Roy Moore says he'll sue WaPo

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Let him sue

He will have to prove what they printed was not true......Love to see him take the stand

The onus is on the Post.

And what onus is that exactly?

That their allegation is accurate.

And that "allegation" is..................................................... ?

I should have been a dentist.

That Moore is a criminal.

 

[Pogo]

Let him sue

He will have to prove what they printed was not true......Love to see him take the stand

The onus is on the Post.

No it's not. Moore is a "public figure".

But libel is libel.

Are you suggesting that the Post made up the story, that there was no such allegation by the woman?

Because that IS their assertion. Can you prove she never made such an allegation?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Let him sue

He will have to prove what they printed was not true......Love to see him take the stand

The onus is on the Post.

No it's not. Moore is a "public figure".

But libel is libel.

The standard required to prove libel is not the same for a public figure as it is for a private individual.

But it still exists. This is why news outlets provide retractions.

 

[Pogo]

Let him sue

He will have to prove what they printed was not true......Love to see him take the stand

The onus is on the Post.

And what onus is that exactly?

That their allegation is accurate.

And that "allegation" is..................................................... ?

I should have been a dentist.

That Moore is a criminal.

Link to this assertion then?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Let him sue

He will have to prove what they printed was not true......Love to see him take the stand

The onus is on the Post.

No it's not. Moore is a "public figure".

But libel is libel.

The standard required to prove libel is not the same for a public figure as it is for a private individual.

But it still exists. This is why news outlets provide retractions.

Sure it does.

But Moore's not going to try it. He'd have to take the stand, and respond to the allegations under oath.

 

[Pogo]

Let him sue

He will have to prove what they printed was not true......Love to see him take the stand

The onus is on the Post.

No it's not. Moore is a "public figure".

But libel is libel.

The standard required to prove libel is not the same for a public figure as it is for a private individual.

But it still exists. This is why news outlets provide retractions.

What would there be to "retract"?

The Post story is that this woman asserted an allegation.
Whelp- --- that's true. She did. Full stop, waiter check please.

Any questions?

 

[Pop23]

No. I'm referring to three other friends of hers who confirmed that she related the same story in the past.
All referring to the same incident with the same person.

So hearsay, not actual corroboration.

ahhhh... you know those are not opposites, right?

cor·rob·o·rate
kəˈräbəˌrāt/
verb
verb: corroborate; 3rd person present: corroborates; past tense: corroborated; past participle: corroborated; gerund or present participle: corroborating
confirm or give support to (a statement, theory, or finding).
"the witness had corroborated the boy's account of the attack"
synonyms: confirm, verify, endorse, ratify, authenticate, validate, certify​

The statement is corroborated. By at least three people. That was your point of questioning, and it was delivered.

Anything else?

Corroboration involves 3rd hand confirmation of the events, not someone TALKING about the events.

In your case the witness saw the attack, not the boy saying he was attacked.

In the actual case all that has been confirmed in the story is that she told others about the supposed incident, not that they saw the incident.

Once again we whiplash right back to the question you can't or won't answer, and that is --- what is there for the Post to "retract"?

The story is that this woman made an accusation of an event from 38 years ago. Whelp, she did make that accusation, so there''s nothing to "retract". It's documented and undisputed that she made that claim.

When I pointed that out, you asked for "corroboration" ----- even though you're misdirecting that; the Post needs no "corroboration" for the fact that someone makes a statement, because again the statement is on the record. But just to humor the point I gave you references to three other people who had been told the same story in the past by the same person, on the theory that you thought the woman's claim itself had to be corroborated before they would treat the claim as newsworthy. The claim still exists with or without corroboration or evidence. The claim was made. There's no dispute about that.

And so I gave you the corroboration that supports HER story, not the Post's.

Now it's possible she could come out later and retract HER story, and that would be her retraction, not the Post's. But it would make hard to explain all those recountings of the same story to other people years in the past.

So again the original question was --- what could there be for the Post to "retract"?

If it was found out that her story has a ton of holes in it, they would have to retract the original story and provide the corrections, not doing so would make them liable.

And I noticed you didn't have the balls to address my correct assertion that all the "corroborating" evidence is nothing but hearsay.

Exactly. Rumor rags rarely do though

 

[Pop23]

So hearsay, not actual corroboration.

ahhhh... you know those are not opposites, right?

cor·rob·o·rate
kəˈräbəˌrāt/
verb
verb: corroborate; 3rd person present: corroborates; past tense: corroborated; past participle: corroborated; gerund or present participle: corroborating
confirm or give support to (a statement, theory, or finding).
"the witness had corroborated the boy's account of the attack"
synonyms: confirm, verify, endorse, ratify, authenticate, validate, certify​

The statement is corroborated. By at least three people. That was your point of questioning, and it was delivered.

Anything else?

Corroboration involves 3rd hand confirmation of the events, not someone TALKING about the events.

In your case the witness saw the attack, not the boy saying he was attacked.

In the actual case all that has been confirmed in the story is that she told others about the supposed incident, not that they saw the incident.

Once again we whiplash right back to the question you can't or won't answer, and that is --- what is there for the Post to "retract"?

The story is that this woman made an accusation of an event from 38 years ago. Whelp, she did make that accusation, so there''s nothing to "retract". It's documented and undisputed that she made that claim.

When I pointed that out, you asked for "corroboration" ----- even though you're misdirecting that; the Post needs no "corroboration" for the fact that someone makes a statement, because again the statement is on the record. But just to humor the point I gave you references to three other people who had been told the same story in the past by the same person, on the theory that you thought the woman's claim itself had to be corroborated before they would treat the claim as newsworthy. The claim still exists with or without corroboration or evidence. The claim was made. There's no dispute about that.

And so I gave you the corroboration that supports HER story, not the Post's.

Now it's possible she could come out later and retract HER story, and that would be her retraction, not the Post's. But it would make hard to explain all those recountings of the same story to other people years in the past.

So again the original question was --- what could there be for the Post to "retract"?

If it was found out that her story has a ton of holes in it, they would have to retract the original story and provide the corrections, not doing so would make them liable.

And I noticed you didn't have the balls to address my correct assertion that all the "corroborating" evidence is nothing but hearsay.

What if the holes are in Moore's story, and not theirs? Because there's an awful big hole in Moore's story...namely the reason why he was pursuing high school girls in the first place!

.......namely the reason why he was ALEDGEDLY pursuing high school girls in the first place!

See how easy that was.

But I learned my civics in the USA.

You?

 

[Pop23]

Why do Men in there thirties pursue Men in there thirties? Curious people want to know.

So OK, you're at least now admitting the accusation that Moore pursued high school girls isn't a lie. So what's the lie, then?

Don't read between the lines, you're not very good at it.

You're the one who is throwing out the accusation of "lying"...I think you're doing that just to obfuscate the discussion. Fact is, you haven't been able to articulate just what it is these women are lying about.

Has it been done before?

Let’s review shall we:

McMartin preschool trial - Wikipedia

Duke lacrosse case - Wikipedia

The pity with both of the above is that when these types are proven to have lied, it makes it tougher on actual victims to come forward.

 

[Pogo]

So hearsay, not actual corroboration.

ahhhh... you know those are not opposites, right?

cor·rob·o·rate
kəˈräbəˌrāt/
verb
verb: corroborate; 3rd person present: corroborates; past tense: corroborated; past participle: corroborated; gerund or present participle: corroborating
confirm or give support to (a statement, theory, or finding).
"the witness had corroborated the boy's account of the attack"
synonyms: confirm, verify, endorse, ratify, authenticate, validate, certify​

The statement is corroborated. By at least three people. That was your point of questioning, and it was delivered.

Anything else?

Corroboration involves 3rd hand confirmation of the events, not someone TALKING about the events.

In your case the witness saw the attack, not the boy saying he was attacked.

In the actual case all that has been confirmed in the story is that she told others about the supposed incident, not that they saw the incident.

Once again we whiplash right back to the question you can't or won't answer, and that is --- what is there for the Post to "retract"?

The story is that this woman made an accusation of an event from 38 years ago. Whelp, she did make that accusation, so there''s nothing to "retract". It's documented and undisputed that she made that claim.

When I pointed that out, you asked for "corroboration" ----- even though you're misdirecting that; the Post needs no "corroboration" for the fact that someone makes a statement, because again the statement is on the record. But just to humor the point I gave you references to three other people who had been told the same story in the past by the same person, on the theory that you thought the woman's claim itself had to be corroborated before they would treat the claim as newsworthy. The claim still exists with or without corroboration or evidence. The claim was made. There's no dispute about that.

And so I gave you the corroboration that supports HER story, not the Post's.

Now it's possible she could come out later and retract HER story, and that would be her retraction, not the Post's. But it would make hard to explain all those recountings of the same story to other people years in the past.

So again the original question was --- what could there be for the Post to "retract"?

If it was found out that her story has a ton of holes in it, they would have to retract the original story and provide the corrections, not doing so would make them liable.

And I noticed you didn't have the balls to address my correct assertion that all the "corroborating" evidence is nothing but hearsay.

Exactly. Rumor rags rarely do though

Mmmmnnnnnope.
What many of these cretins still don't get is --- it's not the Post's "story". It's the woman's story. All the Post did was report that she reported it.

And about that, there is no dispute.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The onus is on the Post.

And what onus is that exactly?

That their allegation is accurate.

And that "allegation" is..................................................... ?

I should have been a dentist.

That Moore is a criminal.

Link to this assertion then?

Charges of pedophilia. What do you think the issue is about? You're being obtuse.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The onus is on the Post.

No it's not. Moore is a "public figure".

But libel is libel.

The standard required to prove libel is not the same for a public figure as it is for a private individual.

But it still exists. This is why news outlets provide retractions.

Sure it does.

But Moore's not going to try it. He'd have to take the stand, and respond to the allegations under oath.

If Moore is in fact innocent he can point to the Post's timing as malice and I hope he sues.
If he's guilty, fuck him

 

[theDoctorisIn]

And what onus is that exactly?

That their allegation is accurate.

And that "allegation" is..................................................... ?

I should have been a dentist.

That Moore is a criminal.

Link to this assertion then?

Charges of pedophilia. What do you think the issue is about? You're being obtuse.

Who has "charged" Moore with "pedophilia"?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

No it's not. Moore is a "public figure".

But libel is libel.

The standard required to prove libel is not the same for a public figure as it is for a private individual.

But it still exists. This is why news outlets provide retractions.

Sure it does.

But Moore's not going to try it. He'd have to take the stand, and respond to the allegations under oath.

If Moore is in fact innocent he can point to the Post's timing as malice and I hope he sues.
If he's guilty, fuck him

He could try, but he'd fail, and he knows it.

 

[DrLove]

Her story was fishy.

Help me out here .. WHY?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

But libel is libel.

The standard required to prove libel is not the same for a public figure as it is for a private individual.

But it still exists. This is why news outlets provide retractions.

Sure it does.

But Moore's not going to try it. He'd have to take the stand, and respond to the allegations under oath.

If Moore is in fact innocent he can point to the Post's timing as malice and I hope he sues.
If he's guilty, fuck him

He could try, but he'd fail, and he knows it.

If he's innocent he has a case and he knows it.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Her story was fishy.

Help me out here .. WHY?

Vaginal issues.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

The standard required to prove libel is not the same for a public figure as it is for a private individual.

But it still exists. This is why news outlets provide retractions.

Sure it does.

But Moore's not going to try it. He'd have to take the stand, and respond to the allegations under oath.

If Moore is in fact innocent he can point to the Post's timing as malice and I hope he sues.
If he's guilty, fuck him

He could try, but he'd fail, and he knows it.

If he's innocent he has a case and he knows it.

No, he doesn't.

He won't be able to come anywhere near the standard required - a preponderance of evidence showing that the Post knew the story was false, and ran it anyway.

 

[Pogo]

And what onus is that exactly?

That their allegation is accurate.

And that "allegation" is..................................................... ?

I should have been a dentist.

That Moore is a criminal.

Link to this assertion then?

Charges of pedophilia. What do you think the issue is about? You're being obtuse.

What "charges of pedophilia"?

For the fourth time................................................ Link?

 

[DrLove]

Her story was fishy.

Help me out here .. WHY?

Vaginal issues.

Charming - Thanks much for weighing in