HAIR-SPLITTING

Geez, Larry, is your receding hairline the result of
hair splitting? -- Randy Bauer

Randy Bauer accuses this writer of casuistical
overexuberance because I argue that there is a vital,
obvious and large distinction between saying that one
believes a person to be guilty and stating directly
that the person is guilty.

Our Randy cannot see the evident difference
between Sam writing, "It is my belief that Bill Brock
is Fake Sam" and "Bill Brock is Fake Sam." The former
is a statement of opinion, easily recognized as such; the
latter is a clear accusation, easily recognized as such.

Randy's simian guffawing reminds one of some of
the stuff coming out of the mouths of the presidential
frontrunners in the primary this year.

Yours, Larry Parr



Randy Bauer wrote:
On Oct 11, 5:01 pm, " wrote:
BELIEVING IS NOT ACCUSING


"Now that I am satisfied that my evidence does not
prove that Randy Bauer is the Fake Sam Sloan, I revert
to my previous belief that either Paul Truong or Bill Brock
is the Fake Sam Sloan." -- Randy Bauer

Now, then, based on the instances adduced by
Mr. Bauer, Sam did NOT accuse Bill Brock, who has
hitherto offered an implicit admission of being a child
molester, of being the Fake Sam.

Sam told us he had a list of suspects, and who
in a similar situation would not have one? He stated
his "BELIEF" that either the Brockster or Paul Truong
was the Fake Sam.

To state a belief is not to make an accusation.
Sam was properly agnostic about the identity of Fake
Sam in the quoted excerpts.

Yeahhh, right, thhhhat's the ticket.... I only said I BELIEVE he is
the fake Sam Sloan, that's not an accusation. Like in:

"I believe you stole my wallet."

"I accuse you of stealing my wallet."

Suuuuure.... those are VERY differant statements.

Geez, Larry, is your receding hairline the result of hair splitting?

Randy Bauer

wrote:
HAIR-SPLITTING

Geez, Larry, is your receding hairline the result of
hair splitting? -- Randy Bauer

Randy Bauer accuses this writer of casuistical
overexuberance because I argue that there is a vital,
obvious and large distinction between saying that one
believes a person to be guilty and stating directly
that the person is guilty.

Our Randy cannot see the evident difference
between Sam writing, "It is my belief that Bill Brock
is Fake Sam" and "Bill Brock is Fake Sam." The former
is a statement of opinion, easily recognized as such; the
latter is a clear accusation, easily recognized as such.

Randy's simian guffawing reminds one of some of
the stuff coming out of the mouths of the presidential
frontrunners in the primary this year.

Yours, Larry Parr



Randy Bauer wrote:
On Oct 11, 5:01 pm, " wrote:
BELIEVING IS NOT ACCUSING


"Now that I am satisfied that my evidence does not
prove that Randy Bauer is the Fake Sam Sloan, I revert
to my previous belief that either Paul Truong or Bill Brock
is the Fake Sam Sloan." -- Randy Bauer

Now, then, based on the instances adduced by
Mr. Bauer, Sam did NOT accuse Bill Brock, who has
hitherto offered an implicit admission of being a child
molester, of being the Fake Sam.

Sam told us he had a list of suspects, and who
in a similar situation would not have one? He stated
his "BELIEF" that either the Brockster or Paul Truong
was the Fake Sam.

To state a belief is not to make an accusation.
Sam was properly agnostic about the identity of Fake
Sam in the quoted excerpts.

Yeahhh, right, thhhhat's the ticket.... I only said I BELIEVE he is
the fake Sam Sloan, that's not an accusation. Like in:

"I believe you stole my wallet."

"I accuse you of stealing my wallet."

Suuuuure.... those are VERY differant statements.

Geez, Larry, is your receding hairline the result of hair splitting?

Randy Bauer

You are mistaken, Larry. Labeling something something as an opinion
does not make it one. It's not the form, it's the content. What
matters is whether the alleged libel makes a statement of fact,
defined as one _capable_ of disproof. "In my opinion, John Smith is a
murderer" is a statement of fact. "It is an absolutely certain fact
that John Smith hates me" is a statement of opinion, since there is no
way even in principle to disprove it. This is such a basic point of
libel law that I'm surprised someone who worked for years in the
publishing industry doesn't grasp it.