Bully for you, Tod

Tod Maffin recently threatened to sue a friend of mine.
He claimed he was defamed.
Now Tod is not an expert in the law, and I suspect he really doesn't make enough money to afford a real lawsuit. Only enough to threaten one.
And though he may know the name of a lawyer, most lawyers are essentially and primarily interested in one thing.
Who's got the deepest pockets.
So talk of legal action from Maffin amounts to approxiametely the same as a misprint on a Hallmark card, something that's quickly taken back should anyone ask "is this for real?"

Now, I don't have all the facts, it's true.
But I think I have enough of them to make out a coherent story.
Some things were done behind the scenes that I'm simply not privy to, but enough has leaked that the few missing pieces are insignificant, I think.

It began when I posted the comment show below.

Tod said that one part of my statement was a defamation.
That it defamed him.
That it defamed him because it wasn't true.
Something was stated as fact, in his view, and not opinion.
Something that wasn't true but was believable, and when believed woould likely hurt his reputation and presumably future prospects.
Future prospects being his potential earning power, which like most people Tod would surely like to see increase, and not just stay ahead of inflation let alone decrease.

To take legal action the defamation has to be specific.
And it has to be untrue.
And it has to result in tangible damages. The kind you can put a price tag on.
The higher the price tag, the more motivated the lawyer.
And once it's confirmed that the assets of the about-to-be-sued-person-in-question will match the target figure, well, you've got a deal. And a new financial partner.

In Tod's case, he was able to identify one specific comment as being defamatory, or untrue.
And this comment was made by an individual named Joe, whose full identity is apparently well known.
But Tod didn't decide to take action against Joe.
He chose to take action against a weaker target, Joe's publisher, my friend.
Because that's what bullies do.
And Tod is a bully.

What Joe said that upset Tod, and which I read before it was removed, was actually just a repetition of a comment that I had made, as seen below.
Compare them to see if you can spot why Joe's comment was worse than mine.
Mine had already been deleted when I saw what Joe had written.

Allan:

On the very day that insidecbc.ca is mentioned in the National Post, is the very same day that Tod's picture is posted and kept at the top of the page for the duration, and the post is him asking to be sent equipment for review (and for free) and that he's open to new business opportunities as well.
What a self-serving coincidence.
What a self-important, greedy dick.

Joe:

And if somebody says it looks like Tod was fishing for business on the day when his blog finally gets some "media coverage," again, suck it up. It's only defamatory if it's untrue and damages one's reputation. A good way to bolster a reputation would be to act less skittish, tremulous, and timorous.

You can see that Joe is actually referring to someone else as having made a statement. But neither myself nor Joe were threatened with legal action.
Only my friend.
Because Tod knew that he would never have to follow through on his threat because my friend was the only one who would quickly back down.
(the reason is that my friend is at a slight disadvantage, one that Tod was well aware of, but I'll leave this aspect for now).

So the offensive remark for Tod was that on the CBC funded blog where Tod writes and controls the comments and topics, in the content of one of his posts there, it looks as if he's fishing for business.
Joe doesn't specify what business is being fished for. It could be more CBC business for all we know.
But my comment is more specific than Joe's, and I make it quite clear that it struck me that the business Tod was seeking was primarily for himself and not for his employer.
You may have a different interpretation, but I know what I was trying to say.

Based on this, it would seem to me that Tod's grievance has more to do with my comment than with Joe's.
Joe appears to merely say 'so what if someone calls you greedy or anything else. Big deal.

Yet Tod claims that Joe's statement is false.
In what way is it false?
Somebody did indeed and obviously say that it looks like Tod was fishing for business.
So where's the falsehood?
Joe was reporting fact. A fact that was only a few hours old.
Joe did not make a false statement, and he did not make a false statement about Tod.

I am the somebody Joe refers to.

But this blog changes the situation.
I am now the publisher and sole disseminator of the forbidden statements.

I am trying, in a very upfront way, to say to Tod that if he wishes to set a court date, I'll be there.

Because Tod doesn't scare me the way he scares other people.
In fact, he doesn't scare me at all.

Is my statement true or false?

That will be the topic of the next installment.