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

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, Spurling, Shannon wrote:

> > So you think O'Reilly will pay out more than $2 million to anyone who
> > makes up a story about him?  That seems pretty unlikely to me.
> ...
> He was going to fight it to the end.

Or so you claim, but cannot prove.


> His legal counsel persuaded him to settle, and he didn't like it.

Or so you claim, but cannot prove.


> The settlement was also for a lot less than originally requested. IIRC.

Again, the amount was not made public, so you don't know that.


> If he were really like that, I am surprised that more people didn't come 
> forward. It was a really strange situation from the start.

If he did it to only one woman, who else would come forward?


The thing that bothers me here is your idea about how our system works. 
You think that if a wealthy man is accused entirely falsely of doing 
horrible things that he has no way of defending himself.  The acccusations 
are made public in excruciating detail and he then pays money to the 
accuser.

It was reported that part of the agreement was that Mackris would "destroy 
any audio tapes if such tapes existed."  But if that is true, why would an 
innocent man want the evidence of his innocence to be destroyed?

It also seems pretty clear that O'Reilly's attorneys said that they wanted 
any tapes that Mackris might have.  That makes sense, but tapes of what? 
If O'Reilly didn't talk about inappropriate things, then what would there 
be to listen to?  The only value to the defense would be that they can 
show that Mackris wasn't discouraging him enough, or was flirtatious, but 
if they indeed asked for tapes, they are admitting that something sexual 
happened (perhaps not sexual harassment though).

Check this out:

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/244541p-209555c.html

Mike

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