an_old_friend wrote:
was chatching (catching) up on Stevie and noticed this post where Stevie admit AOL
found his stuff libelous (he denies it was but admits AOL thought so)

Here's YOUR post, intact, Markie.

YOU said that I "admit(ed)" that AOL "found (my) stuff libelous".

WHERE in that post, Markie, did I "admit" that AOL found my stuff
libelous?

AOL's letter to me only stated that there was a "complaint" and
they removed the page due to "controversy".

LENNIE said it was libelous...but then Lennie also chides others
for being "thin skinned", but clearly can't stand having his own deciet
and misdeeds fed back to him.

MY comment was that AOL took the path of least resistance. No
more...no less...

k4yz said on May 29 2004
Subject: CW Testing Question
From: (Len Over 21)
Date: 5/28/2004 9:56 PM Central Standard Time
Message-id:
If somethings true, it's not libelous.

AOL thought it was VERY libelous and cancelled that alternate
screen name you used then.

You went ballistic on that "home page" and were clearly deep
into libelous personal attack. AOL concurred.

AOL did what AOL always does...they took the path of least
resistance.

You DID misrepresent your intentions with an e-mail that
contained OTHER than what you attested to it being.

Poor baby. A simple mistake and you go BALLISTIC!

cut the rest

Of course you "cut the rest".

You usually do when it portends embarrasment.

Steve, K4YZ