Tom, Tom, Tom... you've lost it.
I asked for a reply showing me what I had posted that was a 'lie' - and you replied with at least *some* links... which is a better effort than many here on this thread would make, but I fail to see what your complaint is.
Isn't 'lying under oath' considered perjury anymore?
Or, by your definition, must one be convicted of such before you admit the possibility that perjury has occurred?
Isn't it within the realm of possibility to believe that a perjurer might settle a case (and seal the records to avoid public discomfort) exactly to *AVOID* a likely perjury charge... and perhaps conviction?
And, what exactly is this comment of yours about: "If Buddy McKee choose to declare others have lied and it's all fabrication then Buddy McKee is the liar"?
>>> It doesn't even make any sense, for Christ's sake!
>>> And, as a followup to that thought, I'm not even sure that I've said anyone was a liar... as a rule of thumb, I almost never use that phrase (it being so difficult to determine the amount of lies necessary to make someone a liar), although undoubtedly I've said that various statements were false, or unproven. In every case where I've done so, I've supplied evidence so that thoughtful people may make their own judgements.
>>> Can you do no less? |
