Re: Anti nuke questions: Russell "Demon Hot Atom Foe" Hoffman

[SAFarberMSPH@CS.COM]

In a message dated 4/25/02 10:51:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time, tstead@ntirs.org writes:



> Don't waste your time with any of those questions let
>
> alone with Russell. 

=====

Radsafe:

Ditto.

Before anyone get's too involved trying to answer any of R. Hoffman's questions on nuclear issues, you might benefit from reading what Hoffman posted in reply to my disputing he was the world's most noted expert on environmental, climatic, strategic, and economic aspects of all things nuclear. If you try to deal with him you'll soon find him spouting bile in your direction, much like the possessed character in the Exorcist. 


After I sent him a private email criticizing one of his erroneous points, he accused me of being a "deluded pronuker, a proud member of the Nuclear Mafia in full support of his Demon Hot Atom."  


a moniker I guess I should wear with pride, considering from whence it came.  If you were to try and plot Hoffman's views on any nuclear related issue as a probability distribution with the mean view at 0 [i.e: reality], Hoffman would be so many standard deviations from the mean you'd need a log plot  on the x-axis about 0 just to plot his take on things. I'm not trying to be snide, I just think this is a fair assessment. 


See:


 http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/onofre/mtp2001b.htm


Click here to see R. Hofman's website regarding: "A response to Stewart Farber's libel of Russell Hoffman"


This is Russel Hoffman's reply to my sending him an email disputing his claim that nuclear power plants only exist to supply plutonium for nuclear weapons.


[Hoffman's]  response about me [in part. See above link for the full flavor of my interaction with Mr. Hoffman]:


This guy is obviously a deluded pronuker, a proud member of the Nuclear Mafia in full support of his Demon Hot Atom.  


=======

Part of my 9/12/01 email to Hoffman:


Russell: 

Your "Demon Hot Atom" rhetoric could have come from Osama Bin Laden himself. 

You appear as imbalanced in your jihad as the religious fundamentalists acting against the US yesterday. [on 9/11/01]


There is no such thing as libel if my comments are true. As much as you may dislike reading my written remarks directed only to you, they are not libel. You need to appreciate what libel has a legal definition: 



The 'Lectric Law Library's Lexicon On 

* Libel * 


LIBEL - Published material meeting three conditions: The material is defamatory either on its face or indirectly; The defamatory statement is about someone who is identifiable to one or more persons; and, The material must be distributed to someone other than the offended party; i.e. published; distinguished from slander. 


NOTE: 


I never sent my comments to anyone other than you. Your posting them to DOEWatch was your business since you seem to enjoy playing the victim.  From reading your posts, I have to say that you're a perfectly balanced individual. You have a big chip on both shoulders. 


Although it is unlikely, I hope you come to rely less on dogma and more on science. As the TV character Alf once said: "Dogma, dogma, dog manure." 

=====


If you choose to deal with Hoffman, be prepared for his contempt. However, you will likely be immortalized on his webpage.


Good luck,


Stewart Farber, MS Public Health

email: SAFarberMSPH@cs.com