Mix_Master wrote on Feb 5^th, 2021 at 7:36am:


So how do you deal with the age old question; who determines whats true and whats BS. EG I for one believe that climate change deniers are full of BS but somehow I suspect that they dont see it that way. Are you going to take sides in that debate and say from now on who can and who cant speak on that issue???   

Jest wrote on Feb 5^th, 2021 at 7:42am:


No. Because this isn't about Climate Change. This is about people who made a number of allegations of fraud in the recent U.S Federal election, and now get their opportunity to "prove" that what they claimed actually has some basis in fact.

I'm sure many people will join me in thanking you for sharing your views on Climate Change in a thread about something else entirely.

Do you  actually have a view on what this thread is about?

As for "who determines what's true and what's BS...?" I would say that there were a number of opportunities for some of the defendants involved in this suit to make - and prove - their allegations about the election being "stolen". Not only could they NOT prove that such was the case, they actually told the Courts that there was no fraud, but instead that their cases were based around "irregularities" in small numbers of votes (nowhere near enough to swing the election, BTW).

So, on the one hand, they were admitting in Courts of Law (because there are actual consequences for peddling falsehoods there) that there "was no fraud", and yet on the other, they were peddling conspiracy theories in various media about that same election being "stolen" via "switched votes".

In a litigious country like the U.S, are they surprised that someone is looking to provide them a financial "disincentive" from continuing to do so?

Is anyone?

Donald Trump could also be sued. The plaintiffs might just be waiting for the outcome of the cases or settlements before targeting Donald Trump.

Donald Trump could also be sued for slanderous utterings and tweets during his tenure as POTUS.

In fact, multiple members of the Trump family could be sued.

Jest wrote on Feb 5^th, 2021 at 7:42am:



First you would have to show people deny climate changes. The LIA, MWP, Holocene Optimum didn't happen?

Mix_Master wrote on Feb 5^th, 2021 at 8:02am:

Ah yes your quite right, my error (my apologies and to AiA as well). I read your statement about free speech not with regard to this liable case (where of course a court can make a judgment after the fact about whether something that was said was false) but as a general rule for deciding before or at the time something is said whether a person can or can't say it. Of course one always takes the risk that one might be sued if they say something false that hurts another financially and/or to their reputation etc.

lee wrote on Feb 5^th, 2021 at 8:05pm:
Yes in the sense in which Im using it, you're a climate change denier, you're full BS and I was right, you dont see it that way. 

lee wrote on Feb 5^th, 2021 at 8:05pm:


Yes, dear, you. We've seen you deny global warming, celebrate global warming, praise increased CO2, deny increased CO2, the lot. You've said it's happening, it's not happening, but at the end of the day, no matter what you've said, you say we should just sit on our hands and say ah.

You? Oh, yes. You haven't got your story straight once. Even now, you'll deny, tell us to quote you, play quote bombs, and try as hard as you can to say nothing, because you know as well as anybody here: you actually have nothing left to say. You have, after all, said it all. You?

Yes, dear, you.