroughly of the Muse's past writings to know all the background info. about her that you, and the other irregulars, seem to know so well. Ah well. Speaking of lawsuits, 5M
's postings of June 24th and 25th, leave me, with SOME knowledge in this area, feeling like SHE is leaving herself wide, wide open to rather expensive, and in all likelihood, emotionally-draining, lawsuits. I'll say more later...

4th Dwarf said...

1) Conchie! How great to hear from you! Is it really you? Where is yer cute little picture?

2) Waggie, 'tis an interesting direction yer charting. While under weigh, "sea lawyers" are frowned on, but as I'm ashore, I'm happy t' speculate with ye.

You mention the postings of the 24th and 25th. The 25th is mostly reviews of Fringe plays. Surely ye're not talking of copyright violation. As harsh as the "Copyfighters" say things are, surely this would all be "Fair Use"

So you must be speaking of slander or libel. Aboard ship or down in the mines, this sort of thing is settled with a quick round of fisticuffs. But from what I understand from an old Paul Newman movie it's more complicated ashore.

There's this question of malice, which does not seem to be absent between 5M and the Kuzac*nt/witch's friend (K/WFF).

Then there's the truth issue: Is K/WFF the slut of the department? That would be a tricky one. By 5M's standards a lass who has sex more often than every six months could be a "slut". Then is K/WFF the slut? If K/WFF could establish that others in the department are more promiscuous, she wouldn't be.

Of course there's also the remarks about K/WFF's trustworthiness...

Aye, Wag, ye've opened a weevilly barrel of hardtack. P'raps ye're also referring to the comment about M's "efficiency" during intimate encounters. Would ye care t'elaborate?

Corrie said...

Don't you mean "elabARRRRRRate?"
Yes, the "slut" comment is the most screamingly obvious choice in a defamatroy sort of setting. Two thoughts: (1) remember reverse onus. When I last checked the legislation (an extremmely long time ago, not in this land of Ontario), the defamer, once sued, came under the reverse onus, ie: opposite from usual way, of having to defend oneself. Ergo, if one sues someone for, say, negligence, the idea is to prove negligence against that person. However, if one sues for defamation, the onus of proof switches, thereby forcing the loose-lipped (or penned, as the case may be) to prove the truth of the blasphemous statements uttered or inked. Or to prove the defaming statements were never published or spoken. "Truth is always a defense," but truth must be proved.
(2) Me Black's Law Dictionary (why, oh WHY do I fall into this pirate patter whenever I'm not guarding against it?) on defamation: "that which tends to injure reputation; to diminish the esteem, respect, goodwill or confidence in which the plaintiff is held, or to excite adverse, derogatory or unpleasant feelings or opinions against him...the unprivileged publication of false statments which naturally and proximately result in injury to another." I hate to tell 5M, but postings on the Internet sure ain't privileged.

I remember reading cases which defined exactly what kind of words filled this kind of role. Can't remember the case name, but do remember the one in which a woman's sexual identity being tagged as "sluttish" won the day. Also, no need to prove damages, me deary. Once the defamation is proved, damages are presumed, and cash is awarded!

Lovely little tort, codified though it's become....

4th Dwarf said...

Arr, Wag, I c'n see I'll have t'be careful who I call a scurvy dog with you around.