Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:33, 31 December 2006

Ilena's introductory remarks

I have made proper and appropriate edits for this page.

(libelous and untrue statement removed) -- Fyslee 10:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The comments of the EFF are totally relevant, as is who Ilena Rosenthal is.

Barrett can not be allowed to control this board (Libelous and untrue statement removed. Unauthorized use of my name - name deleted. -- Fyslee 10:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC))

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ilena (talk • contribs) 15:15, December 6, 2006 (UTC)

I thought you were banned from this page. In any case, some of your changes are inappropriate, including your affiliations. The fact that the California Supreme Court (improperly) ruled that malicious reposting of libelous material cannot be legally libel is of some interest, but it's dicta in this case, as the lower court on remand decided there was no libelous material posted. And there are a few other errors in your changes. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I never even saw this page until yesterday. (Libelous and untrue statement removed. Unauthorized use of my name - name deleted. -- Fyslee 10:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC))

There are no errors. YOU think you know more than the Supreme Court of California????

I have done nothing but provide appropriate links ... the original writing was absolutely biased.

What the EFF writes is far more relevant than (Libelous and untrue statement removed. Unauthorized use of my name - name deleted. -- Fyslee 10:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC))

Ilena 15:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to report you for your violation of No Personal Attacks this time, but don't do it again or you risk getting blocked (again). This is not your usual Usenet forum where anything goes.

I am definitely not Barrett's (sic) "publisist", nor have I misrepresented anything. My revert was because of several things related to Misplaced Pages policy and how things are done here:

• Your edits were very poorly worded and not encyclopedic.

• You are a subject of this article, so your edits are potential violations of WP:COI, so it would be better if you presented your information here on the talk page and let other editors include it in a proper manner. It may well be good information.

• You keep editing under various IPs. Remember to sign in and edit only using your current user name. Your use of various IPs can be construed as bad faith attempts to deprive other editors of the ability to understand your pattern of editing. That practice is not only forbidden here, you actually have fewer rights as an editor:

Users with "anonymous IP numbers do not have the same civil rights as logged in members of the community. If you want to be a good editor, get an account, make good edits." -- Jimbo Wales

Now just present your information here and let other editors place it in the article in an appropriate and encyclopedic manner. -- Fyslee 15:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I posted under my own name and have not changed ISP's nor attempted to be anonymous.

The editors (not Barrett related) should be aware that (Libelous and untrue statement removed. Unauthorized use of my name - name deleted. -- Fyslee 10:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC))

Whoever Rubin is, he was abolutely wrong in claiming I was banned from this page ... I never saw it until yesterday when the one-sided, incomplete facts of this case were sent to me.

This is unconscionable that Rubin and (Libelous and untrue statement removed. Unauthorized use of my name - name deleted. -- Fyslee 10:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC))

are erasing the comments of the EFF which are entirely relevant to this case. Ilena

As for being banned, I thought User:Ilena was banned from all articles related to Stephen Barrett. This article is clearly related, even if it wasn't here at the time of the ban. (I could be wrong, though, and I don't have time to check at the moment, being on my way to a doctor's appointment.)

And I may very well know more about section 230 than the California Supreme Court. It's a federal law, and may not immunize actors against state actions, unless the state so (mis)-interprets it. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

She's now been blocked for WP:3RR, although adding the 2 anons which are probably her, I count 6. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The 1964 NY "public figure" case has absolutely nothing to do with this case. It was not cited in Barrett v Rosenthal ... and the reason Barrett lost was NOT because he was a public figure. There were 5 other reasons that were clearly stated, and had these not been satisfied, then and only then would his public figure defense been the reason he lost. This is not my POV ... I have clearly enumerated the reasons he lost from the Court Opinion.

Even if Mr. Rubin believes he knows more than the seven justices of the Supreme Court of California, that certainly does not make it true.

Is there anyone with Misplaced Pages who can stop the biased attempts to rewrite history here? Ilena 16:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Ilena's IDs here at Misplaced Pages

Just for the record: (Libelous and untrue statement removed. Unauthorized use of my name - name deleted. -- Fyslee 10:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)) I am very upfront about who I am. He attempted in the past to block my corrections to the disinformation posted here regarding this case. I am in Costa Rica travelling. What is the significance of his posting the various servers that I connect with? I will also note that Terry Polevoy has expressed continual obsessions with my physical location ... something that should be of no interest to him whatsoever. (Libelous and untrue statement removed. Unauthorized use of my name - name deleted. -- Fyslee 10:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)) is repeating this behavior is quite troubling to me for my personal safety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilena (talk • contribs)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/Ilena

Some of the IPs Ilena Rosenthal has used here at Misplaced Pages:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/200.122.153.238
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/196.40.14.167
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/196.40.13.172
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/196.40.12.235
• http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Contributions/196.40.12.109

-- Fyslee 08:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Possible solution

Here is the link to the actual ruling: . This specifically states: "As the lower courts correctly concluded, however, none of the hostile comments against Dr. Barrett alleged in the complaint are defamatory." Perhaps to show Ileana that your efforts are in good faith, Arthur Rubin and Fyslee can bring more information from this ruling into the article. Just a suggestion. Levine2112 20:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for this suggestion.

I was shocked to see the one-sided version of this 6 years of litigation. On the page about Stephen Barrett personally, the false fact had been written that he lost this case because he was a "public figure." That is definitively NOT what the court ruled. Further,

Christopher Grell, who sued me although I had never mentioned his name, had the audacity to post this alse statement publicly and repeatedly ... here is one example of him trying to change the facts of the Court's opinion. Proven????? Never.

http://p2pnet.net/index.php?page=comment&story=9894&comment=120221

"Let me make it clear, Rosenthal was named in the lawsuit because she continued to repost the same proven libelous publication over and over nothwithstanding requests that she stop doing so."

Not one comment I posted or reposted has ever been judged "libelous" and Christopher Grell and Terry Polevoy and Stephen Barrett are using people like Mark S Probert, Willa Nidiffer and (Libelous and untrue statement removed. Unauthorized use of my name - name deleted. -- Fyslee 10:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC))

... all members of their "Rag-tag Posse of Snake-Oil Vigilantes" to attempt to change history and rewrite it with this bias.

Link to Rag-tag Posse:

(Libelous and untrue statement removed. Unauthorized use of my name - name deleted. -- Fyslee 10:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC))

http://web.archive.org/web/20050205050827/http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm

This is the archived website which includes Barrett and his team.

My name was put on this list against my wishes on their current page:

http://www.ratbags.com/posse/whoarewe.htm

(Libelous and untrue statement removed. Unauthorized use of my name - name deleted. -- Fyslee 10:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC))

. he is not an unbiased editor by any means. Ilena 00:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ilena, please don't take offense when I suggest you keep your comments on topic. You realize that you're complaining about a satire website, right? --Ronz 03:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Ilena, stay on topic and use your Usenet account for your usual activities. This isn't the place to deal with these matters. Your extranaeous and off-topic material can and should be deleted by an admin.

As usual, your conspiracy fantasies show through loud and clear above. Bowditch's list of Ragtag Posse members is a spoof. Many of those people are simply listed because they share common interests, and none of them are members of any actual "group" or "team" since it doesn't exist in reality. IIRC, the list has been longer. (Peter Bowditch added all the people who were included in the malicious prosecution filed (and dropped) by Hulda Clark and her employed team.) Bowditch made the whole page as a spoof to tease people like you. Conspiracy theorists need content in their lives, so Peter was just being kind.....;-) Barrett has nothing to do with it, and it certainly isn't "his team", nor is he using anyone! Those are your conspiratorial fantasies. I can understand why Peter added you to the page, and I think it's terrible what your actions are doing to damage the case for women who have been injured by defective implants. They regret the day you ever heard of their plight.

I don't know where you ever got the idea that I might be or have claimed to be an "unbiased" person. Only people who are ignorant lack biases (and not always then!). You certainly aren't unbiased, so don't point fingers. What counts here is the actual edits. We try our best to keep our biases from showing, and when they do we should help each other in a congenial manner. That's what's great about Misplaced Pages. By requiring editors from opposing POV to work in a collaborative effort, we cover all the important aspects of a subject, and leave out the WP:TRIVIA.

As a directly involved party you should not edit this article, but you can certainly provide information here on the talk page. But please spare us for all the hate and junk. Take it to Usenet. -- Fyslee 09:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I really feel that Ilena is doing what you ask here, Fyslee. She is providing information on this talk page (which is relevant and entirely enilightening). What does it say about a person who creates a "satirical" website/organization whose only purpose is an entirely childish one. If I were you, I would petition to get your name taken off that list. It really damages your credibility to be associated with a site/org who actually takes the time to write peevish songs about people they don't like. I've heard libel mentioned a lot in connection with Barrett, but up until now, I've never actually seen libel in practice (and oddly it isn't against Barrett but it is from the other side). Honestly, if I were you Fyslee, I would try to distance myself from that site as much as possible. It looks really bad for you.

Now the point: let's work together here to make sure that we are posting facts about this lawsuit. Ilena, please (without finger-pointing) just post errors/omissions which you feel need to be rectified in this article. Please cite specific reliable sources (court records are the best) to back up your statements. Fyslee, Ronz and whoever else please do the same. All parties, please limit your information to just case relevant facts. And above all, let's try to be civil. Fyslee, you yourself are senstive to protecting Barrett's feelings on the article about him (bio of a living person, remember?). Please extend the same respect to Ilena in this article. (Everyone, save the name-calling and finger-pointing or whatever for your confessional blogs, usenet discussion groups, satirical sites, et cetera.) Civility, civility, civility. Please!

As for the Rat Bags organization, if that truly is a direct response to this lawsuit, then perhaps it is worthy of mentioning in this article. But let's deal with one hurdle at a time. So tell us everyone... what's wrong with this article? Levine2112 18:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Levine, you have made some very mature, sensible, and commendable suggestions. As far as Bowditch's site, the Rag Tag page was just a spoof unrelated to any lawsuit, although names were later added from one case - the Clark malicious prosecution case. He's a bit rough in his criticisms and uses a lot of sarcasm, but then he doesn't pretend to meet any other standard. Not my style or Barrett's. It's a mixed bag of extremely serious stuff, and a spoof once in awhile. His biggest peeve is the anti-vax movement, where he monitors the sufferings (and even deaths) of their own children, and that's enough to get any parent really riled up. -- Fyslee 21:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

"Rat Bags organization" isn't really (www.ratbags.com), although it isn't listed as a non-profit organistation in Mass, so perhaps it deserves it's own article? ;-) Shot info 12:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Errors and Omissions

• This is a sample of how we can format an error or omission from this article. Please use this format and try to keep all of your points organized. After each point, please cite a reliable source which backs up the statement and then sign your post with the usual ~~~~. Levine2112 18:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me if this in not where this belongs.

I am posting here Polevoy's refusal to our "mutual walk-away" and our offer to him. What is notable, is that Polevoy has maintained on his website that I had "no intention of settling" while anyone can clearly see this is false. Please note that one of their publicists, Nidiffer, posted false information as to the outcome on this case publicly.

Terry Polevoy (tpinfo@healthwatcher.net)

To:ilena2000@hotmail.com; mg@casp.net Cc:Stephen Barrett MD (sbinfo@quackwatch.com); Christopher Grell (grell140@yahoo.com); Dr. Terry Polevoy (drpolevoy@yahoo.com) Subject:Terry Polevoy's addendum to Ilena Rosenthal's e-mail of February 14, 2004

Dear Ms. Rosenthal:

Again, thank your for your message about settling. I am sorry you had trouble reaching me, but the virus problem has forced many people to change their e-mail addresses.

I am sincerely interested in settling, but any settlement would have to have two elements:

1. It would have to include a release of Dr. Barrett and Mr. Grell. 2. It would have to include a public acknowledgement that there is no police report that I stalked any women (as stated in the message you posted that triggered this whole nasty business).

Without both of these, we will proceed to trial.

cc: Mark Goldowitz, Chris Grell, Dr. Stephen Barrett

Terry Polevoy, MD

P.S. I was informed that if you did not hear back from me that you would post your letter on Usenet. It is really unfortunate that you would even consider doing this, because this would be the wrong thing to do.

!# Terry Polevoy, MD !# 938 King St. West !# Kitchener, Ontario, N2G 1G4 Canada !# 519-725-2263 -- 725-4953 fax

17:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)17:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)~~

From: Ilena Rosenthal (ilena2000@hotmail.com)

February 14, 2004
Dear Dr. Polevoy:
Today I received a personal email from Dr.  Barrett
with his view of the case.
Your attorney, Mr. Grell,  has also contacted me
personally by email expressing his opinions.
In turn, I am extending the same courtesy to you so
that I can be absolutely certain that you understand how we perceive the situation. Mr. Goldowitz has 
conveyed our letter of a mutual walkaway to Mr. Grell, but I have no way of  knowing what Mr. Grell relayed to you.
Further, although the Appeals Court vacated their
opinion as to you (only)  several months ago, and a new opinion and addendum were filed in our case with substantially different facts, I note that your website has not been updated to reflect the actual status of our case.
In fact, Ted Nidiffer using the alias of “Nana Weedkiller” recently posted  that I had lost this case and owed money, which we all know is absolutely not true.
For your benefit, I  am enclosing a copy of Mr. Goldowitz’s letter of 
January 26, 2004 which explains why we believe it is in your interest to  settle the case with me now.
Because both of your co-plaintiffs have lost their cases, may face malicious  prosecution charges, and have large money judgements against them with no  bargaining chips, their attempts to tie your
settlement to their losses now  has no benefit to you.
My attorneys are currently  preparing our petition to the California Supreme Court as discussed below, and even your lawyer has
indicated that they will likely grant our petition.
Although the deadline has already expired, for the
sake of full mutual  understanding and a mutually beneficial resolution to the dispute between  us, I have extended the deadline.
It is now 12:00 PM, Pacific Time, Monday, February 16, 2004 for you or your  counsel to notify us that you agree to the mutual release of all claims that  you and I have against each other.
Sincerely,
Ilena Rosenthal
Mark Goldowitz, Director
2903 Sacramento Street
www.casp.net

17:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)17:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)17:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)~Ilena

There's still no cite about the details of settlement offer than your word, Ilena. Even if we were to accept Polevoy as a , the details of your offer are only in your E-mails and Usenet posts. Both easy enough to forge. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:45, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Ilena 16:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)I posted in its entirety the exact letters about this settlement offer. You have shown total bias towards the losing plaintiffs and have attempted to discredit and censor me. I have the complete email transactions of this.

When I began reading about this case, there were SEVERAL FACTUAL ERRORS and when I corrected them, you and (Libelous and untrue statement removed. Unauthorized use of my name - name deleted. -- Fyslee 10:33, 31 December 2006 (UTC)) . If is blatantly clear that the plaintiffs are trying to rewrite history with your help. I forged nothing.

began following my posts around Costa Rica as if it is a crime to post from various internet shops. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilena (talk • contribs) 

Private correspondance is not considered a reliable source, except in an article about the person sending the correspondance posted by the same person. If it's described in a court document (and the subject is relevant, which this one would be), or in published works in the context of news, that would be different. I admit to bias against you, to some extent, as we've disagreed in misc.legal for quite a while, and I believe your positions there are in violation of common sense, but I don't think that's swayed my judgement in this dispute. See WP:LIVING and WP:RS for more information on the Misplaced Pages guidelines. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

As Arthur Rubin calls himself a "Wikipedian against quackery" ... his bias is apparent and his attempts to change the facts of this case to make the losing plaintiffs look better is glaring.

The lower court ruled in this case, that what is and what is not quackery is an opinion, not the dominion of Stephen Barrett and his many quacky front groups and supporters.

As I previously noted, Polevoy has lied continually about the settlement offer and I posted verbatim the correspondence. You call this into question apparently and dispute this because it shows your bias and attempts to bury the facts of this case.

I hope there is a non biased moderator in Misplaced Pages who recognizes the obvious bias you and are putting on this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilena (talk • contribs)

If your offer and Polevoy's counter-offer are in the court record, or are published in a reputable newspaper, they may appear in the article. Otherwise, not. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

"As Arthur Rubin calls himself a "Wikipedian against quackery" ... his bias is apparent and his attempts to change the facts of this case to make the losing plaintiffs look better is glaring." Gee Ilena, are you equating yourself with quackery???? Shot info 00:42, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea why my link was removed before, and now Stephen Barrett's questionable NCAHF was listed. I certainly hope there are non biased Wikipedians who can see Barrett's team's attempt to bully their viewpoint here. Ilena 20:25, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Please stop with the personal attacks per WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF --Ronz 20:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Ilena 18:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Calling a suspended California Corporation with no evidence of legal status in any other state, (despite repeated unanswered questions of the officers, "questionable" is totally valid.

Who are you Ronz? It is possible you are Stephen J. Barrett himself.

I've had .... followed my ISP's around and the 3 of you attempting to get me thrown off of Misplaced Pages, so it would enlightening to know who you are. Barrett published his affinity for "assumed names" when he published this piece in the AMA News:

Quoth Stephen J. Barrett, writing in AMA News on August 25, 1975, describing the Lehigh Valley Committee Against Health Fraud:

"By working "undercover" using assumed names and box numbers, we've gotten all sorts of information and publications other groups, like the medical societies, haven't been able to lay their hands on.

...Really, we're a bunch of guerrillas - we're not a large group, there are about 40 members, but we're the only such group in the country."

I am creating a page on my experiences here in Misplaced Pages in the event that Barrett's teammates manage to censor me here. Ronz yesterday posted on this page an spamlink to Barrett's questionable NCAHF, yet I am not allowed to post my link to explain who I am. 18:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)18:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilena (talk • contribs)

Please stay on topic. Please refrain from personal attacks. --Ronz 20:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

What personal attack? She is wondering who you are and questioning if you are indeed Stephen Barrett. You are not obligated to answer her. She is not attacking you here, just griping about how you are censoring her. Calling you "pro-Barrett" or "biased" is not a personal attack, but a description made clear by your edits. You could just the same describe Ilena as "anti-Barrett" or as "biased" just the same. I think an external link to Ilena's website is completely warranted here, especially to a page dedicated to discussing the issue at hand. If such a page exists on her site, then she should provide us with it here. Levine2112 21:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Moving info from Stephen Barrett to here

I think most of this edit should be incorportated here instead: --Ronz 22:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. Or at least the verifiable facts outside of Barrett should be included here rather than on the Barrett article. The Polevoy issue is irrelevant on the Barrett article, but here it makes complete sense. Levine2112 22:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the recent edits are enough. Great work, Jance. --Ronz 15:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

POV tag

I removed it. As it stands, this article is a totally factual, unslanted discussion of this case., Please see my last edit - I removed an unnecessary quote about Barret's claims, and made it a single sentence.Jance 00:25, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. --Ronz 15:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

On to secondary sources

Because this article documents a recent event, there are really no secondary sources available of high-quality to use as references. Hopefully in the coming months some will appear, probably in legal reviews, which we can use to strengthen the article. As it stands now, the article's reliance on primary sources for a current event is not a problem, but that needs to change as time passes. The secondary sources will also allow the article to be expanded with notable evaluations of the case. --Ronz 16:09, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Right. Although secondary sources would not be required here, they certainly would add to the discussion. I can't imagine there will not be more written about this case as time goes on, since it is the only case to date that interprets the meaning of "user" in the federal statute.. Jance 20:23, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

How about an Los Angeles Times article? Would that qualify? Ilena 04:13, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but unless it includes some analysis from lawyers, it's not going to give us much to work with. Do you have the ref handy? --Ronz 04:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarifying - what I'm looking forward to is some in-depth analysis from legal experts. Such reference will give us interpretations to include in the article. Newspaper's will never give such in-depth coverage, and they're more likely to publish a slightly modified press release or a superficial report instead. --Ronz 16:32, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I suspect there will soon be quite a bit about this case, because it is the first to interpret Section 230 wrt a 'user'. Jance 09:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC) A s*load of blogs have picked it up, predictably. The Mercury News ,

Findlaw article on it

This sounds interesting, on Berkeley website: Brief of Amicus Curiae on behalf of law professors with expertise in Internet law before the California Supreme court in Barrett v. Rosenthal, No. S122953, November 22, 2004 (2004)

Howard Kurz @ WAPO Jance 09:41, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Inaccuracies and POV

At issue was NOT an email sent by Bolen. At issue was a single legal point: Was Rosenthal exempt under Section 230 for liability for republication of potentially defamatory statements. To add any of the section I just deleted is POV and a terrible summary of the notability of this case. Jance 06:58, 31 December 2006 (UTC)