Not really SSS:
Looking back at the initial statements of this thread, it can be seen that the author is making 'allegations' by 'alleging' something to be true, that may or may not be true.
Without the author providing supporting documentation or other evidence to substantiate his/her claims/charges/allegations, then those allegations are nothing more to the observer than a speculation. Also, because the author did not bring forth any evidence to substantiate the claims/charges/allegations, then the author may (possibly) have created a tort wherein the people the author speaks of could be damaged if the author had made mention of the specific names, dates, places, events, etc., thereby opening the door for counterclaim of -possibly- slander, defamation of character, libel... etc.
To say something is a 'possibility' is un-deniable. Anything is possible. On the other hand, to make an 'allegation' is to make a charge/claim relative to a supposed fact. It is a 'presumption', and presumptions are what the courts use to entrap all of us. We are 'presumed' to know the law. Why? Because the 'presumption' is based on yet another 'presumption' that we are the 'sovereign'; as the sovereign, we are also the 'law-maker' and as such, we have no excuse to NOT know the law.
In the instant case; there has been created a 'presumption' that 'no one will question what I say', therefore, I am not obligated to substantiate what I say.' But even the best laid plans are subject to failure.
Jerry
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by ss_stealth
Alright, you lost me Jerry. Guess I'm extra slow today.
Are you telling me it's better to say something is a "possibility" than is to claim it to be "alleged"?
|