[Thork]

Making personal attacks (whether directed at people who have registered here or not) doesn't lend your stance any credibility, nor does it do our public image any favours, either as an independent society or with a view to reunion.

I don't think you are in tune with history of the flat earth society.

Mrs. Wallace,

Madam — If your infernal thief of a husband is brought home some day on a hurdle, with every bone in his head smashed to pulp, you will know the reason. Do you tell him from me he is a lying infernal thief, and as sure as his name is Wallace he never dies in his bed. 

You must be a miserable wretch to be obliged to live with a convicted felon. Do not think or let him think I have done with him. 

John Hampden

[Pete Svarrior]

Hampden got sued multiple times for his libel. Generally not the best way to go about things.

http://wiki.tfes.org/John_Hampden

EDIT: And, according to Wikipedia, he also got jailed for it. Yeah, definitely not the best way to go about things.

[Thork]

Wikipedia has been vandalised by some angry globularist. Hampden was never imprisoned. They link the reference to a book as citation. Its a great book, has lots of interesting info, but it says nothing about Hampden going to prison. He never did and was never found guilty of libel.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bi1bAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Bedford+Canal+swindle+detected+%26+exposed.+A.+Bull,+London.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9lDZU6D1DdSY1AXo2IBQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

^Read for yourself.

If anyone knows how to challenge this erroneous black mark on our flawless flat earth record with Wikipedia, please can you do so?

[Rama Set]

Wikipedia has been vandalised by some angry globularist. Hampden was never imprisoned. They link the reference to a book as citation. Its a great book, has lots of interesting info, but it says nothing about Hampden going to prison. He never did and was never found guilty of libel.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bi1bAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Bedford+Canal+swindle+detected+%26+exposed.+A.+Bull,+London.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9lDZU6D1DdSY1AXo2IBQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

^Read for yourself.

If anyone knows how to challenge this erroneous black mark on our flawless flat earth record with Wikipedia, please can you do so?

They also link to a newspaper article in the same sentence of the BLE article when referring to Hambden's libel. Have you read the news paper article?

[Gulliver]

Wikipedia has been vandalised by some angry globularist. Hampden was never imprisoned. They link the reference to a book as citation. Its a great book, has lots of interesting info, but it says nothing about Hampden going to prison. He never did and was never found guilty of libel.

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=bi1bAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Bedford+Canal+swindle+detected+%26+exposed.+A.+Bull,+London.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9lDZU6D1DdSY1AXo2IBQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false

^Read for yourself.

If anyone knows how to challenge this erroneous black mark on our flawless flat earth record with Wikipedia, please can you do so?

So you're arguing that the absence of jail record in one record proof is proof that he was never in jail?

[Pete Svarrior]

So you're arguing that the absence of jail record in one record proof is proof that he was never in jail?

Well, if the reference used to substantiate a claim doesn't have any references to the claim, it's a poor reference and shouldn't be considered valid. If no valid references exist, then the claim should be marked as unreferenced or removed. I think that's common sense.

[Rama Set]

So you're arguing that the absence of jail record in one record proof is proof that he was never in jail?

Well, if the reference used to substantiate a claim doesn't have any references to the claim, it's a poor reference and shouldn't be considered valid. If no valid references exist, then the claim should be marked as unreferenced or removed. I think that's common sense.

Agreed. Can one of the British folks find a copy of the article referenced at a library perhaps?  It would be a good addition to the wiki and/or FE library.

[fappenhosen]

Hampden got sued multiple times for his libel. Generally not the best way to go about things.

Incorrect. Getting sued is the cheapest form of publicity. All you have to do is challenge the plaintiff to prove the earth is round otherwise they are infernal liars!

The public gallery will love it.

[Pete Svarrior]

Hmm, it looks like The Times have an extensive archive for subscribers, and a 30-day trial is just £1. I'll sign up and see if I can find it.

[Pete Svarrior]

Okay, yeah, the article's legit, he did go to jail. I'll post it momentarily.

[Pete Svarrior]

Okay, here we go. Apologies for the poor quality, that's what I got from The Times' archive:



You can read the whole page here. I'll update our Wiki and the library at some point soon.

[Rama Set]

Thanks PP.

[Gulliver]

[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.

Wrong. Thanks PP. I have to wonder how a Thork can so sure of something and be absolutely wrong. Oh, never mind.

[Thork]

[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.

Wrong. Thanks PP. I have to wonder how a Thork can so sure of something and be absolutely wrong. Oh, never mind.

Because unlike the round earthers here, I know that there was an appeal and that Hampden won it. He was in prison for just one week whilst he waited for the libel verdict to be over turned and given a 3 month restraining order. He did not serve 2 years and a subsequent 12 months.

Naturally, Wallace went to the police and laid charges against Hampden. Despite being sent to prison for a week and  ordered by the court not to bother Wallace or his family for three months, Hampden wasn't stopped for long.  As soon as the three months were over, the harassment began again.  Hampden was careful not to make any further violent threats against Wallace but he continued to send letters and pamphlets to every professional organization in the country.  By 1871, Wallace had enough of the harassment and sued for libel.  Although Wallace won the libel suit, Hampden simply turned over all his assets to his son-in-law and declared bankruptcy.  Not only did this free him from any requirement to pay Wallace any money in damages but it also forced Wallace to bear all court costs. 

Hampden still continued with his  increasingly more bizarre attacks.  While Wallace recognized that his adversary was mentally ill, that didn't provide much comfort considering the harm Hampden's accusations were doing to his public image.  Although Wallace was able to win an additional libel suit against Hampden (including forcing him to make a public apology), nothing really changed.  With the help of his flat-earth friends, Hampden brought a countersuit against Wallace demanding the return of his 500 pounds.  Through a obscure legal  technicality, Hampden actually won this case and Wallace was ordered to repay the money.  After a lengthy legal battle, Wallace was left even more in debt than ever.  By the time the whole sorry matter had ended in 1876,  Wallace was left with a permanent stain on his professional reputation.  He would say afterward that the entire wager had been one of the biggest mistakes of his life.

All this thread proves is that round earthers usually don't contribute anything and just like to sling mud based on whatever happens to back their stance in any thread.

He also was not found mentally ill, so this source has round earth bias slapped all over it too.

[Gulliver]

First:

[Hampton] never did [go to prison] and was never found guilty of libel.

Now:

He was in prison for just one week whilst he waited for the libel verdict to be over turned and given a 3 month restraining order.

I thank you for admitting that you were wrong, and in just over 24 hours, and in the same thread. I appreciate your humility.

Finally, would you please consider that it's rather hypocritical of you to title this thread with praise for the effectiveness of rudeness and then lament within the thread how REers "sling mud"?

All this thread proves is that round earthers usually don't contribute anything and just like to sling mud based on whatever happens to back their stance in any thread.

[markjo]

All this thread proves is that round earthers usually don't contribute anything and just like to sling mud based on whatever happens to back their stance in any thread. 

Agreed.  Giving all of your assets to your son-in-law so that you can declare bankruptcy and screw your opponent out of rightful damages and court costs from a libel case that you lost is a valuable contribution and a class act.

No Thork, this thread just goes to show what slimy assholes FE'ers can be when they're proven wrong.

[Thork]

He wasn't proven wrong. As you know the court found in his favour in the end.

[markjo]

No, the court found that the bet was illegal and therefore null and void.  I don't recall the court ever saying that the earth is flat.

[Thork]

I don't recall the court ever saying that the earth is flat.

I knew you were old, but I didn't imagine for a second that you were there. What was Hampden like in person?

[Gulliver]

He wasn't proven wrong. As you know the court found in his favour in the end.

I thought markjo was referring to you and your errors in this thread. Since you've humbly noted your errors, I thought we had proof.

Oh, and do tell us how you determined that the Court found in his favor, with unbiased references. Was his libel conviction ever overturned or was his sentence just reduced to time served and a restraining order?