You don't really have to wonder that species like Richard Benham and Scott Horne get to publish their ridiculous babblings and why sites and blogs really cannot be left to the good sense, decency and intellect of visitors.
Just have a look at the 4-word, almost English comment left by one of our remarkably gifted retarded visitors below in the previous posting.
Makes a cretin cockroach look brilliant!
Sorry, How-Old, but nothing would make a cretin like you look brilliant, although you do manage to make a cockroach look clean and respectable. One wonders, however, about this “comment left [...] in the previous posting” which we are invited to “Just have a look at”. At the time of writing (8 days later), there is no comment in the previous posting, and there have been no comments for some months on How-Old’s blog...and even then they were his own comments.
However, all this is but a side-show. How-Old has been gloating in anticipation for months about his defamation suit against Joan Ross, John Luckacovic, the late Richard Bleezarde and Bleezarde Publishing Co. Inc., promising to keep us posted. Since that somewhat surreal posting of 10 April, a fair bit has happened on this front. The cases against Mrs Ross and Mr Bleezarde and his publishing company were summarily dismissed, Mr Bleezarde died (after having the last couple of years of his life poisoned by Vadney’s malicious and spiteful prosecution), and Mr Vadney spent 3.5 days in court in a pathetic attempt to convince the jury that he had a case against Mr Luckacovic, calling his enemies as witnesses (life’s tough when you alienate everybody you know), only to have this case, too, thrown out by the judge.
[Aside: Readers may note that the Vadney is fond of calling those who oppose him “pariahs”. Some time ago, he described Joan Ross and John Luckacovic as “pariahs in this community” on the TranslatorsCafe website (a moderator has moved the posting to a closed forum); more recently he has described Scott Horne and me as pariahs. I suppose we are supposed to conclude he is popular. One has to wonder how popular he is if to defend his “good name” he feels compelled to call as witnesses someone against whom he has just lost a defamation suit, this defendant’s husband, and a judge he has twice tried to have kicked out of office by complaining about him and a third time by running against him in an election. Oh, there was his sister. Where were his legions of supporters? In is fœtid imagination, where they’ve always been!]
The legal bills of the various defendants must have amounted to hundreds of thousands of dollars. At least some of them were insured, but of course the cost of frivolous actions by idiots like Vadney gets passed on to all policyholders in the form of increased premiums.
Why did Vadney even take such a hopeless case? The answer is simple: he hoped to extort the defendants into settling. Implicit in his approach is a two-pronged threat: Even though he cannot win, the legal expenses of defending a suit in the US are enormous, and even though he can be sued for malicious prosecution for bringing a suit with no prospects of success, he has nothing, and will just go bankrupt if his victims try to execute the judgment against him. Imagine the ignominy of trying to make money in such a shabby way!