Sunday, March 8, 2009

International Libel Law in Brief

Commenters on the Why are you doing this? thread are talking about libel law.

I'd think the subject is dead boring, except for the fact that El Naschie may come after me. So for me, this wonderfully succinct summary of Internet libel law is perfect.

Laws specific to several countries including the USA and the UK are discussed.

Howrey does seem to like to take care of one adversary at a time, so I may be next after the dispute with Nature is settled. Die Zeit, then Nature, and then El Naschie Watch may be their plan. I really don't know. Maybe Sven Hanson is correct when he says "You can be sure he will never take a solicitor to shut you up."

As I read it, Britain would be a good venue for El Naschie to sue me because the onus is on me to prove, e.g., that he was not made a full professor; while in the USA the onus is on him to prove that he was made one. But I am not a lawyer and that may be simplistic. If anyone with legal knowledge in this area knows what I should expect, please speak up.

Getting cold feet, Martin?
Translate English to Arabic

محمد النشائي El Naschie Watch محمد النشائي El Naschie News محمد النشائي
محمد النشائي All El Naschie All The Time محمد النشائي


  1. Hey Jason, did you say he never ever was a full professor? Did I say this? I just see no proof at all for him ever standing in front of an interested crowd of students and telling them something beyond how they can count the fingers of their hands to arrive at the result of eleven.
    For any other professor I know you could google something up or find something in some libary. Try finding "naschie" and "lecture" together and it yields almost nothing. Try this for any other professor you know that really was teaching at some point between 1950 and today. See for yourself everybody. I'm not exactly sure what the term "full professor" implies, but as I see from here that would have to do something with students? Can any of his students speak up? Did he ever give a lecture? When? What title?
    We are not referring to the "eleven years of teaching as a professor at Cambridge" as still cited in many Arabic websites here, are we?

  2. There is a lecture mentioned in a letter to the editor of CS&F:
    It appears to be downloadable to some but to the subscribers it becomes apparent - it is not available anymore!
    The author: Ayman El Okaby! The guy writing nice papers and letters in the style of MSElNaschie himself - although he is said to don't know so much English.
    Can someone get hold of this letter? Somebody has a copy?
    The only other hit I can see for lecture and naschie is this frikkin link
    And #8 link at page one is this blog here! That's about it. Full professor. Yeeeee-e-aaaaaaaaaa. Suuuuuuuure.

  3. > Yeeeee-e-aaaaaaaaaa. Suuuuuuuure.

    HAHAHAHA LOL ya my opinion too, exactly ROTFLMAO

  4. And No, Martin, I never said he wasn't, I just made some skeptical noises :) .

  5. > There is a lecture mentioned in a letter to the editor of CS&F:
    > doi:10.1016/j.chaos.2008.09.046
    > It appears to be downloadable to some but to the subscribers it
    > becomes apparent - it is not available anymore!

    Not true, it is the usual bilge written by MS El N sycophants and sock puppets, but it is perfectly available (the above doi redirects to the proper Elsevier page, out of MS El N's control).

    The relevant sentences of Elokaby's letter are:
    "However our mystification flipped into fascination after
    one of El Naschie's lectures on anomalies cancellation using fuzzy symmetry groups. In this lecture El Naschie discussed the
    work of Jean-Pierre Luminet and stated that there are exactly 17 Euclidean spaces which are multiply connected."

    So the letter just uses "lecture" in the sense of seminar. Though of course there's no reason to believe El N has ever given what professional academics would call a seminar to a group of knowledgeable professionals, this does not bear on the (nonetheless manifestly outlandish) claim to be full professor.

    The content of the letter itself, is their standard issue nonsense: incoherent numerology to make contact between some misunderstood component of modern physics and something El N has written in a CSF article to build the fictitious case for the Nobel committee. But once again it's "not even numerology" because it contains multiple elementary errors even at the purely numerological level.

    And the closing run-on sentence of the letter (from immediately after the exerpt above) contains (at least) three howling non-sequiturs:

    "Noting that a key Betti number of a certain Einstein–Sassaki manifold with a Kähler holonomy is also b2 = 17, we feel strongly that
    there is a deep topological connection between cosmology and particle physics and that the three-dimensional crystalographic groups in conjunction with Feynman’s path integral and El Naschie’s summing over all compact and non-compact Lie symmetry groups [1,2] can provide at a minimum a substantial part of the answer."

    Just like El N's comical "articles", reads like the bastard spawn of the content-free specious (Lisi) and the willfully fraudulent (Bogdanov brothers).