What is your scenario? (A) That the homosexual Voice put those words in his mouth or (B) that the ticket man was approached by some homosexual interests groups, he said, "great, we can use the sales" and then lied to the Voice and said it was all his idea?
I say that he's telling the truth. You seem to be of the mind that the quote was misreported. How about addressing that detail rather than spinning and spinning legal talk about the notion of libel law?
It's quite possible, but I don't know. The article as a whole has already been shown to be false and the publication is a dubious one. I'm familiar with the magazine and have skimmed it a number of times -- it's a piece of junk.How about addressing that detail rather than spinning and spinning legal talk about the notion of libel law?
First, anything I said would be pure speculation because I don't know what transpired. All I know is that the article as a whole has been proven false. Individual details may or may not be true.Second, you were the one who argued that the Rangers could sue for libel over the mistatements in the article. I merely showed you that the outcome of such a case would be defeat for the Rangers because they do not have an actionable case.