Charge him with what?  Jaywalking?

Come on now, maybe you can be as stupid as Kevpan815 who once said that with
every post you were under oath!  Nearly fell out of my chair laughing.

What do you think you're doing turd gurgler

What I am feeding this idiot troll may help him avoid a costly defamation
charge - if he is smart enough to understand the seriousness of his actions that
is... :) By the way, what I said to him about using a real name, applies as well
even when real names are not used - as long as there *is* a real recognizable
(by others reading the defamatory material) person to which the defamatory
material is directed - and "recognizable" simply means that if you can determine
who the person is (through their internet provider for instance - or even by a
user name if it is well known) then if you defame that person, you *could* be
charged. For instance.. my user name "artfudd" is well known on the internet,
and many people in fact know my real name as a result... so if you defame me, it
would be easily chargeable. :) So go ahead punk.. make my day!   LOL

Well, first of all adam albright is not his real name, so if the drunken
 pig wants to sue me let him try...hahaha...he's not a real person...LOL!
But he is drunken pig...squeal and dance for us mr piggy...so how can
you defame the character of a drunken pig?...hahaha!
Frank

The fact is that I am not.. see for yourself:
http://www.law.ed.ac.uk/it&law/c10_main.htm
(iii) Newsgroups, the USENET and discussion fora.

Newsgroups are discussion fora which are made up of comments from their
subscribers, sorted by subject matter. All it takes to subscribe and post
comments to a newsgroup is rudimentary software, obtainable for free as
shareware, and an Internet connection. Collectively, the newsgroups available to
Internet users are sometimes known as the "Usenet".10 There are something like
14,000 Usenet newsgroups subscribed to en masse by millions of subscribers,
located in every country where there is Internet access. As a result, any
comment posted to a Usenet newsgroup is virtually guaranteed to be published,
and read, within days if not hours, in many hundreds of national jurisdictions.
As can be imagined, the volume of material published in these fora is enormous -
one estimate is that around 4 million articles are available at any particular
time.

Newsgroups are even more problematic from the defamation point of view than the
rest of the Internet because of what may be described as traditional "Internet
culture". Until very recently - roughly, the early Nineties - the Internet was
largely the domain of technophiles, students, academics and workers in the
computer industry, principally in the US. These users largely accessed the
Internet for free and used it for non-commercial purposes. There was a strong
collective sentiment towards anarchy, libertarianism and free speech rights -
and a strong corresponding dislike of corporate, governmental or legal authority
or control. In this culture, full, frank and unfettered discussion known as
"flaming", which was often indistinguishable from rudeness and abuse, was not
only tolerated but by and large encouraged. The usual remedy for being flamed
was not to post a writ for libel, but extra-legal self help - in other words,
flame back. It was and is not uncommon for newsgroups to degenerate into "flame
wars" - torrents of abusive comments which destroy all sensible discussion in
the group. This was all very well, perhaps, when most Internet users shared a
similar cultural background. But in recent years the Internet has ceased to be
the domain of "netizens" and become extensively used by individuals and
families, including children, who pay for Internet access and expect it to
respect the same standards of decency and courtesy as other media. Even more
importantly, corporate use has expanded enormously, as firms who see the
Internet as a domain for commercial expansion establish their own connections
and Web sites. For these users, flaming and abuse are not acceptable, not are
self-help remedies, and preservation of corporate reputation is paramount.
Corporate culture now seems to have firmly encountered the Internet as in July
1997, the first corporate email libel case to be publicly settled in the UK
received extensive publicity. This case was brought by Western Provident
Association who sued Norwich Union Healthcare for spreading untrue rumours on
its internal email system about Western's financial stability11. A settlement
was reached under which Western Provident paid out the not insubstantial sum of
£450,00012.
-------end quote------
More: http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=defamation+on+the+internet&meta=

As I pointed out previously.. there *are* real people by that name (I used to
know one - a UBC University professor in fact.. now deceased).. so even if
defamatory material is directed to what the poster thinks is a 'non-person', any
real persons by that name *could* make a case. Intent or non-intent is not
usually the deciding factor in such cases. See this (although related mostly to
Canadian law, most of it applies most other places):
http://www.adidem.org/articles/DS5.html