Burden of proof (Latin, onus probandi) is the obligation to prove allegations which are presented in a legal action. The Latin maxim necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit explains the rule that "the necessity of proof lies with he who complains." For example, a person has to prove that someone is guilty or not guilty (in a criminal case) or liable or not liable (in a civil case) depending on the allegations. More colloquially, burden of proof refers to an obligation in a particular context to defend a position against a prima facie other position.
Civil law
In civil law cases, the "burden of proof" requires the plaintiff to convince the trier of fact (whether judge or jury) of the plaintiff's entitlement to the relief sought. This means that the plaintiff must prove each element of the claim, or cause of action, in order to recover.
The burden of proof must be distinguished from the "burden of going forward," which simply refers to the sequence of proof, as between the plaintiff and defendant. The two concepts are often confused.
Check back again sometime Tom I'll still be an advocate for fairness............
no... you're not... what you're doing has nothing to do with fairness IMO.
Burden of proof
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Burden of proof (Latin, onus probandi) is the obligation to prove allegations which are presented in a legal action. The Latin maxim necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit explains the rule that "the necessity of proof lies with he who complains." For example, a person has to prove that someone is guilty or not guilty (in a criminal case) or liable or not liable (in a civil case) depending on the allegations. More colloquially, burden of proof refers to an obligation in a particular context to defend a position against a prima facie other position.
Civil law
In civil law cases, the "burden of proof" requires the plaintiff to convince the trier of fact (whether judge or jury) of the plaintiff's entitlement to the relief sought. This means that the plaintiff must prove each element of the claim, or cause of action, in order to recover.
The burden of proof must be distinguished from the "burden of going forward," which simply refers to the sequence of proof, as between the plaintiff and defendant. The two concepts are often confused.
....all I said was it is dishonest to call things true that have not met the burden of proof for calling them so
.
Only in YOUR opinion Dove...
.
Apperantly not, it seems others in the know seem to agree.............
An alleged burglar is someone who has been accused of being a burglar but whose innocence or guilt has yet to be established. An alleged incident is an event that is said to have taken place but has not yet been verified.
Apparently others in the know agree...about what..that I invent things???
Apperantly others in the know understand that it is not only in my opinion as you stated when I said
....all I said was it is dishonest to call things true that have not met the burden of proof for calling them so
.
Apparently they also think that the word is alleged until proven
An alleged burglar is someone who has been accused of being a burglar but whose innocence or guilt has yet to be established. An alleged incident is an event that is said to have taken place but has not yet been verified.
I'm sorry WD - I just don't see the point of holding a discussion to the standard of a court of law.
I'm trying to understand your logic...
We can pick at words all night long the point as I think most got is that you can't make statements of someone's guilt of a crime that has not had a conviction of said crime it's dishonest to say someone is guilty when they have not had a conviction. I shouldn't call you a thief if I don't have some proof that you are . GET IT I call it a burden of proof you want another word fine pick one, the point still remains you can't just go around in a public form and make accusations of crimes that have no foundation. Most reasonable people as I attempted to illustrate in a court system, in a news media system and others all agree until there is proof then the proper word for accusations is alleged.
This isn't that difficult Case in point tonight they are digging up the backyard in NC and gathering evidence of the missing marine girl. From the preliminary evidence it looks like they have found their man, my opinion would be they have,. But until they have a conviction the proper term in reference to him is alleged. Listen to anyone and they will refer to him as such. WHY because that is the proper term until some guilt is established ( that means more than an accusation by someone)with the establisment of guilt he will no longer be alleged. until then he is . Pretty simple.
I know Excie - I just think that the term is being used haphazardly. I don't even think it applies to a public discussion.
On the other hand - there would be enough eye-witness testimonies here to meet some of that burden, if my reading is correct.
I agree with you, dooj. many witnesses with similar testimonies carries weight in court. the defense would have to bring their character into question (as WD does with rascal and others) and prove they have motive for lying, or prove that the defendant was not present to commit the crimes for such evidence to be disregarded.
also, WD, shame on you. I can't believe you cited wikipedia. you should use respectable sources if you want your arguments to have a semblance of integrity.
the problem is/was some think they can add charges that don't appear on the transcript ,the charges are listed those not involved in the case here don't get to add there own version to the list.. First hand witnesses do not a guilty verdict make one can not accept that as truth the accused still gets a fair trial. I posted some links before on the problems of eyewittnesses.
The "charges" made here are NOT legal charges, just statements. They are not being added to any list for court action. If you believe the eyewitnesses referred to here are defaming someone, you would need your own evidence they were making malicious false statements.
But here where these are basically testimonials, certainly the burden of proof is on the denier. How can you say they are dishonest? They were a first hand witness and you are not.
Rascal is not a first hand witness to the cases I referred to. She is offering an opinion only, her opinion has included other charges than listed in the court filings. that would be dishonest.......
These "other charges" are just statements from other people, again not part of any legal action. Rascal can state any opinion she wants about those statements AND about the court charges. More from wikipedia, for what it is worth.
Statements made as "facts" are frequently actionable defamation. Statements of opinion or pure opinion are not actionable. In order to win damages in a libel case,
the plaintiff must first show
that the statements were "statements of fact or mixed statements of opinion and fact" and second
that these statements were false
. Conversely, a typical defense to defamation is that the statements are opinion.
I don't know what statements you are referring to by Rascal, but if you think there is libel, you would have to show Rascal stated "charges" as facts ... AND YOU have to show that they are false.
Since you were able to tell Rascal is stating her opinion "She is offering an opinion only" , how could you possible say she is claiming they are facts? In a discussion forum, opinions are the rule.
Hmm, I haven't been paying attention. Does WD demand 'proof' from those posters who post positives about VPW, also?
Like, A poster claims that VPW is the greatest apostle since the apostle Paul--does he demand to see proof in such statements?
Or does he(or she, I don't know which) only demand proof from those posters WD disagrees with? Because if he/she only demands proof of those who disagree with his opinions about VPW/TWI...
...I think most got is that you can't make statements of someone's guilt of a crime that has not had a conviction of said crime.
...it's dishonest to say someone is guilty when they have not had a conviction.
I shouldn't call you a thief if I don't have some proof that you are . GET IT I call it a burden of proof you want another word fine pick one, the point still remains you can't just go around in a public form and make accusations of crimes that have no foundation. Most reasonable people as I attempted to illustrate in a court system, in a news media system and others all agree until there is proof then the proper word for accusations is alleged.
...it looks like they have found their man, my opinion would be they have,. But until they have a conviction the proper term in reference to him is alleged. Listen to anyone and they will refer to him as such. WHY because that is the proper term until some guilt is established ( that means more than an accusation by someone)with the establisment of guilt he will no longer be alleged. until then he is . Pretty simple.
I think everybody 'gets it" as you say, not everyone agrees with you, my southern neighbor, as to the application of what you say.
Focussing on one statement of yours "it's dishonest to say someone is guilty when they have not had a conviction." - no, it may be mistaken, but it's not dishonest.
In my opinion the use of the word "alleged" in the media is often a weasel word which allows folks to say that somebody is guilty while remaining "allegedly" neutral.
Right, until objective evidence has been presented in a court of law and a conviction handed down, an individual is not legally guilty of anything. Outside of a court, we all have our own threshholds regarding what we consider convincing. One might require police reports and forensics to be convinced that an incident took place, another might only require the word of a trusted associate, another might believe every rumor that comes down the pike.
True, accusations that are not objectively verified cannot be called "proof" or "truth" in the sense that there is no longer an argument about their veracity. But we are all free to accept something as true ever without objective verification.
Most of what TWI's leaders have been accused of will never see the inside of a courtroom. Because the accustaions aren't true? Maybe, but more likely because Wierwille is dead, statues of limitations have run out, accusers lack the time or resources to go to court or have even put it behind them, deeming it not worth the effort.
Lacking legal resolution, what we are left with is our own opinion of what happened, or in some cases, our own memory of what happened.
While I think that you should be able to express your doubt about the veracity of some accusations, expecting others to conform to legal standards when expressing their opinions, or even relating what happened to them is a bit much.
I agree with you, dooj. many witnesses with similar testimonies carries weight in court. the defense would have to bring their character into question (as WD does with rascal and others) and prove they have motive for lying, or prove that the defendant was not present to commit the crimes for such evidence to be disregarded.
also, WD, shame on you. I can't believe you cited wikipedia. you should use respectable sources if you want your arguments to have a semblance of integrity.
That does not say it makes they automatically guilty. It means they have a case one that needs proving. I think that is just what I said ........
The "charges" made here are NOT legal charges, just statements. They are not being added to any list for court action. If you believe the eyewitnesses referred to here are defaming someone, you would need your own evidence they were making malicious false statements.
[/color]
These "other charges" are just statements from other people, again not part of any legal action. Rascal can state any opinion she wants about those statements AND about the court charges. More from wikipedia, for what it is worth.
Statements made as "facts" are frequently actionable defamation. Statements of opinion or pure opinion are not actionable. In order to win damages in a libel case,
the plaintiff must first show
that the statements were "statements of fact or mixed statements of opinion and fact" and second
that these statements were false
. Conversely, a typical defense to defamation is that the statements are opinion.
I don't know what statements you are referring to by Rascal, but if you think there is libel, you would have to show Rascal stated "charges" as facts ... AND YOU have to show that they are false.
Since you were able to tell Rascal is stating her opinion "She is offering an opinion only" , how could you possible say she is claiming they are facts? In a discussion forum, opinions are the rule.
Truthful opinions are the rule Rhino would you like it if I just said anything I felt about you. Doubtful........
Hmm, I haven't been paying attention. Does WD demand 'proof' from those posters who post positives about VPW, also?
Like, A poster claims that VPW is the greatest apostle since the apostle Paul--does he demand to see proof in such statements?
Or does he(or she, I don't know which) only demand proof from those posters WD disagrees with? Because if he/she only demands proof of those who disagree with his opinions about VPW/TWI...
.
Like, A poster claims that VPW is the greatest apostle since the apostle Paul--does he demand to see proof in such statements
The statement you posted is an opinion much like others that have been posted theirs ,that's what this site is for. Only when people attempt to take those opinions out of that category and somehow they magically become truth is there a problem. I would say the statement you offered is an opinion not a truth. and that's the difference I don't have a problem calling it what it is. Apparently that is not good enough for some people they must have it be truth when in fact it is only opinion.
The statement you posted is an opinion much like others that have been posted theirs ,that's what this site is for. Only when people attempt to take those opinions out of that category and somehow they magically become truth is there a problem. I would say the statement you offered is an opinion not a truth. and that's the difference I don't have a problem calling it what it is. Apparently that is not good enough for some people they must have it be truth when in fact it is only opinion.
I'm starting to understand now...
BUT - Here's my opinion on that reasoning:
If I'm relating something from my past, I am giving a first hand account. To me, it's truth. So when I tell you about the birth of my first daughter, (don't worry - I won't ;)) I'm relating first hand information - not my opinion of that event.
Now - if something had gone wrong (it didn't) I would have to say, "in my opinion the doctor screwed up." If a bunch of GSers read that account and say, "Heck Yea! he screwed up!" then that opinion gains a weight that maybe it didn't deserve. So, I shouldn't then turn around and say, "Back when my daughter was born the doctor screwed up."
BUT - I would still get to relate my first hand account that I witnessed. I just shouldn't editorialize and add some line about cussing that doctor's family line for generations to come...
It's still a very cumbersome way to run a discussion board. This isn't a forum for investigative journalists in training.
I think everybody 'gets it" as you say, not everyone agrees with you, my southern neighbor, as to the application of what you say.
Focussing on one statement of yours "it's dishonest to say someone is guilty when they have not had a conviction." - no, it may be mistaken, but it's not dishonest.
In my opinion the use of the word "alleged" in the media is often a weasel word which allows folks to say that somebody is guilty while remaining "allegedly" neutral.
Right, until objective evidence has been presented in a court of law and a conviction handed down, an individual is not legally guilty of anything. Outside of a court, we all have our own threshholds regarding what we consider convincing. One might require police reports and forensics to be convinced that an incident took place, another might only require the word of a trusted associate, another might believe every rumor that comes down the pike.
True, accusations that are not objectively verified cannot be called "proof" or "truth" in the sense that there is no longer an argument about their veracity. But we are all free to accept something as true ever without objective verification.
Could not agree more and that then becomes What? -an opinion so what's wrong with qualifying it as such rather than passing it off as the truth which as you indicated it was not. Why is that not good enough I think you know the answer your pretty wise northern neighbor. Why must it be referred to as confirmed fact when it is not? Why when someone points it out must we be attacked? It has agenda written all over it . Would it not be correct speaking to say in my opinion so and so was a _________ I've contrary to popular belief not questioned anyone's right to an opinion only passing one off as fact.
Most of what TWI's leaders have been accused of will never see the inside of a courtroom. Because the accustaions aren't true? Maybe, but more likely because Wierwille is dead, statues of limitations have run out, accusers lack the time or resources to go to court or have even put it behind them, deeming it not worth the effort.
Lacking legal resolution, what we are left with is our own opinion of what happened, or in some cases, our own memory of what happened.
While I think that you should be able to express your doubt about the veracity of some accusations, expecting others to conform to legal standards when expressing their opinions, or even relating what happened to them is a bit much.
...allegedly
It is unfortunate that is the case and I have said as much. It has nothing to do with my doubt or belief ,it's speaking correctly which makes for credibility. Regardless that does not give people the right to misrepresent things as verified truth when they are not. As I have pointed out whether in legal court, on TV on Radio in the newsprint and a variety of other places it seems that most people get that it is proper to refer to such opinions as alleged. Only here and by some very smart people I might add is it just ok to throw those same standards out the window and just say anything they think as truth. Sorry just because it is about the way does give one the right to change opinion to fact in an open forum.
If I'm relating something from my past, I am giving a first hand account. To me, it's truth. So when I tell you about the birth of my first daughter, (don't worry - I won't ;)) I'm relating first hand information - not my opinion of that event.
It may well be truth to you, it may be true period, I have no way to say either way, but what I can say is that it is not verifiable and as such can not be referred to as truth. While it may be truth to you for me it is unconformable. People say all kinds of things for various reasons which we have discussed at length before. Why is it that all other media seem to understand that it is wrong to refer to such things as fact?
: Now add to the mix another poster not involved with your daughters birth but simply likes your story and then declares it to be fact. They are not posting first hand accounts, they were not there. In fact though they may believe your story as the truth, it may or may not be true ,don't forget this is the anonymous internet. To repeat that story as a fact is now opinion.
With the lawsuits filed The Allen's and January's there were limited people that can claim first hand accounts as you say. that would be two people . So for someone here to say that those stories are in fact true is an opinion they don't have first hand information they read it on the internet or may have heard about it. They really can't confirm it they can choose to accept it or not, based on a guess. Do they think its credible or not ,opinions on that may vary. Until such time as there was a guilty charge which there was not , although I may personally believe and agree that they were, it still is my opinion ,not fact. I would refer to it as such. Again I ask why can't we refer to things that we don't know of as fact as such? Why such resistance ? Why the need to have everything be negative when it has not been established? Why can't it be as Oakspear said neutral? He thinks it is mistaken I think it is dishonest speaking but that is my opinion not a fact
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
110
143
84
69
Popular Days
Dec 14
74
Jan 4
67
Jan 12
62
Jan 3
58
Top Posters In This Topic
rascal 110 posts
WhiteDove 143 posts
Ham 84 posts
JeffSjo 69 posts
Popular Days
Dec 14 2007
74 posts
Jan 4 2008
67 posts
Jan 12 2008
62 posts
Jan 3 2008
58 posts
WhiteDove
Burden of proof
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Burden of proof (Latin, onus probandi) is the obligation to prove allegations which are presented in a legal action. The Latin maxim necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit explains the rule that "the necessity of proof lies with he who complains." For example, a person has to prove that someone is guilty or not guilty (in a criminal case) or liable or not liable (in a civil case) depending on the allegations. More colloquially, burden of proof refers to an obligation in a particular context to defend a position against a prima facie other position.
Civil law
In civil law cases, the "burden of proof" requires the plaintiff to convince the trier of fact (whether judge or jury) of the plaintiff's entitlement to the relief sought. This means that the plaintiff must prove each element of the claim, or cause of action, in order to recover.
The burden of proof must be distinguished from the "burden of going forward," which simply refers to the sequence of proof, as between the plaintiff and defendant. The two concepts are often confused.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
no... you're not... what you're doing has nothing to do with fairness IMO.
WD, this is not "a legal action"...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Only in YOUR opinion Dove....
That is a lie Dove, I have invented nothing.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Was just clearing up the definition since someone mentioned it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Apperantly not, it seems others in the know seem to agree.............
An alleged burglar is someone who has been accused of being a burglar but whose innocence or guilt has yet to be established. An alleged incident is an event that is said to have taken place but has not yet been verified.
click
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Definitions of Legal Claims
I think you're still being too stringent. This is not a court of law. There are no trials occurring here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Ok then pick another word for you can't just make up claims without having some sort of proof................
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rascal
Who is making stuff up??? You need to cough up some proof yourself buddy, or start retracting your own allegations :(
Edited by rascalLink to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
I'm sorry WD - I just don't see the point of holding a discussion to the standard of a court of law.
I'm trying to understand your logic...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
.
Apparently they also think that the word is alleged until proven
An alleged burglar is someone who has been accused of being a burglar but whose innocence or guilt has yet to be established. An alleged incident is an event that is said to have taken place but has not yet been verified.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
We can pick at words all night long the point as I think most got is that you can't make statements of someone's guilt of a crime that has not had a conviction of said crime it's dishonest to say someone is guilty when they have not had a conviction. I shouldn't call you a thief if I don't have some proof that you are . GET IT I call it a burden of proof you want another word fine pick one, the point still remains you can't just go around in a public form and make accusations of crimes that have no foundation. Most reasonable people as I attempted to illustrate in a court system, in a news media system and others all agree until there is proof then the proper word for accusations is alleged.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
This isn't that difficult Case in point tonight they are digging up the backyard in NC and gathering evidence of the missing marine girl. From the preliminary evidence it looks like they have found their man, my opinion would be they have,. But until they have a conviction the proper term in reference to him is alleged. Listen to anyone and they will refer to him as such. WHY because that is the proper term until some guilt is established ( that means more than an accusation by someone)with the establisment of guilt he will no longer be alleged. until then he is . Pretty simple.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
potato
I agree with you, dooj. many witnesses with similar testimonies carries weight in court. the defense would have to bring their character into question (as WD does with rascal and others) and prove they have motive for lying, or prove that the defendant was not present to commit the crimes for such evidence to be disregarded.
also, WD, shame on you. I can't believe you cited wikipedia. you should use respectable sources if you want your arguments to have a semblance of integrity.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
The "charges" made here are NOT legal charges, just statements. They are not being added to any list for court action. If you believe the eyewitnesses referred to here are defaming someone, you would need your own evidence they were making malicious false statements.
These "other charges" are just statements from other people, again not part of any legal action. Rascal can state any opinion she wants about those statements AND about the court charges. More from wikipedia, for what it is worth.
I don't know what statements you are referring to by Rascal, but if you think there is libel, you would have to show Rascal stated "charges" as facts ... AND YOU have to show that they are false.
Since you were able to tell Rascal is stating her opinion "She is offering an opinion only" , how could you possible say she is claiming they are facts? In a discussion forum, opinions are the rule.
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bramble
Hmm, I haven't been paying attention. Does WD demand 'proof' from those posters who post positives about VPW, also?
Like, A poster claims that VPW is the greatest apostle since the apostle Paul--does he demand to see proof in such statements?
Or does he(or she, I don't know which) only demand proof from those posters WD disagrees with? Because if he/she only demands proof of those who disagree with his opinions about VPW/TWI...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
excathedra
i think his point from too many paragraphs i can't read, is that it's not a crime to be nice so we need no proof
what wierwille did was a crime so we need proof
--
ps. veepee broke my lawnmower. i was thinking about him and i kicked it so it's his fault.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I think everybody 'gets it" as you say, not everyone agrees with you, my southern neighbor, as to the application of what you say.
Focussing on one statement of yours "it's dishonest to say someone is guilty when they have not had a conviction." - no, it may be mistaken, but it's not dishonest.
In my opinion the use of the word "alleged" in the media is often a weasel word which allows folks to say that somebody is guilty while remaining "allegedly" neutral.
Right, until objective evidence has been presented in a court of law and a conviction handed down, an individual is not legally guilty of anything. Outside of a court, we all have our own threshholds regarding what we consider convincing. One might require police reports and forensics to be convinced that an incident took place, another might only require the word of a trusted associate, another might believe every rumor that comes down the pike.
True, accusations that are not objectively verified cannot be called "proof" or "truth" in the sense that there is no longer an argument about their veracity. But we are all free to accept something as true ever without objective verification.
Most of what TWI's leaders have been accused of will never see the inside of a courtroom. Because the accustaions aren't true? Maybe, but more likely because Wierwille is dead, statues of limitations have run out, accusers lack the time or resources to go to court or have even put it behind them, deeming it not worth the effort.
Lacking legal resolution, what we are left with is our own opinion of what happened, or in some cases, our own memory of what happened.
While I think that you should be able to express your doubt about the veracity of some accusations, expecting others to conform to legal standards when expressing their opinions, or even relating what happened to them is a bit much.
...allegedly
Edited by OakspearLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
That does not say it makes they automatically guilty. It means they have a case one that needs proving. I think that is just what I said ........
Truthful opinions are the rule Rhino would you like it if I just said anything I felt about you. Doubtful........
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
These ARE honest opinions WD ... you have given NO evidence to the contrary.
Are you WD, stating it is a fact that Rascal is not giving an honest opinion?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
.
The statement you posted is an opinion much like others that have been posted theirs ,that's what this site is for. Only when people attempt to take those opinions out of that category and somehow they magically become truth is there a problem. I would say the statement you offered is an opinion not a truth. and that's the difference I don't have a problem calling it what it is. Apparently that is not good enough for some people they must have it be truth when in fact it is only opinion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
I'm starting to understand now...
BUT - Here's my opinion
on that reasoning:
If I'm relating something from my past, I am giving a first hand account. To me, it's truth. So when I tell you about the birth of my first daughter, (don't worry - I won't ;)) I'm relating first hand information - not my opinion of that event.
Now - if something had gone wrong (it didn't) I would have to say, "in my opinion the doctor screwed up." If a bunch of GSers read that account and say, "Heck Yea! he screwed up!" then that opinion gains a weight that maybe it didn't deserve. So, I shouldn't then turn around and say, "Back when my daughter was born the doctor screwed up."
BUT - I would still get to relate my first hand account that I witnessed. I just shouldn't editorialize and add some line about cussing that doctor's family line for generations to come...
It's still a very cumbersome way to run a discussion board. This isn't a forum for investigative journalists in training.
But that's just my opinion...
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
It is unfortunate that is the case and I have said as much. It has nothing to do with my doubt or belief ,it's speaking correctly which makes for credibility. Regardless that does not give people the right to misrepresent things as verified truth when they are not. As I have pointed out whether in legal court, on TV on Radio in the newsprint and a variety of other places it seems that most people get that it is proper to refer to such opinions as alleged. Only here and by some very smart people I might add is it just ok to throw those same standards out the window and just say anything they think as truth. Sorry just because it is about the way does give one the right to change opinion to fact in an open forum.
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
It may well be truth to you, it may be true period, I have no way to say either way, but what I can say is that it is not verifiable and as such can not be referred to as truth. While it may be truth to you for me it is unconformable. People say all kinds of things for various reasons which we have discussed at length before. Why is it that all other media seem to understand that it is wrong to refer to such things as fact?
Edited by WhiteDoveLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
: Now add to the mix another poster not involved with your daughters birth but simply likes your story and then declares it to be fact. They are not posting first hand accounts, they were not there. In fact though they may believe your story as the truth, it may or may not be true ,don't forget this is the anonymous internet. To repeat that story as a fact is now opinion.
With the lawsuits filed The Allen's and January's there were limited people that can claim first hand accounts as you say. that would be two people . So for someone here to say that those stories are in fact true is an opinion they don't have first hand information they read it on the internet or may have heard about it. They really can't confirm it they can choose to accept it or not, based on a guess. Do they think its credible or not ,opinions on that may vary. Until such time as there was a guilty charge which there was not , although I may personally believe and agree that they were, it still is my opinion ,not fact. I would refer to it as such. Again I ask why can't we refer to things that we don't know of as fact as such? Why such resistance ? Why the need to have everything be negative when it has not been established? Why can't it be as Oakspear said neutral? He thinks it is mistaken I think it is dishonest speaking but that is my opinion not a fact
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.