The editor of Politikali testified that there were cases in the past in which they postponed or reconsidered publication, after receiving a detailed response from the subject of the publication, prior to publication (p. 174, paras. 22-29; p. 177, paras. 29-33) and explained that since he chose not to present his version in response to his request, but rather to threaten a lawsuit without providing a substantive response to the matter, she chose not to respond to the threat (p. 174, paras. 11-17). A similar answer was given by the director of Politikali when asked about it: "He can choose to relate to things in a more substantive way, he can choose to say, 'Here's my narrative, I'd love to meet with you, these are the documents I have that I think should make you doubt what you've heard,' instead he chose to say, 'Okay, okay, it's his right, what am I going to do' (p. 193, paras. 22-25).
In our case, the plaintiff's conduct, the speed with which he responded to the request, which indicates that the allegations against him are familiar to him, and the sending of a lawyer's letter, show that he had time to give a substantive response if he wished to do so. If so, then I do not accept the argument that in the circumstances of this case the response time given to him is insufficient (and see what was said in the Regev case, that there are cases in which a short response time will be sufficient for the object of the actual publication to deliver his response, in paragraph 28 of the judgment of Justice (as he was then called) Y. Amit).
In the matter of a civil appeal, the Honorable Justice (as he was then called) A. Vogelman insisted that the demand to apply for the victim's attention stems not only from fairness, but rather that "ordinarily, the victim will have the best information in relation to the matters attributed to him" (ibid., 492). In our case, it was proven that the plaintiff had additional materials in his possession from real time, and his choice not to present his version when he was approached, and not to disclose the information that he had in his possession from real time, and not even to refer the defendants to other parties, is sufficient to negate the claim today that the defendants breached their professional duty when they did not turn on their own initiative to other specific parties that the plaintiff claims in his summaries that there was room to talk to.