Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Frank Underwood" data-source="post: 443728" data-attributes="member: 35">I don&#039;t like facts???&nbsp; That&#039;s rich coming from you.&nbsp; Facts are whatever suit your narrative, and everything else gets dismissed as &quot;conspiracy theories.&quot;I always do my best to substantiate what I post.&nbsp; The info I saw said the judge&#039;s son worked for TalkRadio, but either way, there was still a connection if he was a contributor.At the very least, there was an indirect connection between the judge and the author of the article.&nbsp; That can be passed off as a coincidence, so Depp&#039;s legal team wouldn&#039;t have been able to prove a conflict of interest had occurred.&nbsp; I&#039;m not very familiar with UK law, but even so, I cited the &quot;balance of probabilities&quot; reasoning that The Sun used to claim the allegations were &quot;substantially true.&quot;&nbsp; I stuck to the facts, while also stating my opinion when I said &quot;I think it should have to go from &quot;probabilities&quot; to &quot;definitive proof.&quot;The problems with #MeToo go far beyond the Heard-Depp dispute.&nbsp; It was hijacked by a bunch of misandrists on a witch hunt, not caring who got hurt in the process.I know you don&#039;t like facts, but that&#039;s the reality of what happened.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Frank Underwood, post: 443728, member: 35"] [I][B]I[/B][/I] don't like facts??? That's rich coming from you. Facts are whatever suit your narrative, and everything else gets dismissed as "conspiracy theories." I always do my best to substantiate what I post. The info I saw said the judge's son worked for TalkRadio, but either way, there was still a connection if he was a contributor. At the very least, there was an [I]indirect[/I] connection between the judge and the author of the article. That can be passed off as a coincidence, so Depp's legal team wouldn't have been able to [I]prove[/I] a conflict of interest had occurred. I'm not very familiar with UK law, but even so, I cited the "balance of probabilities" reasoning that The Sun used to claim the allegations were "substantially true." I stuck to the facts, while also stating [I][B]my opinion[/B][/I] when I said "I think it should have to go from "probabilities" to "definitive proof." The problems with #MeToo go far beyond the Heard-Depp dispute. It was hijacked by a bunch of misandrists on a witch hunt, not caring who got hurt in the process. I know [I][B]you[/B][/I] don't like facts, but that's the reality of what happened. [/QUOTE]

Verification

What month follows July?