See http://section15.blogspot.com/2008/05/crookes-lawsuits-are-not-dismissed.html for more.

As a Crookes defendant, this helps me, but he still has one claim against me: that a wiki I helped manage had a link to a page which had a link on it (one of many) which linked to a site Crookes has some objection to.

Though we know that Crookes has objections to some content out there, we don’t know which specific facts are in dispute.

No one should sue anyone for difamation. Let me illustrate why with an example which probably hs never happened.

Harry says in public that Tom served time in prision for robbing a bank and for bigamy, something that is not true.

Tom’s employer, a bank fires Tom after hearing about Tom’s non existent conviction, A RUMOR. Tom’s wife also left him after hearing the rumor.

Should Tom sue Harry for defamation? Of course not. It is the bank that is guilty of something. That something be best described as being unfair and acting without thinking. The bank should have given Tom a chance to explain or to deny the acusation. Ditto for the wife.

True most people, given the chance, will act unfairly after hearing a defamatory comment, better called a rumor.

Also, most people are RUMOR MONGERS and the laws and the courts cannot change that part of human nature.

The best reaction to defamatry rumors is to igoner the rumor, laugh it off, pardon thy ignorant brothers.

Wayne Crookes, Douche.

Wayne Crooks, Douche … into your favorite search engine.

you’ll find it.

The point of his suit was to erase it from history ( at least from the smaller blogs
that couldn’t afford to fight him back ). A failed attempt at economic censorship.

A quick search will show just how much ‘fail’ he has