Ticomaya wrote:You were the one who initially kept referring to the Daily Telegraph lawsuit, as if that was supposed to decide the issue. You posted several times about that case, and even posted your Wikipedia article for my "edification." You pointed out several times that the case hasn't been made against Galloway, and I pointed out that the case hasn't been tried. It's obvious that you have not concerned yourself with what may come to light, yet you think the fact that a lawsuit in England was won on stipulated facts decides the issue here. The level of your desparation is evident in your inability to admit the simple and very basic point I was making.
No, i referred to the
DT lawsuit and its outcome in pointed reference to a remark made by georgeob1 in speculation about Galloway's involvement in the Oil for Food program. The point in referring to it was that accusations had been made against Mr. Galloway on that topic, which georgeob1 apparently considered sufficient to assume that the accusations were true. So i pointed out that the accusations which were made were found to be false in a court of law. There is no desparation on my part in pointing out that georgeob1 was attempting to convict Mr. Galloway in the court of public opinion based on reference to accusations stipulated as false by the
DT's legal counsel in the course of that trial. I have not concerned myself with any evidence which may come to light, because that was not the burden of georgeob1's contention. I am indifferent to the point you were attempting to shove down my throat, because it is not relevant to my citation of the lawsuit. I understand that you want to make an issue of it, but am uninterested in your point--i've only ever been concerned with georgeob1's attempt to smear someone by innuendo, and in an example in which he demonstrated a woeful ignorance.
If you despise Mr. Galloway, fine; if you think that he may at some date be proven guilty of the charges based upon heretofore unrevealed evidence, fine--none of that has any bearing on my response to georgeob1 regarding his unsupported and unsupporable contention in regard to Mr. Galloway.
Quote:Twofold: (1) see the first post of this thread, and (2) there may be other classified evidence that hasn't come to light, which you don't know about, and my "rhetorical trick" should have highlighted that for you, had you been susceptible to its nuance.
Nice little sneer there about "nuance," Tico, but your dog won't hunt. Allow me to repeat what i have said far too many times, because you want to sidestep the issue. I responded to a comment of georgeob1, without reference to whether or not Mr. Galloway is in fact guilty of grafting in the Oil for Food program, but simply to point out that his contention in the matter was based on information which was found to be false in a duly constituted legal tribunal. Although you may contend, without justification, that i am not susceptible to nuance, it certainly appears that you can be hit over the head with the obvious, repeatedly, and remain unaware of it.
And BOY is it interesting. But of course I am sworn to secrecy.
