RavenSky
The Doctor's Wife
TFT has a rule:
Now I am not suggesting that HRC is covered under TFT TOU - far from it. You are free to call her a liar all you want. But the problem with calling someone a liar is that you need to show evidence of "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth". You haven't, and I doubt you can.
That doesn't make me a "partisan hack" - quite the opposite. In the absence of evidence of "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth", I will maintain that - with only 3 emails out of almost 4,000 over 4 years, and those three containing only the little (c) notations (portion markings) somewhere in their body and no emails containing any type of classified notation in the header - it is more reasonable to believe that she is simply mistaken. Either she never realized until now that any of the nearly 4,000 emails had classified markings, or forgot about these three with "portion markings" somewhere in their body.
But please, feel free to continue to name call HRC. There is no rule against it. (There is, however, a TOU rule against calling me names such as "partisan hack")
Calling a fellow poster a liar, deceitful, or making a similar accusation, is not acceptable even if you believe that your fellow poster really is a liar or deceitful. This kind of accusation never furthers the debate. Some people sincerely believe the strangest, most illogical things, and they aren't 'lying' when they express those irrational beliefs. They really believe them to be true, even when they obviously contradict other things they have said. The only acceptable response to what appears to be a lie from a fellow poster is to present evidence or argument to contradict what your fellow poster has said.
Now I am not suggesting that HRC is covered under TFT TOU - far from it. You are free to call her a liar all you want. But the problem with calling someone a liar is that you need to show evidence of "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth". You haven't, and I doubt you can.
That doesn't make me a "partisan hack" - quite the opposite. In the absence of evidence of "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth", I will maintain that - with only 3 emails out of almost 4,000 over 4 years, and those three containing only the little (c) notations (portion markings) somewhere in their body and no emails containing any type of classified notation in the header - it is more reasonable to believe that she is simply mistaken. Either she never realized until now that any of the nearly 4,000 emails had classified markings, or forgot about these three with "portion markings" somewhere in their body.
But please, feel free to continue to name call HRC. There is no rule against it. (There is, however, a TOU rule against calling me names such as "partisan hack")