With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". between a potential customer and a host computer.” See Dawson, 274 S.W.3d at 178; Karstetter, 184 S.W.3d at 405. Therefore, the degree of interaction between the parties must be examined to determine jurisdiction. See Dawson, 274 S.W.3d at 178. Here, the contact in question is an individual’s direct use of the internet to commit, allegedly, the torts of libel, defamation, and business disparagement. Thus, as we determine the “degree of interaction” between the' parties in this ease, we also look to other libel and defamation cases that involved the distribution of tor-tious statements to broad audiences to determine whether Wilkerson’s contact with Texas via the internet is sufficient to satisfy the minimum-contacts requirement. See Revell v. Lidov, 317 F.3d 467, 471-72 (5th Cir.2002) (<HOLDING>); see generally Touradji v. Beach Capital

A: holding that sliding scale used to evaluate internet contacts is still applicable in defamation case in spite of defamation cause of actions unique features concluding that sliding scale is compatible with the effects test of calder v jones  465 us 783 104 sct 1482 79 led2d 804 1984 for intentional torts and stating we must evaluate the extent of the interactivity between parties on internet bulletin board as well as appellants arguments with respect to colder
B: holding that the ninth circuit erred in granting habeas relief because the state courts decision was not an unreasonable application of strickland v washington 466 us 668 104 sct 2052 80 led2d 674 1984
C: holding that in the ninth circuit the effects test established in colder v jones 465 us 783 104 sct 1482 79 led2d 804 1984 is met when a foreign defendant does a wrongful act to a foreign resident without regard to whether the actual act is targeted at the forum
D: holding that with respect to the preponderance of the evidence standard before any such burden can be satisfied in the first instance the factfinder must evaluate the raw evidence finding it to be sufficiently reliable and sufficiently probative to demonstrate the truth of the asserted proposition with the requisite degree of certainty
A.