In article , "Henry Pasternack"
wrote:

Elsewhere, Andre Jute wrote:
I insist on my right, which I freely grant everyone else, to be
innocent until
proven guilty. [People] either have to prove I'm a liar as they claimed...
or apologize.

Very well. Let us put to the test your principle of presumed innocence and
proof. On January 11, 2006, you wrote:

Pasternack sent graphic homosexual pornography in my name to two
little girls, the daughters of an Italian engineer he'd never met, who
had never even corresponded with him... This... was admitted in passing
on the Joenet by Pasternack's associate in the Magnequest Mob, Robert
Chernofsky... It is also the accusation of the two little girls' father, who
traced the graphic homosexual pornography to Pasternack's server...
[A]n offense of child molestation is beyond the pale.

Now, this is a very serious charge you have made, Andre. It's also false.
That makes you a guilty of criminal libel.

Henry,

I don't think it's that Andre is lying, so much as it is that he is
confused about who was actually involved in the "graphic homosexual
pornography" incident. According to Mike of Magnequest the "homosexual
pornography" incident actually happened. He told me about the incident
during a phone conversation when I commented that a certain individual was
no longer posting to rec.audio.tubes, and I wondered why. Mike said this
individual, who was not an Italian engineer, or his daughters, Andre got
that part wrong, had received "homosexual pornography" that had been sent
in Andre's name. He said that Andre was the primary target of this
scheme, the idea being to discredit him and provide reasons for his ISP to
terminate his service. The recipient, who I will refrain from naming, was
a secondary target, who while he never posted comments on Magnequest, was
preaching a gospel that was at odds with the Magnequest teachings. In
those days Magnequest pretty much ruled the news group, and posts that
were at odds with the truth as revealed by Magnequest were frowned upon,
even if they didn't actually mention Magnequast, so it would be a bonus if
this individual could be disposed of at the same time as Andre. While the
scheme didn't get rid of Andre, although for all I know it may have
contributed to Andre's ISP dropping him, the scheme was successful in
driving the, recipient of the "homosexual pornography", the secondary
target, from the group.

While Mike was willing to discuss the two targets of the "homosexual
pornography" scheme, he was unwilling to say who was actually responsible
for sending the "homosexual pornography" even though he claimed to know
who did it, who I am sure had proudly told Mike of the "good deed" he had
done for the cause. All Mike would do was to strongly imply that the
"homosexual pornography" was sent in Andre's name by a member of what I
called the "gang", which would probably include you, although I only
considered you as a "want to be" member of the gang. In any case I think
Andre has it wrong and I don't believe that you were the one Mike was
referring to as the sender of the "homosexual pornography".


Regards,

John Byrns


Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/