Discussion:
Emmanuel Macron, in complicity with the Government of Canada, conspired to kill (execute) children.
(too old to reply)
Steve Brown
2022-10-27 04:16:30 UTC
Permalink
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.

Thanks for the likes on Blogger.

The "likes" are on this blog:

https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
Jeffrey Rubard
2022-10-31 22:06:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Jeffrey Rubard
2022-10-31 23:24:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
Jeffrey Rubard
2022-11-02 22:36:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
Jeffrey Rubard
2022-11-04 22:02:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
Steve Brown
2022-12-19 16:06:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
Jeffrey Rubard
2022-12-19 23:00:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Jeffrey Rubard
2023-01-05 16:58:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Jeffrey Rubard
2023-01-06 01:10:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
Jeffrey Rubard
2023-01-06 16:59:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
Jeffrey Rubard
2023-02-11 22:19:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
Jeffrey Rubard
2023-02-15 23:08:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
Jeffrey Rubard
2023-02-25 16:59:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
Jeffrey Rubard
2023-03-04 21:47:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
Jeffrey Rubard
2023-03-05 23:34:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
"What's the diff?"
A misplaced focus of interest.
Jeffrey Rubard
2023-03-09 22:38:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
"What's the diff?"
A misplaced focus of interest.
"What if I felt like talking shit to both of them?"
Well, it's more like you're talking shit *about* both of them.
Jeffrey Rubard
2023-04-02 21:45:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
"What's the diff?"
A misplaced focus of interest.
"What if I felt like talking shit to both of them?"
Well, it's more like you're talking shit *about* both of them.
Furthermore, the charges leveled are at such a level of severity that...
"You say stuff like that sometimes."
Yeah, I do say stuff like that sometimes.
Jeffrey Rubard
2023-04-02 22:04:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
"What's the diff?"
A misplaced focus of interest.
"What if I felt like talking shit to both of them?"
Well, it's more like you're talking shit *about* both of them.
Furthermore, the charges leveled are at such a level of severity that...
"You say stuff like that sometimes."
Yeah, I do say stuff like that sometimes.
"What would be just fair, then?"
Emmanuel Macron is... *not Zen*? I don't know.
Jeffrey Rubard
2023-04-07 20:11:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
"What's the diff?"
A misplaced focus of interest.
"What if I felt like talking shit to both of them?"
Well, it's more like you're talking shit *about* both of them.
Furthermore, the charges leveled are at such a level of severity that...
"You say stuff like that sometimes."
Yeah, I do say stuff like that sometimes.
"What would be just fair, then?"
Emmanuel Macron is... *not Zen*? I don't know.
But these are 'very grave' words to say about a public figure, even in jest.
Jeffrey Rubard
2023-04-07 20:12:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
"What's the diff?"
A misplaced focus of interest.
"What if I felt like talking shit to both of them?"
Well, it's more like you're talking shit *about* both of them.
Furthermore, the charges leveled are at such a level of severity that...
"You say stuff like that sometimes."
Yeah, I do say stuff like that sometimes.
"What would be just fair, then?"
Emmanuel Macron is... *not Zen*? I don't know.
But these are 'very grave' words to say about a public figure, even in jest.
"Couldn't there even be something real like that, though? But not Macron and Canada, obviously."
"Beto O'Rourke" paying for and masterminding the Uvalde school massacre?
That would be a "skosh" more plausible as an idea, I guess.
Jeffrey Rubard
2023-04-25 22:33:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
"What's the diff?"
A misplaced focus of interest.
"What if I felt like talking shit to both of them?"
Well, it's more like you're talking shit *about* both of them.
Furthermore, the charges leveled are at such a level of severity that...
"You say stuff like that sometimes."
Yeah, I do say stuff like that sometimes.
"What would be just fair, then?"
Emmanuel Macron is... *not Zen*? I don't know.
But these are 'very grave' words to say about a public figure, even in jest.
"Couldn't there even be something real like that, though? But not Macron and Canada, obviously."
"Beto O'Rourke" paying for and masterminding the Uvalde school massacre?
That would be a "skosh" more plausible as an idea, I guess.
Which statement is more potentially "defamatory", the one about Macron or the one about O'Rourke? One wonders.
"The statement about Macron is an elliptic political metaphor."
Yeah, but maybe Beto *really did that*.
Jeffrey Rubard
2023-04-27 15:28:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
"What's the diff?"
A misplaced focus of interest.
"What if I felt like talking shit to both of them?"
Well, it's more like you're talking shit *about* both of them.
Furthermore, the charges leveled are at such a level of severity that...
"You say stuff like that sometimes."
Yeah, I do say stuff like that sometimes.
"What would be just fair, then?"
Emmanuel Macron is... *not Zen*? I don't know.
But these are 'very grave' words to say about a public figure, even in jest.
"Couldn't there even be something real like that, though? But not Macron and Canada, obviously."
"Beto O'Rourke" paying for and masterminding the Uvalde school massacre?
That would be a "skosh" more plausible as an idea, I guess.
Which statement is more potentially "defamatory", the one about Macron or the one about O'Rourke? One wonders.
"The statement about Macron is an elliptic political metaphor."
Yeah, but maybe Beto *really did that*.
"What's the difference?"
Do you think *Macron* did the Uvalde attack, etc?
Jeffrey Rubard
2023-04-28 15:35:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
"What's the diff?"
A misplaced focus of interest.
"What if I felt like talking shit to both of them?"
Well, it's more like you're talking shit *about* both of them.
Furthermore, the charges leveled are at such a level of severity that...
"You say stuff like that sometimes."
Yeah, I do say stuff like that sometimes.
"What would be just fair, then?"
Emmanuel Macron is... *not Zen*? I don't know.
But these are 'very grave' words to say about a public figure, even in jest.
"Couldn't there even be something real like that, though? But not Macron and Canada, obviously."
"Beto O'Rourke" paying for and masterminding the Uvalde school massacre?
That would be a "skosh" more plausible as an idea, I guess.
Which statement is more potentially "defamatory", the one about Macron or the one about O'Rourke? One wonders.
"The statement about Macron is an elliptic political metaphor."
Yeah, but maybe Beto *really did that*.
"What's the difference?"
Do you think *Macron* did the Uvalde attack, etc?
"It's a metaphor for abortion."
Oh, goody. Did you notice, then, that...
Jeffrey Rubard
2023-04-29 15:29:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
"What's the diff?"
A misplaced focus of interest.
"What if I felt like talking shit to both of them?"
Well, it's more like you're talking shit *about* both of them.
Furthermore, the charges leveled are at such a level of severity that...
"You say stuff like that sometimes."
Yeah, I do say stuff like that sometimes.
"What would be just fair, then?"
Emmanuel Macron is... *not Zen*? I don't know.
But these are 'very grave' words to say about a public figure, even in jest.
"Couldn't there even be something real like that, though? But not Macron and Canada, obviously."
"Beto O'Rourke" paying for and masterminding the Uvalde school massacre?
That would be a "skosh" more plausible as an idea, I guess.
Which statement is more potentially "defamatory", the one about Macron or the one about O'Rourke? One wonders.
"The statement about Macron is an elliptic political metaphor."
Yeah, but maybe Beto *really did that*.
"What's the difference?"
Do you think *Macron* did the Uvalde attack, etc?
"It's a metaphor for abortion."
Oh, goody. Did you notice, then, that...
Most Americans strongly support abortion rights?
"It's debatable."
In a sophistical, misleading spirit.
Jeffrey Rubard
2023-04-29 21:03:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
"What's the diff?"
A misplaced focus of interest.
"What if I felt like talking shit to both of them?"
Well, it's more like you're talking shit *about* both of them.
Furthermore, the charges leveled are at such a level of severity that...
"You say stuff like that sometimes."
Yeah, I do say stuff like that sometimes.
"What would be just fair, then?"
Emmanuel Macron is... *not Zen*? I don't know.
But these are 'very grave' words to say about a public figure, even in jest.
"Couldn't there even be something real like that, though? But not Macron and Canada, obviously."
"Beto O'Rourke" paying for and masterminding the Uvalde school massacre?
That would be a "skosh" more plausible as an idea, I guess.
Which statement is more potentially "defamatory", the one about Macron or the one about O'Rourke? One wonders.
"The statement about Macron is an elliptic political metaphor."
Yeah, but maybe Beto *really did that*.
"What's the difference?"
Do you think *Macron* did the Uvalde attack, etc?
"It's a metaphor for abortion."
Oh, goody. Did you notice, then, that...
Most Americans strongly support abortion rights?
"It's debatable."
In a sophistical, misleading spirit.
They really do support abortion. It's why you see ham-handed "on the one hand..." talk even at this level of the debate.
Jeffrey Rubard
2023-05-16 15:32:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
"What's the diff?"
A misplaced focus of interest.
"What if I felt like talking shit to both of them?"
Well, it's more like you're talking shit *about* both of them.
Furthermore, the charges leveled are at such a level of severity that...
"You say stuff like that sometimes."
Yeah, I do say stuff like that sometimes.
"What would be just fair, then?"
Emmanuel Macron is... *not Zen*? I don't know.
But these are 'very grave' words to say about a public figure, even in jest.
"Couldn't there even be something real like that, though? But not Macron and Canada, obviously."
"Beto O'Rourke" paying for and masterminding the Uvalde school massacre?
That would be a "skosh" more plausible as an idea, I guess.
Which statement is more potentially "defamatory", the one about Macron or the one about O'Rourke? One wonders.
"The statement about Macron is an elliptic political metaphor."
Yeah, but maybe Beto *really did that*.
"What's the difference?"
Do you think *Macron* did the Uvalde attack, etc?
"It's a metaphor for abortion."
Oh, goody. Did you notice, then, that...
Most Americans strongly support abortion rights?
"It's debatable."
In a sophistical, misleading spirit.
They really do support abortion. It's why you see ham-handed "on the one hand..." talk even at this level of the debate.
Also: Really don't say stuff like that about foreign leaders like Macron. It's, like, not mature to do so.
Jeffrey Rubard
2023-05-18 22:34:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
"What's the diff?"
A misplaced focus of interest.
"What if I felt like talking shit to both of them?"
Well, it's more like you're talking shit *about* both of them.
Furthermore, the charges leveled are at such a level of severity that...
"You say stuff like that sometimes."
Yeah, I do say stuff like that sometimes.
"What would be just fair, then?"
Emmanuel Macron is... *not Zen*? I don't know.
But these are 'very grave' words to say about a public figure, even in jest.
"Couldn't there even be something real like that, though? But not Macron and Canada, obviously."
"Beto O'Rourke" paying for and masterminding the Uvalde school massacre?
That would be a "skosh" more plausible as an idea, I guess.
Which statement is more potentially "defamatory", the one about Macron or the one about O'Rourke? One wonders.
"The statement about Macron is an elliptic political metaphor."
Yeah, but maybe Beto *really did that*.
"What's the difference?"
Do you think *Macron* did the Uvalde attack, etc?
"It's a metaphor for abortion."
Oh, goody. Did you notice, then, that...
Most Americans strongly support abortion rights?
"It's debatable."
In a sophistical, misleading spirit.
They really do support abortion. It's why you see ham-handed "on the one hand..." talk even at this level of the debate.
Also: Really don't say stuff like that about foreign leaders like Macron. It's, like, not mature to do so.
"Puts America in a bad light." No, really.
Jeffrey Rubard
2023-07-09 22:48:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
"What's the diff?"
A misplaced focus of interest.
"What if I felt like talking shit to both of them?"
Well, it's more like you're talking shit *about* both of them.
Furthermore, the charges leveled are at such a level of severity that...
"You say stuff like that sometimes."
Yeah, I do say stuff like that sometimes.
"What would be just fair, then?"
Emmanuel Macron is... *not Zen*? I don't know.
But these are 'very grave' words to say about a public figure, even in jest.
"Couldn't there even be something real like that, though? But not Macron and Canada, obviously."
"Beto O'Rourke" paying for and masterminding the Uvalde school massacre?
That would be a "skosh" more plausible as an idea, I guess.
Which statement is more potentially "defamatory", the one about Macron or the one about O'Rourke? One wonders.
"The statement about Macron is an elliptic political metaphor."
Yeah, but maybe Beto *really did that*.
"What's the difference?"
Do you think *Macron* did the Uvalde attack, etc?
"It's a metaphor for abortion."
Oh, goody. Did you notice, then, that...
Most Americans strongly support abortion rights?
"It's debatable."
In a sophistical, misleading spirit.
They really do support abortion. It's why you see ham-handed "on the one hand..." talk even at this level of the debate.
Also: Really don't say stuff like that about foreign leaders like Macron. It's, like, not mature to do so.
"Puts America in a bad light." No, really.
"Even though it's laughable?"
The word "laughable" is obviously ambiguous, here.
Jeffrey Rubard
2023-07-10 15:28:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
"What's the diff?"
A misplaced focus of interest.
"What if I felt like talking shit to both of them?"
Well, it's more like you're talking shit *about* both of them.
Furthermore, the charges leveled are at such a level of severity that...
"You say stuff like that sometimes."
Yeah, I do say stuff like that sometimes.
"What would be just fair, then?"
Emmanuel Macron is... *not Zen*? I don't know.
But these are 'very grave' words to say about a public figure, even in jest.
"Couldn't there even be something real like that, though? But not Macron and Canada, obviously."
"Beto O'Rourke" paying for and masterminding the Uvalde school massacre?
That would be a "skosh" more plausible as an idea, I guess.
Which statement is more potentially "defamatory", the one about Macron or the one about O'Rourke? One wonders.
"The statement about Macron is an elliptic political metaphor."
Yeah, but maybe Beto *really did that*.
"What's the difference?"
Do you think *Macron* did the Uvalde attack, etc?
"It's a metaphor for abortion."
Oh, goody. Did you notice, then, that...
Most Americans strongly support abortion rights?
"It's debatable."
In a sophistical, misleading spirit.
They really do support abortion. It's why you see ham-handed "on the one hand..." talk even at this level of the debate.
Also: Really don't say stuff like that about foreign leaders like Macron. It's, like, not mature to do so.
"Puts America in a bad light." No, really.
"Even though it's laughable?"
The word "laughable" is obviously ambiguous, here.
Like Ralph said on the Simpsons, "It's funny, but not ha-ha funny."
Jeffrey Rubard
2023-07-17 21:31:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
"What's the diff?"
A misplaced focus of interest.
"What if I felt like talking shit to both of them?"
Well, it's more like you're talking shit *about* both of them.
Furthermore, the charges leveled are at such a level of severity that...
"You say stuff like that sometimes."
Yeah, I do say stuff like that sometimes.
"What would be just fair, then?"
Emmanuel Macron is... *not Zen*? I don't know.
But these are 'very grave' words to say about a public figure, even in jest.
"Couldn't there even be something real like that, though? But not Macron and Canada, obviously."
"Beto O'Rourke" paying for and masterminding the Uvalde school massacre?
That would be a "skosh" more plausible as an idea, I guess.
Which statement is more potentially "defamatory", the one about Macron or the one about O'Rourke? One wonders.
"The statement about Macron is an elliptic political metaphor."
Yeah, but maybe Beto *really did that*.
"What's the difference?"
Do you think *Macron* did the Uvalde attack, etc?
"It's a metaphor for abortion."
Oh, goody. Did you notice, then, that...
Most Americans strongly support abortion rights?
"It's debatable."
In a sophistical, misleading spirit.
They really do support abortion. It's why you see ham-handed "on the one hand..." talk even at this level of the debate.
Also: Really don't say stuff like that about foreign leaders like Macron. It's, like, not mature to do so.
"Puts America in a bad light." No, really.
"Even though it's laughable?"
The word "laughable" is obviously ambiguous, here.
Like Ralph said on the Simpsons, "It's funny, but not ha-ha funny."
Like these intemperate charges have unreasonable 'costs and effects' at home and abroad, that's how.
Jeffrey Rubard
2023-07-18 15:42:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
"What's the diff?"
A misplaced focus of interest.
"What if I felt like talking shit to both of them?"
Well, it's more like you're talking shit *about* both of them.
Furthermore, the charges leveled are at such a level of severity that...
"You say stuff like that sometimes."
Yeah, I do say stuff like that sometimes.
"What would be just fair, then?"
Emmanuel Macron is... *not Zen*? I don't know.
But these are 'very grave' words to say about a public figure, even in jest.
"Couldn't there even be something real like that, though? But not Macron and Canada, obviously."
"Beto O'Rourke" paying for and masterminding the Uvalde school massacre?
That would be a "skosh" more plausible as an idea, I guess.
Which statement is more potentially "defamatory", the one about Macron or the one about O'Rourke? One wonders.
"The statement about Macron is an elliptic political metaphor."
Yeah, but maybe Beto *really did that*.
"What's the difference?"
Do you think *Macron* did the Uvalde attack, etc?
"It's a metaphor for abortion."
Oh, goody. Did you notice, then, that...
Most Americans strongly support abortion rights?
"It's debatable."
In a sophistical, misleading spirit.
They really do support abortion. It's why you see ham-handed "on the one hand..." talk even at this level of the debate.
Also: Really don't say stuff like that about foreign leaders like Macron. It's, like, not mature to do so.
"Puts America in a bad light." No, really.
"Even though it's laughable?"
The word "laughable" is obviously ambiguous, here.
Like Ralph said on the Simpsons, "It's funny, but not ha-ha funny."
Like these intemperate charges have unreasonable 'costs and effects' at home and abroad, that's how.
"Um, this important world leader didn't do that, there's no reason at all to think that's true. No, it doesn't work like whether you 'like' them."
Jeffrey Rubard
2023-07-19 18:30:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
"What's the diff?"
A misplaced focus of interest.
"What if I felt like talking shit to both of them?"
Well, it's more like you're talking shit *about* both of them.
Furthermore, the charges leveled are at such a level of severity that...
"You say stuff like that sometimes."
Yeah, I do say stuff like that sometimes.
"What would be just fair, then?"
Emmanuel Macron is... *not Zen*? I don't know.
But these are 'very grave' words to say about a public figure, even in jest.
"Couldn't there even be something real like that, though? But not Macron and Canada, obviously."
"Beto O'Rourke" paying for and masterminding the Uvalde school massacre?
That would be a "skosh" more plausible as an idea, I guess.
Which statement is more potentially "defamatory", the one about Macron or the one about O'Rourke? One wonders.
"The statement about Macron is an elliptic political metaphor."
Yeah, but maybe Beto *really did that*.
"What's the difference?"
Do you think *Macron* did the Uvalde attack, etc?
"It's a metaphor for abortion."
Oh, goody. Did you notice, then, that...
Most Americans strongly support abortion rights?
"It's debatable."
In a sophistical, misleading spirit.
They really do support abortion. It's why you see ham-handed "on the one hand..." talk even at this level of the debate.
Also: Really don't say stuff like that about foreign leaders like Macron. It's, like, not mature to do so.
"Puts America in a bad light." No, really.
"Even though it's laughable?"
The word "laughable" is obviously ambiguous, here.
Like Ralph said on the Simpsons, "It's funny, but not ha-ha funny."
Like these intemperate charges have unreasonable 'costs and effects' at home and abroad, that's how.
"Um, this important world leader didn't do that, there's no reason at all to think that's true. No, it doesn't work like whether you 'like' them."
"But I said..."
So you're using it as a method to "coach" people in the legal sense?
Jeffrey Rubard
2023-07-20 15:28:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
"What's the diff?"
A misplaced focus of interest.
"What if I felt like talking shit to both of them?"
Well, it's more like you're talking shit *about* both of them.
Furthermore, the charges leveled are at such a level of severity that...
"You say stuff like that sometimes."
Yeah, I do say stuff like that sometimes.
"What would be just fair, then?"
Emmanuel Macron is... *not Zen*? I don't know.
But these are 'very grave' words to say about a public figure, even in jest.
"Couldn't there even be something real like that, though? But not Macron and Canada, obviously."
"Beto O'Rourke" paying for and masterminding the Uvalde school massacre?
That would be a "skosh" more plausible as an idea, I guess.
Which statement is more potentially "defamatory", the one about Macron or the one about O'Rourke? One wonders.
"The statement about Macron is an elliptic political metaphor."
Yeah, but maybe Beto *really did that*.
"What's the difference?"
Do you think *Macron* did the Uvalde attack, etc?
"It's a metaphor for abortion."
Oh, goody. Did you notice, then, that...
Most Americans strongly support abortion rights?
"It's debatable."
In a sophistical, misleading spirit.
They really do support abortion. It's why you see ham-handed "on the one hand..." talk even at this level of the debate.
Also: Really don't say stuff like that about foreign leaders like Macron. It's, like, not mature to do so.
"Puts America in a bad light." No, really.
"Even though it's laughable?"
The word "laughable" is obviously ambiguous, here.
Like Ralph said on the Simpsons, "It's funny, but not ha-ha funny."
Like these intemperate charges have unreasonable 'costs and effects' at home and abroad, that's how.
"Um, this important world leader didn't do that, there's no reason at all to think that's true. No, it doesn't work like whether you 'like' them."
"But I said..."
So you're using it as a method to "coach" people in the legal sense?
"Not as such, no."
So "instruction" in the negative legal sense is one of your things, though?
Jeffrey Rubard
2023-08-14 20:23:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
"What's the diff?"
A misplaced focus of interest.
"What if I felt like talking shit to both of them?"
Well, it's more like you're talking shit *about* both of them.
Furthermore, the charges leveled are at such a level of severity that...
"You say stuff like that sometimes."
Yeah, I do say stuff like that sometimes.
"What would be just fair, then?"
Emmanuel Macron is... *not Zen*? I don't know.
But these are 'very grave' words to say about a public figure, even in jest.
"Couldn't there even be something real like that, though? But not Macron and Canada, obviously."
"Beto O'Rourke" paying for and masterminding the Uvalde school massacre?
That would be a "skosh" more plausible as an idea, I guess.
Which statement is more potentially "defamatory", the one about Macron or the one about O'Rourke? One wonders.
"The statement about Macron is an elliptic political metaphor."
Yeah, but maybe Beto *really did that*.
"What's the difference?"
Do you think *Macron* did the Uvalde attack, etc?
"It's a metaphor for abortion."
Oh, goody. Did you notice, then, that...
Most Americans strongly support abortion rights?
"It's debatable."
In a sophistical, misleading spirit.
They really do support abortion. It's why you see ham-handed "on the one hand..." talk even at this level of the debate.
Also: Really don't say stuff like that about foreign leaders like Macron. It's, like, not mature to do so.
"Puts America in a bad light." No, really.
"Even though it's laughable?"
The word "laughable" is obviously ambiguous, here.
Like Ralph said on the Simpsons, "It's funny, but not ha-ha funny."
Like these intemperate charges have unreasonable 'costs and effects' at home and abroad, that's how.
"Um, this important world leader didn't do that, there's no reason at all to think that's true. No, it doesn't work like whether you 'like' them."
"But I said..."
So you're using it as a method to "coach" people in the legal sense?
"Not as such, no."
So "instruction" in the negative legal sense is one of your things, though?
Wider World: You really just shouldn't say such things, anyway.
Jeffrey Rubard
2023-08-15 15:36:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
"What's the diff?"
A misplaced focus of interest.
"What if I felt like talking shit to both of them?"
Well, it's more like you're talking shit *about* both of them.
Furthermore, the charges leveled are at such a level of severity that...
"You say stuff like that sometimes."
Yeah, I do say stuff like that sometimes.
"What would be just fair, then?"
Emmanuel Macron is... *not Zen*? I don't know.
But these are 'very grave' words to say about a public figure, even in jest.
"Couldn't there even be something real like that, though? But not Macron and Canada, obviously."
"Beto O'Rourke" paying for and masterminding the Uvalde school massacre?
That would be a "skosh" more plausible as an idea, I guess.
Which statement is more potentially "defamatory", the one about Macron or the one about O'Rourke? One wonders.
"The statement about Macron is an elliptic political metaphor."
Yeah, but maybe Beto *really did that*.
"What's the difference?"
Do you think *Macron* did the Uvalde attack, etc?
"It's a metaphor for abortion."
Oh, goody. Did you notice, then, that...
Most Americans strongly support abortion rights?
"It's debatable."
In a sophistical, misleading spirit.
They really do support abortion. It's why you see ham-handed "on the one hand..." talk even at this level of the debate.
Also: Really don't say stuff like that about foreign leaders like Macron. It's, like, not mature to do so.
"Puts America in a bad light." No, really.
"Even though it's laughable?"
The word "laughable" is obviously ambiguous, here.
Like Ralph said on the Simpsons, "It's funny, but not ha-ha funny."
Like these intemperate charges have unreasonable 'costs and effects' at home and abroad, that's how.
"Um, this important world leader didn't do that, there's no reason at all to think that's true. No, it doesn't work like whether you 'like' them."
"But I said..."
So you're using it as a method to "coach" people in the legal sense?
"Not as such, no."
So "instruction" in the negative legal sense is one of your things, though?
Wider World: You really just shouldn't say such things, anyway.
(Makes us look bad.)
Jeffrey Rubard
2023-08-18 20:16:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
"What's the diff?"
A misplaced focus of interest.
"What if I felt like talking shit to both of them?"
Well, it's more like you're talking shit *about* both of them.
Furthermore, the charges leveled are at such a level of severity that...
"You say stuff like that sometimes."
Yeah, I do say stuff like that sometimes.
"What would be just fair, then?"
Emmanuel Macron is... *not Zen*? I don't know.
But these are 'very grave' words to say about a public figure, even in jest.
"Couldn't there even be something real like that, though? But not Macron and Canada, obviously."
"Beto O'Rourke" paying for and masterminding the Uvalde school massacre?
That would be a "skosh" more plausible as an idea, I guess.
Which statement is more potentially "defamatory", the one about Macron or the one about O'Rourke? One wonders.
"The statement about Macron is an elliptic political metaphor."
Yeah, but maybe Beto *really did that*.
"What's the difference?"
Do you think *Macron* did the Uvalde attack, etc?
"It's a metaphor for abortion."
Oh, goody. Did you notice, then, that...
Most Americans strongly support abortion rights?
"It's debatable."
In a sophistical, misleading spirit.
They really do support abortion. It's why you see ham-handed "on the one hand..." talk even at this level of the debate.
Also: Really don't say stuff like that about foreign leaders like Macron. It's, like, not mature to do so.
"Puts America in a bad light." No, really.
"Even though it's laughable?"
The word "laughable" is obviously ambiguous, here.
Like Ralph said on the Simpsons, "It's funny, but not ha-ha funny."
Like these intemperate charges have unreasonable 'costs and effects' at home and abroad, that's how.
"Um, this important world leader didn't do that, there's no reason at all to think that's true. No, it doesn't work like whether you 'like' them."
"But I said..."
So you're using it as a method to "coach" people in the legal sense?
"Not as such, no."
So "instruction" in the negative legal sense is one of your things, though?
Wider World: You really just shouldn't say such things, anyway.
(Makes us look bad.)
"Intellectually lazy, or imbecilic."
Jeffrey Rubard
2023-08-21 15:45:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
"What's the diff?"
A misplaced focus of interest.
"What if I felt like talking shit to both of them?"
Well, it's more like you're talking shit *about* both of them.
Furthermore, the charges leveled are at such a level of severity that...
"You say stuff like that sometimes."
Yeah, I do say stuff like that sometimes.
"What would be just fair, then?"
Emmanuel Macron is... *not Zen*? I don't know.
But these are 'very grave' words to say about a public figure, even in jest.
"Couldn't there even be something real like that, though? But not Macron and Canada, obviously."
"Beto O'Rourke" paying for and masterminding the Uvalde school massacre?
That would be a "skosh" more plausible as an idea, I guess.
Which statement is more potentially "defamatory", the one about Macron or the one about O'Rourke? One wonders.
"The statement about Macron is an elliptic political metaphor."
Yeah, but maybe Beto *really did that*.
"What's the difference?"
Do you think *Macron* did the Uvalde attack, etc?
"It's a metaphor for abortion."
Oh, goody. Did you notice, then, that...
Most Americans strongly support abortion rights?
"It's debatable."
In a sophistical, misleading spirit.
They really do support abortion. It's why you see ham-handed "on the one hand..." talk even at this level of the debate.
Also: Really don't say stuff like that about foreign leaders like Macron. It's, like, not mature to do so.
"Puts America in a bad light." No, really.
"Even though it's laughable?"
The word "laughable" is obviously ambiguous, here.
Like Ralph said on the Simpsons, "It's funny, but not ha-ha funny."
Like these intemperate charges have unreasonable 'costs and effects' at home and abroad, that's how.
"Um, this important world leader didn't do that, there's no reason at all to think that's true. No, it doesn't work like whether you 'like' them."
"But I said..."
So you're using it as a method to "coach" people in the legal sense?
"Not as such, no."
So "instruction" in the negative legal sense is one of your things, though?
Wider World: You really just shouldn't say such things, anyway.
(Makes us look bad.)
"Intellectually lazy, or imbecilic."
(Really. This is really pretty poor stuff. You read the 'brilliant' into it.)
Steve Brown
2023-08-22 23:55:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
"What's the diff?"
A misplaced focus of interest.
"What if I felt like talking shit to both of them?"
Well, it's more like you're talking shit *about* both of them.
Furthermore, the charges leveled are at such a level of severity that...
"You say stuff like that sometimes."
Yeah, I do say stuff like that sometimes.
"What would be just fair, then?"
Emmanuel Macron is... *not Zen*? I don't know.
But these are 'very grave' words to say about a public figure, even in jest.
"Couldn't there even be something real like that, though? But not Macron and Canada, obviously."
"Beto O'Rourke" paying for and masterminding the Uvalde school massacre?
That would be a "skosh" more plausible as an idea, I guess.
Which statement is more potentially "defamatory", the one about Macron or the one about O'Rourke? One wonders.
"The statement about Macron is an elliptic political metaphor."
Yeah, but maybe Beto *really did that*.
"What's the difference?"
Do you think *Macron* did the Uvalde attack, etc?
"It's a metaphor for abortion."
Oh, goody. Did you notice, then, that...
Most Americans strongly support abortion rights?
"It's debatable."
In a sophistical, misleading spirit.
They really do support abortion. It's why you see ham-handed "on the one hand..." talk even at this level of the debate.
Also: Really don't say stuff like that about foreign leaders like Macron. It's, like, not mature to do so.
"Puts America in a bad light." No, really.
"Even though it's laughable?"
The word "laughable" is obviously ambiguous, here.
Like Ralph said on the Simpsons, "It's funny, but not ha-ha funny."
Like these intemperate charges have unreasonable 'costs and effects' at home and abroad, that's how.
"Um, this important world leader didn't do that, there's no reason at all to think that's true. No, it doesn't work like whether you 'like' them."
"But I said..."
So you're using it as a method to "coach" people in the legal sense?
"Not as such, no."
So "instruction" in the negative legal sense is one of your things, though?
Wider World: You really just shouldn't say such things, anyway.
(Makes us look bad.)
"Intellectually lazy, or imbecilic."
(Really. This is really pretty poor stuff. You read the 'brilliant' into it.)
No evidence, sorry. This case is documented somewhere and no one is presenting evidence, because that would lead to nothing and those who would accuse would expose themselves to prosecution.
Jeffrey Rubard
2023-08-23 18:10:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
"What's the diff?"
A misplaced focus of interest.
"What if I felt like talking shit to both of them?"
Well, it's more like you're talking shit *about* both of them.
Furthermore, the charges leveled are at such a level of severity that...
"You say stuff like that sometimes."
Yeah, I do say stuff like that sometimes.
"What would be just fair, then?"
Emmanuel Macron is... *not Zen*? I don't know.
But these are 'very grave' words to say about a public figure, even in jest.
"Couldn't there even be something real like that, though? But not Macron and Canada, obviously."
"Beto O'Rourke" paying for and masterminding the Uvalde school massacre?
That would be a "skosh" more plausible as an idea, I guess.
Which statement is more potentially "defamatory", the one about Macron or the one about O'Rourke? One wonders.
"The statement about Macron is an elliptic political metaphor."
Yeah, but maybe Beto *really did that*.
"What's the difference?"
Do you think *Macron* did the Uvalde attack, etc?
"It's a metaphor for abortion."
Oh, goody. Did you notice, then, that...
Most Americans strongly support abortion rights?
"It's debatable."
In a sophistical, misleading spirit.
They really do support abortion. It's why you see ham-handed "on the one hand..." talk even at this level of the debate.
Also: Really don't say stuff like that about foreign leaders like Macron. It's, like, not mature to do so.
"Puts America in a bad light." No, really.
"Even though it's laughable?"
The word "laughable" is obviously ambiguous, here.
Like Ralph said on the Simpsons, "It's funny, but not ha-ha funny."
Like these intemperate charges have unreasonable 'costs and effects' at home and abroad, that's how.
"Um, this important world leader didn't do that, there's no reason at all to think that's true. No, it doesn't work like whether you 'like' them."
"But I said..."
So you're using it as a method to "coach" people in the legal sense?
"Not as such, no."
So "instruction" in the negative legal sense is one of your things, though?
Wider World: You really just shouldn't say such things, anyway.
(Makes us look bad.)
"Intellectually lazy, or imbecilic."
(Really. This is really pretty poor stuff. You read the 'brilliant' into it.)
No evidence, sorry. This case is documented somewhere and no one is presenting evidence, because that would lead to nothing and those who would accuse would expose themselves to prosecution.
"Do you mean the case against the 'Making Millions' reality TV star?"
Jeffrey Rubard
2023-08-26 15:32:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
"What's the diff?"
A misplaced focus of interest.
"What if I felt like talking shit to both of them?"
Well, it's more like you're talking shit *about* both of them.
Furthermore, the charges leveled are at such a level of severity that...
"You say stuff like that sometimes."
Yeah, I do say stuff like that sometimes.
"What would be just fair, then?"
Emmanuel Macron is... *not Zen*? I don't know.
But these are 'very grave' words to say about a public figure, even in jest.
"Couldn't there even be something real like that, though? But not Macron and Canada, obviously."
"Beto O'Rourke" paying for and masterminding the Uvalde school massacre?
That would be a "skosh" more plausible as an idea, I guess.
Which statement is more potentially "defamatory", the one about Macron or the one about O'Rourke? One wonders.
"The statement about Macron is an elliptic political metaphor."
Yeah, but maybe Beto *really did that*.
"What's the difference?"
Do you think *Macron* did the Uvalde attack, etc?
"It's a metaphor for abortion."
Oh, goody. Did you notice, then, that...
Most Americans strongly support abortion rights?
"It's debatable."
In a sophistical, misleading spirit.
They really do support abortion. It's why you see ham-handed "on the one hand..." talk even at this level of the debate.
Also: Really don't say stuff like that about foreign leaders like Macron. It's, like, not mature to do so.
"Puts America in a bad light." No, really.
"Even though it's laughable?"
The word "laughable" is obviously ambiguous, here.
Like Ralph said on the Simpsons, "It's funny, but not ha-ha funny."
Like these intemperate charges have unreasonable 'costs and effects' at home and abroad, that's how.
"Um, this important world leader didn't do that, there's no reason at all to think that's true. No, it doesn't work like whether you 'like' them."
"But I said..."
So you're using it as a method to "coach" people in the legal sense?
"Not as such, no."
So "instruction" in the negative legal sense is one of your things, though?
Wider World: You really just shouldn't say such things, anyway.
(Makes us look bad.)
"Intellectually lazy, or imbecilic."
(Really. This is really pretty poor stuff. You read the 'brilliant' into it.)
No evidence, sorry. This case is documented somewhere and no one is presenting evidence, because that would lead to nothing and those who would accuse would expose themselves to prosecution.
"Do you mean the case against the 'Making Millions' reality TV star?"
Well, I read the Dallas Morning News article about that.
"Wait, that's not what you think it is..."
Perhaps it really is, it would be what it is said to be?
Jeffrey Rubard
2023-08-26 21:09:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
"What's the diff?"
A misplaced focus of interest.
"What if I felt like talking shit to both of them?"
Well, it's more like you're talking shit *about* both of them.
Furthermore, the charges leveled are at such a level of severity that...
"You say stuff like that sometimes."
Yeah, I do say stuff like that sometimes.
"What would be just fair, then?"
Emmanuel Macron is... *not Zen*? I don't know.
But these are 'very grave' words to say about a public figure, even in jest.
"Couldn't there even be something real like that, though? But not Macron and Canada, obviously."
"Beto O'Rourke" paying for and masterminding the Uvalde school massacre?
That would be a "skosh" more plausible as an idea, I guess.
Which statement is more potentially "defamatory", the one about Macron or the one about O'Rourke? One wonders.
"The statement about Macron is an elliptic political metaphor."
Yeah, but maybe Beto *really did that*.
"What's the difference?"
Do you think *Macron* did the Uvalde attack, etc?
"It's a metaphor for abortion."
Oh, goody. Did you notice, then, that...
Most Americans strongly support abortion rights?
"It's debatable."
In a sophistical, misleading spirit.
They really do support abortion. It's why you see ham-handed "on the one hand..." talk even at this level of the debate.
Also: Really don't say stuff like that about foreign leaders like Macron. It's, like, not mature to do so.
"Puts America in a bad light." No, really.
"Even though it's laughable?"
The word "laughable" is obviously ambiguous, here.
Like Ralph said on the Simpsons, "It's funny, but not ha-ha funny."
Like these intemperate charges have unreasonable 'costs and effects' at home and abroad, that's how.
"Um, this important world leader didn't do that, there's no reason at all to think that's true. No, it doesn't work like whether you 'like' them."
"But I said..."
So you're using it as a method to "coach" people in the legal sense?
"Not as such, no."
So "instruction" in the negative legal sense is one of your things, though?
Wider World: You really just shouldn't say such things, anyway.
(Makes us look bad.)
"Intellectually lazy, or imbecilic."
(Really. This is really pretty poor stuff. You read the 'brilliant' into it.)
No evidence, sorry. This case is documented somewhere and no one is presenting evidence, because that would lead to nothing and those who would accuse would expose themselves to prosecution.
"Do you mean the case against the 'Making Millions' reality TV star?"
Well, I read the Dallas Morning News article about that.
"Wait, that's not what you think it is..."
Perhaps it really is, it would be what it is said to be?
"What's this?"
The star of "Making Millions", a reality TV show, is accused of having given 'an incurable STD' to some female partners.
"What's his name?"
Bill Hutchinson, apparently.
Jeffrey Rubard
2023-08-27 15:53:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
"What's the diff?"
A misplaced focus of interest.
"What if I felt like talking shit to both of them?"
Well, it's more like you're talking shit *about* both of them.
Furthermore, the charges leveled are at such a level of severity that...
"You say stuff like that sometimes."
Yeah, I do say stuff like that sometimes.
"What would be just fair, then?"
Emmanuel Macron is... *not Zen*? I don't know.
But these are 'very grave' words to say about a public figure, even in jest.
"Couldn't there even be something real like that, though? But not Macron and Canada, obviously."
"Beto O'Rourke" paying for and masterminding the Uvalde school massacre?
That would be a "skosh" more plausible as an idea, I guess.
Which statement is more potentially "defamatory", the one about Macron or the one about O'Rourke? One wonders.
"The statement about Macron is an elliptic political metaphor."
Yeah, but maybe Beto *really did that*.
"What's the difference?"
Do you think *Macron* did the Uvalde attack, etc?
"It's a metaphor for abortion."
Oh, goody. Did you notice, then, that...
Most Americans strongly support abortion rights?
"It's debatable."
In a sophistical, misleading spirit.
They really do support abortion. It's why you see ham-handed "on the one hand..." talk even at this level of the debate.
Also: Really don't say stuff like that about foreign leaders like Macron. It's, like, not mature to do so.
"Puts America in a bad light." No, really.
"Even though it's laughable?"
The word "laughable" is obviously ambiguous, here.
Like Ralph said on the Simpsons, "It's funny, but not ha-ha funny."
Like these intemperate charges have unreasonable 'costs and effects' at home and abroad, that's how.
"Um, this important world leader didn't do that, there's no reason at all to think that's true. No, it doesn't work like whether you 'like' them."
"But I said..."
So you're using it as a method to "coach" people in the legal sense?
"Not as such, no."
So "instruction" in the negative legal sense is one of your things, though?
Wider World: You really just shouldn't say such things, anyway.
(Makes us look bad.)
"Intellectually lazy, or imbecilic."
(Really. This is really pretty poor stuff. You read the 'brilliant' into it.)
No evidence, sorry. This case is documented somewhere and no one is presenting evidence, because that would lead to nothing and those who would accuse would expose themselves to prosecution.
"Do you mean the case against the 'Making Millions' reality TV star?"
Well, I read the Dallas Morning News article about that.
"Wait, that's not what you think it is..."
Perhaps it really is, it would be what it is said to be?
"What's this?"
The star of "Making Millions", a reality TV show, is accused of having given 'an incurable STD' to some female partners.
"What's his name?"
Bill Hutchinson, apparently.
"What's an 'incurable STD'?"
By the usual rules of US legal semantics, "not hepatitis and not herpes".
Jeffrey Rubard
2023-08-27 21:33:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
"What's the diff?"
A misplaced focus of interest.
"What if I felt like talking shit to both of them?"
Well, it's more like you're talking shit *about* both of them.
Furthermore, the charges leveled are at such a level of severity that...
"You say stuff like that sometimes."
Yeah, I do say stuff like that sometimes.
"What would be just fair, then?"
Emmanuel Macron is... *not Zen*? I don't know.
But these are 'very grave' words to say about a public figure, even in jest.
"Couldn't there even be something real like that, though? But not Macron and Canada, obviously."
"Beto O'Rourke" paying for and masterminding the Uvalde school massacre?
That would be a "skosh" more plausible as an idea, I guess.
Which statement is more potentially "defamatory", the one about Macron or the one about O'Rourke? One wonders.
"The statement about Macron is an elliptic political metaphor."
Yeah, but maybe Beto *really did that*.
"What's the difference?"
Do you think *Macron* did the Uvalde attack, etc?
"It's a metaphor for abortion."
Oh, goody. Did you notice, then, that...
Most Americans strongly support abortion rights?
"It's debatable."
In a sophistical, misleading spirit.
They really do support abortion. It's why you see ham-handed "on the one hand..." talk even at this level of the debate.
Also: Really don't say stuff like that about foreign leaders like Macron. It's, like, not mature to do so.
"Puts America in a bad light." No, really.
"Even though it's laughable?"
The word "laughable" is obviously ambiguous, here.
Like Ralph said on the Simpsons, "It's funny, but not ha-ha funny."
Like these intemperate charges have unreasonable 'costs and effects' at home and abroad, that's how.
"Um, this important world leader didn't do that, there's no reason at all to think that's true. No, it doesn't work like whether you 'like' them."
"But I said..."
So you're using it as a method to "coach" people in the legal sense?
"Not as such, no."
So "instruction" in the negative legal sense is one of your things, though?
Wider World: You really just shouldn't say such things, anyway.
(Makes us look bad.)
"Intellectually lazy, or imbecilic."
(Really. This is really pretty poor stuff. You read the 'brilliant' into it.)
No evidence, sorry. This case is documented somewhere and no one is presenting evidence, because that would lead to nothing and those who would accuse would expose themselves to prosecution.
"Do you mean the case against the 'Making Millions' reality TV star?"
Well, I read the Dallas Morning News article about that.
"Wait, that's not what you think it is..."
Perhaps it really is, it would be what it is said to be?
"What's this?"
The star of "Making Millions", a reality TV show, is accused of having given 'an incurable STD' to some female partners.
"What's his name?"
Bill Hutchinson, apparently.
"What's an 'incurable STD'?"
By the usual rules of US legal semantics, "not hepatitis and not herpes".
"Is that so?"
Does anyone know differently?
Jeffrey Rubard
2023-09-01 19:27:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
"What's the diff?"
A misplaced focus of interest.
"What if I felt like talking shit to both of them?"
Well, it's more like you're talking shit *about* both of them.
Furthermore, the charges leveled are at such a level of severity that...
"You say stuff like that sometimes."
Yeah, I do say stuff like that sometimes.
"What would be just fair, then?"
Emmanuel Macron is... *not Zen*? I don't know.
But these are 'very grave' words to say about a public figure, even in jest.
"Couldn't there even be something real like that, though? But not Macron and Canada, obviously."
"Beto O'Rourke" paying for and masterminding the Uvalde school massacre?
That would be a "skosh" more plausible as an idea, I guess.
Which statement is more potentially "defamatory", the one about Macron or the one about O'Rourke? One wonders.
"The statement about Macron is an elliptic political metaphor."
Yeah, but maybe Beto *really did that*.
"What's the difference?"
Do you think *Macron* did the Uvalde attack, etc?
"It's a metaphor for abortion."
Oh, goody. Did you notice, then, that...
Most Americans strongly support abortion rights?
"It's debatable."
In a sophistical, misleading spirit.
They really do support abortion. It's why you see ham-handed "on the one hand..." talk even at this level of the debate.
Also: Really don't say stuff like that about foreign leaders like Macron. It's, like, not mature to do so.
"Puts America in a bad light." No, really.
"Even though it's laughable?"
The word "laughable" is obviously ambiguous, here.
Like Ralph said on the Simpsons, "It's funny, but not ha-ha funny."
Like these intemperate charges have unreasonable 'costs and effects' at home and abroad, that's how.
"Um, this important world leader didn't do that, there's no reason at all to think that's true. No, it doesn't work like whether you 'like' them."
"But I said..."
So you're using it as a method to "coach" people in the legal sense?
"Not as such, no."
So "instruction" in the negative legal sense is one of your things, though?
Wider World: You really just shouldn't say such things, anyway.
(Makes us look bad.)
"Intellectually lazy, or imbecilic."
(Really. This is really pretty poor stuff. You read the 'brilliant' into it.)
No evidence, sorry. This case is documented somewhere and no one is presenting evidence, because that would lead to nothing and those who would accuse would expose themselves to prosecution.
"Do you mean the case against the 'Making Millions' reality TV star?"
Well, I read the Dallas Morning News article about that.
"Wait, that's not what you think it is..."
Perhaps it really is, it would be what it is said to be?
"What's this?"
The star of "Making Millions", a reality TV show, is accused of having given 'an incurable STD' to some female partners.
"What's his name?"
Bill Hutchinson, apparently.
"What's an 'incurable STD'?"
By the usual rules of US legal semantics, "not hepatitis and not herpes".
"Is that so?"
Does anyone know differently?
"So you're saying that this Bill Hutchinson is known under another name as a public figure, and has given what I figure to be... HIV to his Tinder dates?"
It seems to be the subject of this lawsuit reported in a newspaper.
Jeffrey Rubard
2023-09-02 15:31:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
"What's the diff?"
A misplaced focus of interest.
"What if I felt like talking shit to both of them?"
Well, it's more like you're talking shit *about* both of them.
Furthermore, the charges leveled are at such a level of severity that...
"You say stuff like that sometimes."
Yeah, I do say stuff like that sometimes.
"What would be just fair, then?"
Emmanuel Macron is... *not Zen*? I don't know.
But these are 'very grave' words to say about a public figure, even in jest.
"Couldn't there even be something real like that, though? But not Macron and Canada, obviously."
"Beto O'Rourke" paying for and masterminding the Uvalde school massacre?
That would be a "skosh" more plausible as an idea, I guess.
Which statement is more potentially "defamatory", the one about Macron or the one about O'Rourke? One wonders.
"The statement about Macron is an elliptic political metaphor."
Yeah, but maybe Beto *really did that*.
"What's the difference?"
Do you think *Macron* did the Uvalde attack, etc?
"It's a metaphor for abortion."
Oh, goody. Did you notice, then, that...
Most Americans strongly support abortion rights?
"It's debatable."
In a sophistical, misleading spirit.
They really do support abortion. It's why you see ham-handed "on the one hand..." talk even at this level of the debate.
Also: Really don't say stuff like that about foreign leaders like Macron. It's, like, not mature to do so.
"Puts America in a bad light." No, really.
"Even though it's laughable?"
The word "laughable" is obviously ambiguous, here.
Like Ralph said on the Simpsons, "It's funny, but not ha-ha funny."
Like these intemperate charges have unreasonable 'costs and effects' at home and abroad, that's how.
"Um, this important world leader didn't do that, there's no reason at all to think that's true. No, it doesn't work like whether you 'like' them."
"But I said..."
So you're using it as a method to "coach" people in the legal sense?
"Not as such, no."
So "instruction" in the negative legal sense is one of your things, though?
Wider World: You really just shouldn't say such things, anyway.
(Makes us look bad.)
"Intellectually lazy, or imbecilic."
(Really. This is really pretty poor stuff. You read the 'brilliant' into it.)
No evidence, sorry. This case is documented somewhere and no one is presenting evidence, because that would lead to nothing and those who would accuse would expose themselves to prosecution.
"Do you mean the case against the 'Making Millions' reality TV star?"
Well, I read the Dallas Morning News article about that.
"Wait, that's not what you think it is..."
Perhaps it really is, it would be what it is said to be?
"What's this?"
The star of "Making Millions", a reality TV show, is accused of having given 'an incurable STD' to some female partners.
"What's his name?"
Bill Hutchinson, apparently.
"What's an 'incurable STD'?"
By the usual rules of US legal semantics, "not hepatitis and not herpes".
"Is that so?"
Does anyone know differently?
"So you're saying that this Bill Hutchinson is known under another name as a public figure, and has given what I figure to be... HIV to his Tinder dates?"
It seems to be the subject of this lawsuit reported in a newspaper.
"No thanks."
Sure.
Jeffrey Rubard
2023-09-02 20:12:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
"What's the diff?"
A misplaced focus of interest.
"What if I felt like talking shit to both of them?"
Well, it's more like you're talking shit *about* both of them.
Furthermore, the charges leveled are at such a level of severity that...
"You say stuff like that sometimes."
Yeah, I do say stuff like that sometimes.
"What would be just fair, then?"
Emmanuel Macron is... *not Zen*? I don't know.
But these are 'very grave' words to say about a public figure, even in jest.
"Couldn't there even be something real like that, though? But not Macron and Canada, obviously."
"Beto O'Rourke" paying for and masterminding the Uvalde school massacre?
That would be a "skosh" more plausible as an idea, I guess.
Which statement is more potentially "defamatory", the one about Macron or the one about O'Rourke? One wonders.
"The statement about Macron is an elliptic political metaphor."
Yeah, but maybe Beto *really did that*.
"What's the difference?"
Do you think *Macron* did the Uvalde attack, etc?
"It's a metaphor for abortion."
Oh, goody. Did you notice, then, that...
Most Americans strongly support abortion rights?
"It's debatable."
In a sophistical, misleading spirit.
They really do support abortion. It's why you see ham-handed "on the one hand..." talk even at this level of the debate.
Also: Really don't say stuff like that about foreign leaders like Macron. It's, like, not mature to do so.
"Puts America in a bad light." No, really.
"Even though it's laughable?"
The word "laughable" is obviously ambiguous, here.
Like Ralph said on the Simpsons, "It's funny, but not ha-ha funny."
Like these intemperate charges have unreasonable 'costs and effects' at home and abroad, that's how.
"Um, this important world leader didn't do that, there's no reason at all to think that's true. No, it doesn't work like whether you 'like' them."
"But I said..."
So you're using it as a method to "coach" people in the legal sense?
"Not as such, no."
So "instruction" in the negative legal sense is one of your things, though?
Wider World: You really just shouldn't say such things, anyway.
(Makes us look bad.)
"Intellectually lazy, or imbecilic."
(Really. This is really pretty poor stuff. You read the 'brilliant' into it.)
No evidence, sorry. This case is documented somewhere and no one is presenting evidence, because that would lead to nothing and those who would accuse would expose themselves to prosecution.
"Do you mean the case against the 'Making Millions' reality TV star?"
Well, I read the Dallas Morning News article about that.
"Wait, that's not what you think it is..."
Perhaps it really is, it would be what it is said to be?
"What's this?"
The star of "Making Millions", a reality TV show, is accused of having given 'an incurable STD' to some female partners.
"What's his name?"
Bill Hutchinson, apparently.
"What's an 'incurable STD'?"
By the usual rules of US legal semantics, "not hepatitis and not herpes".
"Is that so?"
Does anyone know differently?
"So you're saying that this Bill Hutchinson is known under another name as a public figure, and has given what I figure to be... HIV to his Tinder dates?"
It seems to be the subject of this lawsuit reported in a newspaper.
"No thanks."
Sure.
"Furthermore, could you also direct me to..."
Do you think you could not 'embellish' every little thing?
Jeffrey Rubard
2023-09-22 15:33:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
"What's the diff?"
A misplaced focus of interest.
"What if I felt like talking shit to both of them?"
Well, it's more like you're talking shit *about* both of them.
Furthermore, the charges leveled are at such a level of severity that...
"You say stuff like that sometimes."
Yeah, I do say stuff like that sometimes.
"What would be just fair, then?"
Emmanuel Macron is... *not Zen*? I don't know.
But these are 'very grave' words to say about a public figure, even in jest.
"Couldn't there even be something real like that, though? But not Macron and Canada, obviously."
"Beto O'Rourke" paying for and masterminding the Uvalde school massacre?
That would be a "skosh" more plausible as an idea, I guess.
Which statement is more potentially "defamatory", the one about Macron or the one about O'Rourke? One wonders.
"The statement about Macron is an elliptic political metaphor."
Yeah, but maybe Beto *really did that*.
"What's the difference?"
Do you think *Macron* did the Uvalde attack, etc?
"It's a metaphor for abortion."
Oh, goody. Did you notice, then, that...
Most Americans strongly support abortion rights?
"It's debatable."
In a sophistical, misleading spirit.
They really do support abortion. It's why you see ham-handed "on the one hand..." talk even at this level of the debate.
Also: Really don't say stuff like that about foreign leaders like Macron. It's, like, not mature to do so.
"Puts America in a bad light." No, really.
"Even though it's laughable?"
The word "laughable" is obviously ambiguous, here.
Like Ralph said on the Simpsons, "It's funny, but not ha-ha funny."
Like these intemperate charges have unreasonable 'costs and effects' at home and abroad, that's how.
"Um, this important world leader didn't do that, there's no reason at all to think that's true. No, it doesn't work like whether you 'like' them."
"But I said..."
So you're using it as a method to "coach" people in the legal sense?
"Not as such, no."
So "instruction" in the negative legal sense is one of your things, though?
Wider World: You really just shouldn't say such things, anyway.
(Makes us look bad.)
"Intellectually lazy, or imbecilic."
(Really. This is really pretty poor stuff. You read the 'brilliant' into it.)
No evidence, sorry. This case is documented somewhere and no one is presenting evidence, because that would lead to nothing and those who would accuse would expose themselves to prosecution.
"Do you mean the case against the 'Making Millions' reality TV star?"
Well, I read the Dallas Morning News article about that.
"Wait, that's not what you think it is..."
Perhaps it really is, it would be what it is said to be?
"What's this?"
The star of "Making Millions", a reality TV show, is accused of having given 'an incurable STD' to some female partners.
"What's his name?"
Bill Hutchinson, apparently.
"What's an 'incurable STD'?"
By the usual rules of US legal semantics, "not hepatitis and not herpes".
"Is that so?"
Does anyone know differently?
"So you're saying that this Bill Hutchinson is known under another name as a public figure, and has given what I figure to be... HIV to his Tinder dates?"
It seems to be the subject of this lawsuit reported in a newspaper.
"No thanks."
Sure.
"Furthermore, could you also direct me to..."
Do you think you could not 'embellish' every little thing?
Also, maybe don't slander world leaders in an 'incendiary' way again. No way did he do this, some way he is Mr. Macron. Really.
Jeffrey Rubard
2023-09-23 19:55:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
"What's the diff?"
A misplaced focus of interest.
"What if I felt like talking shit to both of them?"
Well, it's more like you're talking shit *about* both of them.
Furthermore, the charges leveled are at such a level of severity that...
"You say stuff like that sometimes."
Yeah, I do say stuff like that sometimes.
"What would be just fair, then?"
Emmanuel Macron is... *not Zen*? I don't know.
But these are 'very grave' words to say about a public figure, even in jest.
"Couldn't there even be something real like that, though? But not Macron and Canada, obviously."
"Beto O'Rourke" paying for and masterminding the Uvalde school massacre?
That would be a "skosh" more plausible as an idea, I guess.
Which statement is more potentially "defamatory", the one about Macron or the one about O'Rourke? One wonders.
"The statement about Macron is an elliptic political metaphor."
Yeah, but maybe Beto *really did that*.
"What's the difference?"
Do you think *Macron* did the Uvalde attack, etc?
"It's a metaphor for abortion."
Oh, goody. Did you notice, then, that...
Most Americans strongly support abortion rights?
"It's debatable."
In a sophistical, misleading spirit.
They really do support abortion. It's why you see ham-handed "on the one hand..." talk even at this level of the debate.
Also: Really don't say stuff like that about foreign leaders like Macron. It's, like, not mature to do so.
"Puts America in a bad light." No, really.
"Even though it's laughable?"
The word "laughable" is obviously ambiguous, here.
Like Ralph said on the Simpsons, "It's funny, but not ha-ha funny."
Like these intemperate charges have unreasonable 'costs and effects' at home and abroad, that's how.
"Um, this important world leader didn't do that, there's no reason at all to think that's true. No, it doesn't work like whether you 'like' them."
"But I said..."
So you're using it as a method to "coach" people in the legal sense?
"Not as such, no."
So "instruction" in the negative legal sense is one of your things, though?
Wider World: You really just shouldn't say such things, anyway.
(Makes us look bad.)
"Intellectually lazy, or imbecilic."
(Really. This is really pretty poor stuff. You read the 'brilliant' into it.)
No evidence, sorry. This case is documented somewhere and no one is presenting evidence, because that would lead to nothing and those who would accuse would expose themselves to prosecution.
"Do you mean the case against the 'Making Millions' reality TV star?"
Well, I read the Dallas Morning News article about that.
"Wait, that's not what you think it is..."
Perhaps it really is, it would be what it is said to be?
"What's this?"
The star of "Making Millions", a reality TV show, is accused of having given 'an incurable STD' to some female partners.
"What's his name?"
Bill Hutchinson, apparently.
"What's an 'incurable STD'?"
By the usual rules of US legal semantics, "not hepatitis and not herpes".
"Is that so?"
Does anyone know differently?
"So you're saying that this Bill Hutchinson is known under another name as a public figure, and has given what I figure to be... HIV to his Tinder dates?"
It seems to be the subject of this lawsuit reported in a newspaper.
"No thanks."
Sure.
"Furthermore, could you also direct me to..."
Do you think you could not 'embellish' every little thing?
Also, maybe don't slander world leaders in an 'incendiary' way again. No way did he do this, some way he is Mr. Macron. Really.
"What about Melenchon?"
That's a good question.
Jeffrey Rubard
2023-09-24 15:36:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
"What's the diff?"
A misplaced focus of interest.
"What if I felt like talking shit to both of them?"
Well, it's more like you're talking shit *about* both of them.
Furthermore, the charges leveled are at such a level of severity that...
"You say stuff like that sometimes."
Yeah, I do say stuff like that sometimes.
"What would be just fair, then?"
Emmanuel Macron is... *not Zen*? I don't know.
But these are 'very grave' words to say about a public figure, even in jest.
"Couldn't there even be something real like that, though? But not Macron and Canada, obviously."
"Beto O'Rourke" paying for and masterminding the Uvalde school massacre?
That would be a "skosh" more plausible as an idea, I guess.
Which statement is more potentially "defamatory", the one about Macron or the one about O'Rourke? One wonders.
"The statement about Macron is an elliptic political metaphor."
Yeah, but maybe Beto *really did that*.
"What's the difference?"
Do you think *Macron* did the Uvalde attack, etc?
"It's a metaphor for abortion."
Oh, goody. Did you notice, then, that...
Most Americans strongly support abortion rights?
"It's debatable."
In a sophistical, misleading spirit.
They really do support abortion. It's why you see ham-handed "on the one hand..." talk even at this level of the debate.
Also: Really don't say stuff like that about foreign leaders like Macron. It's, like, not mature to do so.
"Puts America in a bad light." No, really.
"Even though it's laughable?"
The word "laughable" is obviously ambiguous, here.
Like Ralph said on the Simpsons, "It's funny, but not ha-ha funny."
Like these intemperate charges have unreasonable 'costs and effects' at home and abroad, that's how.
"Um, this important world leader didn't do that, there's no reason at all to think that's true. No, it doesn't work like whether you 'like' them."
"But I said..."
So you're using it as a method to "coach" people in the legal sense?
"Not as such, no."
So "instruction" in the negative legal sense is one of your things, though?
Wider World: You really just shouldn't say such things, anyway.
(Makes us look bad.)
"Intellectually lazy, or imbecilic."
(Really. This is really pretty poor stuff. You read the 'brilliant' into it.)
No evidence, sorry. This case is documented somewhere and no one is presenting evidence, because that would lead to nothing and those who would accuse would expose themselves to prosecution.
"Do you mean the case against the 'Making Millions' reality TV star?"
Well, I read the Dallas Morning News article about that.
"Wait, that's not what you think it is..."
Perhaps it really is, it would be what it is said to be?
"What's this?"
The star of "Making Millions", a reality TV show, is accused of having given 'an incurable STD' to some female partners.
"What's his name?"
Bill Hutchinson, apparently.
"What's an 'incurable STD'?"
By the usual rules of US legal semantics, "not hepatitis and not herpes".
"Is that so?"
Does anyone know differently?
"So you're saying that this Bill Hutchinson is known under another name as a public figure, and has given what I figure to be... HIV to his Tinder dates?"
It seems to be the subject of this lawsuit reported in a newspaper.
"No thanks."
Sure.
"Furthermore, could you also direct me to..."
Do you think you could not 'embellish' every little thing?
Also, maybe don't slander world leaders in an 'incendiary' way again. No way did he do this, some way he is Mr. Macron. Really.
"What about Melenchon?"
That's a good question.
"Are you more of an admirer of Melenchon, really?"
In the Western Hemisphere that's actually a less-than-sensible question.
The politics of France really just doesn't have anything to do with us, actually.
Jeffrey Rubard
2023-09-26 15:21:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
"What's the diff?"
A misplaced focus of interest.
"What if I felt like talking shit to both of them?"
Well, it's more like you're talking shit *about* both of them.
Furthermore, the charges leveled are at such a level of severity that...
"You say stuff like that sometimes."
Yeah, I do say stuff like that sometimes.
"What would be just fair, then?"
Emmanuel Macron is... *not Zen*? I don't know.
But these are 'very grave' words to say about a public figure, even in jest.
"Couldn't there even be something real like that, though? But not Macron and Canada, obviously."
"Beto O'Rourke" paying for and masterminding the Uvalde school massacre?
That would be a "skosh" more plausible as an idea, I guess.
Which statement is more potentially "defamatory", the one about Macron or the one about O'Rourke? One wonders.
"The statement about Macron is an elliptic political metaphor."
Yeah, but maybe Beto *really did that*.
"What's the difference?"
Do you think *Macron* did the Uvalde attack, etc?
"It's a metaphor for abortion."
Oh, goody. Did you notice, then, that...
Most Americans strongly support abortion rights?
"It's debatable."
In a sophistical, misleading spirit.
They really do support abortion. It's why you see ham-handed "on the one hand..." talk even at this level of the debate.
Also: Really don't say stuff like that about foreign leaders like Macron. It's, like, not mature to do so.
"Puts America in a bad light." No, really.
"Even though it's laughable?"
The word "laughable" is obviously ambiguous, here.
Like Ralph said on the Simpsons, "It's funny, but not ha-ha funny."
Like these intemperate charges have unreasonable 'costs and effects' at home and abroad, that's how.
"Um, this important world leader didn't do that, there's no reason at all to think that's true. No, it doesn't work like whether you 'like' them."
"But I said..."
So you're using it as a method to "coach" people in the legal sense?
"Not as such, no."
So "instruction" in the negative legal sense is one of your things, though?
Wider World: You really just shouldn't say such things, anyway.
(Makes us look bad.)
"Intellectually lazy, or imbecilic."
(Really. This is really pretty poor stuff. You read the 'brilliant' into it.)
No evidence, sorry. This case is documented somewhere and no one is presenting evidence, because that would lead to nothing and those who would accuse would expose themselves to prosecution.
"Do you mean the case against the 'Making Millions' reality TV star?"
Well, I read the Dallas Morning News article about that.
"Wait, that's not what you think it is..."
Perhaps it really is, it would be what it is said to be?
"What's this?"
The star of "Making Millions", a reality TV show, is accused of having given 'an incurable STD' to some female partners.
"What's his name?"
Bill Hutchinson, apparently.
"What's an 'incurable STD'?"
By the usual rules of US legal semantics, "not hepatitis and not herpes".
"Is that so?"
Does anyone know differently?
"So you're saying that this Bill Hutchinson is known under another name as a public figure, and has given what I figure to be... HIV to his Tinder dates?"
It seems to be the subject of this lawsuit reported in a newspaper.
"No thanks."
Sure.
"Furthermore, could you also direct me to..."
Do you think you could not 'embellish' every little thing?
Also, maybe don't slander world leaders in an 'incendiary' way again. No way did he do this, some way he is Mr. Macron. Really.
"What about Melenchon?"
That's a good question.
"Are you more of an admirer of Melenchon, really?"
In the Western Hemisphere that's actually a less-than-sensible question.
The politics of France really just doesn't have anything to do with us, actually.
"So Melenchon isn't an alternative to Macron?"
For French people, maybe.
Jeffrey Rubard
2023-09-30 21:07:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
"What's the diff?"
A misplaced focus of interest.
"What if I felt like talking shit to both of them?"
Well, it's more like you're talking shit *about* both of them.
Furthermore, the charges leveled are at such a level of severity that...
"You say stuff like that sometimes."
Yeah, I do say stuff like that sometimes.
"What would be just fair, then?"
Emmanuel Macron is... *not Zen*? I don't know.
But these are 'very grave' words to say about a public figure, even in jest.
"Couldn't there even be something real like that, though? But not Macron and Canada, obviously."
"Beto O'Rourke" paying for and masterminding the Uvalde school massacre?
That would be a "skosh" more plausible as an idea, I guess.
Which statement is more potentially "defamatory", the one about Macron or the one about O'Rourke? One wonders.
"The statement about Macron is an elliptic political metaphor."
Yeah, but maybe Beto *really did that*.
"What's the difference?"
Do you think *Macron* did the Uvalde attack, etc?
"It's a metaphor for abortion."
Oh, goody. Did you notice, then, that...
Most Americans strongly support abortion rights?
"It's debatable."
In a sophistical, misleading spirit.
They really do support abortion. It's why you see ham-handed "on the one hand..." talk even at this level of the debate.
Also: Really don't say stuff like that about foreign leaders like Macron. It's, like, not mature to do so.
"Puts America in a bad light." No, really.
"Even though it's laughable?"
The word "laughable" is obviously ambiguous, here.
Like Ralph said on the Simpsons, "It's funny, but not ha-ha funny."
Like these intemperate charges have unreasonable 'costs and effects' at home and abroad, that's how.
"Um, this important world leader didn't do that, there's no reason at all to think that's true. No, it doesn't work like whether you 'like' them."
"But I said..."
So you're using it as a method to "coach" people in the legal sense?
"Not as such, no."
So "instruction" in the negative legal sense is one of your things, though?
Wider World: You really just shouldn't say such things, anyway.
(Makes us look bad.)
"Intellectually lazy, or imbecilic."
(Really. This is really pretty poor stuff. You read the 'brilliant' into it.)
No evidence, sorry. This case is documented somewhere and no one is presenting evidence, because that would lead to nothing and those who would accuse would expose themselves to prosecution.
"Do you mean the case against the 'Making Millions' reality TV star?"
Well, I read the Dallas Morning News article about that.
"Wait, that's not what you think it is..."
Perhaps it really is, it would be what it is said to be?
"What's this?"
The star of "Making Millions", a reality TV show, is accused of having given 'an incurable STD' to some female partners.
"What's his name?"
Bill Hutchinson, apparently.
"What's an 'incurable STD'?"
By the usual rules of US legal semantics, "not hepatitis and not herpes".
"Is that so?"
Does anyone know differently?
"So you're saying that this Bill Hutchinson is known under another name as a public figure, and has given what I figure to be... HIV to his Tinder dates?"
It seems to be the subject of this lawsuit reported in a newspaper.
"No thanks."
Sure.
"Furthermore, could you also direct me to..."
Do you think you could not 'embellish' every little thing?
Also, maybe don't slander world leaders in an 'incendiary' way again. No way did he do this, some way he is Mr. Macron. Really.
"What about Melenchon?"
That's a good question.
"Are you more of an admirer of Melenchon, really?"
In the Western Hemisphere that's actually a less-than-sensible question.
The politics of France really just doesn't have anything to do with us, actually.
"So Melenchon isn't an alternative to Macron?"
For French people, maybe.
"But this says that Macron..."
Don't be a credulous dope, please. I mean this. It's incredibly tiresome.
Jeffrey Rubard
2023-10-02 15:52:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
"What's the diff?"
A misplaced focus of interest.
"What if I felt like talking shit to both of them?"
Well, it's more like you're talking shit *about* both of them.
Furthermore, the charges leveled are at such a level of severity that...
"You say stuff like that sometimes."
Yeah, I do say stuff like that sometimes.
"What would be just fair, then?"
Emmanuel Macron is... *not Zen*? I don't know.
But these are 'very grave' words to say about a public figure, even in jest.
"Couldn't there even be something real like that, though? But not Macron and Canada, obviously."
"Beto O'Rourke" paying for and masterminding the Uvalde school massacre?
That would be a "skosh" more plausible as an idea, I guess.
Which statement is more potentially "defamatory", the one about Macron or the one about O'Rourke? One wonders.
"The statement about Macron is an elliptic political metaphor."
Yeah, but maybe Beto *really did that*.
"What's the difference?"
Do you think *Macron* did the Uvalde attack, etc?
"It's a metaphor for abortion."
Oh, goody. Did you notice, then, that...
Most Americans strongly support abortion rights?
"It's debatable."
In a sophistical, misleading spirit.
They really do support abortion. It's why you see ham-handed "on the one hand..." talk even at this level of the debate.
Also: Really don't say stuff like that about foreign leaders like Macron. It's, like, not mature to do so.
"Puts America in a bad light." No, really.
"Even though it's laughable?"
The word "laughable" is obviously ambiguous, here.
Like Ralph said on the Simpsons, "It's funny, but not ha-ha funny."
Like these intemperate charges have unreasonable 'costs and effects' at home and abroad, that's how.
"Um, this important world leader didn't do that, there's no reason at all to think that's true. No, it doesn't work like whether you 'like' them."
"But I said..."
So you're using it as a method to "coach" people in the legal sense?
"Not as such, no."
So "instruction" in the negative legal sense is one of your things, though?
Wider World: You really just shouldn't say such things, anyway.
(Makes us look bad.)
"Intellectually lazy, or imbecilic."
(Really. This is really pretty poor stuff. You read the 'brilliant' into it.)
No evidence, sorry. This case is documented somewhere and no one is presenting evidence, because that would lead to nothing and those who would accuse would expose themselves to prosecution.
"Do you mean the case against the 'Making Millions' reality TV star?"
Well, I read the Dallas Morning News article about that.
"Wait, that's not what you think it is..."
Perhaps it really is, it would be what it is said to be?
"What's this?"
The star of "Making Millions", a reality TV show, is accused of having given 'an incurable STD' to some female partners.
"What's his name?"
Bill Hutchinson, apparently.
"What's an 'incurable STD'?"
By the usual rules of US legal semantics, "not hepatitis and not herpes".
"Is that so?"
Does anyone know differently?
"So you're saying that this Bill Hutchinson is known under another name as a public figure, and has given what I figure to be... HIV to his Tinder dates?"
It seems to be the subject of this lawsuit reported in a newspaper.
"No thanks."
Sure.
"Furthermore, could you also direct me to..."
Do you think you could not 'embellish' every little thing?
Also, maybe don't slander world leaders in an 'incendiary' way again. No way did he do this, some way he is Mr. Macron. Really.
"What about Melenchon?"
That's a good question.
"Are you more of an admirer of Melenchon, really?"
In the Western Hemisphere that's actually a less-than-sensible question.
The politics of France really just doesn't have anything to do with us, actually.
"So Melenchon isn't an alternative to Macron?"
For French people, maybe.
"But this says that Macron..."
Don't be a credulous dope, please. I mean this. It's incredibly tiresome.
"No, really, it might be that..."
Such harsh and potentially 'actionable' words about a world leader, which are rather obviously 'refractory to reality', might not be put about?
Jeffrey Rubard
2023-10-03 18:30:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
"What's the diff?"
A misplaced focus of interest.
"What if I felt like talking shit to both of them?"
Well, it's more like you're talking shit *about* both of them.
Furthermore, the charges leveled are at such a level of severity that...
"You say stuff like that sometimes."
Yeah, I do say stuff like that sometimes.
"What would be just fair, then?"
Emmanuel Macron is... *not Zen*? I don't know.
But these are 'very grave' words to say about a public figure, even in jest.
"Couldn't there even be something real like that, though? But not Macron and Canada, obviously."
"Beto O'Rourke" paying for and masterminding the Uvalde school massacre?
That would be a "skosh" more plausible as an idea, I guess.
Which statement is more potentially "defamatory", the one about Macron or the one about O'Rourke? One wonders.
"The statement about Macron is an elliptic political metaphor."
Yeah, but maybe Beto *really did that*.
"What's the difference?"
Do you think *Macron* did the Uvalde attack, etc?
"It's a metaphor for abortion."
Oh, goody. Did you notice, then, that...
Most Americans strongly support abortion rights?
"It's debatable."
In a sophistical, misleading spirit.
They really do support abortion. It's why you see ham-handed "on the one hand..." talk even at this level of the debate.
Also: Really don't say stuff like that about foreign leaders like Macron. It's, like, not mature to do so.
"Puts America in a bad light." No, really.
"Even though it's laughable?"
The word "laughable" is obviously ambiguous, here.
Like Ralph said on the Simpsons, "It's funny, but not ha-ha funny."
Like these intemperate charges have unreasonable 'costs and effects' at home and abroad, that's how.
"Um, this important world leader didn't do that, there's no reason at all to think that's true. No, it doesn't work like whether you 'like' them."
"But I said..."
So you're using it as a method to "coach" people in the legal sense?
"Not as such, no."
So "instruction" in the negative legal sense is one of your things, though?
Wider World: You really just shouldn't say such things, anyway.
(Makes us look bad.)
"Intellectually lazy, or imbecilic."
(Really. This is really pretty poor stuff. You read the 'brilliant' into it.)
No evidence, sorry. This case is documented somewhere and no one is presenting evidence, because that would lead to nothing and those who would accuse would expose themselves to prosecution.
"Do you mean the case against the 'Making Millions' reality TV star?"
Well, I read the Dallas Morning News article about that.
"Wait, that's not what you think it is..."
Perhaps it really is, it would be what it is said to be?
"What's this?"
The star of "Making Millions", a reality TV show, is accused of having given 'an incurable STD' to some female partners.
"What's his name?"
Bill Hutchinson, apparently.
"What's an 'incurable STD'?"
By the usual rules of US legal semantics, "not hepatitis and not herpes".
"Is that so?"
Does anyone know differently?
"So you're saying that this Bill Hutchinson is known under another name as a public figure, and has given what I figure to be... HIV to his Tinder dates?"
It seems to be the subject of this lawsuit reported in a newspaper.
"No thanks."
Sure.
"Furthermore, could you also direct me to..."
Do you think you could not 'embellish' every little thing?
Also, maybe don't slander world leaders in an 'incendiary' way again. No way did he do this, some way he is Mr. Macron. Really.
"What about Melenchon?"
That's a good question.
"Are you more of an admirer of Melenchon, really?"
In the Western Hemisphere that's actually a less-than-sensible question.
The politics of France really just doesn't have anything to do with us, actually.
"So Melenchon isn't an alternative to Macron?"
For French people, maybe.
"But this says that Macron..."
Don't be a credulous dope, please. I mean this. It's incredibly tiresome.
"No, really, it might be that..."
Such harsh and potentially 'actionable' words about a world leader, which are rather obviously 'refractory to reality', might not be put about?
I mean, that "smear" bums me out, and I say pretty terrible things about people...
Jeffrey Rubard
2023-10-03 18:31:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
"What's the diff?"
A misplaced focus of interest.
"What if I felt like talking shit to both of them?"
Well, it's more like you're talking shit *about* both of them.
Furthermore, the charges leveled are at such a level of severity that...
"You say stuff like that sometimes."
Yeah, I do say stuff like that sometimes.
"What would be just fair, then?"
Emmanuel Macron is... *not Zen*? I don't know.
But these are 'very grave' words to say about a public figure, even in jest.
"Couldn't there even be something real like that, though? But not Macron and Canada, obviously."
"Beto O'Rourke" paying for and masterminding the Uvalde school massacre?
That would be a "skosh" more plausible as an idea, I guess.
Which statement is more potentially "defamatory", the one about Macron or the one about O'Rourke? One wonders.
"The statement about Macron is an elliptic political metaphor."
Yeah, but maybe Beto *really did that*.
"What's the difference?"
Do you think *Macron* did the Uvalde attack, etc?
"It's a metaphor for abortion."
Oh, goody. Did you notice, then, that...
Most Americans strongly support abortion rights?
"It's debatable."
In a sophistical, misleading spirit.
They really do support abortion. It's why you see ham-handed "on the one hand..." talk even at this level of the debate.
Also: Really don't say stuff like that about foreign leaders like Macron. It's, like, not mature to do so.
"Puts America in a bad light." No, really.
"Even though it's laughable?"
The word "laughable" is obviously ambiguous, here.
Like Ralph said on the Simpsons, "It's funny, but not ha-ha funny."
Like these intemperate charges have unreasonable 'costs and effects' at home and abroad, that's how.
"Um, this important world leader didn't do that, there's no reason at all to think that's true. No, it doesn't work like whether you 'like' them."
"But I said..."
So you're using it as a method to "coach" people in the legal sense?
"Not as such, no."
So "instruction" in the negative legal sense is one of your things, though?
Wider World: You really just shouldn't say such things, anyway.
(Makes us look bad.)
"Intellectually lazy, or imbecilic."
(Really. This is really pretty poor stuff. You read the 'brilliant' into it.)
No evidence, sorry. This case is documented somewhere and no one is presenting evidence, because that would lead to nothing and those who would accuse would expose themselves to prosecution.
"Do you mean the case against the 'Making Millions' reality TV star?"
Well, I read the Dallas Morning News article about that.
"Wait, that's not what you think it is..."
Perhaps it really is, it would be what it is said to be?
"What's this?"
The star of "Making Millions", a reality TV show, is accused of having given 'an incurable STD' to some female partners.
"What's his name?"
Bill Hutchinson, apparently.
"What's an 'incurable STD'?"
By the usual rules of US legal semantics, "not hepatitis and not herpes".
"Is that so?"
Does anyone know differently?
"So you're saying that this Bill Hutchinson is known under another name as a public figure, and has given what I figure to be... HIV to his Tinder dates?"
It seems to be the subject of this lawsuit reported in a newspaper.
"No thanks."
Sure.
"Furthermore, could you also direct me to..."
Do you think you could not 'embellish' every little thing?
Also, maybe don't slander world leaders in an 'incendiary' way again. No way did he do this, some way he is Mr. Macron. Really.
"What about Melenchon?"
That's a good question.
"Are you more of an admirer of Melenchon, really?"
In the Western Hemisphere that's actually a less-than-sensible question.
The politics of France really just doesn't have anything to do with us, actually.
"So Melenchon isn't an alternative to Macron?"
For French people, maybe.
"But this says that Macron..."
Don't be a credulous dope, please. I mean this. It's incredibly tiresome.
"No, really, it might be that..."
Such harsh and potentially 'actionable' words about a world leader, which are rather obviously 'refractory to reality', might not be put about?
I mean, that "smear" bums me out, and I say pretty terrible things about people...
"You just love Macron."
I think that maybe I'd be more of a fan of Melenchon, really. However, I don't live in France, so it's really just not that relevant to my "everyday".
Jeffrey Rubard
2023-10-04 19:07:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
"What's the diff?"
A misplaced focus of interest.
"What if I felt like talking shit to both of them?"
Well, it's more like you're talking shit *about* both of them.
Furthermore, the charges leveled are at such a level of severity that...
"You say stuff like that sometimes."
Yeah, I do say stuff like that sometimes.
"What would be just fair, then?"
Emmanuel Macron is... *not Zen*? I don't know.
But these are 'very grave' words to say about a public figure, even in jest.
"Couldn't there even be something real like that, though? But not Macron and Canada, obviously."
"Beto O'Rourke" paying for and masterminding the Uvalde school massacre?
That would be a "skosh" more plausible as an idea, I guess.
Which statement is more potentially "defamatory", the one about Macron or the one about O'Rourke? One wonders.
"The statement about Macron is an elliptic political metaphor."
Yeah, but maybe Beto *really did that*.
"What's the difference?"
Do you think *Macron* did the Uvalde attack, etc?
"It's a metaphor for abortion."
Oh, goody. Did you notice, then, that...
Most Americans strongly support abortion rights?
"It's debatable."
In a sophistical, misleading spirit.
They really do support abortion. It's why you see ham-handed "on the one hand..." talk even at this level of the debate.
Also: Really don't say stuff like that about foreign leaders like Macron. It's, like, not mature to do so.
"Puts America in a bad light." No, really.
"Even though it's laughable?"
The word "laughable" is obviously ambiguous, here.
Like Ralph said on the Simpsons, "It's funny, but not ha-ha funny."
Like these intemperate charges have unreasonable 'costs and effects' at home and abroad, that's how.
"Um, this important world leader didn't do that, there's no reason at all to think that's true. No, it doesn't work like whether you 'like' them."
"But I said..."
So you're using it as a method to "coach" people in the legal sense?
"Not as such, no."
So "instruction" in the negative legal sense is one of your things, though?
Wider World: You really just shouldn't say such things, anyway.
(Makes us look bad.)
"Intellectually lazy, or imbecilic."
(Really. This is really pretty poor stuff. You read the 'brilliant' into it.)
No evidence, sorry. This case is documented somewhere and no one is presenting evidence, because that would lead to nothing and those who would accuse would expose themselves to prosecution.
"Do you mean the case against the 'Making Millions' reality TV star?"
Well, I read the Dallas Morning News article about that.
"Wait, that's not what you think it is..."
Perhaps it really is, it would be what it is said to be?
"What's this?"
The star of "Making Millions", a reality TV show, is accused of having given 'an incurable STD' to some female partners.
"What's his name?"
Bill Hutchinson, apparently.
"What's an 'incurable STD'?"
By the usual rules of US legal semantics, "not hepatitis and not herpes".
"Is that so?"
Does anyone know differently?
"So you're saying that this Bill Hutchinson is known under another name as a public figure, and has given what I figure to be... HIV to his Tinder dates?"
It seems to be the subject of this lawsuit reported in a newspaper.
"No thanks."
Sure.
"Furthermore, could you also direct me to..."
Do you think you could not 'embellish' every little thing?
Also, maybe don't slander world leaders in an 'incendiary' way again. No way did he do this, some way he is Mr. Macron. Really.
"What about Melenchon?"
That's a good question.
"Are you more of an admirer of Melenchon, really?"
In the Western Hemisphere that's actually a less-than-sensible question.
The politics of France really just doesn't have anything to do with us, actually.
"So Melenchon isn't an alternative to Macron?"
For French people, maybe.
"But this says that Macron..."
Don't be a credulous dope, please. I mean this. It's incredibly tiresome.
"No, really, it might be that..."
Such harsh and potentially 'actionable' words about a world leader, which are rather obviously 'refractory to reality', might not be put about?
I mean, that "smear" bums me out, and I say pretty terrible things about people...
"You just love Macron."
I think that maybe I'd be more of a fan of Melenchon, really. However, I don't live in France, so it's really just not that relevant to my "everyday".
"Like Philipp Melancthon?"
I think that's a 'dubiety'.
Jeffrey Rubard
2023-12-19 23:22:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
"What's the diff?"
A misplaced focus of interest.
"What if I felt like talking shit to both of them?"
Well, it's more like you're talking shit *about* both of them.
Furthermore, the charges leveled are at such a level of severity that...
"You say stuff like that sometimes."
Yeah, I do say stuff like that sometimes.
"What would be just fair, then?"
Emmanuel Macron is... *not Zen*? I don't know.
But these are 'very grave' words to say about a public figure, even in jest.
"Couldn't there even be something real like that, though? But not Macron and Canada, obviously."
"Beto O'Rourke" paying for and masterminding the Uvalde school massacre?
That would be a "skosh" more plausible as an idea, I guess.
Which statement is more potentially "defamatory", the one about Macron or the one about O'Rourke? One wonders.
"The statement about Macron is an elliptic political metaphor."
Yeah, but maybe Beto *really did that*.
"What's the difference?"
Do you think *Macron* did the Uvalde attack, etc?
"It's a metaphor for abortion."
Oh, goody. Did you notice, then, that...
Most Americans strongly support abortion rights?
"It's debatable."
In a sophistical, misleading spirit.
They really do support abortion. It's why you see ham-handed "on the one hand..." talk even at this level of the debate.
Also: Really don't say stuff like that about foreign leaders like Macron. It's, like, not mature to do so.
"Puts America in a bad light." No, really.
"Even though it's laughable?"
The word "laughable" is obviously ambiguous, here.
Like Ralph said on the Simpsons, "It's funny, but not ha-ha funny."
Like these intemperate charges have unreasonable 'costs and effects' at home and abroad, that's how.
"Um, this important world leader didn't do that, there's no reason at all to think that's true. No, it doesn't work like whether you 'like' them."
"But I said..."
So you're using it as a method to "coach" people in the legal sense?
"Not as such, no."
So "instruction" in the negative legal sense is one of your things, though?
Wider World: You really just shouldn't say such things, anyway.
(Makes us look bad.)
"Intellectually lazy, or imbecilic."
(Really. This is really pretty poor stuff. You read the 'brilliant' into it.)
No evidence, sorry. This case is documented somewhere and no one is presenting evidence, because that would lead to nothing and those who would accuse would expose themselves to prosecution.
"Do you mean the case against the 'Making Millions' reality TV star?"
Well, I read the Dallas Morning News article about that.
"Wait, that's not what you think it is..."
Perhaps it really is, it would be what it is said to be?
"What's this?"
The star of "Making Millions", a reality TV show, is accused of having given 'an incurable STD' to some female partners.
"What's his name?"
Bill Hutchinson, apparently.
"What's an 'incurable STD'?"
By the usual rules of US legal semantics, "not hepatitis and not herpes".
"Is that so?"
Does anyone know differently?
"So you're saying that this Bill Hutchinson is known under another name as a public figure, and has given what I figure to be... HIV to his Tinder dates?"
It seems to be the subject of this lawsuit reported in a newspaper.
"No thanks."
Sure.
"Furthermore, could you also direct me to..."
Do you think you could not 'embellish' every little thing?
Also, maybe don't slander world leaders in an 'incendiary' way again. No way did he do this, some way he is Mr. Macron. Really.
"What about Melenchon?"
That's a good question.
"Are you more of an admirer of Melenchon, really?"
In the Western Hemisphere that's actually a less-than-sensible question.
The politics of France really just doesn't have anything to do with us, actually.
"So Melenchon isn't an alternative to Macron?"
For French people, maybe.
"But this says that Macron..."
Don't be a credulous dope, please. I mean this. It's incredibly tiresome.
"No, really, it might be that..."
Such harsh and potentially 'actionable' words about a world leader, which are rather obviously 'refractory to reality', might not be put about?
I mean, that "smear" bums me out, and I say pretty terrible things about people...
"You just love Macron."
I think that maybe I'd be more of a fan of Melenchon, really. However, I don't live in France, so it's really just not that relevant to my "everyday".
"Like Philipp Melancthon?"
I think that's a 'dubiety'.
"Compared to that garbage about Macron? Oh, man..."
These people (rich, venal, psychopathic morons) mean you focus more on 'on-yous', man.
Jeffrey Rubard
2023-12-20 16:50:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
"What's the diff?"
A misplaced focus of interest.
"What if I felt like talking shit to both of them?"
Well, it's more like you're talking shit *about* both of them.
Furthermore, the charges leveled are at such a level of severity that...
"You say stuff like that sometimes."
Yeah, I do say stuff like that sometimes.
"What would be just fair, then?"
Emmanuel Macron is... *not Zen*? I don't know.
But these are 'very grave' words to say about a public figure, even in jest.
"Couldn't there even be something real like that, though? But not Macron and Canada, obviously."
"Beto O'Rourke" paying for and masterminding the Uvalde school massacre?
That would be a "skosh" more plausible as an idea, I guess.
Which statement is more potentially "defamatory", the one about Macron or the one about O'Rourke? One wonders.
"The statement about Macron is an elliptic political metaphor."
Yeah, but maybe Beto *really did that*.
"What's the difference?"
Do you think *Macron* did the Uvalde attack, etc?
"It's a metaphor for abortion."
Oh, goody. Did you notice, then, that...
Most Americans strongly support abortion rights?
"It's debatable."
In a sophistical, misleading spirit.
They really do support abortion. It's why you see ham-handed "on the one hand..." talk even at this level of the debate.
Also: Really don't say stuff like that about foreign leaders like Macron. It's, like, not mature to do so.
"Puts America in a bad light." No, really.
"Even though it's laughable?"
The word "laughable" is obviously ambiguous, here.
Like Ralph said on the Simpsons, "It's funny, but not ha-ha funny."
Like these intemperate charges have unreasonable 'costs and effects' at home and abroad, that's how.
"Um, this important world leader didn't do that, there's no reason at all to think that's true. No, it doesn't work like whether you 'like' them."
"But I said..."
So you're using it as a method to "coach" people in the legal sense?
"Not as such, no."
So "instruction" in the negative legal sense is one of your things, though?
Wider World: You really just shouldn't say such things, anyway.
(Makes us look bad.)
"Intellectually lazy, or imbecilic."
(Really. This is really pretty poor stuff. You read the 'brilliant' into it.)
No evidence, sorry. This case is documented somewhere and no one is presenting evidence, because that would lead to nothing and those who would accuse would expose themselves to prosecution.
"Do you mean the case against the 'Making Millions' reality TV star?"
Well, I read the Dallas Morning News article about that.
"Wait, that's not what you think it is..."
Perhaps it really is, it would be what it is said to be?
"What's this?"
The star of "Making Millions", a reality TV show, is accused of having given 'an incurable STD' to some female partners.
"What's his name?"
Bill Hutchinson, apparently.
"What's an 'incurable STD'?"
By the usual rules of US legal semantics, "not hepatitis and not herpes".
"Is that so?"
Does anyone know differently?
"So you're saying that this Bill Hutchinson is known under another name as a public figure, and has given what I figure to be... HIV to his Tinder dates?"
It seems to be the subject of this lawsuit reported in a newspaper.
"No thanks."
Sure.
"Furthermore, could you also direct me to..."
Do you think you could not 'embellish' every little thing?
Also, maybe don't slander world leaders in an 'incendiary' way again. No way did he do this, some way he is Mr. Macron. Really.
"What about Melenchon?"
That's a good question.
"Are you more of an admirer of Melenchon, really?"
In the Western Hemisphere that's actually a less-than-sensible question.
The politics of France really just doesn't have anything to do with us, actually.
"So Melenchon isn't an alternative to Macron?"
For French people, maybe.
"But this says that Macron..."
Don't be a credulous dope, please. I mean this. It's incredibly tiresome.
"No, really, it might be that..."
Such harsh and potentially 'actionable' words about a world leader, which are rather obviously 'refractory to reality', might not be put about?
I mean, that "smear" bums me out, and I say pretty terrible things about people...
"You just love Macron."
I think that maybe I'd be more of a fan of Melenchon, really. However, I don't live in France, so it's really just not that relevant to my "everyday".
"Like Philipp Melancthon?"
I think that's a 'dubiety'.
"Compared to that garbage about Macron? Oh, man..."
These people (rich, venal, psychopathic morons) mean you focus more on 'on-yous', man.
"Like, has it been a full life, Mr. R?"
Yeah, but it's one whose history isn't really crisply and candidly told out of these people's crack-pipes, man.
Jeffrey Rubard
2023-12-27 16:45:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
"What's the diff?"
A misplaced focus of interest.
"What if I felt like talking shit to both of them?"
Well, it's more like you're talking shit *about* both of them.
Furthermore, the charges leveled are at such a level of severity that...
"You say stuff like that sometimes."
Yeah, I do say stuff like that sometimes.
"What would be just fair, then?"
Emmanuel Macron is... *not Zen*? I don't know.
But these are 'very grave' words to say about a public figure, even in jest.
"Couldn't there even be something real like that, though? But not Macron and Canada, obviously."
"Beto O'Rourke" paying for and masterminding the Uvalde school massacre?
That would be a "skosh" more plausible as an idea, I guess.
Which statement is more potentially "defamatory", the one about Macron or the one about O'Rourke? One wonders.
"The statement about Macron is an elliptic political metaphor."
Yeah, but maybe Beto *really did that*.
"What's the difference?"
Do you think *Macron* did the Uvalde attack, etc?
"It's a metaphor for abortion."
Oh, goody. Did you notice, then, that...
Most Americans strongly support abortion rights?
"It's debatable."
In a sophistical, misleading spirit.
They really do support abortion. It's why you see ham-handed "on the one hand..." talk even at this level of the debate.
Also: Really don't say stuff like that about foreign leaders like Macron. It's, like, not mature to do so.
"Puts America in a bad light." No, really.
"Even though it's laughable?"
The word "laughable" is obviously ambiguous, here.
Like Ralph said on the Simpsons, "It's funny, but not ha-ha funny."
Like these intemperate charges have unreasonable 'costs and effects' at home and abroad, that's how.
"Um, this important world leader didn't do that, there's no reason at all to think that's true. No, it doesn't work like whether you 'like' them."
"But I said..."
So you're using it as a method to "coach" people in the legal sense?
"Not as such, no."
So "instruction" in the negative legal sense is one of your things, though?
Wider World: You really just shouldn't say such things, anyway.
(Makes us look bad.)
"Intellectually lazy, or imbecilic."
(Really. This is really pretty poor stuff. You read the 'brilliant' into it.)
No evidence, sorry. This case is documented somewhere and no one is presenting evidence, because that would lead to nothing and those who would accuse would expose themselves to prosecution.
"Do you mean the case against the 'Making Millions' reality TV star?"
Well, I read the Dallas Morning News article about that.
"Wait, that's not what you think it is..."
Perhaps it really is, it would be what it is said to be?
"What's this?"
The star of "Making Millions", a reality TV show, is accused of having given 'an incurable STD' to some female partners.
"What's his name?"
Bill Hutchinson, apparently.
"What's an 'incurable STD'?"
By the usual rules of US legal semantics, "not hepatitis and not herpes".
"Is that so?"
Does anyone know differently?
"So you're saying that this Bill Hutchinson is known under another name as a public figure, and has given what I figure to be... HIV to his Tinder dates?"
It seems to be the subject of this lawsuit reported in a newspaper.
"No thanks."
Sure.
"Furthermore, could you also direct me to..."
Do you think you could not 'embellish' every little thing?
Also, maybe don't slander world leaders in an 'incendiary' way again. No way did he do this, some way he is Mr. Macron. Really.
"What about Melenchon?"
That's a good question.
"Are you more of an admirer of Melenchon, really?"
In the Western Hemisphere that's actually a less-than-sensible question.
The politics of France really just doesn't have anything to do with us, actually.
"So Melenchon isn't an alternative to Macron?"
For French people, maybe.
"But this says that Macron..."
Don't be a credulous dope, please. I mean this. It's incredibly tiresome.
"No, really, it might be that..."
Such harsh and potentially 'actionable' words about a world leader, which are rather obviously 'refractory to reality', might not be put about?
I mean, that "smear" bums me out, and I say pretty terrible things about people...
"You just love Macron."
I think that maybe I'd be more of a fan of Melenchon, really. However, I don't live in France, so it's really just not that relevant to my "everyday".
"Like Philipp Melancthon?"
I think that's a 'dubiety'.
"Compared to that garbage about Macron? Oh, man..."
These people (rich, venal, psychopathic morons) mean you focus more on 'on-yous', man.
"Like, has it been a full life, Mr. R?"
Yeah, but it's one whose history isn't really crisply and candidly told out of these people's crack-pipes, man.
"I see. As with..."
You really don't say stuff like that about a world leader like Macron, man.
"Oh, you just say that because..."
Maybe he wouldn't even be 'my favorite'. Maybe that's just deranged slander, idiots.
Jeffrey Rubard
2024-01-02 20:43:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
"What's the diff?"
A misplaced focus of interest.
"What if I felt like talking shit to both of them?"
Well, it's more like you're talking shit *about* both of them.
Furthermore, the charges leveled are at such a level of severity that...
"You say stuff like that sometimes."
Yeah, I do say stuff like that sometimes.
"What would be just fair, then?"
Emmanuel Macron is... *not Zen*? I don't know.
But these are 'very grave' words to say about a public figure, even in jest.
"Couldn't there even be something real like that, though? But not Macron and Canada, obviously."
"Beto O'Rourke" paying for and masterminding the Uvalde school massacre?
That would be a "skosh" more plausible as an idea, I guess.
Which statement is more potentially "defamatory", the one about Macron or the one about O'Rourke? One wonders.
"The statement about Macron is an elliptic political metaphor."
Yeah, but maybe Beto *really did that*.
"What's the difference?"
Do you think *Macron* did the Uvalde attack, etc?
"It's a metaphor for abortion."
Oh, goody. Did you notice, then, that...
Most Americans strongly support abortion rights?
"It's debatable."
In a sophistical, misleading spirit.
They really do support abortion. It's why you see ham-handed "on the one hand..." talk even at this level of the debate.
Also: Really don't say stuff like that about foreign leaders like Macron. It's, like, not mature to do so.
"Puts America in a bad light." No, really.
"Even though it's laughable?"
The word "laughable" is obviously ambiguous, here.
Like Ralph said on the Simpsons, "It's funny, but not ha-ha funny."
Like these intemperate charges have unreasonable 'costs and effects' at home and abroad, that's how.
"Um, this important world leader didn't do that, there's no reason at all to think that's true. No, it doesn't work like whether you 'like' them."
"But I said..."
So you're using it as a method to "coach" people in the legal sense?
"Not as such, no."
So "instruction" in the negative legal sense is one of your things, though?
Wider World: You really just shouldn't say such things, anyway.
(Makes us look bad.)
"Intellectually lazy, or imbecilic."
(Really. This is really pretty poor stuff. You read the 'brilliant' into it.)
No evidence, sorry. This case is documented somewhere and no one is presenting evidence, because that would lead to nothing and those who would accuse would expose themselves to prosecution.
"Do you mean the case against the 'Making Millions' reality TV star?"
Well, I read the Dallas Morning News article about that.
"Wait, that's not what you think it is..."
Perhaps it really is, it would be what it is said to be?
"What's this?"
The star of "Making Millions", a reality TV show, is accused of having given 'an incurable STD' to some female partners.
"What's his name?"
Bill Hutchinson, apparently.
"What's an 'incurable STD'?"
By the usual rules of US legal semantics, "not hepatitis and not herpes".
"Is that so?"
Does anyone know differently?
"So you're saying that this Bill Hutchinson is known under another name as a public figure, and has given what I figure to be... HIV to his Tinder dates?"
It seems to be the subject of this lawsuit reported in a newspaper.
"No thanks."
Sure.
"Furthermore, could you also direct me to..."
Do you think you could not 'embellish' every little thing?
Also, maybe don't slander world leaders in an 'incendiary' way again. No way did he do this, some way he is Mr. Macron. Really.
"What about Melenchon?"
That's a good question.
"Are you more of an admirer of Melenchon, really?"
In the Western Hemisphere that's actually a less-than-sensible question.
The politics of France really just doesn't have anything to do with us, actually.
"So Melenchon isn't an alternative to Macron?"
For French people, maybe.
"But this says that Macron..."
Don't be a credulous dope, please. I mean this. It's incredibly tiresome.
"No, really, it might be that..."
Such harsh and potentially 'actionable' words about a world leader, which are rather obviously 'refractory to reality', might not be put about?
I mean, that "smear" bums me out, and I say pretty terrible things about people...
"You just love Macron."
I think that maybe I'd be more of a fan of Melenchon, really. However, I don't live in France, so it's really just not that relevant to my "everyday".
"Like Philipp Melancthon?"
I think that's a 'dubiety'.
"Compared to that garbage about Macron? Oh, man..."
These people (rich, venal, psychopathic morons) mean you focus more on 'on-yous', man.
"Like, has it been a full life, Mr. R?"
Yeah, but it's one whose history isn't really crisply and candidly told out of these people's crack-pipes, man.
"I see. As with..."
You really don't say stuff like that about a world leader like Macron, man.
"Oh, you just say that because..."
Maybe he wouldn't even be 'my favorite'. Maybe that's just deranged slander, idiots.
(Really, dopes. This stuff costs the US like you tiresome 'HYP' types and their enablers don't know.)
Jeffrey Rubard
2024-01-04 16:41:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
"What's the diff?"
A misplaced focus of interest.
"What if I felt like talking shit to both of them?"
Well, it's more like you're talking shit *about* both of them.
Furthermore, the charges leveled are at such a level of severity that...
"You say stuff like that sometimes."
Yeah, I do say stuff like that sometimes.
"What would be just fair, then?"
Emmanuel Macron is... *not Zen*? I don't know.
But these are 'very grave' words to say about a public figure, even in jest.
"Couldn't there even be something real like that, though? But not Macron and Canada, obviously."
"Beto O'Rourke" paying for and masterminding the Uvalde school massacre?
That would be a "skosh" more plausible as an idea, I guess.
Which statement is more potentially "defamatory", the one about Macron or the one about O'Rourke? One wonders.
"The statement about Macron is an elliptic political metaphor."
Yeah, but maybe Beto *really did that*.
"What's the difference?"
Do you think *Macron* did the Uvalde attack, etc?
"It's a metaphor for abortion."
Oh, goody. Did you notice, then, that...
Most Americans strongly support abortion rights?
"It's debatable."
In a sophistical, misleading spirit.
They really do support abortion. It's why you see ham-handed "on the one hand..." talk even at this level of the debate.
Also: Really don't say stuff like that about foreign leaders like Macron. It's, like, not mature to do so.
"Puts America in a bad light." No, really.
"Even though it's laughable?"
The word "laughable" is obviously ambiguous, here.
Like Ralph said on the Simpsons, "It's funny, but not ha-ha funny."
Like these intemperate charges have unreasonable 'costs and effects' at home and abroad, that's how.
"Um, this important world leader didn't do that, there's no reason at all to think that's true. No, it doesn't work like whether you 'like' them."
"But I said..."
So you're using it as a method to "coach" people in the legal sense?
"Not as such, no."
So "instruction" in the negative legal sense is one of your things, though?
Wider World: You really just shouldn't say such things, anyway.
(Makes us look bad.)
"Intellectually lazy, or imbecilic."
(Really. This is really pretty poor stuff. You read the 'brilliant' into it.)
No evidence, sorry. This case is documented somewhere and no one is presenting evidence, because that would lead to nothing and those who would accuse would expose themselves to prosecution.
"Do you mean the case against the 'Making Millions' reality TV star?"
Well, I read the Dallas Morning News article about that.
"Wait, that's not what you think it is..."
Perhaps it really is, it would be what it is said to be?
"What's this?"
The star of "Making Millions", a reality TV show, is accused of having given 'an incurable STD' to some female partners.
"What's his name?"
Bill Hutchinson, apparently.
"What's an 'incurable STD'?"
By the usual rules of US legal semantics, "not hepatitis and not herpes".
"Is that so?"
Does anyone know differently?
"So you're saying that this Bill Hutchinson is known under another name as a public figure, and has given what I figure to be... HIV to his Tinder dates?"
It seems to be the subject of this lawsuit reported in a newspaper.
"No thanks."
Sure.
"Furthermore, could you also direct me to..."
Do you think you could not 'embellish' every little thing?
Also, maybe don't slander world leaders in an 'incendiary' way again. No way did he do this, some way he is Mr. Macron. Really.
"What about Melenchon?"
That's a good question.
"Are you more of an admirer of Melenchon, really?"
In the Western Hemisphere that's actually a less-than-sensible question.
The politics of France really just doesn't have anything to do with us, actually.
"So Melenchon isn't an alternative to Macron?"
For French people, maybe.
"But this says that Macron..."
Don't be a credulous dope, please. I mean this. It's incredibly tiresome.
"No, really, it might be that..."
Such harsh and potentially 'actionable' words about a world leader, which are rather obviously 'refractory to reality', might not be put about?
I mean, that "smear" bums me out, and I say pretty terrible things about people...
"You just love Macron."
I think that maybe I'd be more of a fan of Melenchon, really. However, I don't live in France, so it's really just not that relevant to my "everyday".
"Like Philipp Melancthon?"
I think that's a 'dubiety'.
"Compared to that garbage about Macron? Oh, man..."
These people (rich, venal, psychopathic morons) mean you focus more on 'on-yous', man.
"Like, has it been a full life, Mr. R?"
Yeah, but it's one whose history isn't really crisply and candidly told out of these people's crack-pipes, man.
"I see. As with..."
You really don't say stuff like that about a world leader like Macron, man.
"Oh, you just say that because..."
Maybe he wouldn't even be 'my favorite'. Maybe that's just deranged slander, idiots.
(Really, dopes. This stuff costs the US like you tiresome 'HYP' types and their enablers don't know.)
"Because Macron is personally offended by it?"
No.
Jeffrey Rubard
2024-01-15 19:27:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
"What's the diff?"
A misplaced focus of interest.
"What if I felt like talking shit to both of them?"
Well, it's more like you're talking shit *about* both of them.
Furthermore, the charges leveled are at such a level of severity that...
"You say stuff like that sometimes."
Yeah, I do say stuff like that sometimes.
"What would be just fair, then?"
Emmanuel Macron is... *not Zen*? I don't know.
But these are 'very grave' words to say about a public figure, even in jest.
"Couldn't there even be something real like that, though? But not Macron and Canada, obviously."
"Beto O'Rourke" paying for and masterminding the Uvalde school massacre?
That would be a "skosh" more plausible as an idea, I guess.
Which statement is more potentially "defamatory", the one about Macron or the one about O'Rourke? One wonders.
"The statement about Macron is an elliptic political metaphor."
Yeah, but maybe Beto *really did that*.
"What's the difference?"
Do you think *Macron* did the Uvalde attack, etc?
"It's a metaphor for abortion."
Oh, goody. Did you notice, then, that...
Most Americans strongly support abortion rights?
"It's debatable."
In a sophistical, misleading spirit.
They really do support abortion. It's why you see ham-handed "on the one hand..." talk even at this level of the debate.
Also: Really don't say stuff like that about foreign leaders like Macron. It's, like, not mature to do so.
"Puts America in a bad light." No, really.
"Even though it's laughable?"
The word "laughable" is obviously ambiguous, here.
Like Ralph said on the Simpsons, "It's funny, but not ha-ha funny."
Like these intemperate charges have unreasonable 'costs and effects' at home and abroad, that's how.
"Um, this important world leader didn't do that, there's no reason at all to think that's true. No, it doesn't work like whether you 'like' them."
"But I said..."
So you're using it as a method to "coach" people in the legal sense?
"Not as such, no."
So "instruction" in the negative legal sense is one of your things, though?
Wider World: You really just shouldn't say such things, anyway.
(Makes us look bad.)
"Intellectually lazy, or imbecilic."
(Really. This is really pretty poor stuff. You read the 'brilliant' into it.)
No evidence, sorry. This case is documented somewhere and no one is presenting evidence, because that would lead to nothing and those who would accuse would expose themselves to prosecution.
"Do you mean the case against the 'Making Millions' reality TV star?"
Well, I read the Dallas Morning News article about that.
"Wait, that's not what you think it is..."
Perhaps it really is, it would be what it is said to be?
"What's this?"
The star of "Making Millions", a reality TV show, is accused of having given 'an incurable STD' to some female partners.
"What's his name?"
Bill Hutchinson, apparently.
"What's an 'incurable STD'?"
By the usual rules of US legal semantics, "not hepatitis and not herpes".
"Is that so?"
Does anyone know differently?
"So you're saying that this Bill Hutchinson is known under another name as a public figure, and has given what I figure to be... HIV to his Tinder dates?"
It seems to be the subject of this lawsuit reported in a newspaper.
"No thanks."
Sure.
"Furthermore, could you also direct me to..."
Do you think you could not 'embellish' every little thing?
Also, maybe don't slander world leaders in an 'incendiary' way again. No way did he do this, some way he is Mr. Macron. Really.
"What about Melenchon?"
That's a good question.
"Are you more of an admirer of Melenchon, really?"
In the Western Hemisphere that's actually a less-than-sensible question.
The politics of France really just doesn't have anything to do with us, actually.
"So Melenchon isn't an alternative to Macron?"
For French people, maybe.
"But this says that Macron..."
Don't be a credulous dope, please. I mean this. It's incredibly tiresome.
"No, really, it might be that..."
Such harsh and potentially 'actionable' words about a world leader, which are rather obviously 'refractory to reality', might not be put about?
I mean, that "smear" bums me out, and I say pretty terrible things about people...
"You just love Macron."
I think that maybe I'd be more of a fan of Melenchon, really. However, I don't live in France, so it's really just not that relevant to my "everyday".
"Like Philipp Melancthon?"
I think that's a 'dubiety'.
"Compared to that garbage about Macron? Oh, man..."
These people (rich, venal, psychopathic morons) mean you focus more on 'on-yous', man.
"Like, has it been a full life, Mr. R?"
Yeah, but it's one whose history isn't really crisply and candidly told out of these people's crack-pipes, man.
"I see. As with..."
You really don't say stuff like that about a world leader like Macron, man.
"Oh, you just say that because..."
Maybe he wouldn't even be 'my favorite'. Maybe that's just deranged slander, idiots.
(Really, dopes. This stuff costs the US like you tiresome 'HYP' types and their enablers don't know.)
"Because Macron is personally offended by it?"
No.
"Because that kind of intemperate, crazy 'joking' makes us look bad in the eyes of the world." - Everybody Sober
Jeffrey Rubard
2024-01-20 17:26:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
"What's the diff?"
A misplaced focus of interest.
"What if I felt like talking shit to both of them?"
Well, it's more like you're talking shit *about* both of them.
Furthermore, the charges leveled are at such a level of severity that...
"You say stuff like that sometimes."
Yeah, I do say stuff like that sometimes.
"What would be just fair, then?"
Emmanuel Macron is... *not Zen*? I don't know.
But these are 'very grave' words to say about a public figure, even in jest.
"Couldn't there even be something real like that, though? But not Macron and Canada, obviously."
"Beto O'Rourke" paying for and masterminding the Uvalde school massacre?
That would be a "skosh" more plausible as an idea, I guess.
Which statement is more potentially "defamatory", the one about Macron or the one about O'Rourke? One wonders.
"The statement about Macron is an elliptic political metaphor."
Yeah, but maybe Beto *really did that*.
"What's the difference?"
Do you think *Macron* did the Uvalde attack, etc?
"It's a metaphor for abortion."
Oh, goody. Did you notice, then, that...
Most Americans strongly support abortion rights?
"It's debatable."
In a sophistical, misleading spirit.
They really do support abortion. It's why you see ham-handed "on the one hand..." talk even at this level of the debate.
Also: Really don't say stuff like that about foreign leaders like Macron. It's, like, not mature to do so.
"Puts America in a bad light." No, really.
"Even though it's laughable?"
The word "laughable" is obviously ambiguous, here.
Like Ralph said on the Simpsons, "It's funny, but not ha-ha funny."
Like these intemperate charges have unreasonable 'costs and effects' at home and abroad, that's how.
"Um, this important world leader didn't do that, there's no reason at all to think that's true. No, it doesn't work like whether you 'like' them."
"But I said..."
So you're using it as a method to "coach" people in the legal sense?
"Not as such, no."
So "instruction" in the negative legal sense is one of your things, though?
Wider World: You really just shouldn't say such things, anyway.
(Makes us look bad.)
"Intellectually lazy, or imbecilic."
(Really. This is really pretty poor stuff. You read the 'brilliant' into it.)
No evidence, sorry. This case is documented somewhere and no one is presenting evidence, because that would lead to nothing and those who would accuse would expose themselves to prosecution.
"Do you mean the case against the 'Making Millions' reality TV star?"
Well, I read the Dallas Morning News article about that.
"Wait, that's not what you think it is..."
Perhaps it really is, it would be what it is said to be?
"What's this?"
The star of "Making Millions", a reality TV show, is accused of having given 'an incurable STD' to some female partners.
"What's his name?"
Bill Hutchinson, apparently.
"What's an 'incurable STD'?"
By the usual rules of US legal semantics, "not hepatitis and not herpes".
"Is that so?"
Does anyone know differently?
"So you're saying that this Bill Hutchinson is known under another name as a public figure, and has given what I figure to be... HIV to his Tinder dates?"
It seems to be the subject of this lawsuit reported in a newspaper.
"No thanks."
Sure.
"Furthermore, could you also direct me to..."
Do you think you could not 'embellish' every little thing?
Also, maybe don't slander world leaders in an 'incendiary' way again. No way did he do this, some way he is Mr. Macron. Really.
"What about Melenchon?"
That's a good question.
"Are you more of an admirer of Melenchon, really?"
In the Western Hemisphere that's actually a less-than-sensible question.
The politics of France really just doesn't have anything to do with us, actually.
"So Melenchon isn't an alternative to Macron?"
For French people, maybe.
"But this says that Macron..."
Don't be a credulous dope, please. I mean this. It's incredibly tiresome.
"No, really, it might be that..."
Such harsh and potentially 'actionable' words about a world leader, which are rather obviously 'refractory to reality', might not be put about?
I mean, that "smear" bums me out, and I say pretty terrible things about people...
"You just love Macron."
I think that maybe I'd be more of a fan of Melenchon, really. However, I don't live in France, so it's really just not that relevant to my "everyday".
"Like Philipp Melancthon?"
I think that's a 'dubiety'.
"Compared to that garbage about Macron? Oh, man..."
These people (rich, venal, psychopathic morons) mean you focus more on 'on-yous', man.
"Like, has it been a full life, Mr. R?"
Yeah, but it's one whose history isn't really crisply and candidly told out of these people's crack-pipes, man.
"I see. As with..."
You really don't say stuff like that about a world leader like Macron, man.
"Oh, you just say that because..."
Maybe he wouldn't even be 'my favorite'. Maybe that's just deranged slander, idiots.
(Really, dopes. This stuff costs the US like you tiresome 'HYP' types and their enablers don't know.)
"Because Macron is personally offended by it?"
No.
"Because that kind of intemperate, crazy 'joking' makes us look bad in the eyes of the world." - Everybody Sober
Wider World:
"Maybe you should write Macron about it."
Maybe not, really.
Jeffrey Rubard
2024-01-21 19:36:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
"What's the diff?"
A misplaced focus of interest.
"What if I felt like talking shit to both of them?"
Well, it's more like you're talking shit *about* both of them.
Furthermore, the charges leveled are at such a level of severity that...
"You say stuff like that sometimes."
Yeah, I do say stuff like that sometimes.
"What would be just fair, then?"
Emmanuel Macron is... *not Zen*? I don't know.
But these are 'very grave' words to say about a public figure, even in jest.
"Couldn't there even be something real like that, though? But not Macron and Canada, obviously."
"Beto O'Rourke" paying for and masterminding the Uvalde school massacre?
That would be a "skosh" more plausible as an idea, I guess.
Which statement is more potentially "defamatory", the one about Macron or the one about O'Rourke? One wonders.
"The statement about Macron is an elliptic political metaphor."
Yeah, but maybe Beto *really did that*.
"What's the difference?"
Do you think *Macron* did the Uvalde attack, etc?
"It's a metaphor for abortion."
Oh, goody. Did you notice, then, that...
Most Americans strongly support abortion rights?
"It's debatable."
In a sophistical, misleading spirit.
They really do support abortion. It's why you see ham-handed "on the one hand..." talk even at this level of the debate.
Also: Really don't say stuff like that about foreign leaders like Macron. It's, like, not mature to do so.
"Puts America in a bad light." No, really.
"Even though it's laughable?"
The word "laughable" is obviously ambiguous, here.
Like Ralph said on the Simpsons, "It's funny, but not ha-ha funny."
Like these intemperate charges have unreasonable 'costs and effects' at home and abroad, that's how.
"Um, this important world leader didn't do that, there's no reason at all to think that's true. No, it doesn't work like whether you 'like' them."
"But I said..."
So you're using it as a method to "coach" people in the legal sense?
"Not as such, no."
So "instruction" in the negative legal sense is one of your things, though?
Wider World: You really just shouldn't say such things, anyway.
(Makes us look bad.)
"Intellectually lazy, or imbecilic."
(Really. This is really pretty poor stuff. You read the 'brilliant' into it.)
No evidence, sorry. This case is documented somewhere and no one is presenting evidence, because that would lead to nothing and those who would accuse would expose themselves to prosecution.
"Do you mean the case against the 'Making Millions' reality TV star?"
Well, I read the Dallas Morning News article about that.
"Wait, that's not what you think it is..."
Perhaps it really is, it would be what it is said to be?
"What's this?"
The star of "Making Millions", a reality TV show, is accused of having given 'an incurable STD' to some female partners.
"What's his name?"
Bill Hutchinson, apparently.
"What's an 'incurable STD'?"
By the usual rules of US legal semantics, "not hepatitis and not herpes".
"Is that so?"
Does anyone know differently?
"So you're saying that this Bill Hutchinson is known under another name as a public figure, and has given what I figure to be... HIV to his Tinder dates?"
It seems to be the subject of this lawsuit reported in a newspaper.
"No thanks."
Sure.
"Furthermore, could you also direct me to..."
Do you think you could not 'embellish' every little thing?
Also, maybe don't slander world leaders in an 'incendiary' way again. No way did he do this, some way he is Mr. Macron. Really.
"What about Melenchon?"
That's a good question.
"Are you more of an admirer of Melenchon, really?"
In the Western Hemisphere that's actually a less-than-sensible question.
The politics of France really just doesn't have anything to do with us, actually.
"So Melenchon isn't an alternative to Macron?"
For French people, maybe.
"But this says that Macron..."
Don't be a credulous dope, please. I mean this. It's incredibly tiresome.
"No, really, it might be that..."
Such harsh and potentially 'actionable' words about a world leader, which are rather obviously 'refractory to reality', might not be put about?
I mean, that "smear" bums me out, and I say pretty terrible things about people...
"You just love Macron."
I think that maybe I'd be more of a fan of Melenchon, really. However, I don't live in France, so it's really just not that relevant to my "everyday".
"Like Philipp Melancthon?"
I think that's a 'dubiety'.
"Compared to that garbage about Macron? Oh, man..."
These people (rich, venal, psychopathic morons) mean you focus more on 'on-yous', man.
"Like, has it been a full life, Mr. R?"
Yeah, but it's one whose history isn't really crisply and candidly told out of these people's crack-pipes, man.
"I see. As with..."
You really don't say stuff like that about a world leader like Macron, man.
"Oh, you just say that because..."
Maybe he wouldn't even be 'my favorite'. Maybe that's just deranged slander, idiots.
(Really, dopes. This stuff costs the US like you tiresome 'HYP' types and their enablers don't know.)
"Because Macron is personally offended by it?"
No.
"Because that kind of intemperate, crazy 'joking' makes us look bad in the eyes of the world." - Everybody Sober
"Maybe you should write Macron about it."
Maybe not, really.
"Hah, like you would ever have talked to Macron."
Did world history ask you for a 'permission slip', guy?
Jeffrey Rubard
2024-01-22 16:46:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
"What's the diff?"
A misplaced focus of interest.
"What if I felt like talking shit to both of them?"
Well, it's more like you're talking shit *about* both of them.
Furthermore, the charges leveled are at such a level of severity that...
"You say stuff like that sometimes."
Yeah, I do say stuff like that sometimes.
"What would be just fair, then?"
Emmanuel Macron is... *not Zen*? I don't know.
But these are 'very grave' words to say about a public figure, even in jest.
"Couldn't there even be something real like that, though? But not Macron and Canada, obviously."
"Beto O'Rourke" paying for and masterminding the Uvalde school massacre?
That would be a "skosh" more plausible as an idea, I guess.
Which statement is more potentially "defamatory", the one about Macron or the one about O'Rourke? One wonders.
"The statement about Macron is an elliptic political metaphor."
Yeah, but maybe Beto *really did that*.
"What's the difference?"
Do you think *Macron* did the Uvalde attack, etc?
"It's a metaphor for abortion."
Oh, goody. Did you notice, then, that...
Most Americans strongly support abortion rights?
"It's debatable."
In a sophistical, misleading spirit.
They really do support abortion. It's why you see ham-handed "on the one hand..." talk even at this level of the debate.
Also: Really don't say stuff like that about foreign leaders like Macron. It's, like, not mature to do so.
"Puts America in a bad light." No, really.
"Even though it's laughable?"
The word "laughable" is obviously ambiguous, here.
Like Ralph said on the Simpsons, "It's funny, but not ha-ha funny."
Like these intemperate charges have unreasonable 'costs and effects' at home and abroad, that's how.
"Um, this important world leader didn't do that, there's no reason at all to think that's true. No, it doesn't work like whether you 'like' them."
"But I said..."
So you're using it as a method to "coach" people in the legal sense?
"Not as such, no."
So "instruction" in the negative legal sense is one of your things, though?
Wider World: You really just shouldn't say such things, anyway.
(Makes us look bad.)
"Intellectually lazy, or imbecilic."
(Really. This is really pretty poor stuff. You read the 'brilliant' into it.)
No evidence, sorry. This case is documented somewhere and no one is presenting evidence, because that would lead to nothing and those who would accuse would expose themselves to prosecution.
"Do you mean the case against the 'Making Millions' reality TV star?"
Well, I read the Dallas Morning News article about that.
"Wait, that's not what you think it is..."
Perhaps it really is, it would be what it is said to be?
"What's this?"
The star of "Making Millions", a reality TV show, is accused of having given 'an incurable STD' to some female partners.
"What's his name?"
Bill Hutchinson, apparently.
"What's an 'incurable STD'?"
By the usual rules of US legal semantics, "not hepatitis and not herpes".
"Is that so?"
Does anyone know differently?
"So you're saying that this Bill Hutchinson is known under another name as a public figure, and has given what I figure to be... HIV to his Tinder dates?"
It seems to be the subject of this lawsuit reported in a newspaper.
"No thanks."
Sure.
"Furthermore, could you also direct me to..."
Do you think you could not 'embellish' every little thing?
Also, maybe don't slander world leaders in an 'incendiary' way again. No way did he do this, some way he is Mr. Macron. Really.
"What about Melenchon?"
That's a good question.
"Are you more of an admirer of Melenchon, really?"
In the Western Hemisphere that's actually a less-than-sensible question.
The politics of France really just doesn't have anything to do with us, actually.
"So Melenchon isn't an alternative to Macron?"
For French people, maybe.
"But this says that Macron..."
Don't be a credulous dope, please. I mean this. It's incredibly tiresome.
"No, really, it might be that..."
Such harsh and potentially 'actionable' words about a world leader, which are rather obviously 'refractory to reality', might not be put about?
I mean, that "smear" bums me out, and I say pretty terrible things about people...
"You just love Macron."
I think that maybe I'd be more of a fan of Melenchon, really. However, I don't live in France, so it's really just not that relevant to my "everyday".
"Like Philipp Melancthon?"
I think that's a 'dubiety'.
"Compared to that garbage about Macron? Oh, man..."
These people (rich, venal, psychopathic morons) mean you focus more on 'on-yous', man.
"Like, has it been a full life, Mr. R?"
Yeah, but it's one whose history isn't really crisply and candidly told out of these people's crack-pipes, man.
"I see. As with..."
You really don't say stuff like that about a world leader like Macron, man.
"Oh, you just say that because..."
Maybe he wouldn't even be 'my favorite'. Maybe that's just deranged slander, idiots.
(Really, dopes. This stuff costs the US like you tiresome 'HYP' types and their enablers don't know.)
"Because Macron is personally offended by it?"
No.
"Because that kind of intemperate, crazy 'joking' makes us look bad in the eyes of the world." - Everybody Sober
"Maybe you should write Macron about it."
Maybe not, really.
"Hah, like you would ever have talked to Macron."
Did world history ask you for a 'permission slip', guy?
"Oh, I can't possibly imagine that..."
You 'can't possibly imagine' something could have been the way you don't think it was.
(Color me 'unimpressed' with this thought at this point in the 21st century.)
Jeffrey Rubard
2024-01-27 16:12:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
"What's the diff?"
A misplaced focus of interest.
"What if I felt like talking shit to both of them?"
Well, it's more like you're talking shit *about* both of them.
Furthermore, the charges leveled are at such a level of severity that...
"You say stuff like that sometimes."
Yeah, I do say stuff like that sometimes.
"What would be just fair, then?"
Emmanuel Macron is... *not Zen*? I don't know.
But these are 'very grave' words to say about a public figure, even in jest.
"Couldn't there even be something real like that, though? But not Macron and Canada, obviously."
"Beto O'Rourke" paying for and masterminding the Uvalde school massacre?
That would be a "skosh" more plausible as an idea, I guess.
Which statement is more potentially "defamatory", the one about Macron or the one about O'Rourke? One wonders.
"The statement about Macron is an elliptic political metaphor."
Yeah, but maybe Beto *really did that*.
"What's the difference?"
Do you think *Macron* did the Uvalde attack, etc?
"It's a metaphor for abortion."
Oh, goody. Did you notice, then, that...
Most Americans strongly support abortion rights?
"It's debatable."
In a sophistical, misleading spirit.
They really do support abortion. It's why you see ham-handed "on the one hand..." talk even at this level of the debate.
Also: Really don't say stuff like that about foreign leaders like Macron. It's, like, not mature to do so.
"Puts America in a bad light." No, really.
"Even though it's laughable?"
The word "laughable" is obviously ambiguous, here.
Like Ralph said on the Simpsons, "It's funny, but not ha-ha funny."
Like these intemperate charges have unreasonable 'costs and effects' at home and abroad, that's how.
"Um, this important world leader didn't do that, there's no reason at all to think that's true. No, it doesn't work like whether you 'like' them."
"But I said..."
So you're using it as a method to "coach" people in the legal sense?
"Not as such, no."
So "instruction" in the negative legal sense is one of your things, though?
Wider World: You really just shouldn't say such things, anyway.
(Makes us look bad.)
"Intellectually lazy, or imbecilic."
(Really. This is really pretty poor stuff. You read the 'brilliant' into it.)
No evidence, sorry. This case is documented somewhere and no one is presenting evidence, because that would lead to nothing and those who would accuse would expose themselves to prosecution.
"Do you mean the case against the 'Making Millions' reality TV star?"
Well, I read the Dallas Morning News article about that.
"Wait, that's not what you think it is..."
Perhaps it really is, it would be what it is said to be?
"What's this?"
The star of "Making Millions", a reality TV show, is accused of having given 'an incurable STD' to some female partners.
"What's his name?"
Bill Hutchinson, apparently.
"What's an 'incurable STD'?"
By the usual rules of US legal semantics, "not hepatitis and not herpes".
"Is that so?"
Does anyone know differently?
"So you're saying that this Bill Hutchinson is known under another name as a public figure, and has given what I figure to be... HIV to his Tinder dates?"
It seems to be the subject of this lawsuit reported in a newspaper.
"No thanks."
Sure.
"Furthermore, could you also direct me to..."
Do you think you could not 'embellish' every little thing?
Also, maybe don't slander world leaders in an 'incendiary' way again. No way did he do this, some way he is Mr. Macron. Really.
"What about Melenchon?"
That's a good question.
"Are you more of an admirer of Melenchon, really?"
In the Western Hemisphere that's actually a less-than-sensible question.
The politics of France really just doesn't have anything to do with us, actually.
"So Melenchon isn't an alternative to Macron?"
For French people, maybe.
"But this says that Macron..."
Don't be a credulous dope, please. I mean this. It's incredibly tiresome.
"No, really, it might be that..."
Such harsh and potentially 'actionable' words about a world leader, which are rather obviously 'refractory to reality', might not be put about?
I mean, that "smear" bums me out, and I say pretty terrible things about people...
"You just love Macron."
I think that maybe I'd be more of a fan of Melenchon, really. However, I don't live in France, so it's really just not that relevant to my "everyday".
"Like Philipp Melancthon?"
I think that's a 'dubiety'.
"Compared to that garbage about Macron? Oh, man..."
These people (rich, venal, psychopathic morons) mean you focus more on 'on-yous', man.
"Like, has it been a full life, Mr. R?"
Yeah, but it's one whose history isn't really crisply and candidly told out of these people's crack-pipes, man.
"I see. As with..."
You really don't say stuff like that about a world leader like Macron, man.
"Oh, you just say that because..."
Maybe he wouldn't even be 'my favorite'. Maybe that's just deranged slander, idiots.
(Really, dopes. This stuff costs the US like you tiresome 'HYP' types and their enablers don't know.)
"Because Macron is personally offended by it?"
No.
"Because that kind of intemperate, crazy 'joking' makes us look bad in the eyes of the world." - Everybody Sober
"Maybe you should write Macron about it."
Maybe not, really.
"Hah, like you would ever have talked to Macron."
Did world history ask you for a 'permission slip', guy?
"Oh, I can't possibly imagine that..."
You 'can't possibly imagine' something could have been the way you don't think it was.
(Color me 'unimpressed' with this thought at this point in the 21st century.)
"Well, just like you had doubts about the claims of the original poster..."
Your point being? "It's true if it's true", that's what people mostly think.
Jeffrey Rubard
2024-01-28 23:07:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
"What's the diff?"
A misplaced focus of interest.
"What if I felt like talking shit to both of them?"
Well, it's more like you're talking shit *about* both of them.
Furthermore, the charges leveled are at such a level of severity that...
"You say stuff like that sometimes."
Yeah, I do say stuff like that sometimes.
"What would be just fair, then?"
Emmanuel Macron is... *not Zen*? I don't know.
But these are 'very grave' words to say about a public figure, even in jest.
"Couldn't there even be something real like that, though? But not Macron and Canada, obviously."
"Beto O'Rourke" paying for and masterminding the Uvalde school massacre?
That would be a "skosh" more plausible as an idea, I guess.
Which statement is more potentially "defamatory", the one about Macron or the one about O'Rourke? One wonders.
"The statement about Macron is an elliptic political metaphor."
Yeah, but maybe Beto *really did that*.
"What's the difference?"
Do you think *Macron* did the Uvalde attack, etc?
"It's a metaphor for abortion."
Oh, goody. Did you notice, then, that...
Most Americans strongly support abortion rights?
"It's debatable."
In a sophistical, misleading spirit.
They really do support abortion. It's why you see ham-handed "on the one hand..." talk even at this level of the debate.
Also: Really don't say stuff like that about foreign leaders like Macron. It's, like, not mature to do so.
"Puts America in a bad light." No, really.
"Even though it's laughable?"
The word "laughable" is obviously ambiguous, here.
Like Ralph said on the Simpsons, "It's funny, but not ha-ha funny."
Like these intemperate charges have unreasonable 'costs and effects' at home and abroad, that's how.
"Um, this important world leader didn't do that, there's no reason at all to think that's true. No, it doesn't work like whether you 'like' them."
"But I said..."
So you're using it as a method to "coach" people in the legal sense?
"Not as such, no."
So "instruction" in the negative legal sense is one of your things, though?
Wider World: You really just shouldn't say such things, anyway.
(Makes us look bad.)
"Intellectually lazy, or imbecilic."
(Really. This is really pretty poor stuff. You read the 'brilliant' into it.)
No evidence, sorry. This case is documented somewhere and no one is presenting evidence, because that would lead to nothing and those who would accuse would expose themselves to prosecution.
"Do you mean the case against the 'Making Millions' reality TV star?"
Well, I read the Dallas Morning News article about that.
"Wait, that's not what you think it is..."
Perhaps it really is, it would be what it is said to be?
"What's this?"
The star of "Making Millions", a reality TV show, is accused of having given 'an incurable STD' to some female partners.
"What's his name?"
Bill Hutchinson, apparently.
"What's an 'incurable STD'?"
By the usual rules of US legal semantics, "not hepatitis and not herpes".
"Is that so?"
Does anyone know differently?
"So you're saying that this Bill Hutchinson is known under another name as a public figure, and has given what I figure to be... HIV to his Tinder dates?"
It seems to be the subject of this lawsuit reported in a newspaper.
"No thanks."
Sure.
"Furthermore, could you also direct me to..."
Do you think you could not 'embellish' every little thing?
Also, maybe don't slander world leaders in an 'incendiary' way again. No way did he do this, some way he is Mr. Macron. Really.
"What about Melenchon?"
That's a good question.
"Are you more of an admirer of Melenchon, really?"
In the Western Hemisphere that's actually a less-than-sensible question.
The politics of France really just doesn't have anything to do with us, actually.
"So Melenchon isn't an alternative to Macron?"
For French people, maybe.
"But this says that Macron..."
Don't be a credulous dope, please. I mean this. It's incredibly tiresome.
"No, really, it might be that..."
Such harsh and potentially 'actionable' words about a world leader, which are rather obviously 'refractory to reality', might not be put about?
I mean, that "smear" bums me out, and I say pretty terrible things about people...
"You just love Macron."
I think that maybe I'd be more of a fan of Melenchon, really. However, I don't live in France, so it's really just not that relevant to my "everyday".
"Like Philipp Melancthon?"
I think that's a 'dubiety'.
"Compared to that garbage about Macron? Oh, man..."
These people (rich, venal, psychopathic morons) mean you focus more on 'on-yous', man.
"Like, has it been a full life, Mr. R?"
Yeah, but it's one whose history isn't really crisply and candidly told out of these people's crack-pipes, man.
"I see. As with..."
You really don't say stuff like that about a world leader like Macron, man.
"Oh, you just say that because..."
Maybe he wouldn't even be 'my favorite'. Maybe that's just deranged slander, idiots.
(Really, dopes. This stuff costs the US like you tiresome 'HYP' types and their enablers don't know.)
"Because Macron is personally offended by it?"
No.
"Because that kind of intemperate, crazy 'joking' makes us look bad in the eyes of the world." - Everybody Sober
"Maybe you should write Macron about it."
Maybe not, really.
"Hah, like you would ever have talked to Macron."
Did world history ask you for a 'permission slip', guy?
"Oh, I can't possibly imagine that..."
You 'can't possibly imagine' something could have been the way you don't think it was.
(Color me 'unimpressed' with this thought at this point in the 21st century.)
"Well, just like you had doubts about the claims of the original poster..."
Your point being? "It's true if it's true", that's what people mostly think.
"How about 'A fact's a fact if it's true'?"
That's a pretty popular one too, I think.
Jeffrey Rubard
2024-02-07 19:55:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Jeffrey Rubard
Post by Steve Brown
Political colors have nothing to do with the discovery of this plot. We all got it.
Thanks for the likes on Blogger.
https://charbonneau-gomery-corruption-canada.blogspot.com/2022/07/confirmed-emmanuel-macron-proposed-plot.html
"This is a hoax, right?"
Or: Really, that's "a lot" to say about a public figure (and I'd know what I was talking about here).
I.e., it's highly incendiary and defamatory "if it were at all to be taken in a serious spirit".
"Oh, it is."
You just don't say shit like that about people, man! And if you heard what I *do* say about them... well.
It is the fruit of meticulous observation of the behavior of a public figure. Of course, in this case, confirmed information "for your ears only".
No, I think it's a libelous slander that's pretty f'in stupid as well.
Update: "It's actually a pretty good example of a 'defamatory utterance'. You would sure need evidence of something like that before
you decided to say it."
Roughly there is "circumstantial evidence" about W. and that illness, for comparison.
"At any rate, neither Macron, you, nor... oh, my goodness. What a thing life is."
(Question: Is this material "libelous" as it stands?)
"Did he really do it?"
"Well, their doctors down in Texas would know."
"I meant Macron."
"Oh. No, I don't think there could be any logical argument being made here."
"Furthermore, we really could have to apologize to the government of France about this kind of thing."
"And not, say, the Government of Canada?"
Are you old enough to be on the Internet?
"What's the diff?"
A misplaced focus of interest.
"What if I felt like talking shit to both of them?"
Well, it's more like you're talking shit *about* both of them.
Furthermore, the charges leveled are at such a level of severity that...
"You say stuff like that sometimes."
Yeah, I do say stuff like that sometimes.
"What would be just fair, then?"
Emmanuel Macron is... *not Zen*? I don't know.
But these are 'very grave' words to say about a public figure, even in jest.
"Couldn't there even be something real like that, though? But not Macron and Canada, obviously."
"Beto O'Rourke" paying for and masterminding the Uvalde school massacre?
That would be a "skosh" more plausible as an idea, I guess.
Which statement is more potentially "defamatory", the one about Macron or the one about O'Rourke? One wonders.
"The statement about Macron is an elliptic political metaphor."
Yeah, but maybe Beto *really did that*.
"What's the difference?"
Do you think *Macron* did the Uvalde attack, etc?
"It's a metaphor for abortion."
Oh, goody. Did you notice, then, that...
Most Americans strongly support abortion rights?
"It's debatable."
In a sophistical, misleading spirit.
They really do support abortion. It's why you see ham-handed "on the one hand..." talk even at this level of the debate.
Also: Really don't say stuff like that about foreign leaders like Macron. It's, like, not mature to do so.
"Puts America in a bad light." No, really.
"Even though it's laughable?"
The word "laughable" is obviously ambiguous, here.
Like Ralph said on the Simpsons, "It's funny, but not ha-ha funny."
Like these intemperate charges have unreasonable 'costs and effects' at home and abroad, that's how.
"Um, this important world leader didn't do that, there's no reason at all to think that's true. No, it doesn't work like whether you 'like' them."
"But I said..."
So you're using it as a method to "coach" people in the legal sense?
"Not as such, no."
So "instruction" in the negative legal sense is one of your things, though?
Wider World: You really just shouldn't say such things, anyway.
(Makes us look bad.)
"Intellectually lazy, or imbecilic."
(Really. This is really pretty poor stuff. You read the 'brilliant' into it.)
No evidence, sorry. This case is documented somewhere and no one is presenting evidence, because that would lead to nothing and those who would accuse would expose themselves to prosecution.
"Do you mean the case against the 'Making Millions' reality TV star?"
Well, I read the Dallas Morning News article about that.
"Wait, that's not what you think it is..."
Perhaps it really is, it would be what it is said to be?
"What's this?"
The star of "Making Millions", a reality TV show, is accused of having given 'an incurable STD' to some female partners.
"What's his name?"
Bill Hutchinson, apparently.
"What's an 'incurable STD'?"
By the usual rules of US legal semantics, "not hepatitis and not herpes".
"Is that so?"
Does anyone know differently?
"So you're saying that this Bill Hutchinson is known under another name as a public figure, and has given what I figure to be... HIV to his Tinder dates?"
It seems to be the subject of this lawsuit reported in a newspaper.
"No thanks."
Sure.
"Furthermore, could you also direct me to..."
Do you think you could not 'embellish' every little thing?
Also, maybe don't slander world leaders in an 'incendiary' way again. No way did he do this, some way he is Mr. Macron. Really.
"What about Melenchon?"
That's a good question.
"Are you more of an admirer of Melenchon, really?"
In the Western Hemisphere that's actually a less-than-sensible question.
The politics of France really just doesn't have anything to do with us, actually.
"So Melenchon isn't an alternative to Macron?"
For French people, maybe.
"But this says that Macron..."
Don't be a credulous dope, please. I mean this. It's incredibly tiresome.
"No, really, it might be that..."
Such harsh and potentially 'actionable' words about a world leader, which are rather obviously 'refractory to reality', might not be put about?
I mean, that "smear" bums me out, and I say pretty terrible things about people...
"You just love Macron."
I think that maybe I'd be more of a fan of Melenchon, really. However, I don't live in France, so it's really just not that relevant to my "everyday".
"Like Philipp Melancthon?"
I think that's a 'dubiety'.
"Compared to that garbage about Macron? Oh, man..."
These people (rich, venal, psychopathic morons) mean you focus more on 'on-yous', man.
"Like, has it been a full life, Mr. R?"
Yeah, but it's one whose history isn't really crisply and candidly told out of these people's crack-pipes, man.
"I see. As with..."
You really don't say stuff like that about a world leader like Macron, man.
"Oh, you just say that because..."
Maybe he wouldn't even be 'my favorite'. Maybe that's just deranged slander, idiots.
(Really, dopes. This stuff costs the US like you tiresome 'HYP' types and their enablers don't know.)
"Because Macron is personally offended by it?"
No.
"Because that kind of intemperate, crazy 'joking' makes us look bad in the eyes of the world." - Everybody Sober
"Maybe you should write Macron about it."
Maybe not, really.
"Hah, like you would ever have talked to Macron."
Did world history ask you for a 'permission slip', guy?
"Oh, I can't possibly imagine that..."
You 'can't possibly imagine' something could have been the way you don't think it was.
(Color me 'unimpressed' with this thought at this point in the 21st century.)
"Well, just like you had doubts about the claims of the original poster..."
Your point being? "It's true if it's true", that's what people mostly think.
"How about 'A fact's a fact if it's true'?"
That's a pretty popular one too, I think.
And yeah, Jean-Luc Melenchon is a politician pretty widely reputed to be 'to the left' of Macron
and whose name is always left of US ultraconservative weebs' baiting of you...
Loading...