Is the right answer. It's only ended where it has, because DMD's initial input, which surrounded the act of banning the guy himself, was proven wrong. He then quickly changed the angle to defamation and was shown to be wrong again, so he started chatting bubbles about the 'principles' of law.
Nope. I'm not the one having the circular argument. I started with, and have stuck by quite a simple position, that others seem to be struggling with. In English Law, the burden on proof is with the accuser. Most of the rest is simply people trying to make more of that than there is.
Nothing hypothetical about a basic premise of English Law, no matter how much some try to drift away from that simple postion.
I see you've found your spade again, do you pick that up thinking it's the right end of the stick you keep picking up? and round and round we go... see, here's your people trying the circular argument.
I'm going to take a wild stab here, but I'd have my house on the fact that Tuckin has some definite specific knowledge in this area, as opposed to you - who has google and the ability to put a glass eye to sleep.
Tuckin may well be in the business, but none of mine has come from google, so I guess that's another in the long, long list of things you've got wrong on this thread.
So if you know he's in the business, why are you even bothering to try and counter his expert view with your amateur nonsense? p.s. that's between you and your internet history love........but if I was a betting man....lol.
Should we now add Tobes to the ever increasing list of people who are guilty of circular arguing and are purely here to be scorned, abused and have the smack put down onto by the mighty Philosopher, Master Debater, Legal Eagle and Moderator Extraordinaire Dutch? The hilarious part is, Dutch REALLY doesn't get it.
Oh believe me, I do. The circular argument isn't mine. I've stuck quite firmly to the same accurate points from the off.
I'm not trying to counter it. I asked a question, he answered, i asked another question, he answered and I said it differed from what I thought, so I'll check later and hopefully learn. Hardly disputing what he said. I guess that adds another to your long, long list. It's called discusion.
Accurate? You claimed EFC had a case of defamation to answer, when it's been clearly argued that they haven't, that was your point - and it was ****ing wrong Deluded in the extreme you lad
Exactly. Winds me up that I'm expected to prove god doesn't exist when the onus is on believers to prove it. Give me some evidence and I'll listen
