So far, so good: people shouldn't feel that they have the right to indulge in invention or outright lying (you listening, Spidey?) in order to support an investment (in this case, I gather, DCTC). Research should be accurate, and negative statements should always be qualified unless absolutely provable.
And what is your opinion, Janice, of indulging in "invention or outright lying" to do the opposite?
Isn't that equally wrong?
You said: Negative statements should always be qualified unless absolutely provable.
Whoa. So you actually think it's ok to post any ole negative thing if it's "qualified" but not necessarily proven? You can't be serious. Wait, I guess you ARE serious, as you're prone to do that frequently.
On the other hand, I wouldn't like to see the threat of libel suits used to stifle legitimate debate, or to intimidate posters who raise uncomfortable questions.
You said: posters who raise uncomfortable questions
Meaning yourself. Sounds like you're worried...?
But no, raising questions - no matter how "uncomfortable" - should NOT be stifled.
Innuendo, however, is another & different matter entirely. Wouldn't you agree? |
