Galloway's Senate Showdown

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JPaul

No you didn't, you told j2 that in the UK to refute did not require proof.

FFS do you even read your own posts.


"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".

---

You've just quoted where I've said it means both. :frusty:

Perhaps you should try to understand the meaning of words, rather than just repeating them parrot fashion. You are deluding yourself if you think there is only one definition, or that one definition has more weight than the other because it happens to appear first in a dictionary. I quoted an American dictionary to show that it included both meanings.
Here's the equivalent from a UK dictionary (Cambridge University Press):

Quote:

---

refute: to say or prove that a person, statement, opinion, etc. is wrong or false:

---

Notice that it too agrees with what I said: proof is not obligatory (1 Morally or legally constraining; binding.
2 Imposing or recording an obligation: a bill obligatory.
3 Of the nature of an obligation; compulsory: Attendance is obligatory. Mathematics is an obligatory course. ).

Unlike you, I don't take parts of posts out of context and try to twist them to fit a particular argument. You may like to try it sometime, you would possibly find people are more amenable (1: disposed or willing to comply; 2: readily reacting to suggestions and influences) to your viewpoint (1: a mental position from which things are viewed).

lynx.

You wrote 'it simply means to deny the accuracy of a statement' - this is incorrect as it can also mean to disprove. You'll agree that disproving something is entirely different to denying something.

If you, as you assert, meant that it can mean both - then simply is simply the wrong word to use as it's an absolute.

i'd have just said deny :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by manker

lynx.

You wrote 'it simply means to deny the accuracy of a statement' - this is incorrect as it can also mean to disprove. You'll agree that disproving something is entirely different to denying something.

If you, as you assert, meant that it can mean both - then simply is simply the wrong word to use as it's an absolute.

---

Absolutely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

i'd have just said deny :rolleyes:

---

Refute sounds better, and is much easier to say for the lazy person than "Strongly Deny".

I'd refute it, and being a "Civilized" society, they'd have to accept that without evidence unless THEY could prove otherwise.

The burden of proof is on those accusing, not those being accused... otherwise its Libel and Slander.




Hmmm, maybe George can get a couple more $$ out of this scandal by doing the same to these g'vment people that he did to the Telegraph. :rolleyes:

Bloody sure i wouldnt mind being slandered and libeled, if i could make a few quid out of it.. :ph34r:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rat Faced

Hmmm, maybe George can get a couple more $$ out of this scandal by doing the same to these g'vment people that he did to the Telegraph. :rolleyes:

Bloody sure i wouldnt mind being slandered and libeled, if i could make a few quid out of it.. :ph34r:

---

Mr. Bush got most of his tort reform through.... Galloway can only sue if he can produce evidence that if he won it won't cost the person he filed against a single penny. :rolleyes:

Ah, but this was on the International News...

He was libeled everywhere, not just in the USA..

He can take it to any court he wants to, not necessarily just the US courts.

Just limiting the movement of these knackers because of contempt of court warrents (becuse they didnt pay the libels) might make it worth while... at least we can keep these small minded miscreants in there own country, in case their relative mental deseases are catching and polute the rest of us. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lethal weapon II

Diplomatic immunity

---

..that and not only do we not recognise international courts...we spit on them :tank: :P

I think you misunderstand Diplomatic Immunity.. or you having a larf.

Basically, it allows representatives of foreign governments to work and operate under the laws of their home country while abroad... its not a "Get out of Jail Free" card.

If the Law that is broken is also illegal in their own country, they should be prosecuted there.. If not, they can be deported.

Only specific persons get Diplomatic Immunity in a country, and their credentials have to be presented before it even comes into effect. If a new Envoy breaks the Law before these credentials are presented, he is not covered by immunity.

The Senetors were not in a foreign country and Galloway was not an official envoy... therefore no immunity applies.


Some countries give immunity within their Parliaments, such as the UK... however that immunity only covers the UK. They can still be sued from abroad if such occasion arises. Hell, English Law is often different to Scottish Law.. never mind a different nation altogether. :P

rf

Look at the post..... do you really think there is anything serious in it ???? :rolleyes: couple that with the silliness of the preceding

It has a tank in it !!!!!