634
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 543:
Line 543: + + +
→Ward Churchill
:: Horace, your "example" did not involve any admission of deceit, any charges of deceit, or any embrace of any deceit. Moreover, appeal of this opinion and the dictum was prevented, so it was never reviewed and tested independently. Your example is nothing like the other listed examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:54, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
:: Horace, your "example" did not involve any admission of deceit, any charges of deceit, or any embrace of any deceit. Moreover, appeal of this opinion and the dictum was prevented, so it was never reviewed and tested independently. Your example is nothing like the other listed examples.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:54, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
::: Ho ho ho. Surely you jest! Example 2 contains no admission and no charges (I am not sure what an embrace is in this context - is it different to an admission?). Example 4 is the same (I also note that it is completely unsourced). What is more I regard it as quite astounding that you could assert that a matter which has been tested in court has not been "reviewed and tested independently". So much for the American judicial system!
::: My example was better than most of the current examples in the article. It had it all! Deceit (in the witness box no less) followed by cover up (by this very institution - what better way to demonstrate your non-bias then to report it?) and, to top it all, the matter had been subject to judicial assessment.
::: I guess that means you were right all along. My example was nothing like the other examples. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 01:10, 14 May 2007 (EDT)