Re: Surrogate factoring, update
From: Tom St Denis (tom_at_securescience.net)
Date: 07/15/04
- Next message: Tom St Denis: "Re: Surrogate factoring, update"
- Previous message: AE: "Re: A variant of the shrinking generator"
- In reply to: James Harris: "Re: Surrogate factoring, update"
- Next in thread: Tom St Denis: "Re: Surrogate factoring, update"
- Reply: Tom St Denis: "Re: Surrogate factoring, update"
- Reply: Joe Peschel: "Re: Surrogate factoring, update"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 19:24:52 GMT
<snip>
Let's do some clue hunting for James shall we.
I, Thomas James St Denis, citizen of Canada am bound to the Canadian
Criminal Code.
Let's do some peeking around...
Section 297-316 [http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/42515.html#rid-42654].
Defamatory Libel.
Since what James is beating around is actually libel [openly publishing
false statements to injure another] let's read what the law says.
(1) of 298 states "A defamatory libel is matter published, without lawful
justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any
person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed
to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published."
Lawful excuse in this case would be that James is in fact not conducting a
scientific process. He has repeatedly posted incoherent materials and made
false conclusions deterimental to the further progress of the field of
mathematics.
Section 300. "Every one who publishes a defamatory libel that he knows is
false is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a
term not exceeding five years."
So not only do I have to hurt you but I have to know it's false. In this
case what I am posting is true. You really don't follow the scientific
process and you really do waste peoples time.
Section 301. "Every one who publishes a defamatory libel is guilty of an
indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two
years."
That seems hard to enforce. You were given your chance to discuss without
contempt. People reacting to your behaviour while perhaps guilty of
section 301 are not likely to get prosecuted.
Section 308, while not directly on point does seem to parallel mediums of
publication such as usenet. In this case my replies are to inform the
public of your ill-reputation and the nature of your behaviour. e.g. the
common good.
Section 309, "No person shall be deemed to publish a defamatory libel by
reason only that he publishes defamatory matter that, on reasonable
grounds, he believes is true, and that is relevant to any subject of public
interest, the public discussion of which is for the public benefit."
Is exactly what I said for section 308. The public [in this case sci.crypt]
is a scientific community not improved by lack standards and non-adherence
to time honoured scientific process.
I really don't have to go any further. On section 309 alone I can prove I
am innoncent of Defamatory Libel.
Therefore, James, since I *DO* know the law on these matters [hint: google
"defamatory libel criminal code"] I suggest you stop "offering" your
advice. I'm not guilty of anything here except replying to a known Troll.
Tom
- Next message: Tom St Denis: "Re: Surrogate factoring, update"
- Previous message: AE: "Re: A variant of the shrinking generator"
- In reply to: James Harris: "Re: Surrogate factoring, update"
- Next in thread: Tom St Denis: "Re: Surrogate factoring, update"
- Reply: Tom St Denis: "Re: Surrogate factoring, update"
- Reply: Joe Peschel: "Re: Surrogate factoring, update"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Relevant Pages
|
