[delacoert]

The "information" is largely slander ...
... Perhaps that information is true but "hurtful".

Well, that pretty much covers it - long walk, short pier.

[Colofornian]

The "information" is largely slander ... ... Perhaps that information is true but "hurtful". [jimt]

Well, that pretty much covers it - long walk, short pier. [delacoert]

Obama threads on FR...That, info, too "is true" but since "Zero" might deem it "hurtful", I guess that, too is "hurtful."

Same could be said about FR threads about Democrats, Liberals, Romney, and a whole host of other things.

So does JimT come on those threads and judgmentally accuse posters of being hateful, slanderous, & inciting?

JimT has ZERO credibility left on these threads with his "cry wolf" -- which if we applied some of his non-sensical logic to other threads, would treat him with even less respect we have...He'd be a laughingstock trying to protect Zero from "true" but "hurtful" comments.

[Diamond]

The "information" is largely slander ... ... Perhaps that information is true but "hurtful".
jimt

Just by way of exposition on "long walk, short pier"; truth and slander are mutually exclusive by definition. If something is true it cannot be slander. The two statements of jimt appear at first glance to be self-vitiating. Thus, long walk, short pier.

But maybe we have misunderstood jimt. Perhaps by that larger part of the information that jimt characterizes as false and defamatory, jimt is referring to a different category than the information that is true, but "hurtful".

Now if that's the casee then it shouldn't be too much of a problem or an undue burden for the one who has made an accusation of slander to give an actual example from this thread - out of that part of the information that is "largely slander".

Cordially,