"Mike Murray" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 19:06:05 -0400, "Chess One"
wrote:

how is a recommendation to "evaluate" a report an
"accusation"? Seems you can't understand plain English, let alone
legal argot.

Is it me? I am saying that it is only an accusation, and an unproven
accusation, and upon evaluation by an investigating judge, a dissmissable
accusation.

IMO, a parent's due diligence would demand evaluating the
circumstances of the "accusation" and the reasons for, and
circumstances surrounding, the "dismissal" (assuming it *was*
dismissed). BTW, I'm not in any way acknowledging, except for the
sake of argument,

'for the sake of argument' continues Murray, discussing people's children -
and ignoring the *fact* that the issue was investigated - but Murray doesn't
like the terms I use, so blathers on...

that your usage of the terms "accusation" and
"dismissal" is proper in this instance.

Before you write more **** about other people Murray, say if you
understand
what you are arguing against, since here you argue against the law itself,
and real investigation of accusations.

Real investigation? You mean some nut doing textual evaluation? Or
one or more acknowledged experts applying their field of certified
expertise?

You cannot admit your own understanding of the material, therefore you
describe those who do look at direct evidence by the term 'nut'.

It is no different from the entire campaign, where only selective evidence
is admitted by the campaigners, and only to that their own prescription of
who musta dunnit. The inanity of this approach is only lost on themselves.

At least the poster Walker has taken a step back and subscribed to viewing
all the materials available, and I, like him, agree that when we do that
then let the chips lie where they may - and that is an orientation which is
not prescriptive, which is not dependent on who the perp turns out to be.

I will not discuss either of the issues above further with the people who
refused to actually look at what is before them, and whose 'questions' are
simply evasions 'for the sake of argument' - which is actually, for the sake
of persecution.

If you can't get Polgar, get Truong, and if you can't get either, get the
kids? I challenged Hanken before the whole board on 3 issues of his recent
'representations' and Hanken spat at me in private e-mail and ran off. So
much for his standards.

Heuch!

Phil Innes