Galloway's Senate Showdown

Apologies, J2, it seems we have found another subtle difference in our languages. The American definition of refute seems to carry with it the burden of evidence but there is no such obligation in the English definition, it simply means to deny the accuracy of a statement. Given that difference in definitions it appeared that you were requiring him to provide proof of his innocence, rather than questioning my use of the word.

A consequence is that the bit about

Quote:

---

Then all that is required to refute a charge is a categorical denial?

Does this occur as a courtesy, and only to oily politicians?

---

appears to apply only to Mr Galloway, since he is being required to deny the accusations against him and the members of the Senate committee are not (though perhaps they should be). I accept your assertion that it was meant to apply to all involved.

As to the subject of fandom, I've already stated that I don't like the man. But I like it even less when a group of bully boys start throwing around unsubstantiated accusations. I, like many others, applaud when someone stands up to the bullies. I suspect you've been known to do the same yourself.

You seem to think that's because it is at the expense of America, well I can only ask what it is that you think "America" is trying to achieve. I'm afraid it smells very much like another witch-hunt. As a nation you seem to be rather fond of those, yet they never seem to turn out well. I fear this one will be no exception.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

Apologies, J2, it seems we have found another subtle difference in our languages. The American definition of refute seems to carry with it the burden of evidence but there is no such obligation in the English definition, it simply means to deny the accuracy of a statement.

---

Which dictionary are you using for this definition of refute.

I have to agree with j2 on this one, to refute requires proof.

but why should he need proof if there's no evidence against him? how can he get it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

Which dictionary are you using for this definition of refute.

I have to agree with j2 on this one, to refute requires proof.

---

Refute

1. To prove to be false or erroneous; overthrow by argument or proof: refute testimony.
2. To deny the accuracy or truth of: refuted the results of the poll.

or

1: overthrow by argument, evidence, or proof; "The speaker refuted his opponent's arguments" [syn: rebut]
2: prove to be false or incorrect [syn: rebut, controvert]


I didn't expect to have to teach you English, nor how to use a dictionary.

dictionary.com is american isn't it?

anyway, why argue about what refute means and if he did it.
it's not like a burglary, he can't have an alibi in a case like this. the case can only be argued on evidence against him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

Refute

1. To prove to be false or erroneous; overthrow by argument or proof: refute testimony.
2. To deny the accuracy or truth of: refuted the results of the poll.

or

1: overthrow by argument, evidence, or proof; "The speaker refuted his opponent's arguments" [syn: rebut]
2: prove to be false or incorrect [syn: rebut, controvert]


I didn't expect to have to teach you English, nor how to use a dictionary.

---

What are you talking about it starts with "to prove", then goes on to "overthrow by argument or proof", proving my point and not yours.

or

"overthrow by argument, evidence or proof" then "prove to be false or incorrect", again showing you to be incorrect.

Have you taken leave of your senses. It is customary to refute something by providing evidence to support your case, not disprove it.

it also says to deny accuracy or truth of...


but it doesn't matter 'cos i'm right

Quote:

---

overthrow by argument

---

Do I even have to teach you how to read aswell.

i'd hardly call name calling an arguement in a legal sense :unsure:

with favouritism aside.

what laws have been broken and what evidence is there?

as far as i can see it is just a bunch of people picking on a person with different political ideals; accusing him of something impossible to disprove.