|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
15th January 2013, 12:44 PM | #121 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Aarhus, Denmark
Posts: 231
|
From that conference:
http://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.php...type=1&theater Harrit sitting next to the starchilds "father" |
__________________
Niels Harrit: "I do not actually understand why they fire insulates steel structures. It just slows the heating of the steel by one hour. There must be money in it." |
|
15th January 2013, 01:23 PM | #122 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: The great American West
Posts: 24,911
|
It may not under Danish law. None of us here has yet has any working knowledge of Danish law, but in the United States it does matter -- public figures are expected to have a thicker skin for criticism, so they have to meet higher standards of proof for claims of defamation.
The point of Danish law that does seem relevant, however, is the suggestion in their criminal code that if the plaintiff's conduct warranted the comment then less liability attaches.
Quote:
The reason non-lawyers are rightly admonished not to speculate on the law is that legal decisions are predicated upon long lists of past case law precedent that help the courts decide fairly and uniformly on each case brought before them, based on how they've decided in the past. Lawyers learn the important ones and learn the research tools for finding the more obscure ones. They can apply to every important point in a case. Danish law works this way too. The point is that unless you have a good working knowledge of that overwhelming body of existing law, you can't really speculate productively about how a court will rule. So for example when a word like tosse has a variety of meanings, there will be a series of past Danish court decisions that tell what to do when a word has more than one meaning. Past decisions will help decide whether Niels Harrit is a public figure (if that's even relevant). Past decisions will help guide the court in deciding what information to consider when determining whether his reputation was damaged. Past decisions help determine whether a journalist has special privileges or special obligations. So yes I agree with you in the sense that the decision could be considered a straightforward application of law. But I wouldn't call it "simple" for the reason that it must painstakingly examine several steps in the line of reasoning leading up to the ultimate ruling. |
15th January 2013, 02:00 PM | #123 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 1,871
|
|
__________________
In Your Guts You Know They're Nuts. "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true." -Kierkegaard . "The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane. "- Marcus Aurelius A Truther is a True Believer convinced by lies. You can't reason someone out of a thing they weren't reasoned into.There's a sucker born every minute-Barnum |
|
15th January 2013, 04:57 PM | #124 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 18,863
|
Does it matter that he first claimed fame as a tosse?
None of his peers ever knew him as anything else. I know of nobody who supports his claims who is not, himself a screaming tosse. Where is the tort? |
__________________
No civilization ever collapsed because the poor had too much to eat. |
|
15th January 2013, 05:58 PM | #125 |
Muse
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 916
|
Public figures are held to a higher burden of proof, to ensure that libel laws are not used to suppress free speech. The defining case is New York Times v Sullivan. Public figures have to meet an "actual malice" standard, whereas ordinary shmoes like you and I do not. This makes libel cases difficult to win in the U.S.
Agreed, but who said we had to be productive? I understand there are a lot of factors to consider, but I'm curious to see how much weight is given to the journalists' freedom of speech, relative to the other issues. Denmark claims to have freedom of the press, but freedom of the press cannot exist if something as minor as calling someone a "fool" can get you dragged into court to face jail time. If this happened in the United States, the ruling would be along the lines of "You're suing a newspaper because they called you a fool? Well, then, you are a fool. Case dismissed." |
31st January 2013, 08:27 PM | #126 |
Thinker
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 213
|
|
__________________
"Karl Marx was right, socialism works, it is just that he had the wrong species" − E. O. Wilson |
|
2nd February 2013, 11:56 PM | #127 |
New Blood
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 20
|
From wiki, now deleted???
Termit-Niels is the synonym for the Danish "scientist" Niels Harrit, who has sniffed a little too much of his MEK-Solution and has also injected a small bit into his veins. Termit-Niels and his fellow brainwashed followers are actually hobos found in the dust of the WTC ruins, who travel around in the northern part of Europe, spreading their hopeless and paranoid "truth". In Steven E. Jones and Termit-Niels' article about Nanothermite, called "The loaded diaper" by most of the real scientists, he writes about paint and fly ash, but somehow he managed to conclude that he actually found an explosive composition called paint by sane people. Termit-Niels and his cracksmoking followers can be found on the danish conspiracy website, i11time.dk/, but please keep in mind that they will not allow non cracksmoking sane people as members. As a pending memberaspirant of "i11time" you must complete an IQtest at mensa.org/ to get qualified. The IQ definitely must not pass the 80 limit, but "i11time" can dispense from this rule, if you have been a contestant in all kinds of realityprograms or have made a complete fool out of yourself on public medias.[13] One of i11time.dk's most important tasks is to misinform and catch docile sheep, that has no thoughts of their own, unless their mindguru and God, Termit-Niels, tells them to. Lots of scientific researches have shown that attending Termit-Niels' lectures can some serious braindamage and lead to a severe and painful retardation[14] In early 2010 the Danish government recommended all conspiracyfans to visit i11time.dk/ to make up their mind about the raving loonies at the site and the dangers of Termit-Niels' lectures. |
3rd February 2013, 05:26 AM | #128 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,083
|
Hardly surprising given Wikipedia's stance on biographies of living persons
|
3rd February 2013, 09:05 AM | #129 |
Thinker
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 194
|
|
3rd February 2013, 06:23 PM | #130 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
|
17th August 2013, 05:37 AM | #131 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,083
|
So the hearing was yesterday with a ruling to follow on September 13. Shockingly, none of the major newspapers covered this groundbreaking trial, and the only description I've found was in a journalism trade magazine. Sounds like a fun was had by all, apart from Niels Harrit, who turned up without a lawyer.
Google translate will do a decent enough job, although the headline should read "Do you want to see some dust from the World Trade Center?" http://www.journalisten.dk/comment/20852 Link to Google translate: http://bit.ly/1cUEIf9 |
17th August 2013, 05:50 AM | #132 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 24,921
|
The poor Google translator really struggles with Danish.
Though I did like the word "gakgak" per:
Quote:
|
__________________
"Reality is what's left when you cease to believe." Philip K. Dick |
|
17th August 2013, 09:36 AM | #133 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
|
A quote:
Niels Harrit then takes a small plastic bag feet. "This a dust from the World Trade Center. Judge, I would like to make a scientific demonstration, "said Niels Harrit. Ref Harrit refuses to perform the demonstration. I really wonder, what kind of demonstration could Harrit have in mind??? |
17th August 2013, 09:43 AM | #134 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
Could he be delusional enough to pass a magnet by the bag and expect it to mean something?
Especially after claiming there are different kinds of chips separated by the methods in the paper (despite claims all were the same). "Truther" inconsistency gives me a headache. |
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
17th August 2013, 10:10 AM | #135 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
Wait? What?
Am I getting this straight? Harrit stated he would like to perform a demonstration, was granted the request, then refused to do so? I am not a lawyer, don't even play one on TV, but seems to me that if you putz around like that in court here you risk being charged with contempt of court for such court time wasting antics. |
17th August 2013, 12:52 PM | #136 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
Remember that the court and the lawyers involved are focused on defamation. Injury to Harrit's reputation in the real world context where his reputation has value. Not in the artificial context of 9/11 conspiracy discussion where his reputation has little value which could be lost to support damages in the tort of defamation.
Unlike many of us the court and the lawyers have not spent months discussing the irrelevant minutiae of whether or not there was thermXte in dust. If they even thought about the issue they would go straight to the question that matters "So what?" "Dr Harrit if you are correct that some of this material was in the dust - so what? What consequences flow from the presence of that material?" Then he is faced with two broad choices. He either says "It proves CD" OR "it is of no consequence." He won't take the latter and if he takes the former he has aligned himself with what is easily shown to the court to be a recognised conspiracy position held by a very small minority. Whilst the overwhelming body of relevant professional opinion says "No CD". And where chemistry is not even the relevant profession. Keep in focus that the question which may relate to alleged damage to his reputation is "Was there CD?" It is not "Was there thermXte in the dust?" The court will not be derailed into irrelevancies as easily as we allow ourselves to be deflected in these internet discussions. Even here the true question all along has been "So what?" If he is supporting CD he proves the truth of the claim which he says has damaged his reputation. The defendant has "no case to answer". So we need to see the issue in the true context which the Court will see and not the false context we have been allowing here by pursuing the irrelevant minutiae of the chemical evidence. 'coz the court, if it lets him pursue his minutiae will actually be letting him prove the case for the defendant. He will be demonstrating that he is a [whatever the actual word was]. And in most legal jurisdictions truth of the alleged damaging assertions is a full defence against defamation. |
17th August 2013, 01:00 PM | #137 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
17th August 2013, 01:04 PM | #138 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
|
17th August 2013, 01:10 PM | #139 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
17th August 2013, 01:22 PM | #140 |
Thinker
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 224
|
|
17th August 2013, 01:27 PM | #141 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
True. The part Harrit doesn't get is it would have nothing to do with the case.
The case is the harm to his reputation, not CD or any other "truther" belief. Harrit has to show that his reputation was hurt by the article that was published. The accuracy of Harrits work is a moot point. |
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
17th August 2013, 01:29 PM | #142 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,083
|
Yeah, that's one of the points where the automatic translation went out the window.
He told the court that he wished to perform an experiment with the dust, but was told by the judge, that the court should have been informed of this intention 4 weeks before the trial, and thus his request was turned down. |
17th August 2013, 02:28 PM | #143 |
Thinker
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Germany
Posts: 224
|
|
17th August 2013, 02:31 PM | #144 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
|
17th August 2013, 02:35 PM | #145 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
17th August 2013, 02:46 PM | #146 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
That clears that up. So the judge refused Harriet's request, not Harriet refused to follow through.
The legal point of the court requiring 4 weeks notice will be seen as obstruction of the 'truth' by using a technicality. So it seems Harriet has fallen for the self delusion that 'if I am an expert in one field then I am an expert in all fields', in this case, law. Not showing up with a lawyer,,,, the old adage that a person who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a client. |
17th August 2013, 02:58 PM | #147 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
|
17th August 2013, 05:02 PM | #148 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,557
|
This is a bit like the advice that one "Birther" had for Donald Trump:
He should accuse Dr. Alvin Onaka (the custodian of Hawaii's vital records) of being part of a criminal conspiracy to falsify Pres. Obama's records, and invite Onaka to sue him. Since truth is a defense, Trump would automatically have to be given access to all of HI's vital records in order that he could mount a defense. Brilliant strategy! Trump didn't take him up on that. |
18th August 2013, 12:55 PM | #149 |
Scholar
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 86
|
|
22nd August 2013, 05:11 AM | #150 |
Muse
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 906
|
|
22nd August 2013, 11:29 AM | #151 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: 40 miles north of the border
Posts: 20,849
|
|
22nd August 2013, 05:06 PM | #152 |
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 45,218
|
Does anyone have a link to the original article Harrit is disputing, or a copy?
|
22nd August 2013, 07:43 PM | #153 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Moss Vale, NSW, Australia
Posts: 7,617
|
Try this:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com...44#post8965644 It is post #140 of this thread. It is not the original but a translation into English by a forum member. It may be a parody. |
23rd August 2013, 12:14 AM | #154 |
Penguilicious Spodmaster.
Tagger Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ponylandistan Presidential Palace (above the Spods' stables).
Posts: 45,218
|
|
23rd August 2013, 05:16 AM | #155 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,083
|
The original article is behind a paywall, so I can't link to it.
The article in question was written as a response to the Danish Royal Library, who had been pressured by the Turkish embassy in Copenhagen, into adding a "Turkish view"-section to an exhibit about the Armenian Genocide. The section that got Harrit all riled up went like this:
Quote:
Quote:
|
23rd August 2013, 06:56 AM | #156 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,080
|
KD yes I for one am interested.
|
__________________
20 videos rebutting Blueprint for Truth YouTube keyword chrismohr911 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jC3JgWkNNIQ Playlists http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...eature=viewall WTC Dust study http://dl.dropbox.com/u/64959841/911...12webHiRes.pdf Hundreds more links and info both sides: http:www.chrismohr911.com |
|
23rd August 2013, 07:10 AM | #157 |
"más divertido"
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: USA! USA!
Posts: 24,384
|
As an American dane, I'm also a bit interested. You could just post a link to a google translate to save time.
|
23rd August 2013, 07:28 AM | #158 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 5,083
|
I'm on my way out, so here's the google translated version for now. I've spoilered it, as it's a bit of a wall of text.
Direct link to Google Translation: http://bit.ly/19BUGqQ The comments section is infested with truthers, as per usual. |
23rd August 2013, 08:42 AM | #159 |
Great minds think...
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 13,903
|
Is he...is he comparing himself to Galileo?
|
__________________
“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss |
|
23rd August 2013, 09:22 AM | #160 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|