Fetzer/Burton Moon Landing Debate Finale

[James H. Fetzer]

Thank you, David, and thank you, moderators. The standard for slander or libel against public figures, by the way, requires actual malice, which means that the person committing the offense MUST KNOW that what they are alleging is false, yet they make the allegation in spite of that. Since I am attempting to sort things out with regard to the Hubble and the Moon, I am obviously not in the position to KNOW that what I am alleging is false; hence, I introduced the antecedent, "If that's true, . . .". Had Mr. Dawson known what he was talking about, this might have been a productive exchange. But his resources were limited and he grasped after straws.

I realize that Peter Dawson has now been banned, so I am only going to point out the following in order to correct any lingering doubt about his continued misrepresentation of the stated facts:

After consulting a dictionary, I see that the only mistake I made was calling his position "slanderous" as opposed to "libelous."

Jim Fetzer clearly stated in his post No. 179 that: "it is my understanding that the Hubble Space Telescope has been forbidden to look at the Moon. If that's true..."

Firstly it was an "understanding" not a statement of fact. You cannot sue someone for their "understanding" whether that "understanding" is accurate or not.

Secondly, no matter how many dictionaries you consult, you can no more libel (or, indeed, slander) a telescope than a telegraph pole - or a hatstand, or a handkerchief. Because it is a thing not a person. Ergo, the Hubble Space telescope is a thing, not a person.

To say otherwise is to willfully misrepresent Jim Fetzer's post.

End of story.