Actually the second ad is pretty standard stuff, except for the child predator bit. I got plenty of "Whether you vote is public record, so all of your friends and neighbors will know you gave your vote up for Trump if you don't vote in November." Because all my friends and neighbors have nothing better to do than check whether I voted (I did, but still)
Thanks for the clarification. I WOULD have called him a tortfeasor, had I honestly known that word before. And I guess we all have gaps in our knowledge, although in my case I admit that it's usually less a gap and more like your common chasm.
He's basically saying, I dare you to prove that I was a banned mall pervert, which has already been proven. Like all criminals aren't really smart by definition, this guy is going for his own jugular. Bet he sues himself next for flagrant missteps and excessive behavior caused by the detriment of being himself in the public square.
I'm thinking that he has the same burden of proof to show that he isn't a kiddie diddler as those diddled do of stating that he is, at best.
Yes, but if that's true and they have a good boring evangelical sex life (or lack thereof), then presumably they have minimal damages on the consortium claim.
Don’t reserve bunk time yet. She is likely to testify that they used to have missionary position sex once or twice a week and now don’t. His testimony will be consistent. Unless they belonged to a swinger’s club, it will be hard to disprove that.
Actually the second ad is pretty standard stuff, except for the child predator bit. I got plenty of "Whether you vote is public record, so all of your friends and neighbors will know you gave your vote up for Trump if you don't vote in November." Because all my friends and neighbors have nothing better to do than check whether I voted (I did, but still)
https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
"Tortfeasor" is a very fun word, but there's not really any reason to know it unless you're a tort lawyer. :)
Thanks for the clarification. I WOULD have called him a tortfeasor, had I honestly known that word before. And I guess we all have gaps in our knowledge, although in my case I admit that it's usually less a gap and more like your common chasm.
The dude's just asking for it innit he?
He's basically saying, I dare you to prove that I was a banned mall pervert, which has already been proven. Like all criminals aren't really smart by definition, this guy is going for his own jugular. Bet he sues himself next for flagrant missteps and excessive behavior caused by the detriment of being himself in the public square.
I'm thinking that he has the same burden of proof to show that he isn't a kiddie diddler as those diddled do of stating that he is, at best.
So ... the defamatory part isn't that he preyed on underage women ... it's that he was banned from the mall?
I didn't really know the parents; they were neighbors of a friend in Ft. Myers FL..
Yes, it is so on the money though.
I don't like this'there's never been any information proving that the story was "fictitious."'
As far as I'm concerned the burden of proof lies with the accuser. In Moore's case I don't think it will be hard to provide.
I can stand to be disturbed, if only out of idle curiosity.
Ew. Props to Tom Toles - but ew.
With some fava beans and a nice chianti.
You would think they would wear their summer uniforms.
Yes, but if that's true and they have a good boring evangelical sex life (or lack thereof), then presumably they have minimal damages on the consortium claim.
Don’t reserve bunk time yet. She is likely to testify that they used to have missionary position sex once or twice a week and now don’t. His testimony will be consistent. Unless they belonged to a swinger’s club, it will be hard to disprove that.
Admit it. You people ate Lori, didn't you?