Note: My reply letter (below) to the bizarre undated LUGOD letter postmarked Sept. 13, 2004 wasn't sent. Before sending it, I noticed an anomaly: Bill Kendrick isn't, as claimed in LUGOD's letter, the group's president, having left office four months back. So, I inquired over e-mail on Sept. 17th with new LUGOD president Emily Stumpf, CCed to ex-president Kendrick, as to whether the letter were perhaps a forgery. Ex-president Kendrick replied that the letter was genuine, and had been duly signed and put in an envelope months ago, but "a decision was made" (Kendrick doesn't say by whom) to NOT send it. He claims that the recent mailing of that envelope (by what he says is an unknown party) had been accidental and against LUGOD's wishes. Current president Stumpf then replied four days after my inquiry, acknowledging that the letter had been genuine, but saying that it was not supposed to be sent because the (still unspecified) "issues" had been judged to no longer exist. (My http://www.linuxmafia.com/~rick/linux-info/lugod.html page has been substantively unchanged since creation.) She called the allegedly-accidental mailing of an already-addressed envelope (containing an undated letter left lying around but intended to remain unsent) a "misunderstanding", and added: "I hope there's no hard feelings." I received no apology -- neither from the drafter nor his successor in office -- for the bogus legal threat, nor for the waste of my time and effort in assessing and responding to it. I also received no response to my polite offer -- repeated twice to Stumpf and Kendrick -- to correct any inaccuracies on my Web page, requiring only stating what they are, and why they're believed inaccurate. This leaves me to suspect that the letter's complaint of "inaccurate claims" was every bit as baseless as its legal threat. (My offer remains open.) [draft response letter, unneeded because of e-mail discussion, follows:] Rick Moen 2033 Sharon Road Menlo Park CA 94025-6246 Sept. 17, 2004 Bill Kendrick, President Linux Users Group of Davis P.O. Box 837 Davis, CA 94517 Dear Mr. Kendrick: I've recently received an undated letter, purportedly from you and apparently speaking for the unincorporated group of individuals named "Linux Users Group of Davis", asserting that two "web [sic] pages" on my Web server (linuxmafia.com, which you refer to as www.linuxmafia.com) make "strong and inaccurate claims", which your letter doesn't identify, that -- or so the letter opines -- "may constitute libel" against some unnamed party or parties. The gist of it appears to be your demand that I remove those unidentified statements, for reasons the letter likewise does not specify, except to call the statements "inappropriate". The letter includes a bizarre passage about unnamed "officers" having "made a good-faith effort to thoroughly address these complains [sic]" -- which logically has no connection to the question of the referenced statements' accuracy, yet one is implied. Likewise, it mentions, with no discernible relevance, that "The events referenced are over and Mr [sic] Salzman is no longer an officer of LUGOD." If these assertions cast any light on the (unidentified) statements' accuracy, then so far I can't see it. Perhaps you were making a threat of litigation, in asserting that the unidentified statements "may constitute libel"? Your wording leaves that point oddly unclear. I have just now reviewed the two indicated Web pages, and can spot no factual inaccuracies, let alone any satisfying tort law's criteria for defamation against anyone mentioned on either page (or against anyone else, for that matter).[1] If you still feel the same way, _and_ are attempting to be serious, it would be beneficial for you to identify what specific "strong claims" you believe to be inaccurate, and why you believe them to be so. (It's very difficult to take seriously demands to remedy alleged inaccuracies that the complainer cannot bother to identify.) I am reasonably familiar with defamation law from my professional study of business law (although I am not an attorney). If I may say so, present evidence seems to suggest that you have little or no knowledge of the subject. If you merely wish to make loose and extremely vague legal threats, I would prefer that you direct them in the future to my attorney, Elster S. Haile, 540 University Avenue, Palo Alto, California, who is my agent for service of process. Oh, one last thing: Letters intended to be taken seriously really shouldn't accuse the recipient of libel (even leavened with waffling qualifiers like "may constitute"), then in the next sentence claim to have "no wish to stir up conflict". Perhaps you were attempting satire? That would account for the letter's numerous proclamations of "good faith", I guess. Sincerely, Rick Moen [1] I did find and fix an out-of-place word in one sentence on "http://www.linuxmafia.com/~rick/linux-info/lugod.html", so my time was not completely wasted, as it turns out. On the other hand, I cannot find any portion of "http://www.linuxmafia.com/bale/" (referenced in your letter as the other of the two "web [sic] pages") that addresses LUGOD mailing-list administration or "Mr [sic] Salzman" in any way whatsoever. So, I am quite mystified at your missive incorporating complaints about that latter page -- be they competently _specific_ complaints or not.