So your argument is that:

1. Musk calling him "pedo boy" isn't Musk actually calling him a pedophile, and there's nothing wrong with a grown man using insults (against an aid worker risking his own life to save children) that 14-year olds in the 80s in South Africa allegedly used on playgrounds

2. Musk telling Buzzfeed that the same exact guy is actually a pedophile (specifically a child rapist) who took a 12 year old bride was totally unrelated to the prior "pedo boy" comment, and you would never defend such an action

Fascinating pretzel you've folded yourself into. Not sure who you think you're fooling, hope it's not you though!

To be clear, I don't think anyone here is suggesting Musk should be held legally accountable for anything. Not sure why you keep falling back to this "libelous" standard. No one cares and defamation suits are virtually impossible in the US.

Your original snarky question was what is reprehensible about him. You are now defending his clearly reprehensible moral character, through some convoluted "didn't mean it but it was okay but also he totally did say the same thing in clearer terms weeks later and I would never defend that."

Interesting to note your own motte-and-bailey retreat on this point too though.

Let's review:

1. Musk offers money and engineering help

2. diver insults Musk on national TV

3. Musk insults diver on twitter

4. diver sues Musk for $195 million

5. Musk retaliates by investigating him

Neither of them are saints, and neither are "reprehensible" people. The jury in the lawsuit called it right by deliberating for one hour and then dismissing the lawsuit.

And insulting someone and engaging in libel is not the same thing, and is not a "retreat".

P.S. It's fine to write your own interpretation of my remarks, but it is not fine to put them in quotes suggesting I wrote them.