>Al,
> FWIW, I'm not a lawyer... but I dont think that the posts john made were libelous. John challenged steves opinions on this 1 topic in particular.
>
>As for the content on that site. I do not have a copy of what was posted. I have requrested a feature on the wiki to see previous versions of a topic. I know they exist up there because steve has resurrected topics from the history. Ask steve for the history and be the judge for yourself.
>
>Also you say that JVP's footer is just a rant. Well it is a fact that this content WAS there at one point and it is NOT now. How is that a rant ? Now I do not have this content but I did see it.... Send helland an e-mail and as him if it was there.

OK, if not a rant, just what would you call wild, unproven accusations? And I think we can safely say "wild" as soon as Marx and Mao are invoked. I've already asked John to point out the proofs in his message footer, if he can.

Based on comments made by you and others, I'm inclined to believe JVP made posts that were later deleted. What the content and tone were, are hearsay AFAIC in the absence of someone having made copies. If JVP is going to make accusations the burden of proof is on him to prove them. He can ask Steve for a copy of his posts - if I were Steve, for at least legal reasons I would have kept a copy of anything I deleted.

Or, he can copy and paste what's there and re-create his posts to the best of his recollection, and post them on a site of his own. Of course, he'd have to be careful to put what he said in the first place in case Steve called him on inconsistencies later.

But I repeat, it's up to JVP to convincingly prove his allegations. He seems passionate about it, but it looks like he doesn't have the sand to follow through.

UPDATE - I see that JVP has now changed his message footer to a simple "JVP". I'm glad I preserved the "evidence" earlier - at least it won't be hearsay.