Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Bush2000
That's the point, bob: Until the paper is released, none of the ABM *nix trolls should be making accusations; otherwise, they're a bunch of slanderous, lying, sacks of sh*t.

How so? Just because an accusation is made before the paper is published doesn't make it slanderous. Sure, it might turn out that way, but who's to know? As I said before, AdTI seems to have a certain mindset, when it comes to the papers they present.

No, bob. Wrong. If you want to state your opinion, fine. But if you want to assert that opinion as fact, uh uh. No way. Nonsense. Evidence is based on fact. If you don't have evidence, don't bother unless you want to be labeled an idiot.

What are you getting at? Notice the wording in my original post, there is a careful use of 'seem' in my statement. Are you looking for things in my post that aren't there?

But asserting one as "superior" is a religious issue.

That's why it'll be interesting to see where the paper goes.

168 posted on 06/10/2002 8:02:31 PM PDT by bobwoodard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies ]


To: bobwoodard
How so? Just because an accusation is made before the paper is published doesn't make it slanderous

You will notice, bob, that it is customary to speak in terms of the "alleged offense" or the "suspect" when making unsubstantiated accusations. The presumption of innocence is a component of our legal system and, frankly, there is a fine line between opinion and slander/libel.
171 posted on 06/10/2002 10:02:55 PM PDT by Bush2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson