kwikrnu
Banned
That does not make one party to a lawsuit.
If I were to file suit I would file against several anonymous users including John who obviously moderates this site heavily.
That does not make one party to a lawsuit.
While I would not say that he is a criminal, neither would I say that he broke no laws. One can break laws yet avoid the moniker criminal. I don't know that he is or is not a criminal. I don't know that he has or has not broken any laws.
Although, I must say, I wonder. A lot.
It would have been more appropriate to say he has not been proven to have broken any laws. Either way, the rest of the comment stands.
If I were to file suit I would file against several anonymous users including John who obviously moderates this site heavily.
Heavily? Most people complain that I don't moderate nearly enough. LOL.
Given my heavy time constraints, I mostly respond to reported posts and make an on-the-spot determination without much context at that time.
As for deleting posts when someone claims libel, that would be unethical of me because it is evidence against the offender in the resulting suit.
And finally, I WILL remove posts that I know to be false but I am under no duty to investigate every comment posted here to verify its authenticity. That would make moderating the forum impossible.
John
The Brentwood PD regrets that it cannot confirm a DV offense by someone? Wow, I'd be proud of that, and I'd go out of my way to have my full name on a memo like that and posted on the internet. I'd call the guy an idiot, but I'd hate to be sued for libel.
As to citing being a rule: citing is only a rule when it comes to claims of law. Otherwise, citing to support alleged facts is simply a matter of being rhetorically responsible. The poster should have supported his claim or not made it. "Should," not "must." If he refuses to support it, we should be inclined not to believe it.
An interesting observation, since in another recent thread you repeatedly stated you did not have to cite to support your claim. Post #64
http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/s...-to-sight-of-legally-holstered-firearm./page3
Eye, I have not always agreed with your position on topics. I did, however, respect the manner in which you carried yourself and voiced your opinions. In recent posts you repeatedly seem to resort to tactics which you would never find acceptable from another. I don't know why there has been this shift, I just hope you can once again start presenting your positions in the same manner you expect others to present theirs.
I did not cite because I was not quoting law, but questioning it, hoping that those more familiar with how to find things in MN law would do so. You will find that when I make a statement of law (such as Alabama law, which I navigate with ease), I will cite if challenged.
I suggest that you reread what I wrote. I never claimed to be stating MN law (and said that I wasn't several times in the thread).
Moving on. Continue to press this point if you will. I won't.
I have been called, and it has been implied that I am a Commie, Socialist (maybe a little), committing intellectual acts of treason, anti-freedom, unAmerican, etc.
Really, I don't mean to be to direct or callused, but.....get over it. Get over yourself. And hit the ignore button if you don't like what someone is saying. We are all adults here, and people say whatever they say, get over it.
So you refute that you are a criminal, OK, end of story, you are not a criminal.
Just relax a bit, damn