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

[Stephen Montgomery-Smith <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Quiz - what is wrong with this discussion?

A.  Person X did a bad thing.
B.  Here is a plausible reason your allegations might not be true.
A.  But you cannot prove your plausible reasons.  Therefore my original 
assertion is true.




Mike Miller wrote:
> 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


--

Stephen Montgomery-Smith
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://www.math.missouri.edu/~stephen

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