Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] is it possible to define "a lie"?

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, Stephen Montgomery-Smith wrote:

> Mike Miller wrote:
>
> > The thing that I find strange and frustrating is that you and Stephen 
> > can't just accept what happened, as it obviously did happen.  Why 
> > pretend? Why twist everything around and make excuses for this guy? 
> > It's not as if he is your friend but you act like he is.
>
> I think you are being really unfair here.  My problem isn't that I want 
> O'Reilly to be found innocent at any costs.  But I do want to give him, 
> or anyone else for that matter, the benefit of the doubt.  I think I am 
> showing very reasonable skepticism with the evidence.  I'm not saying 
> that the accusations are necessarily false, but I am saying that the 
> evidence is weak.

But that in itself is completely wrong and frankly insulting and 
extremely frustrating for me.  I haev spent many hours writing to you 
about this.  You repeat the same absurd conclusion about "weak evidence". 
For the evidence of his claiming to have been a registered independent 
when he was a registered Republican the evidence is about as absolutely 
overwhelming and incontrovertible as you will ever get:  Photograph of his 
voter registration card.

So you can just tell everyone that "the evidence was weak," but the plain 
fact is that the evidence was not weak at all.  Not by any stretch of the 
imagination.  You have no basis for saying that.


> But also, when you make accusations against us like you did here, you 
> really are playing a very unfair game.  And it ceases to be an 
> intelligent and searching conversation, and becomes a war of who can 
> present the best wrought insults.

I don't think it is an insult to say that you are trying to defend 
O'Reilly.  I don't know why, but you are working very hard on it.

Mike

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion